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

Guest lance25

@LRG: By your logic, we should be adding service to several lines since there are wait times at or around eight minutes on the (3)(6) and (J) lines, just to name a few.

 

@R32 3348: It's still faster to take the (L) because the (M)'s TPH is atrocious. At ten to 15 minutes for a train, of course people are gonna flock towards the (L), even if it is packed like sardines. However I still don't see the (M) disappearing anytime soon. Just look at how people reacted to the loss of the (W), even though the (Q) was always slated to be the replacement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@LRG: By your logic, we should be adding service to several lines since there are wait times at or around eight minutes on the (3)(6) and (J) lines, just to name a few.

They should also get rid of the <7> and the <6> by that logic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
@LRG: By your logic, we should be adding service to several lines since there are wait times at or around eight minutes on the (3)(6) and (J) lines, just to name a few.

 

@R32 3348: It's still faster to take the (L) because the (M)'s TPH is atrocious. At ten to 15 minutes for a train, of course people are gonna flock towards the (L), even if it is packed like sardines. However I still don't see the (M) disappearing anytime soon. Just look at how people reacted to the loss of the (W), even though the (Q) was always slated to be the replacement.

I know that comment was to LRG but the (6) only has headways at every 8 minutes during middays, when ridership is lighter. The max TPH the (F) can run without affecting the (E)'s TPH is 15, unless you find someplace to short-turn (F) trains. So if you did have an <F>, you would be providing service every 8 minutes at local stations along the Culver line during rush hours. Meanwhile, if you brought back the (V) then you would provide express service every 6 minutes along with the regular (F) service during rush hour.

 

Also, it's not like you're taking away service by restoring the (Mx) and the (V). In fact, people would be happier since you restore (Mx) service to Bay Parkway, increasing service along 4th Ave. and the West End. That was the only real subway service that got cut in June.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I prefer the (M) that goes directly into Midtown, thanks.

 

I think the Culver should have the (G) as local and (F) as express all the way to W 8 St. If you need to get to a local stop from Manhattan then transfer at Bergen St.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I know that comment was to LRG but the (6) only has headways at every 8 minutes during middays, when ridership is lighter. The max TPH the (F) can run without affecting the (E)'s TPH is 15, unless you find someplace to short-turn (F) trains. So if you did have an <F>, you would be providing service every 8 minutes at local stations along the Culver line during rush hours. Meanwhile, if you brought back the (V) then you would provide express service every 6 minutes along with the regular (F) service during rush hour.

 

Also, it's not like you're taking away service by restoring the (Mx) and the (V). In fact, people would be happier since you restore (Mx) service to Bay Parkway, increasing service along 4th Ave. and the West End. That was the only real subway service that got cut in June.

I wouldn't say the (Mx)'s death was the only real cut. The removal of the (W) had a palpable impact as well. Whereas before I could take either the (Q) or the (N) at the Canal Street express platform and expect to get to 42 Street or Queensboro Plaza for the <7> quickly, now I have play probability games because so many things can happen from Canal Street to 42 Street that can throw my trip off by up to 10 minutes (which is possibly equivalent to missing one or two <7> trains).

 

I prefer the (M) that goes directly into Midtown, thanks.

 

I think the Culver should have the (G) as local and (F) as express all the way to W 8 St. If you need to get to a local stop from Manhattan then transfer at Bergen St.

Thinking and reasoning are not the same.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's been discussed numerous times that Park Slope reisdents would protest a lack of a direct to Manhattan line serving their stations. Years ago in the 70s [i think], the '(G)' ran local and the (F) express. Why do you think this service ended? It's because those (F) trains were not stopping at their stations while the (G) heading to only Queens, was NOT their destination. That's why there has to be a direct to 6th Av line as the local. It is unfortunate the (G) was built directly as the local, but to have only that as the local for that area is not going to cut it.

A fair compromise would be to split some (F) trains to <(F)> so riders south of Church can still have an express and others on Park Slope has direct to Manhattan service. Also I'm not saying make it a 50-50 split. I think they could make 1/3 or 1/4 (F) as an express that way riders that really don't want to deal with Park Slope would crowd onto that train and get to Manhattan 'more quickly' and Park Slope riders might have some emptier trains.

Plus with the loss of the (V), didn't the (F) get a few extra trains for 6th av service?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think the Culver should have the (G) as local and (F) as express all the way to W 8 St. If you need to get to a local stop from Manhattan then transfer at Bergen St.

 

Half-length trains along the Culver Line = dumbest idea ever.

 

Plus with the loss of the (V), didn't the (F) get a few extra trains for 6th av service?

 

No it didn't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
They wouldn't be half-length trains if they went to the Culver.

 

The (G) is not needed south of Church. Period. You can get away with split (F) service with eight minute frequency south of Church Avenue but not north of Church, trust me on that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Listen the only way the (G) is ever going to run local on the Culver with full length trains is making it head to Manhattan. We know this isn't going to happen because the (G) is a line that was built to not go into Manhattan. If the (G) ever went to Manhattan it would be the end of the purpose and people would require a new service that runs out of Manhattan. If you can create more services that cut out Manhattan. Then I will consider moving the (G) to Manhattan as long as the Crosstown Line has a replacement service. Also I would consider it a bit more if you can create the Triboro RX.

Edited by Roadcruiser1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I prefer the (M) that goes directly into Midtown, thanks.

 

I think the Culver should have the (G) as local and (F) as express all the way to W 8 St. If you need to get to a local stop from Manhattan then transfer at Bergen St.

That's not going to happen because

1. There are no express tracks to W8 St.

2. People would have to transfer at Bergen (which would need a multi-million-dollar rehab anyway), and NYers have an obsession for one-seat rides.

-removed to save space-

Why do you keep bringing up the (G) to Manhattan? Just acknowledge it's never going to happen, and there's a greater chance of the SAS opening in 10 years than that.:eek:

 

 

My opinion in this debate:

(E):service reduced by 3 TPH, trains to 179 St eliminated.

(F): Coney Island-179 St, Culver Exp north of Church Av, service reduced by 4 TPH.

(G):Church Av-Court Sq, Culver Local

<F>, (V), or whatever it'll be called: Church Av-179 Street, 7 TPH frequency, Culver Local

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Listen the only way the (G) is ever going to run local on the Culver with full length trains is making it head to Manhattan. We know this isn't going to happen because the (G) is a line that was built to not go into Manhattan. If the (G) ever went to Manhattan it would be the end of the purpose and people would require a new service that runs out of Manhattan. If you can create more services that cut out Manhattan. Then I will consider moving the (G) to Manhattan as long as the Crosstown Line has a replacement service. Also I would consider it a bit more if you can create the Triboro RX.

Even if Culver Express starts, the (G) would be running as the Culver local to Church Ave. anyway so the only "issue" here is with the (G) running full-length trains. That won't happen because the (MTA) doesn't have enough cars and they want to keep running OPTO on the (G). It's not because there's not enough demand because those (G) trains get packed during rush hour.

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.