Culver Express?

[Wallyhorse]

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

 

We are only talking about one stop where that would be the case, with the ©/(F) both continuing to the Rutgers Tunnel while the continues via Essex and the Willamsburg Bridge. I think for one stop they can make it work.

[Roadcruiser1]

You might need to know what the words Feasible and Infeasible means, because so far you don't seem to understand what those two words mean.

[MikeGerald]

Imagine that you're a Park Slope resident, with your home station at 15th Street-Prospect Park. Under what possible scheme would you accept C local train service that runs at a rush hour frequency of every ten minutes, and at about 10 minutes apart at all times - compared to your current frequency of F-trains at about 4 minutes apart or quicker.

 

Again, what community easily accepts LESS FREQUENT SERVICE?

 

Again would it really matter if C-trains traveled over Eighth Avenue in Manhattan - when the only trains that stop at your station are less frequent?

 

Plenty of F-train riders transfer daily between A and C trains at the Jay Street-Borough Hall station - so Eighth Avenue service is not some kind of unknown feature.

 

As I said before - every scheme that transit fans try to come up often simply means LESS SERVICE at the heavily used local stations. Meaning the proposal is dead as soon as the ink is dry. The MTA is simply not going to go for any of the complicated schemes so far posted.

 

Stepping off soapbox.

Mike

[Wallyhorse]

One thing forgotten in my scenario is you also have the running local with the . If the were to come before the , passengers would be able to take that to 7th Avenue or Bergen to get the .

 

Another option would be to have the be the Culver Express and replace the between Church Avenue and Coney Island (possibly with the becoming a 24/7 line in this scenario), which would for the first time give those at Coney Island a one-seat ride via 8th Avenue. This would keep the as is for Park Slope riders while also having an express line serve there (with the potential side benefit of shortening the overall while the would be either the same length it is now to Euclid or slightly longer) that would give those at express stops the option of direct 8th Avenue service they don't currently have.

 

Just some more thoughts.

 

And I do think the could find a way to have three locals (©/(F)/(M)) share the tracks at Broadway-Lafayette. We are only talking about one stop where this would be the case, more than that I would agree otherwise.

[T to Dyre Avenue]

As I said before - every scheme that transit fans try to come up often simply means LESS SERVICE at the heavily used local stations. Meaning the proposal is dead as soon as the ink is dry. The MTA is simply not going to go for any of the complicated schemes so far posted.

 

Stepping off soapbox.

Mike

I don't. I firmly believe that the should stay as is and the new, less frequent service should run on the Culver express tracks. The only change to the I'd consider doing is truncating it at Church Avenue and having the new service replace it between Church and Stillwell Avenues. It's already been stated on more than one occasion that the Culver stations south of Church get more service than they need with the .

[Shortline Bus]

Ok Wallyhorse. I lived and used to use the 'F' 'reguarly' for over 20 something years until 2005 so i am not exactly a stranger lol to that line.

 

 

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.

 

 

Ridership is much lighter on weekends. The only time the Culver line needs a 'express' is rush hours. Plus there not enough ridership to warrant a direct 8th Ave Line. They already transfer at Jay St which is around 30-40 riders on average or more during rush hours. However not a full train load at Jay St. You also Wally forget to take into account more Culver riders are going to Queens Blvd stations than say on the CPW (central park west) local stops from Park Slope.

 

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.

 

Then what happens Wallyhorse if the 'E' is delayed on the Fulton Line?

You want riots on QB express stations.

 

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.

 

 

Wally, instead of a making it more confusing for riders not saying i endorse but as Concourse would say just rename the Lefferts branch the .Plus just run the until around 1230am-1am. The granted is a long ride is fine working alone on 8th/Fulton Local between 1-5am(7am on Sunday Mornings).

 

 

Sorry Wally you never give up on your ideas such as extending the to West 4th on weekends/overnights which would cause a conga line. Now also shifting the to the Culver Line. And extending the 'E' to Euclid which it ran to until about 1976. The 'E' running to the WTC (barring GO"s)and Jamaica is fine since QB ridership has bursted on the seams. Also to add, Wally you underestimate how hard it is to change subway routes going back 70-80 years or more. So as i stated the only 'express' on Culver line needed as maybe similar to the Rockaway Park service running every 20 minutes for a couple of hours in the rush, you can have 'select' 'F' run express.

 

Mike makes good point about the 'F' and how Park Slope area residents politically connected (home to US Senator Chuck Schhumer to boot)would not be happy with long waits during the rush. However Mike does not understand residents *south* of Church Ave who would benefit with a faster ride as well and as an alternative to the crowded and lines to get to Midtown Manhattan. That my counterpoint on logically adding a peak hour 'F' express every 20-30 minutes (every 2nd-3rd train) would not do much harm.

[CenSin]

And I do think the could find a way to have three locals (©/(F)/(M)) share the tracks at Broadway-Lafayette. We are only talking about one stop where this would be the case, more than that I would agree otherwise.

This is exactly why it won't work! Have you ever driven a car on a highway in the middle of a traffic jam only to find out that the cause was a single downed vehicle narrowing the 3 lanes to 2. It doesn't matter how many stops trains share. Even a single point is enough to slow down everything!

[Roadcruiser1]

Wallyhorse please stop being so ARROGANT and start LEARNING BEFORE DOING ANYTHING. Thank you.

[CenSin]

Wallyhorse please stop being so ARROGANT and start LEARNING BEFORE DOING ANYTHING. Thank you.

Calm down, dude. Let's not turn it into a fight.

[Caelestor]

One-seat rides are nice, but in general you really want to avoid massive interlining. One reason why I dislike the IND system is how a disruption on one line can impact the whole division. Case in point: flooding on CPW took down not only the (A)/© but also the (B)/(D). If the has to make a merge, you open up the possibility of delaying the (E)/(F)/(M) trains if something goes wrong. Just don't do it, and instead use same-platform transfers to minimize the penalty between switching lines.

 

One remark regarding express services: they're only useful if they move lots of people faster and they have reasonable headways. In general, express sections should be in the middle of the line, where local service supplements it well. This doesn't really work for the Culver line because the bulk of the ridership is along the IND portion, not the BMT (see this map for more details). Conversely, it's fantastic for Queens Blvd riders because there's high ridership at the stations past Forest Hills.

[T to Dyre Avenue]

Mike makes good point about the 'F' and how Park Slope area residents politically connected (home to US Senator Chuck Schhumer to boot)would not be happy with long waits during the rush. However Mike does not understand residents *south* of Church Ave who would benefit with a faster ride as well and as an alternative to the crowded and lines to get to Midtown Manhattan. That my counterpoint on logically adding a peak hour 'F' express every 20-30 minutes (every 2nd-3rd train) would not do much harm.

 

But would a lot of and riders be willing to trade their current crowded train rides for an express service that runs only during rush hours and only once every 20-30 minutes? Even without surveying them, I don't think they would.

 

I think a big part of the problem is that the serves two adjacent groups of commuters with different issues. The first group is the people of Park Slope and Carroll Gardens who live off the quad-tracked IND subway, have a frequent service and will be ticked off if they lose it. The second group is the people who live in Kensington, Midwood and Gravesend who live off the triple-tracked Culver el, have that same frequent service but have to deal with a longer ride to Manhattan and have been advocating for a faster ride, knowing that there are two unused express tracks between Church Ave and Bergen St. It's best if the riders north of Church get to keep their high-frequency local train, while the riders south of Church get a new service that uses the IND subway's express tracks. We (most of us) already know that the new service can't run via 6th Ave due to the presence of the train. So it has to go somewhere else. The 2nd Ave subway is not an option because who knows how long we'll have to wait for it to be built south of 63rd St? Meanwhile, 8th Ave has underutilized infrastructure and Jay St is a major transfer point between the and the (A)/©. So why not consider a new Culver Express service via the Cranberry St Tunnel and 8th Avenue?

[Roadcruiser1]

Because as of now with the current configuration it would only jam the tracks of the either the Sixth Avenue Line or the Cranberry Street Tunnel.

[4th Ave Local]

Having rode the Culver Express back in the day here's a thought.

 

During rush hours, have the terminate at Kings Highway.

 

Have the that starts at Kings Highway run local starting at Church.

 

That way passengers south of Church can wait for an for a one seat ride

 

or take the and transfer to the AT Church.

 

Also this would help alleviate overcrowding for the Park Slope, Carroll Gardens

 

residents.

 

Just reverse it for the evening.

[Roadcruiser1]

It failed because the never went to Manhattan. The would never go to Manhattan, because it is a Crosstown Line which is meant for people commuting from Brooklyn to Queens.

[Wallyhorse]

The alone will never work in Park Slope as has been well documented.

 

What I was trying to do was address what actually is a serious issue with overcrowding on the , as there also are well-known complaints at stations where an express would stop that there should be an express line. That was why I was looking to address more than anything else.

[Shortline Bus]

One problem to Dyre. The switching tracks between Jay St and High St is not designed to handle that high amount of tph especially during the rush. That why during 'go's' on weekends mainly the reduces slightly the number of trains when they run on the between Jay and West 4th. A Culver/8th Ave (not saying I endorse it but making a point)would only work switching between West 4th. Just a point.:eek:

 

 

 

But would a lot of and riders be willing to trade their current crowded train rides for an express service that runs only during rush hours and only once every 20-30 minutes? Even without surveying them, I don't think they would.

 

I think a big part of the problem is that the serves two adjacent groups of commuters with different issues. The first group is the people of Park Slope and Carroll Gardens who live off the quad-tracked IND subway, have a frequent service and will be ticked off if they lose it. The second group is the people who live in Kensington, Midwood and Gravesend who live off the triple-tracked Culver el, have that same frequent service but have to deal with a longer ride to Manhattan and have been advocating for a faster ride, knowing that there are two unused express tracks between Church Ave and Bergen St. It's best if the riders north of Church get to keep their high-frequency local train, while the riders south of Church get a new service that uses the IND subway's express tracks. We (most of us) already know that the new service can't run via 6th Ave due to the presence of the train. So it has to go somewhere else. The 2nd Ave subway is not an option because who knows how long we'll have to wait for it to be built south of 63rd St? Meanwhile, 8th Ave has underutilized infrastructure and Jay St is a major transfer point between the and the (A)/©. So why not consider a new Culver Express service via the Cranberry St Tunnel and 8th Avenue?

[CenSin]

The alone will never work in Park Slope as has been well documented.

 

What I was trying to do was address what actually is a serious issue with overcrowding on the , as there also are well-known complaints at stations where an express would stop that there should be an express line. That was why I was looking to address more than anything else.

Where the and the run together, there is no room for another train. Where the and the run together, there is no room for another train. It's nearly a law that each pair of tracks only carry two services. Finally, the is just inadequate.

 

Either the will have to budge, or the has to be connected to the Rutgers Street tunnel somehow, because the line between 2 Avenue and Jay Street has space for another service. Other options that suggest reshuffling lines or putting "inferior lines" in place of their originals will not work.

[Shortline Bus]

Where the and the run together, there is no room for another train. Where the and the run together, there is no room for another train. It's nearly a law that each pair of tracks only carry two services. Finally, the is just inadequate.

 

Either the will have to budge, or the has to be connected to the Rutgers Street tunnel somehow, because the line between 2 Avenue and Jay Street has space for another service. Other options that suggest reshuffling lines or putting "inferior lines" in place of their originals will not work.

 

 

During the Manhattan Bridge rehab work Censin you had the for 6th Ave service and Diamond and for Broadway service so three routes can work but headways have to be increased. However the (Q6Av) and were considered the 'same line' aka Brighton service.

[Grand Concourse]

You are not going to 'win over' riders by cutting their service to support another. The most realistic idea would be to cut the current [sending it back to Chambers or Bay Pkwy] and bring back the so that it or the can run express to/from Church or even Kings highway. Of course with how 'well' the is, that's not going to go away anytime soon.

 

The only thing that can be done is split the , as in you have (F)s below Church run express b/w Church and Jay St, while having some short turn (F)s running local in the Park Slope area. Park Slope riders will always complain. I say give southern riders a chance and give them a 1seat express and give Park slope riders a 1seat local. The should be split into two lines.

 

I agree with T to Dyre's point up till the idea. - It would not be a good idea to take away service from the , not to mention can Cranberry support the extra service?

[2Line1291]

I agree, screw the !!! But I just wanna put my input out there before I say quits!!

1. Combine the lines into the from Jamaica-179th St to Brighton Beach via 6th Express and IND 63rd St
   
2. Have the from Jamaica Center to Euclid Av via 8th Express and Fulton Local
   
3. A new from 145th St to WTC rush hours to Bedford Park Blvd
   
4. Have the from 168th St to Coney Island.

 

The only con here is the 8-car is the only 6th Ave Local

[Shortline Bus]

Replies in red CJ. Plus read my earlier to Wallyhorse who made similar suggestions to you i.e on Culver extended to Euclid, etc.

 

I agree, screw the !!! But I just wanna put my input out there before I say quits!!

1. Combine the lines into the from Jamaica-179th St to Brighton Beach via 6th Express and IND 63rd St
    
   So does the become a 24/7 line? Plus a high number of Culver (i.e Park slope) riders does go to Queens Blvd stations so what you do CJ to replace them. Riders from Brighton wanting QB besides going to transfer at 34th St in Manhattan can also transfer at Jay St. via transfer at Dekalb.
    
    
   
2. Have the from Jamaica Center to Euclid Av via 8th Express and Fulton Local
   As i said to Wallyhorse. What happens if the is delayed along the Fulton line. Plus what about the switch from local-express tracks at either Canal or 42nd-PABT?
    
   
3. A new from 145th St to WTC rush hours to Bedford Park Blvd
   
4. Have the from 168th St to Coney Island.
   Again what about the high # of riders at Culver stations going to 6th Ave Local/Queens Blvd stations. You know the Park Slope area will raise hell led by US Sen. Chuch Schumer. The should have maintained at least some form of service to Queens Blvd.
    
    
   

 

The only con here is the 8-car is the only 6th Ave Local

Do you want to go back with an empty train and semi empty ? You could just restore and run a Bay Parkway(or Bay Ridge-95th)-Chambers <R> rush hour train and call it a day CJ. Middle Village/Ridgewood riders will be angry now if you canned direct Midtown service. .

 

 

 

 

My replies.

[2Line1291]

Oh well I said what was on my mind :cool:

[T to Dyre Avenue]

The only thing that can be done is split the , as in you have (F)s below Church run express b/w Church and Jay St, while having some short turn (F)s running local in the Park Slope area. Park Slope riders will always complain. I say give southern riders a chance and give them a 1seat express and give Park slope riders a 1seat local. The should be split into two lines.

I agree with T to Dyre's point up till the idea. - It would not be a good idea to take away service from the , not to mention can Cranberry support the extra service?

But see, that's the point I'm trying to make - that the MTA has to be "creative" in order to implement a Culver Express service with the running on 6th Ave now. Would splitting the into two separate lines (called and , perhaps?) work? How should the split be made? The local stations above Church need more service than the stations below due to the big difference in ridership, so splitting the into a Culver Local to Church and a Culver Express (?) to Stillwell can't be done 50/50. It has to be an uneven split in favor of the local. The question is, how much in favor of the local? Ten (F)'s and five (V)'s? Might be ok for the local (every six minutes) but that's way too little service for the stations below Church (every 12 minutes? That'll never fly). Can the MTA possibly add just three more trains per hour to give Culver El/Express riders 7- to 8-minute frequencies during the rush? That would push the combined number of tph on the and to 18. Can those 18 tph fit with the on the 6th Ave Local and the on the Queens Blvd Express tracks? Or are we looking at total meltdown here?

[MikeGerald]

From the earliest days of the original IRT subway system built in 1904, the maximum amount of trains in traveling one direction that can be accommodated on a subway track is 30 trains per hour due to the signal system. Now one could try to "juice" up that number by (in the distant past) having trains "key-by signals", have terminals with layup trains that extend beyond the station, by having efficient track layouts and junctions, etc. However that number can not be changed radically unless there is another kind of signal technology, train improvements and or other technology that will change braking distances, train speeds, etc. So the basic number of 30 trains per hour is what we work with.

 

The 30 trains per hour rule applies to subway tunnels, local tracks, express tracks, etc. Not all lines run 30 trains per hour, and of course when the same track segment carries another route, the frequencies of those routes is combined. For example, when N, R and W trains use the 60th Street tunnel - that works because each line only carries 10 trains per hour each (10 - R-trains, 10 - N trains, and 10 Q-trains).

 

Along Queens Blvd the E and F trains during rush hours usually have 15 trains per hour each, where for E trains 12 trains per hour go to Archer Avenue (because the Archer Avenue stations were not designed to be a terminals - the line was expected to be extended further into Queens), and 3 trains go to 179th Street. Of course the 179th Street Terminal was handling both 15 trains an hour for the E trains on the local tracks, AND 15 trains an hour for the F-train on the center express tracks. The 179th Street is a very efficient terminal station!

 

So basically in Brooklyn the F-train is stuck to its 15-trains per hour. So the folks who say the Mike is somehow neglecting to understand the plight of those who live south of Church Avenue - does not understand that Mike remembers those subway train maps of the 1980's where there was a center track rush hour F-train peak direction express south of Church Avenue, that is F-trains traveling to/from Coney Island. However for the entire section between Bergen Street and Church Avenue ALL F-TRAINS WERE LOCAL. EVERY TRAIN ALONG THAT SEGMENT WAS LOCAL!

 

So what do we have? Folks saying well the C-train could be local, or half of the F-trains could be local, or we will re-route this or change that. Again, to beat the same drum, none of those schemes is getting the local station riders 15 trains per hour at the local stations all headed to Manhattan! None! People can count, and they know when they are getting less service.

 

Why should the busier stations get LESS service?

Mike

[TwoTimer]

Its really just the railfan is just plain MAD that there those express tracks sit, and there's no service running on them. I mean they're EXPRESS tracks where trains can go FAST!!!!!! There GOT to be something running on them!

 

Ok, silly rant over, now to reality.

 

The local and express tracks end up at the same place, Jay St Metrotech. To successfully implement service on both local and express tracks, as Mike said, at 15 trains per hour each (you MIGHT get away with 12 for the local service if its terminal is Church Av, as the Park Slope people might trade a slight reduction in service for empty trains going in service at Church). Either way, we're up to 27 tph at Jay minimum, which is near capacity already, and it still doesn't suit the railfan's needs which is they want express service starting at Kings Highway (where the switch doesn't exist anymore as we know) and possibly two services south of Church (so no two services south of Church). So now we are in agreement the can no longer fit with these 27-30 tph coming from the Culver, and we all know they can't all end up on the QB express tracks as only half of those trains can fit there. The only way it would work on existing trackage was to leave the as it is (except express Church to Jay, we already concluded why it doesn't work from Kings Highway), get rid of the , and put 12-15tph on the local tracks as a second service, which TA doesn't have money for. Squeeze the in somehow. Mind you, with switching north of Bergen, there will be delays as it is already a heavily timed area (a lets call it a cannot leave Bergen and go down the hill to wait for an to go by on the express tracks as the back half of the train will still be on the switch, not allowing another train to come in upstairs). So it has to sit in the station. So with the current situation, there is no way to make it work without hurting someone (you willing to take away Middle Village new one seat ride to Midtown just so Kensington/Gravesend can get express service... lol)

 

Now going from reality to fantasy (with a dose of reality)...

 

The only river tube that doesn't run at full capacity is the Montague with the lost of the brown M. The only way it would work is to build some short tunnel (yes, IND/BMT combo I know) from north of Bergen lower to the Montague tunnel which is nearby actually. This would force the local (to Church), but Church can handle its 15 tph (its setup is similar to Utica Av ) and there would be no reduction in service for Park Slope/Red Hook. Because the link from Bergen LL is to a Broadway tunnel, its simple to just put a Broadway local service through there.

 

Now Mike had a point in another thread about his feelings of both the and going up SAS (yes 24/7), as only two BMT services together can make up the required headway to really change the human mind and reduce congestion on Lex. He left the as the lone Astoria service, to share 60st with the . Under the FANTASY scenario listed above, since the is no longer going to Coney Island, this can take over that piece of service from Church to Coney, since its headway will be similar to what is already experienced at the Astoria end, and it has to be 24/7 as well as it would service certain areas by itself.

 

Again the last two paragraphs is pure fantasy based on a tunnel connection from the Montague to Culver north of Bergen LL. Now I didn't forget about the . As for the , that's what Kings Highway is for.

 

So really that is the ideal situation for Culver where it doesn't affect the other boroughs or neighborhoods. The still exists as is, the service to Park Slope not only isn't cut, its now empty trains at Church giving Park Slope seats for the first time (for logistic purposes, the cannot terminate there anymore, and obviously not Smith-9). It starts/ends at Church and goes local in Brooklyn. The tunnel connection brings the Montague over to the Culver as an express (local after Church), and actually gives Kensington and below a one seat ride to lower Manhattan (which they never had before, recently) and Midtown via Broadway (both lines are local in Manhattan anyway as they exist and have existed before). At rush hours the headway is obviously similar to what the and together provide in Astoria (10-12tph), which still won't overload Montague (since the and all run together in 60th). The provides additional local and Crosstown service for those not trying to get into Manhattan.

 

At night, the will still run to Church, the to Kings Highway (or Church now that the headway is cut down during the evenings and overnight, no need to waste Money), the to CI as the Culver Express/Broadway local to Astoria service, which remains express as the Montague connection only goes to Bergen LL.

 

Again, I caution, all fantasy, and is assuming SAS gets to 125th and Mike's service plain. Must give credit to where its due.