Wallyhorse Posted April 11, 2012 Share #101 Posted April 11, 2012 @Wallyhorse: But do a majority of Coney Island and Culver el riders want 8th Ave? They have never had 8th Ave service (8th Avenue service never went any further south than Church Ave). They may prefer the convenience of being connected directly to the 6th Ave Line. Would they really want to lose that in favor of being shifted two avenue blocks west (not exactly a short distance)? Sure, they can transfer at Jay, but don't they already do that now if they want 8th Ave? Actually, as I would have the operate with the until they would split at West 4th, those on the Culver El would be able to switch from the to the (B)/ (D)/ (F)/ at Broadway-Lafayette, and those specifically looking for Lexington around 63rd could also switch to the as well (since the uptown transfer would be long in place by the time this ever were implemented if it were at all). This also would give Park Slope (at express stations) and Culver El residents direct access to Columbus Circle and upper Manhattan via CPW that they don't currently have, which also may be appealing. Also, as noted CI residents would still have direct 6th Avenue access via the , but this would give them 8th Avenue service they don't have. To me, it's the best way to have a Culver Express while keeping the serving its main interests in Park Slope and at the same times giving those along Park Slope and the Culver El direct 8th Avenue service (including direct service to Penn Station and Port Authority) they don't currently have. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Threxx Posted April 11, 2012 Share #102 Posted April 11, 2012 The best configuration for exp service is: 10-11 trains per hr. 5-6 , , (whatever you want to call it) trains per hr. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eric B Posted April 11, 2012 Share #103 Posted April 11, 2012 I still think alternate 's (not ALL of them; just half, maybe) would be the best shot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brighton Express Posted April 11, 2012 Share #104 Posted April 11, 2012 I still think alternate 's (not ALL of them; just half, maybe) would be the best shot. I see what you are doing here, just like alternate to Broad and Chambers, alternate to New Lots and Utica, and alternate to Far Rockaway and Lefferts. So if I am right, you are proposing alternate to Church Avenue and WTC. The only question I have about this is the amount of trains that Chambers and High can handle, but overall, I actually like this idea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NX Express Posted April 11, 2012 Share #105 Posted April 11, 2012 The foam in this thread is killing me. Why is it so difficult to have half of the trains turn at Church and the other half run express Jay - Church? If necessary, some s can be turned into s. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grand Concourse Posted April 11, 2012 Share #106 Posted April 11, 2012 There's no need to have half of the F's run express. 1/3 is more than enough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NX Express Posted April 11, 2012 Share #107 Posted April 11, 2012 1/3 of 15 tph is 5 tph. I doubt the people south of Church would be happy with 12-minute service. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Threxx Posted April 11, 2012 Share #108 Posted April 11, 2012 1/3 of 15 tph is 5 tph. I doubt the people south of Church would be happy with 12-minute service. Jeez, this thread is fueled with foam. This WILL NOT HAPPEN. No one's idea will happen. Might be best for a mod to close this thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roadcruiser1 Posted April 11, 2012 Share #109 Posted April 11, 2012 Again the Cranberry Tunnel can't handle the and all together. Turning it south of West Fourth Street will not work since there isn't room with the and . How hard is it to grasp this concept. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roadcruiser1 Posted April 11, 2012 Share #110 Posted April 11, 2012 Well look who's talking; And y'all thought my ideas were whack. There will be barely any people on that train. Tell me how any other Express service would work. trains MUST stop at 4th Av, and I ain't dumb enough to think that the is going to wreck a piece of the viaduct to put in an Express station. NO ONE will ride on the Express past Church Av. It is the same reason they don't have Express on the Sea Beach, or the Astoria Express, and why the does not run Broadway/Bronx Express peak direction with the anymore. The can put a switch in on the downtown side easy. They can do it at Cortelyou, they can do it anywhere. How is alternating the Express trains going to help? Explain in full RoadCrusier1 and Grand Concourse. Explain it to the fullest you can. Oh whats gonna happen next RoadCrusier1, put the alternating Express trains from Rockaway Blvd to Broad Channel, skipping Aqueduct and JFK Airport? Oh be sure to make some of them skip 200st when they are going back uptown. The idea for express service didn't work on the Sea Beach Line only because it didn't stop at any stations in between. It ran directly to Coney Island. Of course it was going to be a ghost train. The wasn't even an express service. It was skip stop, and it was an extremely short distance. It is the reason why it failed. The reason why it would work is because the Culver Line is much longer. It is equivalent to the Flushing Line without express service. The Culver Line is extremely long. It also doesn't have to stop at Fourth Avenue. An easier transfer exists at Jay Street-Metrotech. It makes the point moot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grand Concourse Posted April 11, 2012 Share #111 Posted April 11, 2012 Jeez, this thread is fueled with foam. This WILL NOT HAPPEN. No one's idea will happen. Might be best for a mod to close this thread. Why because only you and trainguy wants the G to replace F service b/w Smith 9th and Church av and no one else can have a say? 1/3 of 15 tph is 5 tph. I doubt the people south of Church would be happy with 12-minute service. No, the split F is for Jay st to Church av only, south of Church F service is the same. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Threxx Posted April 11, 2012 Share #112 Posted April 11, 2012 Why because only you and trainguy wants the G to replace F service b/w Smith 9th and Church av and no one else can have a say? No, that's not what we want to do. (If you read mine & his posts properly...) This thread is useless foam, no use debating it anymore. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roadcruiser1 Posted April 11, 2012 Share #113 Posted April 11, 2012 The split F is for Jay St to Church Av only, south of Church F service will remain the same. Why are you only appeasing them? It is still needed south of Church Avenue just not as frequently. It's like saying that the Flushing Line doesn't need express service Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roadcruiser1 Posted April 11, 2012 Share #114 Posted April 11, 2012 No, that's not what we want to do. (If you read mine & his posts properly...) This thread is useless foam, no use debating it anymore. No. We are using logic. You and you friend are the ones that were spouting nonsense while we were spouting things that could happen. It was going well until you guys came along. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brighton Express Posted April 11, 2012 Share #115 Posted April 11, 2012 No, that's not what we want to do. (If you read mine & his posts properly...) This thread is useless foam, no use debating it anymore. True. This aint gettin anyhwere. Every time a good idea comes up, no trains this, too short cars that, no switch here, too many trains in tunnel, too many trains per hour. And WHY THE HELL can't you people understand Express South of Church Avenue is not going to work. This is basically why the West End Express (D)/ got taken away. No. We are using logic. You and you friend are the ones that were spouting nonsense while we were spouting things that could happen. It was going well until you guys came along. Tell me this is a joke. ThrexxBus has the #2 post. I have the #6 post. You have the 30th post. If anyone caused the trouble, it would have to be you. Get your facts straight before you post. SKEED. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wallyhorse Posted April 11, 2012 Share #116 Posted April 11, 2012 Again the Cranberry Tunnel can't handle the and all together. Turning it south of West Fourth Street will not work since there isn't room with the and . How hard is it to grasp this concept. Isn't the combined total of the ©/(F)/(M) currently less than 30 trains per hour (I believe it's 29tph)? If it is, it should be able to work since, and even if it were 31-33 tph, it probably can still work since we are only talking about ONE station (Broadway-Lafayette) where you would have three locals stopping. The main reason I would be looking to send the as the Culver Express to go with the at West 4th is because I know it would be too many trains for the Cranberry tunnel between the (A)/©/(E) to do it there (especially since that would be for a considerably longer distance) as opposed to Broadway-Lafayette as the separates from the after there while the other way the would separate from the (While the (A)/(E) continue via Cranberry and Fulton in Brooklyn). If you're going to have a Culver Express, this to me is the best solution since I believe the as I recall is only 8tph at peak. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brighton Express Posted April 11, 2012 Share #117 Posted April 11, 2012 Isn't the combined total of the ©/ (F)/ currently less than 30 trains per hour (I believe it's 29tph)? If it is, it should be able to work since, and even if it were 31-33 tph, it probably can still work since we are only talking about ONE station (Broadway-Lafayette) where you would have three locals stopping. The main reason I would be looking to send the as the Culver Express to go with the at West 4th is because I know it would be too many trains for the Cranberry tunnel between the (A)/ ©/ to do it there (especially since that would be for a considerably longer distance) as opposed to Broadway-Lafayette as the separates from the after there while the other way the would separate from the (While the (A)/ continue via Cranberry and Fulton in Brooklyn). If you're going to have a Culver Express, this to me is the best solution since I believe the as I recall is only 8tph at peak. True, but what about WTC? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roadcruiser1 Posted April 11, 2012 Share #118 Posted April 11, 2012 True. This aint gettin anyhwere. Every time a good idea comes up, no trains this, too short cars that, no switch here, too many trains in tunnel, too many trains per hour. And WHY THE HELL can't you people understand Express South of Church Avenue is not going to work. This is basically why the West End Express (D)/ got taken away. Tell me this is a joke. ThrexxBus has the #2 post. I have the #6 post. You have the 30th post. If anyone caused the trouble, it would have to be you. Get your facts straight before you post. SKEED. Again you are just mad. Everyone is allowed to their opinions. Get used to it, and no the West End Line is extremely short. That was why there was no ridership there. Just like it didn't work for the and or elsewhere. The distance from Church Avenue to Coney Island is extremely long, and it isn't just several blocks long. It's several miles. Isn't the combined total of the ©/ (F)/ currently less than 30 trains per hour (I believe it's 29tph)? If it is, it should be able to work since, and even if it were 31-33 tph, it probably can still work since we are only talking about ONE station (Broadway-Lafayette) where you would have three locals stopping. The main reason I would be looking to send the as the Culver Express to go with the at West 4th is because I know it would be too many trains for the Cranberry tunnel between the (A)/ ©/ to do it there (especially since that would be for a considerably longer distance) as opposed to Broadway-Lafayette as the separates from the after there while the other way the would separate from the (While the (A)/ continue via Cranberry and Fulton in Brooklyn). If you're going to have a Culver Express, this to me is the best solution since I believe the as I recall is only 8tph at peak. It's also not workable because of other problems. So case dismissed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brighton Express Posted April 11, 2012 Share #119 Posted April 11, 2012 Again you are just mad. Everyone is allowed to their opinions. Get used to it. You are mad because I got you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Threxx Posted April 11, 2012 Share #120 Posted April 11, 2012 No. We are using logic. You and you friend are the ones that were spouting nonsense while we were spouting things that could happen. It was going well until you guys came along. WHOA WHOA WHOA! I never said the ideas weren't logical. I meant that despite the fact that this makes sense, it won't happen. Hell, that's the fuel for this forum, carry on! Oh. I was here before you, so don't say we "came along" and ended sanity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roadcruiser1 Posted April 11, 2012 Share #121 Posted April 11, 2012 WHOA WHOA WHOA! I never said the ideas weren't logical. I meant that despite the fact that this makes sense, it won't happen. Hell, that's the fuel for this forum, carry on! Oh. I was here before you, so don't say we "came along" and ended sanity. Well then I apologize but those ideas were not workable and I was just arguing with what can happen because of the current situations. I am not trying to hurt anyone. I am just telling it the way it is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Threxx Posted April 11, 2012 Share #122 Posted April 11, 2012 Well then I apologize but those ideas were not workable and I was just arguing with what is it like with the current situations. I am not trying to hurt anyone. I am just telling it the way it is. Let's start fresh. That nearly decended into a flame war fueled by FOAM. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grand Concourse Posted April 11, 2012 Share #123 Posted April 11, 2012 Why are you only appeasing them? It is still needed south of Church Avenue just not as frequently. It's like saying that the Flushing Line doesn't need express service Appease who? I don't see there's a need for express service south of Church. It's north of Church that would benefit riders south of Church by bypassing Park Slope to get to Manhattan more quickly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roadcruiser1 Posted April 11, 2012 Share #124 Posted April 11, 2012 Appease who? I don't see there's a need for express service south of Church. It's north of Church that would benefit riders south of Church by bypassing Park Slope to get to Manhattan more quickly. Sorry about earlier, but I am also talking about the residents south of Church Avenue. They deserve it too. Even though it is a third of the ridership around the Park Slope area there are people that wouldn't mind having a faster commute to Manhattan. It is also possible we could get people out of their cars, and there are people that are still asking for direct express services to Coney Island. So an express should run to Coney Island at least. Like I said earlier this is the proposal I would like to see. Sorry if you saw the map already. This is also for other people that haven't seen it yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brighton Express Posted April 11, 2012 Share #125 Posted April 11, 2012 Well we are back to this again now. If you want Express South of Church Av, all I have to say is Ok. No more argument, just Ok. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.