2Line1291 Posted September 27, 2010 Author Share #51 Posted September 27, 2010 Wow..... peoples imaginative creativity of a split proposed by the is blossoming. Keep it going, keep it going!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest lance25 Posted September 27, 2010 Share #52 Posted September 27, 2010 @Roadcruiser1: Not only does your idea impractical, it's damn near impossible. You'd have to tear down numerous buildings just to build the tunnel to connect to the Culver line. Then there's the connection to the 4th Ave line, which is also impossible with all the other lines crossing in the immediate area. Also, even if by some miracle this could happen, what good would it do for Culver riders? Where would the shortened terminate? Where would the go? Here's my idea: How about the run from Jamaica-179 St to Coney Island via Queens Blvd Exp, 6 Av/Culver Lcl all times? Oh wait, it already does that!!! If it ain't broke, don't fix it. The has run the same route for decades with very little change outside of re-routes due to construction on 63rd Street. Why change it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BJSm Posted September 27, 2010 Share #53 Posted September 27, 2010 Oh yeah this is what I meant. This map should take some of the time and the load off the . More feasible might be to connect the to the north of Jay St-Borough Hall. That way, all construction happens under parks or municipal buildings, so no private property would need to be seized. Food for thought, anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tokkemon Posted September 27, 2010 Share #54 Posted September 27, 2010 This has nothing to do with the splitting of the , but if I had to make a change to the line, it would be to re-route it via 53 St instead of 63 St. Have the go via 63 St. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BJSm Posted September 27, 2010 Share #55 Posted September 27, 2010 This has nothing to do with the splitting of the , but if I had to make a change to the line, it would be to re-route it via 53 St instead of 63 St. Have the go via 63 St. Why? The whole point of the current arrangement is to have QBL express and local service on 53rd St, which is a lot busier than 63rd St. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Broadway Local Posted September 27, 2010 Share #56 Posted September 27, 2010 This has nothing to do with the splitting of the Please make sure read all of the comment first because that rely is similar to mine. What does this have to do by splitting the ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill from Maspeth Posted September 27, 2010 Share #57 Posted September 27, 2010 It relates to the subject because it takes time off for anyone living by the Culver Line and complains the is too slow. I guess they feel F trains are a taxi company because the F has plenty of service, much more than the N and D; less than the combined Brighton line but certainly more than the B. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CenSin Posted September 28, 2010 Share #58 Posted September 28, 2010 I guess they feel F trains are a taxi company because the F has plenty of service, much more than the N and D; less than the combined Brighton line but certainly more than the B. But the fact that the (, , and are express in Brooklyn makes up for the fact as the average wait time is canceled out by the time saved. If the ever ran express north of Church Avenue, it would be the fastest line since the average waiting time would be low and the speed would be fast. Compared to the West End and Sea Beach lines, the Culver line is also a fairly direct route to Manhattan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
harpomarx42 Posted September 28, 2010 Share #59 Posted September 28, 2010 It would be easier to split an atom than split the . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.