Routes that aren't around that should be

[GreatOne2k]

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).

 

Running the from Kings Highway to Church Avenue does allow MTA to save some money skipping lesser used stations (and short turning more trains). and would still run local between Church and Jay. to/from Coney Island would lose half the service (other half would end at Kings Highway), though they would have a transfer to the express in the AM (like the transfer at 177).

 

This would obviously be rush hours only.

 

MTA needs to save money so a partial express does save some money in this case.

[Guest lance25]

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.

 

Again, there's no need to **** up all of Eighth Avenue just to give Park Slope an express. And, like I said before, you're still taking that one seat ride from the Culver Local stops and replacing it with Eighth Avenue service, which I'm sure riders will oppose.

 

While you may have evenly distributed the lines between the two tunnels, you still have three lines on one track between W 4 St & the Chrystie St Cut, a recipe for disaster even on the best of days.

 

Remember, Bleecker St opened 32 years before Broadway-Lafayette St. Plus, why would it need to be an express stop when it's smack dab in the middle of 14 St-Union Sq & Brooklyn Bridge.

[TwoTimer]

Two things...

 

1. Park Slope cannot have an express that doesn't bypass most of its stations.

 

2. And for those to brooklyn people, the West End doesn't need two services, especially being that neither would go to lower Manhattan.

[Jamaica Express]

So as a Service Planning Intern (and hopefully future manager). Im not going to completely shoot your idea down. There are existing contingency plans in place that call for the to go to Euclid Ave or Lefferts Blvd. However this would be under the event of a long term FULL Manhattan Bridge closure. This is because the has higher capacity than the and more frequent service. Theres more logistics that would go into that but I don't want to get sidetracked. As for the crossing over to the 6th Ave Line at W4th street would be an OPERATIONAL NIGHTMARE. It would cause major congestion and ultimately delay All Local trains from both the 6th and 8th Ave lines, also the ALL on the local tracks at Bway-Lafyette simply wouldn't work, because the Signal System isn't designed to support such traffic (perhaps after CBTC is installed). Also the financial costs of the operation you proposed would be EXTREMELY high.

[TwoTimer]

So as a Service Planning Intern (and hopefully future manager). Im not going to completely shoot your idea down. There are existing contingency plans in place that call for the to go to Euclid Ave or Lefferts Blvd. However this would be under the event of a long term FULL Manhattan Bridge closure. This is because the has higher capacity than the and more frequent service. Theres more logistics that would go into that but I don't want to get sidetracked. As for the crossing over to the 6th Ave Line at W4th street would be an OPERATIONAL NIGHTMARE. It would cause major congestion and ultimately delay All Local trains from both the 6th and 8th Ave lines, also the ALL on the local tracks at Bway-Lafyette simply wouldn't work, because the Signal System isn't designed to support such traffic (perhaps after CBTC is installed). Also the financial costs of the operation you proposed would be EXTREMELY high.

 

Dont worry, when someone proposes Park Slope with a one-seat ride to the Upper West Side, time to take out some spiked lemonade and laugh.

[T to Dyre Avenue]

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.

Running the through the Montague tunnel would make it a superfluous service, especially if it runs on the West End Line as you propose. It would be a ten-car, full-time version of the old (Mx). All of the Southern Division lines that have direct track connections to the Montague St tunnel are spoken for. That is, each one has a full-time route. So if you run the full-time train on the West End Line with the existing full-time service, it will be excessive.

 

Meanwhile, huge cuts in state funding caused the MTA to combine the (Mx) and into a new service that was rerouted to 6th Ave and Queens Blvd. That precludes running a Culver Express to/from 6th. The and trains run a combined 24 tph. Adding the , even with its infrequent service, even for just a short stretch of tracks from West 4th St to Broadway-Lafayette, will create a major logjam. It is not worth it. A service that joins the between 2nd Ave and Delancey would not have any of those issues to deal with. And by running that express between Jay and Church, riders who used the local stations in between get to keep their current service at its current frequency. Seems a lot simpler and more effective to me.

[MikeGerald]

Running the from Kings Highway to Church Avenue does allow MTA to save some money skipping lesser used stations (and short turning more trains). and would still run local between Church and Jay. to/from Coney Island would lose half the service (other half would end at Kings Highway), though they would have a transfer to the express in the AM (like the transfer at 177).

 

This would obviously be rush hours only.

 

MTA needs to save money so a partial express does save some money in this case.

 

Again a review of transit history is helpful. In the 1970's - as a first gesture to Park Slope residents after they protested about the local service, the MTA made all F-trains traveling toward Manhattan all local in the am-rush hours between Bergen Street and Church AVenue - while trying retain some express service along the remaining segments. So there was the interesting prospect of "express runs" between Bergen Street and Church Avenue in the out-bound direction in the am-rush hours, where there was little ridership. The heavy ridership was in the Manhattan bound direction. It was kind of silly. That was an example of the power of the Park Slope folk.

 

At the same time a time the F-train was only express between Church Avenue to Kings Highway, where Kings Highway local trains served those 5 local stations. So "Coney Island F-trains" would make all local stops all through Manhattan and Brooklyn to Church Avenue, and then be moved to the express middle track to skip all of 5 local stops. This continued for a number of years, then the MTA stopped that practice, because the "express run" that turned into a local run from Church Avenue to Jay Street, the MTA said was not really effective in the MTA's own eyes. From that point toward today, the F-train has made all stops, all local stops all of the time.

 

Once the switch that allowed trains from Coney Island traveling toward Manhattan to move to the middle track was removed - there was (and now remains to this day) no way to make such trains express anymore.

 

So it is interesting that some transit fans keep talking about making trains FROM Coney Island express along the elevated portion of the F-line, and often the underground portion - when such moves can not be accomplished. It is about a wish-list, rather than looking at the reality of the situation.

 

So now somebody is trying to say that in this day and age that skipping those 5 local stations is somehow going to save a lot of money - really. It is a lot simpler on the wear and tear of the switches, trains, riders and train folk to just keep the F-train all local in Brooklyn. Unless there is some major infusion of something.

 

Please note that the C-train runs every ten minutes, it has run that way for decades in its various versions - even rush hours. So having C-trains making Park Slope local stations as the only Manhattan bound local, beyond pissing off those folks, does not make it "OK" as a direct ride along Eighth Avenue. Folks that live along the F-line in Brooklyn know that they can always transfer at Jay Street and at other stations. A direct pathway to 8th Avenue is not a good and will never be a good consolation prize for giving up rapid service.

 

What community would sign on to such a bad deal? (Getting service that does not take you where you want to go, makes transfers difficult, causes train traffic congestion, and to top it off is just not as frequent as the service that you have had for decades.) What community would sign on to such a bad deal?

 

Mike

[dman1455]

Why are people still taking about the coming back? Give it up it's not happening

[Roadcruiser1]

What do you mean that it isn't happening?. Don't you know about the construction of the Second Avenue Subway. The has to go there so the only replacement is the . The can't handle Astoria alone. Have you looked at the crowds around Astoria. They can't just have the .

[dman1455]

What do you mean that it isn't happening?. Don't you know about the construction of the Second Avenue Subway. The has to go there so the only replacement is the . The can't handle Astoria alone. Have you looked at the crowds around Astoria. They can't just have the .

 

So just because the is going to 2nd Avenue you think the will come back??? WOW ok...

[Roadcruiser1]

Well at least we know for certain the will not be coming back under the current configurations.

[dman1455]

Well at least we know for certain the will not be coming back under the current configurations.

 

I'm not talking about the am I?

[Luis1985]

So just because the is going to 2nd Avenue you think the will come back??? WOW ok...

 

actually, i was speaking to a conductor on the line and he was saying that once the does to go up via 2nd Ave, the will be coming back to replace the in Astoria. only problem is that they dont know if its going to use Whitehall St as a southern terminal, or if its going to be extended to Bay Parkway on the Weekday via 4 Av Local. but the idea of bringing back the will be happening, we just have to wait until phase 1 of the 2 Av subway is done.

[dman1455]

actually, i was speaking to a conductor on the line and he was saying that once the does to go up via 2nd Ave, the will be coming back to replace the in Astoria. only problem is that they dont know if its going to use Whitehall St as a southern terminal, or if its going to be extended to Bay Parkway on the Weekday via 4 Av Local. but the idea of bringing back the will be happening, we just have to wait until phase 1 of the 2 Av subway is done.

 

And this conductor knows this how? The MTA Changes there mind 24/7 we just have to wait till SAS is done up to 96th st... Which should be when the R160's retire...

[Fresh Pond]

Why are people still taking about the coming back? Give it up it's not happening

 

Lol me neither. The way I see it, the was perfectly fine before the came to Astoria so what's the point of it now other than to backlog trains going in & out of Ditmars Blvd.

 

Give them an inch and they want a mile B)

[Guest lance25]

Actually, during Manhattan Bridge construction where the north tracks were closed, the Astoria line has had two subway lines serving it. The '80s had the yellow ( and the (the after May 1987) and the and between 2001 & '04. That still continues to this day. If Astoria didn't need two lines, the would still be terminating at 57th/7th, not Astoria-Ditmars.

[T to Dyre Avenue]

Lol me neither. The way I see it, the was perfectly fine before the came to Astoria

No it wasn't. The was crowded and slow going into and out of Ditmars. The only reason it served Astoria alone for 13 years is because there was no other train that could go there from 1989-2001. You only had two Broadway services back then and they certainly weren't going to take the out of Forest Hills. The wasn't an option back then either as it had been exiled to 6th Avenue (hopefully that never has to happen again).

 

If terminating and trains at Ditmars causes too much of a logjam, they should install switches that would allow the to terminate on the middle track at Astoria Blvd and have just the terminate at Ditmars.

[2Line1291]

I still say when phase 1 is complete the should go to 96th St and the to Astoria. It just makes more sense "(N)orthward and (Q)ueens". Of course the and both go to Coney Island and from Astoria, but what's the history w/ Sea Beach and Brighton service preferences in Brooklyn and Manhattan.

[Trainmaster5]

When I read all the speculation about the Astoria line(s), ,,or(W), I find myself mildly amused. There was a time in the mid sixties when the Sea Beach and Brighton terminated at 57th St-7th Ave. The "T" West End Express served Astoria rush hours, along with the QT Brighton Broadway Local service. Since the West End service now travels via 6th Ave perhaps all that's needed are a few Astoria to Whitehall runs, signed as (N)s, for the am and pm rushes. IMO it's not necessary to bring back the designation for a few daily rush hour trains. Save that for a full-time route in the future. I'm not sure but perhaps there's a to Whitehall programmed in the R160s or can be added to whatever fleet the might run if this comes to pass. Just my opinion though.

[Roadcruiser1]

Why do that we are trying to create a line that would also back up the West End Line, and to give more service to the Fourth Avenue riders. The won't help. Just bring back the how hard is it for you guys to not accept this. The line will not hurt anyone not even if it comes back. It won't come, and kill your mom. Plus it would help the crowding on the Broadway Line, and help the become an express again stopping many complaints from the residents in Brooklyn, and Manhattan that are trying to get to the to go to Flushing.

[Trainmaster5]

Why do that we are trying to create a line that would also back up the West End Line, and to give more service to the Fourth Avenue riders. The won't help. Just bring back the how hard is it for you guys to not accept this. The line will not hurt anyone not even if it comes back. It won't come, and kill your mom. Plus it would help the crowding on the Broadway Line, and help the become an express again stopping many complaints from the residents in Brooklyn, and Manhattan that are trying to get to the to go to Flushing.

 

Is the West End line overcrowded during the non rush hours? Is the 4th Ave line overcrowded during the same period? If they are the 1st thing is to add an interval or two to the existing line(s) if needed. You certainly don't add a new line for what may be an isolated, time frame problem. I haven't been down that way for a few years but I DO keep in touch with my rabbi in Operations and Planning and they haven't heard of any overcrowding problems that warrant the " Return of the (W)" down there. Sounds like you miss that bullet more than you need extra service. BTW why won't my proposal help alleviate overcrowding on the Broadway line ? Most overcrowding occurs during rush hours and I proposed adding trains in the CBD during that time frame. The number of people riding from C.I., Flatbush,Kensington, or Far Rock to Astoria, WPR or Hillside Avenue( full route riders in other words) are not a factor to the degree rush hour CBD riders are. With the agency's finances supposedly in the toilet what you're focusing on is not a priority now and probably never will be even when the financial picture is flush with $$$. Just my opinion. You're welcome to have your own though.

[GreatOne2k]

Again a review of transit history is helpful. In the 1970's - as a first gesture to Park Slope residents after they protested about the local service, the MTA made all F-trains traveling toward Manhattan all local in the am-rush hours between Bergen Street and Church AVenue - while trying retain some express service along the remaining segments. So there was the interesting prospect of "express runs" between Bergen Street and Church Avenue in the out-bound direction in the am-rush hours, where there was little ridership. The heavy ridership was in the Manhattan bound direction. It was kind of silly. That was an example of the power of the Park Slope folk.

 

At the same time a time the F-train was only express between Church Avenue to Kings Highway, where Kings Highway local trains served those 5 local stations. So "Coney Island F-trains" would make all local stops all through Manhattan and Brooklyn to Church Avenue, and then be moved to the express middle track to skip all of 5 local stops. This continued for a number of years, then the MTA stopped that practice, because the "express run" that turned into a local run from Church Avenue to Jay Street, the MTA said was not really effective in the MTA's own eyes. From that point toward today, the F-train has made all stops, all local stops all of the time.

 

Once the switch that allowed trains from Coney Island traveling toward Manhattan to move to the middle track was removed - there was (and now remains to this day) no way to make such trains express anymore.

 

So it is interesting that some transit fans keep talking about making trains FROM Coney Island express along the elevated portion of the F-line, and often the underground portion - when such moves can not be accomplished. It is about a wish-list, rather than looking at the reality of the situation.

 

So now somebody is trying to say that in this day and age that skipping those 5 local stations is somehow going to save a lot of money - really. It is a lot simpler on the wear and tear of the switches, trains, riders and train folk to just keep the F-train all local in Brooklyn. Unless there is some major infusion of something.

 

Please note that the C-train runs every ten minutes, it has run that way for decades in its various versions - even rush hours. So having C-trains making Park Slope local stations as the only Manhattan bound local, beyond pissing off those folks, does not make it "OK" as a direct ride along Eighth Avenue. Folks that live along the F-line in Brooklyn know that they can always transfer at Jay Street and at other stations. A direct pathway to 8th Avenue is not a good and will never be a good consolation prize for giving up rapid service.

 

What community would sign on to such a bad deal? (Getting service that does not take you where you want to go, makes transfers difficult, causes train traffic congestion, and to top it off is just not as frequent as the service that you have had for decades.) What community would sign on to such a bad deal?

 

Mike

 

 

Some Kings Highway trains currently run Culver Exp, even sometimes using the middle track, since it bunches up. Similar to the express run between E 180 and Gun Hill (using the middle track) which happens often.

 

Also the weekday middle track express from 167 to Burnside (though this is scheduled).

 

My plan above had the only running to/from Kings Highway. The would run the full route and would be LOCAL to Coney Island (I already know about the switches being removed). I also didn't mention anything about the here.

[Bonanza123d]

Revamp the 70(SS) Culver Shuttle for a connection to the

[Roadcruiser1]

Why do that?. I think the should be extended down to Dyker Heights, because of the schools, the park, and the businesses down at 13th Avenue to Fort Hamilton Parkway. It should be an underground line dug via cut, and cover to offer service to a community which should in my opinion should get subway service. The buses around that neighborhood gets packed with people either heading to the or the . If the goes to Dyker Heights it would see an increase in ridership for people trying to get to the .

[MikeGerald]

Some Kings Highway trains currently run Culver Exp, even sometimes using the middle track, since it bunches up. Similar to the express run between E 180 and Gun Hill (using the middle track) which happens often.

 

Also the weekday middle track express from 167 to Burnside (though this is scheduled).

 

My plan above had the only running to/from Kings Highway. The would run the full route and would be LOCAL to Coney Island (I already know about the switches being removed). I also didn't mention anything about the here.

 

The suggestion of using the C-train did not come from you, but from another forum member. I was responding to the ideas presented, and not necessarily any particular person.

 

Mike