Jump to content


Attention: In order to reply to messages, create topics, have access to other features of the community you must sign up for an account.
Sign in to follow this  
Ftrainfan

Some progress on the Culver rehabilitation project

Recommended Posts

I noticed lately some fast progress in the Culver viaduct rehabilitation project!

I mean , the new Express tracks @ 4th Ave-9th Street are already assembled! I think this might even be completed BEFORE 2014!!!!!! This means the (G) will be cut back to smith-9th street and the (F) will own 7th Ave again YESSSS!!!!!!:P post here if YOU noticed some progress as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I noticed lately some fast progress in the Culver viaduct rehabilitation project!

I mean , the new Express tracks @ 4th Ave-9th Street are already assembled! I think this might even be completed BEFORE 2014!!!!!! This means the (G) will be cut back to smith-9th street and the (F) will own 7th Ave again YESSSS!!!!!!:) post here if YOU noticed some progress as well.

 

I heard the (G) might terminate at Church Ave permanently if the demand is needed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I noticed lately some fast progress in the Culver viaduct rehabilitation project!

I mean , the new Express tracks @ 4th Ave-9th Street are already assembled! I think this might even be completed BEFORE 2014!!!!!! This means the (G) will be cut back to smith-9th street and the (F) will own 7th Ave again YESSSS!!!!!!:) post here if YOU noticed some progress as well.

 

The (G) is going to keep going to Church Ave, face it, its useful since it's stopping at 4th Ave, if you take it away, people will complain, also it is only 300', perfect for relaying at Church Ave. Like really, do you gain anything besides your love for the (F) if the (G) goes away, I mean does the (G) really affect your (F) at all? If anything the (F) affects the (G) since it usually always goes first before the (G) which like who cares really.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

no the (G) shouldnt go to Church, unless the MTA builds a switch that goes to the express tracks because it delays the (F) like crazy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
no the (G) shouldnt go to Church, unless the MTA builds a switch that goes to the express tracks because it delays the (F) like crazy

 

Of course operation wise, I agree with you, but when it comes to the public, the (G) will probably keep going, it is like how the somehow the (M) was kept instead of the (V).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This means the (G) will be cut back to smith-9th street and the (F) will own 7th Ave again YESSSS!!!!!!:)

Why is this a good thing?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
no the (G) shouldnt go to Church, unless the MTA builds a switch that goes to the express tracks because it delays the (F) like crazy

 

Well once the construction finishes the express track will be avaliable i assume.So can't either the (F) or (G) run on the express tracks?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well once the construction finishes the express track will be avaliable i assume.So can't either the (F) or (G) run on the express tracks?

 

(G): Aint happening. The main line isn't connected to the express tracks.

 

(F): Yes in theory, no in practice since the people of Park Slope would have to transfer at 7th avenue (And Bergen Street to my understanding isn't even in the equation).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

See if it happens it would have to go like this

 

(F) Culver Express-Sixth Avenue Local

From Jamaica-179th St to Coney Island

Late Nights (F) runs as a Culver Local

(G) Culver Local-Crosstown Local

From Long Island City-71 St to Avenue X

Late Nights (G) terminate at Church Avenue

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sure the (F) only has access to the express track and the (G) doesn't because a crossunder isn't possible so that is the only configuration they could run in

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They're doing the express track first for a reason. After they finish the express tracks, they will have to work on the local tracks as part of Phase II of the project. That means diverting (F) and (G) service to the express track while they work on the local track. I remember reading in the PDF describing the project (it's been posted on the forums before; use the search feature) that temporary platforms will be in place at local stations while they work on the local tracks and rehabbing Smith-9th Street and 4th Ave.

 

After all that, the project should be finished (I don't remember if the project has more than two phases, of which we are in phase one right now) and service will return back to normal. (G) service will stay at Church Ave. if there is demand, but if money is short they will likely cut it back to Smith - 9th St.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
See if it happens it would have to go like this

 

(F) Culver Express-Sixth Avenue Local

From Jamaica-179th St to Coney Island

Late Nights (F) runs as a Culver Local

(G) Culver Local-Crosstown Local

From Long Island City-71 St to Avenue X

Late Nights (G) terminate at Church Avenue

 

That's a terrible idea. Park Slope riders will object to the (F) being an express and having to transfer from the (G) to the (F) to get to Manhattan. You can't have only the (G) run local for their stops. Unless it were to be like a <(F)> and regular (F) then fine. But there's no way you are making the (F) express and the (G) local.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Or how about bringing back the (V) that might work. A diamond (F) also works but a (G) extension wouldn't work. Well its fine with me as long as they might bring back a Culver Express.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That's a terrible idea. Park Slope riders will object to the (F) being an express and having to transfer from the (G) to the (F) to get to Manhattan. You can't have only the (G) run local for their stops. Unless it were to be like a <(F)> and regular (F) then fine. But there's no way you are making the (F) express and the (G) local.

 

I agree; the (F) can have a split express-local service supplemented by the (G), but the denizens of Park Slope will not tolerate the (G) as the only local to nowhere.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Or how about bringing back the (V) that might work. A diamond (F) also works but a (G) extension wouldn't work. Well its fine with me as long as they might bring back a Culver Express.

 

(V)/<(F)> whatever, point is, the (F) must still serve Park Slope with the (G). You CAN'T have ONLY the (G) run local. Plus looking at the condition of the Bergen St lower level from subchat and other places, it's not worth it to reopen it. That also takes out a transfer from the (G) to (F).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At first I didn't get the whole point of the (V) extension to Brooklyn but the long length of the the (F) is.... the (F) could at least run express north of Church Av (except late nights) while the (G) and (V) run local to Church Av. If the (M) does in fact prove successful, I wish the Chrystie tracks could connect to 6th Ave express tracks (instead of the local tracks) to replace the (B) to 145th St.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
At first I didn't get the whole point of the (V) extension to Brooklyn but the long length of the the (F) is.... the (F) could at least run express north of Church Av (except late nights) while the (G) and (V) run local to Church Av. If the (M) does in fact prove successful, I wish the Chrystie tracks could connect to 6th Ave express tracks (instead of the local tracks) to replace the (B) to 145th St.

 

Where would the (B) go with your plan?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Where would the (B) go with your plan?

145 Street or Bedford Park Boulevard to Metropolitan Avenue

 

I think it's feasible to construct such a connection. Connecting the Manhattan-bound tracks should be fairly straightforward, and connecting the Brooklyn-bound tracks would just require a short tunnel bypassing the Manhattan-bound express track and the Brooklyn-bound tracks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
At first I didn't get the whole point of the (V) extension to Brooklyn but the long length of the the (F) is.... the (F) could at least run express north of Church Av (except late nights) while the (G) and (V) run local to Church Av. If the (M) does in fact prove successful, I wish the Chrystie tracks could connect to 6th Ave express tracks (instead of the local tracks) to replace the (B) to 145th St.

 

Then you are giving CPW local riders 2 480' locals. How is that fair for them?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Then you are giving CPW local riders 2 480' locals. How is that fair for them?
Eventually the (C) is gonne be full-length like its express counterpart the (A).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Eventually the (C) is gonne be full-length like its express counterpart the (A).

 

Still, that is future, we are talking about it currently if his plan was implemented tomorrow.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.