Routes that aren't around that should be

[NX Express]

And so what if anybody's a foamer, get over it :cool:.

It's immature and quite annoying.:tdown:

 

*glances at user's age*

 

OK, I get it now. Never mind.:confused:

[MikeGerald]

I have never figured out why in all of the various plans and ideas (and there have been many) for Culver service, each of the posters suggests plans that provide LESS local service than what is currently provided via the direct routes to Manhattan. It is as if Park Slope riders or riders from other communities really want LESS service, which makes me wonder what planet do those who propose the service changes come from.

 

The E and F trains have some of the highest frequent levels of service (very low headways) in the subway system. Thus residents along the F-line in Brooklyn at the local stations have very frequent service. Under what possible scenario could or would those folks agree to give up that frequent service for any of the various schemes. Let's see, the C-train nor the G-train run as frequently as the F-train, even when they are combined. Having Kings Highway F-trains only make local stops while Coney Island F-trains make express stops, means a reduction of local service trains -- the exact situation that caused the express service to be removed in the 1970's. Some folks just don't learn their transit history.

 

I always bring this point up, when ever someone suggests another new bright idea for Culver Service.

 

Mike

[Roadcruiser1]

Yeah he's still young let's leave him be. Anyway I don't really see anything wrong with a future return of the . I do see it returning someday though partially because the is most likely going out to Second Avenue, and something would have to serve Astoria. Have the run from Astoria-Ditmars Boulevard-Bay Parkway like I suggested earlier, and to save some money have trains terminate at Whitehall Street during late nights.

 

Oh yes Mike the Culver Express of the 1970's failed because the ran as the Culver Local. The bad news was Culver residents want Manhattan. The doesn't run anywhere into Manhattan. I think a would be a good idea today of course. The whole reason why Culver residents are complaining is look at this. You live by a line with no express service, you have a slow commute time when you need to get to work, and the train that is near you is a local train which isn't fast enough to get to work in Midtown Manhattan. The express service would speed up the commute time to Midtown. Not just that you would have a lot more people coming to live which would kind of increase real estate values.

[Shortline Bus]

It's immature and quite annoying.:tdown:

 

*glances at user's age*

 

OK, I get it now. Never mind.:confused:

 

 

NX. Hey let it go and let this young boy(at 13 years of age that what he is)have as much fun as he wants as he wont be taken serious in future comments. In a few short years, 4P3607 will come to his senses about the 'real world' as a future adult. That including the politics and money of how mass transit and life as a whole works.:eek:

[4P3607]

*glances at user's age*

 

Yeah he's still young let's leave him be.

 

yes, I might be young, but Im still smart . At least im not like that other guy (aahd). Im not like other typical foamers out there who try as hard as possible to annoy people and get in trouble. I still make sense about my posts (unlike that other guy aahd).

Im not always railfanning the subway anymore... infact I barely railfan. Still, to make it clear I don't foam about everything in the subway, just a few things or some rare catches (like the R160 ).

 

[MikeGerald]

It seems that some folks love the "express" because the word has the connotation of speed, of swiftness, while the word "local" is often thought of as slow and plodding. Where the folks who have to take the "local" are seen as pitied - poor - deprived, while the folks who can take the "express" are thought of as useful, productive, worthy. It seems that transit fans also "love the express" - or at least the illusion of the express, as expressed by the various fantasy transit maps and schemes of routes. Every year somebody comes up with a new idea of routes and schemes, trying to use every available track in the system whether or not it makes any sense in light of current realities.

 

What is so "express" about the F-train Culver line? The "express route" would have the same number of stops in Manhattan as the "local route". The Culver express would be skipping the most heavily used (in terms of ridership) stations along its route - since several of those heavily used stations are local stations. About half of the ridership of the F-train in Brooklyn is between Bergen Street and Church Avenue, not the section closer to Coney Island. So just who would benefit from the "Coney Island F-train express trains" that would by-pass the most heavily used stations?

 

The area of Brooklyn that would be skipped by the express runs is Park Slope, a rather well-to-do area of Brooklyn with plenty of folk who can read, count, and mobilize to meet their needs. And this is the area that you want to cut down and reduce train service to? It is these folks that are at those local stations, the very heavily used local stations - meaning the high ridership stations.

 

A point of history, it was those folks at the heavily used local stations in the 1970's that petitioned the MTA through their political allies to make all of the trains local - since it was taking a long time for the trains to come, ( half of the trains at the local stations were not headed to Manhattan, and transferring between the "local F-trains" and "express F-trains" was cumbersome. At their request - all F-trains were made all local in Brooklyn, and it has been that way ever since.

 

On the F-train during the rush hours the trains in Brooklyn run at 4-6 minutes apart, that is the same frequency for the Queens Blvd section. Under a scheme where Kings Highway F-trains run local, and Coney Island F-trains run express, that by definition means that those at the local stations will get train service at 8-12 minutes apart. What community in their right mind is going to petition for LESS service just to get an express run that by-passes their stations? Please tell me - what community will do that?

 

The F-train with its frequent service has been operating that way since the mid-1970's - meaning that the benefit has become normal for the residents, used to, expected. This "benefit" is really due to the very high traffic needs of the Queens Blvd segment of the E and F trains, and the Brooklyn segment of the F-line benefits. Meaning that while their own transit numbers suggest a healthy service requirement, they benefit because the Queens Blvd segment simply needs way much more service. So what community that benefits in this way is going to want to give that up - just for the illusion of express service that they can not use? Let's see anyone to try and take away their service - frequency levels that they have become used to - that will be an interesting fight - go ahead.

 

Before the M-train was diverted to Sixth AVenue, and the V-train existed - there was the possibly of additional service along the Culver line. I have always proposed that the V-train be made the express run along the Culver line. All of the current F-trains would remain local - keeping the usual expected frequent service at the heavily used local stations intent - thus no community opposition. Making the V-train express with its 10-minute headways to/from Kings Highway provides express service for those who want it without taking anything away from the local service. The V-train in this instance would an "addition to", terminating rush hours at Kings Highway. The Kings Highway station can no longer make trains from Coney Island express on the middle track in the am-rush hours anyway due to the removal of an important track switch - all of those folks who keep talking about returning to the 1970's pattern don't realize that that is not possible - but the V-train terminating there is today do-able. All that would be needed were the additional trains and manpower. No need to write the entire subway map, or to change train routes in the other boroughs, etc. Some transit fans were so wedded to the idea of an "F-Express Train" where even the idea of the V-train as express judged by the response was seen as the most hated thing, an abomination of all that is holy on the subway. Not realizing that all of the subway stops in Manhattan up to Rockefeller Center are all the same anyway. The V-train is just a train letter after all. The V-train it should be noted does not, and has never run at the frequency of the F-train. However once the M-train was moved to Sixth Avenue - most of the easy suggestions were moot.

 

Almost every idea or suggestion from that point on - involves a reduction in service for the folks - transit fans seem to say - that they want to help. So what community that has frequent service, political power, and the ability to express their thoughts is going to want a reduction in service?

 

Mike

[Jamaica Express]

I've seen some interesting proposals on here, and others that have made me go -__-. .

 

Weather Express trains save time or not, they definitely have a psychological benefit. Most express tracks just simply add capacity to lines and will save you 5 to 7 minutes at best.

 

The only realistic service plan for a Culver Express along any portion along the line would have to involve a third route serving Brooklyn, in addition to the existing . The tentative plan would be the remain the way they operate now, with a extension to Brooklyn. The would operate express between Bergen St and Church Ave. With perhaps a peak direction extension to Kings Hwy via local. Express service along the elevated portion of the Culver Line would be useless. Honestly express service along the Brooklyn portion of the line in general isn't too lucrative, because as mentioned before, the busiest stations are the ones that would be skipped. The only benefit I could think of is, seats being open for people getting on at Bergen & Jay sts. Also, the fact that Bergen St is a Bi-Level express station doesn't help either. The demand along the route in correlation with the operation is fine the way it is now. Plus the has been axed, so unless it makes a comeback before 2012, I don't see express train service in Brooklyn going anyhere right now, however you never know, nothing stays the same for ever.

 

I used to think of elaborate service plans myself and draw out grand schemes....then I got an internship in the planning department and it changed the way I looked at Rail Operations forever, theres a lot more that goes into service changes than many think, its not even remotely simple.

[Luis1985]

If the were smart IMO, they could just ran the as a 'rush hour' only train running between Astoria and Bay Parkway via the Montague Tunnel.

It would helped the following. a)Still continue to give Astoria line riders a 1-seat ride peak hours to/from Lower Manhattan area. 2)Help out the unrealible train at 4th Ave stations.

 

this i must agree with! the is a very unreliable line.

[Luis1985]

OMG. Have them take the to the . There's more Middle-Village/Jamaica line residents wanting Midtown than West End riders wanting the (Mx).

 

lol thats what i always did, even while the (Mx) was still running. lol i never used the (Mx) for nothing in the Southern part of Brooklyn.

[Luis1985]

Yeah, but another good idea the people keep bringing up is the . When the first phase of the Second Avenue Subway comes up the would have to go to 96th Street. It would be a good idea to bring back the once this happens, and have it run from Bay Parkway to Astoria-Ditmars Boulevard.

 

once the starts running via 2 Ave, they gonna have to bring back the , unless they gonna leave the Astoria line with just the by itself, which i highly doubt.

[Shortline Bus]

once the starts running via 2 Ave, they gonna have to bring back the , unless they gonna leave the Astoria line with just the by itself, which i highly doubt.

 

 

Luis got my PM/read my ealier post on why having the run on Culver line is a bad idea. Jay St cant handle the high # of switches from 6-8th Ave lines without causing delays and a conga line.

[Luis1985]

Luis got my PM/read my ealier post on why having the run on Culver line is a bad idea. Jay St cant handle the high # of switches from 6-8th Ave lines without causing delays and a conga line?

 

yep. just read it. now i understand why. thanks for letting me know.

[Eric]

I think someone posted earlier about how when the comes back after the switches to SAS that it should run to Bay Parkway to help the on 4th Avenue. If Bay Parkway is too much, it could just terminate at 9 Av.

[CenSin]

A point of history, it was those folks at the heavily used local stations in the 1970's that petitioned the MTA through their political allies to make all of the trains local - since it was taking a long time for the trains to come, ( half of the trains at the local stations were not headed to Manhattan, and transferring between the "local F-trains" and "express F-trains" was cumbersome. At their request - all F-trains were made all local in Brooklyn, and it has been that way ever since.

You forget that the same community now requests for an express to be restored.

[Roadcruiser1]

Nah it would be good if the goes to Bay Parkway because I believe in case of any emergency with the us West End residents would have access to Manhattan in another way.

[Kacie Jane]

A point of history, it was those folks at the heavily used local stations in the 1970's that petitioned the MTA through their political allies to make all of the trains local - since it was taking a long time for the trains to come, ( half of the trains at the local stations were not headed to Manhattan, and transferring between the "local F-trains" and "express F-trains" was cumbersome. At their request - all F-trains were made all local in Brooklyn, and it has been that way ever since.

 

 

You forget that the same community now requests for an express to be restored.

 

I think he's right though. Just because they say they want "an express train" doesn't mean they want it restored to the detriment of local service.

 

I live on the other side of the country, but let me pretend for a moment that I live near the 15th Street station (or any of the local stations, I chose randomly). If they added the to Brooklyn as the express, it wouldn't really affect me directly because my station wouldn't see any additional service. But, it would mean more trains on my line as a whole, and hopefully some of the people who do have the express option would get off "my" train, and my trip would be less crowded and more enjoyable. So I'd fully support this plan.

 

However, if the plan for express service was to just make a diamond F, that really wouldn't do anyone any good, especially not me and my pretend neighbors. As Mike said, you can't increase service, so any F train you make express means a reduction in service for me. (I suppose theoretically you could increase service to fill the gap, but... no.) So clearly that's not a plan I'd support.

 

Point being, just because they say they want express service doesn't mean they'll take any express service you throw at them.

[Kacie Jane]

Nah it would be good if the goes to Bay Parkway because I believe in case of any emergency with the us West End residents would have access to Manhattan in another way.

 

(Sorry for the double post.)

 

Well, if there was an emergency, they'd probably just cancel the and run the up Broadway into Manhattan. Same way as now, if there's a problem on 6th Avenue in Manhattan, they cancel the ( and run the via 8th Avenue.

 

Bay Parkway was always just a rush-hour only terminal for the (Mx), but there were a couple of different times it ran to 9th Avenue middays/evenings.

[Guest lance25]

@Kacie Jane: That was to give riders travelling to/from Chinatown direct access to Fourth Avenue and the West End during the portion of the Manhattan Bridge project where Sixth Avenue trains couldn't cross said bridge.

[T to Dyre Avenue]

I have never figured out why in all of the various plans and ideas (and there have been many) for Culver service, each of the posters suggests plans that provide LESS local service than what is currently provided via the direct routes to Manhattan. It is as if Park Slope riders or riders from other communities really want LESS service, which makes me wonder what planet do those who propose the service changes come from.

 

The E and F trains have some of the highest frequent levels of service (very low headways) in the subway system. Thus residents along the F-line in Brooklyn at the local stations have very frequent service. Under what possible scenario could or would those folks agree to give up that frequent service for any of the various schemes. Let's see, the C-train nor the G-train run as frequently as the F-train, even when they are combined. Having Kings Highway F-trains only make local stops while Coney Island F-trains make express stops, means a reduction of local service trains -- the exact situation that caused the express service to be removed in the 1970's. Some folks just don't learn their transit history.

 

I always bring this point up, when ever someone suggests another new bright idea for Culver Service.

 

Mike

That is why I think Roadcruiser's post about connecting the to the Rutgers tunnel and the Culver Line and my suggestion to run the local to Church and the express to Coney Island make the most sense. I don't know how frequently the MTA plans to run the once they introduce it but I'm sure it will run more frequently than the or trains. I know that requires building the SAS as far south as Houston Street before that can be done, but I really think it's better than having a dual local/ express service that results in an overall reduction of service at the local stations between Church and Jay. And bringing back the is not possible due to the presence of the on 6th Avenue and Queens Boulevard.

[TwoTimer]

You forget that the same community now requests for an express to be restored.

 

He also said in the post that said express would bypass many of the stops in question, its not the leg from Church to Kings Highway in question, but the neighborhood he's talking about is from Church to Jay.

[CenSin]

He also said in the post that said express would bypass many of the stops in question, its not the leg from Church to Kings Highway in question, but the neighborhood he's talking about is from Church to Jay.

I'm aware of that, and I think it's a common belief that the MTA won't take the idea of a Kings Highway–Church Avenue express seriously, so any talk of the Culver express is implied to mean the run from Jay Street–Metro Tech to Church Avenue (at the very least).

[TwoTimer]

We'll defintely see what's in store once all the tracks are done. As far as I know the is going to stay at Church.

[Wallyhorse]

That is why I think Roadcruiser's post about connecting the to the Rutgers tunnel and the Culver Line and my suggestion to run the local to Church and the T express to Coney Island make the most sense. I don't know how frequently the MTA plans to run the T once they introduce it but I'm sure it will run more frequently than the or trains. I know that requires building the SAS as far south as Houston Street before that can be done, but I really think it's better than having a dual F local/ express service that results in an overall reduction of service at the local stations between Church and Jay. And bringing back the is not possible due to the presence of the on 6th Avenue and Queens Boulevard.

 

As I would do it, the would be connected to the Nassau Street Line and operate full-time via Montauge and 4th Avenue to Bay Parkway, except overnights when it would replace the Shuttle on the 4th Avenue Line and run to 95th Street in Brooklyn (via its regular route otherwise).

 

As for the running via Culver as I would do it, that would be in conjunction with a number of other changes that would include the revival of the old (K)/(AA) train between Chambers-168th (and as a full-time 24/7 train), the to Lefferts and the full-time to Rockaway Parkway. Having the and as locals and as express on the Culver line can work, especially if the lower level of Bergen Street is rehabbed and re-opened.

 

@Lance: I know having three locals at one station is not ideal, however, as I would have it, that would only be at ONE stop: Broadway-Lafayette, which will become an increasingly important station once the uptown transfer to the is complete, and especially if down the road that station allows for transfers to the on the Broadway Line. Those on Park Slope who would have to take the , but are looking for 6th Avenue would be able to take the to Broadway-Lafayette and make a same platform transfer to the ( to/from the (and the other way, take the to the express stop closest to where they get off and switch to the or ). The key to this is giving Park Slope riders both a one-seat ride on 8th Avenue and a one-seat ride to the upper west side along CPW they don't currently have (except overnights, when the would still be a Culver Local).

[CenSin]

As for the running via Culver as I would do it, that would be in conjunction with a number of other changes that would include the revival of the old (K)/(AA) train between Chambers-168th (and as a full-time 24/7 train), the to Lefferts and the full-time to Rockaway Parkway. Having the and as locals and as express on the Culver line can work, especially if the lower level of Bergen Street is rehabbed and re-opened.

 

@Lance: I know having three locals at one station is not ideal, however, as I would have it, that would only be at ONE stop: Broadway-Lafayette, which will become an increasingly important station once the uptown transfer to the is complete, and especially if down the road that station allows for transfers to the on the Broadway Line. Those on Park Slope who would have to take the , but are looking for 6th Avenue would be able to take the to Broadway-Lafayette and make a same platform transfer to the ( to/from the (and the other way, take the to the express stop closest to where they get off and switch to the or ). The key to this is giving Park Slope riders both a one-seat ride on 8th Avenue and a one-seat ride to the upper west side along CPW they don't currently have (except overnights, when the would still be a Culver Local).

Please… read the previous <interjection /> posts. It's been addressed and shot down as a bad idea.

 

No full-time A to the Rockaways. No C to Culver. No E to Lefferts Boulevard. No K train from Washington Heights to World Trade Center. No more B.S.

 

Luis got my PM/read my ealier post on why having the run on Culver line is a bad idea. Jay St cant handle the high # of switches from 6-8th Ave lines without causing delays and a conga line.

@Wallyhouse: So by giving riders easy access to Eighth Avenue service, you feel that you're appeasing the folks at the local stops between Church Av & Jay St? I doubt it. If they really wanted Eighth Ave service, they can transfer across the platform at Jay St-MetroTech.

 

Also, whether it's on Eighth Avenue or Sixth Avenue, you can't have three local trains on one set of tracks. It'll cause massive delays, much more so when the lines are FUBARed as they usually are.

@Wallyhorse: The Cranberry tube/Jay St interlocking would not be able to handle trains.

@Wallyhorse: That has to be the most convoluted service plan I've seen in a while (and I've seen some of the most outrageous fantasy maps on this site).

 

1) Why does Culver need two locals (not to mention one's going to Eighth Avenue)? Generally, people riding on Culver want Sixth Avenue service. Sure, there are exceptions to the rule (as is always the case), but for the most part, it's true.

 

2) There's a reason why the was truncated from Euclid Av/the Rockaways decades ago - the line was too damn long, hence why it only ran during rush hours. If the plan you're suggesting was implemented, the crews would hang you as that would be a 2hr+ run in just one direction.

 

3) Outside of rush hours, is there really a need for Culver Express service? I doubt it.

 

4) We already have a line. It's called the . Take that and move on.

I would include more examples if the smiley limit hadn't been reached.

[Wallyhorse]

I never once said put the and in the Cranberry Street Tunnel at the same time.

 

As I would do it:

 

The and would be in the Cranberry Street Tunnel ( to Far Rockaway, to Lefferts), both as full time trains, allowing the to be express at all times (and possibly the in Manhattan, which it actually used to be).

 

The and would be in the Rutgers Street Tunnel ( local along with the to Church Avenue, express to Coney Island, except overnights when the would not run and the runs as it does now). diverts going downtown from the 8th Avenue line at West 4th to join the . It also gives Park Slope riders a one-seat ride to the upper west side and 8th Avenue they currently don't have.

 

Broadway-Lafayette would be the only stop in the system with three locals on one track () and five trains overall stopping there, but that as noted is likely to become a major hub once the uptown transfer at Bleecker/Broadway-Lafayette is completed (if only people had the foresight to have made Bleecker where it could be converted to an express stop if needed), since some riders who previously have stayed on the for 6th Avenue likely would now be able to instead use the via Lexington if they need the east side.

 

would be a supplemental line (4-5 TPH daytime, 2 TPH overnights) from Chambers-WTC to 168th. It would be mainly for those too lazy to walk to the current platform at Chambers-WTC and for those in lower Manhattan specifically looking for Spring, 50th and CPW stations and vice versa. This also allows the to be a full-time express.