Culver Express?

[Roadcruiser1]

You could wait till phase three and dig a connection the Houston Street station all the way to Brooklyn via the Rutgers Street Tunnel.

[GojiMet86]

To expand on this, we could use the 1991 drastic cuts plan, where the would be eliminated, the would become local, and the would cover the express into Brooklyn and terminate at 34th.

So we could instead of eliminating the , make it and the new line (would probabaly end up reusing the ) the expresses and both terminate at 34th.

That would probably be the most workable solution, though as in the '91 plan, people would complain about making the 'classic' express a local. I guess they could put it back on the express north of 59th and let the ( cover the local. As slow as the express below 59th is, that probably wouldn't be much of a loss at all.

 

Did the plan actually happen? Why would they eliminate the ? They might as well have left it and cut the to 34th Street.

[T to Dyre Avenue]

First, the MTA would have to determine if Culver riders want an 8th Avenue service. Second, the number of trains per hour would be very limited. With 15 tph on the and six on the , you'll max out track capacity between Jay and Chambers. If the runs as frequently as the , then you might be able to pull it off. But then you have switching issues at Jay Street to deal with in two places. First, the has to merge with the after Jay. Then it has to de-merge with the almost right away as the goes upstairs to join the at Bergen. If one train goes down that's going to cause a lot of other train lines to fall like dominos.

 

I'm going to suggest a variation on that 1991 proposal, if I may. How about running the as an 8th Avenue Express to/from 14th Street, using the relay track south of 34th? It would run on headways and replace the to Euclid. That would allow the to stay express. The would switch from the 8th Avenue to the 6th Avenue Line south of West 4th Street. The would then operate via the line. After Jay Street, the would join the at Bergen and the would run on the express tracks to Church Avenue. No messy switching at Jay would be required and the switching from express to local at Canal would be gone as well.

 

To make room for the on the 6th Avenue local tracks, the would shift over from the local to the express tracks just north of West 4th. With the ( and trains running a combined total of 18-19 tph, the (M)'s 7-8 tph should be able to fit with the and for two stops. New switch tracks would need to be installed in order to allow the to access the 6th Avenue Express tracks from Essex Street.

[BJSm]

It's not going to be popular. The whole reason why the express failed is because it skipped high residential areas like Park Slope.

 

Where is 7th Ave but in Park Slope? I think it's the busiest stop on the Culver Line, too. Not like you're missing busy stops if it's stopping there.

[T to Dyre Avenue]

You could wait till phase three and dig a connection the Houston Street station all the way to Brooklyn via the Rutgers Street Tunnel.

You'll be waiting a very long time for a Culver Express that way.

[Wallyhorse]

The presence of the on the 6th Avenue local tracks precludes the MTA from running the express in Brooklyn because the can't be the only train serving the local stations between Church and Bergen. That has to factor into the MTA's study, which they started before they replaced the with the . Were it not for that, perhaps the could have been extended to Brooklyn as the Culver Express.

 

Not entirely true:

 

What I would be looking at doing (which would involve a full-blown rehab of the lower level of Bergen Street so that can be an express stop) would be this:

 

train goes via 6th Avenue south of West 4th, joining the to Brooklyn.

 

would replace the as a local between Bergen Street and Church Avenue, where it would terminate, though select trains could continue as a peak-direction express between Church Avenue and Kings Highway.

 

becomes an express from Jay Street-Church Avenue, except overnights when it would run as it does now since the would not be running. This would give Park Slope riders who want 6th avenue at worst a same platform transfer between the and or at Broadway-Lafayette while at the same time gives them a new one-seat ride (except overnights) on the 8th Avenue Line.

 

replaces the to Euclid Avenue. The only people inconvenienced by this would be those who specifically have to go to Spring Street from points north of 50th since it would require a same platform transfer somewhere between 50th and West 4th as well as those who get off at Chambers and would either have to walk from the Chambers Street platform or from Fulton Street to get to the World Trade Center. If the continues to Euclid overnights, this could allow the to become an express in Brooklyn then.

 

If necessary, a new train operates as a supplement to the , running the old 70(AA)/(K) route from Chambers-168th, most likely in a 3-5tph format, except for 2tph overnights. This would mainly be for people too lazy to walk to/from the platform at Chambers as well as those from points north of 50th specifically looking for Spring Street.

 

That to me is how you get a Culver Express operational while at the same time giving Park Slope residents a new option of 8th Avenue service along the line they don't currently have.

[Roadcruiser1]

You do know that Culver residents want a direct express route to Manhattan right?

[Eric B]

Did the plan actually happen? Why would they eliminate the ? They might as well have left it and cut the to 34th Street.

No. (This was also the plan that would have the (Q6Av) extend to 207th, and the ( run to 21st St all times except nights; and Concourse express service ended).

 

At the last moment, finance lightened up, and they began trying to improve service instead, to draw more riders.

 

First, the MTA would have to determine if Culver riders want an 8th Avenue service. Second, the number of (K trains per hour would be very limited. With 15 tph on the (A and six on the (C, you'll max out track capacity between Jay and Chambers. If the (K runs as frequently as the (C, then you might be able to pull it off. But then you have switching issues at Jay Street to deal with in two places. First, the (K has to merge with the (F after Jay. Then it has to de-merge with the (F almost right away as the (F goes upstairs to join the (G at Bergen. If one (K train goes down that's going to cause a lot of other train lines to fall like dominos.

 

I'm going to suggest a variation on that 1991 proposal, if I may. How about running the as an 8th Avenue Express to/from 14th Street, using the relay track south of 34th? It would run on headways and replace the to Euclid. That would allow the to stay express. The would switch from the 8th Avenue to the 6th Avenue Line south of West 4th Street. The would then operate via the line. After Jay Street, the would join the at Bergen and the would run on the express tracks to Church Avenue. No messy switching at Jay would be required and the switching from express to local at Canal would be gone as well.

 

To make room for the on the 6th Avenue local tracks, the would shift over from the local to the express tracks just north of West 4th. With the and trains running a combined total of 18-19 tph, the (M)'s 7-8 tph should be able to fit with the and for two stops. New switch tracks would need to be installed in order to allow the to access the 6th Avenue Express tracks from Essex Street.

 

They're not going to do any construction for that. I did think it would be nice to get the additional service onto the express, which used to have three services. Northbound, it would be a bit easier, as the BJ2 track comes up between the express and local. As it is, they would still have to remove several columns and reinforce the tunnel ceiling to do that. It's southbound where BJ1 diverges the other way from the local, so comes nowhere near the express. So that could not be done both directions,without major reconstruction to connect a ramp up towards Grand St. (I was kind of hoping that was what they were doing when they had the big hole in the street around there, with sunlight coming in, a few years ago; but that was just a fan plant they were building. Silly me!)

 

So your idea would involve using the switch north of Bway Laf. northbound, and north of W4th southbound, so would create just as many problems.

 

What I suggested would require no construction at all, and in practice, it doesn't seem the and are ever that frequent, so it could probably be made to fit.

The would be limited, but it would be better than a split , or a third local squeezed onto 6th.

 

The other option, at least for the time being when SAS opens, is to just use the northern terminal with the (96th or 125th). That will have to be changed whenever the begins running; but that is probably WAY off. But then this would be the third local, again.

[Roadcruiser1]

I think it would be better off long term if Culver Residents just waited till the Second Avenue Subway (Phase III) comes online.

[Wallyhorse]

You do know that Culver residents want a direct express route to Manhattan right?

 

I think they would, especially if it gave riders in Park Slope an new option to midtown via 8th avenue (and again, for those local riders wanting 6th Avenue, an easy same platform transfer at Broadway-Lafayette) as well as those looking for midtown via 8th Avenue that want to skip lower Manhattan that option as well.

[2Line1291]

There is no solution to implementing Culver express because of the !! My head hurts tryna come up with a idea. Now I see what LRG was wildin' out about the ... it's makes implementing Culver express more complicated and difficult to do:tdown::tdown:

[overclocked]

There is no solution to implementing Culver express because of the !! My head hurts tryna come up with a idea. Now I see what LRG was wildin' out about the ... it's makes implementing Culver express more complicated and difficult to do:tdown::tdown:

 

How about leaving things the way they are right now?

[Roadcruiser1]

Still no. Switching trains will only cause delays, and most certainly won't make express service feasible due to all the switching.

[Wallyhorse]

There is no solution to implementing Culver express because of the !! My head hurts tryna come up with a idea. Now I see what LRG was wildin' out about the ... it's makes implementing Culver express more complicated and difficult to do:tdown::tdown:

 

Not if you have the go to Church Avenue with the (F)/(G), diverting from the 8th Avenue line at West 4th to join the .

[VWM]

How about this...

because there are limited options for a new line (3 locals on 6Av equals chaos)

the only feasible plan would be

a) two (F)s (NO)

new eighth avenue line. That would work, with a lot of rearranging involved, though.

Can't mess with the .

Mess with the for all I care. but that has consequences.

One word... or letter.

You can run it from 168 or 125 (125 St has layup tracks)

to Kings Highway or Avenue X Brooklyn.

[T to Dyre Avenue]

@EricB: That was the point of my post, to show just what lengths the MTA may have to go in order to implement a Culver Express service, now that the is gone. But I will say that I didn't realize construction of new switches in the Chrystie connector would involve that much reconstruction. It's definitely not worth doing.

 

I also think you might be right about the and not running all that frequently. From my own experience with the 8th Avenue Line, I usually end up taking the , because it seems to come far more frequently than the other two lines. So I take back what I said in my last post about not being able to fit an 8th Avenue-Culver service on the express tracks and the Cranberry Tunnel. I now think it could work and would definitely be better than the chaos that would result from having three 6th Avenue locals. They could reduce the number of peak-direction trains to/from Rockaway Park (currently five) to make room for the . But I think the should stop at 34th and 42nd Streets to get good ridership.

 

@VWM: Definitely option B and don't mess with the .

[Roadcruiser1]

Uh no.

[R32 3838]

The MTA is talking about bringing the back so don't be surprised if u do see the make a comeback, The MTA mentioned it

[Guest lance25]

Why would they bring back two dead end lines? Especially when the current setup is much more popular than the previous one. Not only would it require more crews since there would be two separate lines again, but there's also the possibility of a car shortage should the (Mx) and return. Remember, a large chunk of the R46s, used previously for the , are currently at Pitkin Yard for line service.

[T to Dyre Avenue]

The MTA is talking about bringing the back so don't be surprised if u do see the make a comeback, The MTA mentioned it

How can they bring back the now? It was combined with the (Mx) to form the current line and has proven to be more popular than the lines it replaced. The and trains run a combined total of 23 trains per hour during the rush (30 tph is the max allowed by the signalling system). You won't be able to add a service in addition to the and . Certainly not a frequent-running service. And where would it terminate?

 

Don't forget, the MTA started its Culver Line study before 2010, so when they brainstormed and did research about restoring the express, the was still running. The researchers did not forsee the budget issues that resulted in ending the and replacing it with the . They also did not forsee the structural problems that forced the R44s out of service, sending R46s over to Pitkin Yard to replace the 44s on the . So even if the MTA wanted to split the back into the (Mx) and , they simply don't have the rolling stock to do that.

[Roadcruiser1]

The best idea would be to just wait till phase 3 of the Second Avenue Subway is done. I don't see any other way around that.

[Shortline Bus]

The best idea would be to just wait till phase 3 of the Second Avenue Subway is done. I don't see any other way around that.

 

 

True. IMO after the current Culver line rehab work i.e Smith/9th and 4th Ave fully done, I would only do these changes.

 

Every other Coney Island runs express between Jay St and Church Ave in both directions rush hours only.

All other times all trains local in Brooklyn.

 

 

All Kings Highway runs local between Jay and Kings Highway.

 

(G)terminates at Church Ave at all times.

 

This is also the most likely new routing the will create and still not tick off local Park Slope/Carol Gardens residents at local stations i.e Caroll, Bergen and 4th Ave after the work is done by mid-2012.

[Wallyhorse]

True. IMO after the current Culver line rehab work i.e Smith/9th and 4th Ave fully done, I would only do these changes.

 

Every other Coney Island runs express between Jay St and Church Ave in both directions rush hours only.

All other times all trains local in Brooklyn.

 

 

All Kings Highway runs local between Jay and Kings Highway.

 

(G)terminates at Church Ave at all times.

 

This is also the most likely new routing the will create and still not tick off local Park Slope/Carol Gardens residents at local stations i.e Caroll, Bergen and 4th Ave after the work is done by mid-2012.

 

I would think Park Slope/Carroll Gardens residents would understand if you had the replace the as a local between Church Avenue and Jay Street that would allow the to go express, since for those looking for 8th Avenue in Midtown/CPW it would eliminate a transfer and those looking for 6th Avenue would be able to make a same platform transfer to the (:o/(D)/(F)/(M) at Broadway-Lafayette. Plus, the argument about the transfer to the at 9th Street-4th Avenue is no longer valid because of the new transfer to the at Metrotech.

 

My version adds both the express service and new 8th Avenue Line service to the Park Slope branch that I think would work very well.

[Eric B]

 

But I think the should stop at 34th and 42nd Streets to get good ridership.

The idea was using the express tracks (with island platform) as a terminal, and you can't do that at 42nd, because you don't even have the switches between the express tracks. You do at 34th though. (and it would likely be , not . s what it would have been in the '91 plan, where it would have been an extension of the Rockaway Park service; but now that is a totally separate operation.

[CenSin]

I would think Park Slope/Carroll Gardens residents would understand if you had the replace the as a local between Church Avenue and Jay Street that would allow the to go express, since for those looking for 8th Avenue in Midtown/CPW it would eliminate a transfer and those looking for 6th Avenue would be able to make a same platform transfer to the (:o/(D)/(F)/(M) at Broadway-Lafayette. Plus, the argument about the transfer to the at 9th Street-4th Avenue is no longer valid because of the new transfer to the at Metrotech.

 

My version adds both the express service and new 8th Avenue Line service to the Park Slope branch that I think would work very well.

Broadway–Lafayette would now be serving 3 locals: . That's—once again—an unworkable situation.