MTA Looking at bringing back (F) Culver Express (NY Post)

[realizm]

Correct me if I'm wrong: It was suggested by the MTA years ago that the two 6th Ave services should be under different letters with the extended to Brooklyn instead of Second Ave as the last stop, just to jog your memory. Then the budget cuts floored that proposal and they decided to utilize the Christie Street Cut. Google it.

Obviously the takes up all the capacity on 6th Avenue. So it remains that: a dead proposal.

Agree on the NO point. Seriously, folks, let that letter go.

 

I'm starting to not agree on this entire thread if it's becoming such a shitfest.

[DJ MC]

Agree on the NO point. Seriously, folks, let that letter go.

 

Some just can't let certain ideas die. They have the need to bring them back even when it's been stated time and time again it will not happen. Then you have an entire thread or part of one talking about it and essentially "beating a dead horse" as some would say around here. 

[realizm]

Some just can't let certain ideas die. They have the need to bring them back even when it's been stated time and time again it will not happen. Then you have an entire thread or part of one talking about it and essentially "beating a dead horse" as some would say around here. 

 

I hope that was not directed at me. I just blatetly said that the idea of reactivating the and extending it to Brooklyn was killed with the budget cuts. That was not my idea, that was on the part of the MTA. See prior post and don't put me under the foamer label. It's pretty obvious that the 6th Ave line cannot handle more than two local services at a given time.

[DJ MC]

I hope that was not directed at me. I just blatetly said that the idea of reactivating the and extending it to Brooklyn was killed with the budget cuts. That was not my idea, that was on the part of the MTA. See prior post and don't put me under the foamer label. It's pretty obvious that the 6th Ave line cannot handle more than two local services at a given time.

 

Know that already and no it wasn't directed at you.

[Grand Concourse]

What the, WHO SAID ANYTHING ABOUT BRINGING THE BACK?????

and makes a lot more sense than reviving the , especially since the is covering the 's old route now.

would it take long to upload a program? As for the V, yeah, I agree, no need to confuse the masses even more by adding another line for a likely rush hour only service.

As for the original V idea to extend it to metropolitan before it turned into an orange M, I don't get why people on the M end of the line made a fuss over the merged line being the V. It's still the same service, but it seemed they only saw it as a severe change in service with the letter change.

[realizm]

Yeah Wallyhorse really confused the crap out of this thread and threw everything off with distorted facts and fantasy proposals that makes no damn sense whatsoever. Now I'm confused with where this is going. That's why this discussion is starting to digress. Sad enough. Now I see why Kamen Rider was saying lock the thread.

[Culver]

Clearly then, my plan (the new one on page 3, not the whatever one I posted at first) is the most workable. *pats self on back*

[bobtehpanda]

The way I see it, the MTA could operate summer express trains to and from Coney Island as well.

 

Although, with the appearance of an bullet, Queens riders are probably going to want an express run east of 71st. (On that note, is there any particular reason why the runs to 179th St switch onto the local tracks east of 71st?)

[Roadcruiser1]

No. All these ideas are stupid. Here is the best one, and it will cut costs.

 

As of now the should have an <>, because that is the best idea out there. It doesn't cause any rerouting, nor does it require bringing back the which won't happen because it would jam the tracks on the Sixth Avenue Line.

 

The best idea in future term would be to build a connection north of 2nd Avenue on the Second Avenue Subway to connect to the tracks so the or any other future service on Second Avenue would be able to use the Rutgers Street Tunnel and run over to Brooklyn. When that is done the could run on the Culver Line and reduce the need for new infrastructure in Brooklyn and in the East River, and be the Culver Express to Coney Island therefore replacing the <>. The would then terminate at Avenue X.

[Wallyhorse]

Back to the back burner with this,

 

http://www.nyctransitforums.com/forums/topic/39995-mta-unlikely-to-restore-f-train-express-service-in-brooklyn/?do=findComment&comment=654303

 

and now we do the dance of 1000 locks

 

:Lock:  :Lock:  :Lock: :Lock: :Lock:  :Lock:

 

 

The idea as they proposed is not the best one to me anyway.  As I would do it (with the becoming the Culver Express, the replacing the to Euclid and a supplemental train at 2-5 TPH to 168th that replaces the between W4 and Chambers) does the following:

 

1. Give Culver riders direct access to Port Authority and Penn Station and the Upper West Side they don't currently have.

 

2. Give riders looking for midtown/Upper West Side via 8th Avenue from the Fulton Line the option of switching from the to the at Jay Street and skipping lower Manhattan altogether.

 

3. Give Lexington, Nassau Line and Broadway-Brooklyn riders new transfer points to the 8th Avenue line (from the at Broadway-Lafayette and from the at Essex-Delancey), and in the case of the , not having to back-track on the / to Fulton from points between BB and Bleecker to get the / as at present.

 

This part doesn't even factor in the Hudson Yards project at all.  As that project opens up and buildings are completed over the next few years, I suspect 8th Avenue line demand will grow considerably as it will be the closest uptown-downtown line to the Yards where you don't have to make a transfer from the to get.

[realizm]

WTF?

[Metro CSW]

WTF?

LMAO!

[realizm]

"Oh gee, lets make the connect to the and make Planet Uranus the last stop.  It can be done we'll dig out SAS phase 4 ourselves with a spoon. That will be soooo kewl! It just makes soooo much sense."

[realizm]

No. All these ideas are stupid. Here is the best one, and it will cut costs.

 

As of now the should have an < >, because that is the best idea out there. It doesn't cause any rerouting, nor does it require bringing back the which won't happen because it would jam the tracks on the Sixth Avenue Line.

 

The best idea in future term would be to build a connection north of 2nd Avenue on the Second Avenue Subway to connect to the tracks so the or any other future service on Second Avenue would be able to use the Rutgers Street Tunnel and run over to Brooklyn. When that is done the could run on the Culver Line and reduce the need for new infrastructure in Brooklyn and in the East River, and be the Culver Express to Coney Island therefore replacing the < >. The would then terminate at Avenue X.

 

Ok all jokes aside and nothing personal, my initial response was a jerk reaction. ("all ideas are stupid.... What was that supposed to mean? Everyone is entitled to their opinion even WallyHorse even as much as I don't exactly agree how 8th Ave service on the has to do with the Culver Viaduct........)

 

Let me break it down for you:

 

There were some past proposals made by independant engineers not affiliated with the MTA in the construction of SAS Phase 4 to connect the end of the line to the Cranberry Street Tunnel to tht IND Fulton Street line where theroetically additional service can be used as the Fulton Street line is underused in terms of total capacity. (Again not my idea, just throwing it out there as you well notice)  I don't see how the Rutger's st connection will even be paid for. On top of that I don't even see how SAS Phase 4 can be paid for with revenue and funding from updtate and/or the federal government. You are proposing something that will take another several decades to even plan for let alone build.

 

On top of that demographic shifts in the neighboorhoods served by the Culver Viaduct can occur, as it did in the past, in such a period of time (several decades) that may not make this proposal even necessary down the line of time in years and decades into the future. Things change and so does people as the saying goes.

 

Point is the MTA is concerned about what's in the now. Not 50 years later when the SAS all in all is completed if even. An local and express if the MTA decides to carry through in the years to come would suffice. I think the to Brooklyn via Rutgers/Culver Viaduct is a tad bit of a major overkill and as something that we will not even see in our lifetimes really, IMHO.

 

Thanks for your input nethertheless. No sarcasm there, it's good for people to think out of the box a bit.

[Art Vandelay]

With the volume of service being sent through the 6th and 8th avenue local tracks, if you switch anything, you functionally have to switch everything. Also, if you send service from 8th to Cranberry to Fulton, it has to be the less busy C or M. A and E or A and F are both too many trains to fit through Cranberry. 

I am pretty sure your plan violates capacity constraints elsewhere too, but I do not feel like attempting to fully comprehend it enough to dissect it when it is already not possible. 

[Snowblock]

The way I see it, the MTA could operate summer express trains to and from Coney Island as well.

 

Although, with the appearance of an bullet, Queens riders are probably going to want an express run east of 71st. (On that note, is there any particular reason why the runs to 179th St switch onto the local tracks east of 71st?)

 

Nobody expects an express run in Manhattan on the so this shouldn't be any different. The can be easily added to the 160's .... the 46 rollsign may be more of an issue, but that's what the Luminator signs are for (just like the 62's don't even use the rollsign anymore). As for the , it runs local after 71 Ave in order to replicate service. If it runs express after Kew Gardens it CAN'T get back to the local track.

 

If the isn't going to get two separate letters for its two different services, don't expect any different with the !

 

As for anything with the ..... keep dreaming, because a dream is all you're gonna see with the anytime in the foreseeable future!

 

And Wally, not that you ever listen to any of us (or REASON), but I have two words for you: CROSS PLATFORM TRANSFER AT JAY ST.

[realizm]

No. All these ideas are stupid. Here is the best one, and it will cut costs.

 

As of now the should have an < >, because that is the best idea out there. It doesn't cause any rerouting, nor does it require bringing back the which won't happen because it would jam the tracks on the Sixth Avenue Line.

 

The best idea in future term would be to build a connection north of 2nd Avenue on the Second Avenue Subway to connect to the tracks so the or any other future service on Second Avenue would be able to use the Rutgers Street Tunnel and run over to Brooklyn. When that is done the could run on the Culver Line and reduce the need for new infrastructure in Brooklyn and in the East River, and be the Culver Express to Coney Island therefore replacing the < >. The would then terminate at Avenue X.

 

 

Ok all jokes aside and nothing personal, my initial response was a jerk reaction. ("all ideas are stupid.... What was that supposed to mean? Everyone is entitled to their opinion even WallyHorse even as much as I don't exactly agree how 8th Ave service on the has to do with the Culver Viaduct........)

 

Let me break it down for you:

 

There were some past proposals made by independant engineers not affiliated with the MTA in the construction of SAS Phase 4 to connect the end of the line to the Cranberry Street Tunnel to tht IND Fulton Street line where theroetically additional service can be used as the Fulton Street line is underused in terms of total capacity. (Again not my idea, just throwing it out there as you well notice)  I don't see how the Rutger's st connection will even be paid for. On top of that I don't even see how SAS Phase 4 can be paid for with revenue and funding from updtate and/or the federal government. You are proposing something that will take another several decades to even plan for let alone build.

 

On top of that demographic shifts in the neighboorhoods served by the Culver Viaduct can occur, as it did in the past, in such a period of time (several decades) that may not make this proposal even necessary down the line of time in years and decades into the future. Things change and so does people as the saying goes.

 

Point is the MTA is concerned about what's in the now. Not 50 years later when the SAS all in all is completed if even. An local and express if the MTA decides to carry through in the years to come would suffice. I think the to Brooklyn via Rutgers/Culver Viaduct is a tad bit of a major overkill and as something that we will not even see in our lifetimes really, IMHO.

 

Thanks for your input nethertheless. No sarcasm there, it's good for people to think out of the box a bit.

 

I forgot to mention this. Some years ago an independant artitect firm performed a study for the MTA concerning the feasibility of utilizing the Nassau St line as an alternative to building SAS Phase 4 which would be a financial and engineering nightmare otherwise. Trains will go via the Montauge Street tunnel to the BMT 4th Ave line and the Brighton line.

 

Either way the Rutger's St tunnel option probably would'nt happen.

[itmaybeokay]

12/6 can work. Any less local service and it makes no sense. Again, as has been stated in the other thread, it requires the old E/F balance to return.

Just out of curiosity, what's the current E/F balance?

[T to Dyre Avenue]

It's 15/15. It's been like that since December 2001.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

It's 15/15. It's been like that since December 2001.

Since 2001!?!?!??!?!??? Seriously???? It's 2013 for Christ's sake!!  They can't be serious with keeping the same balance on both lines... When will they be able to squeeze in more trains?? I mean I'm no train expert, but if the balance has remained the same for over 11 years it's no wonder why both lines are crush loaded....

[T to Dyre Avenue]

Agree on the NO point. Seriously, folks, let that letter go.

What's wrong with reusing the letter for the Culver Express service? Would it really be more confusing than using < F >? This would not be a revival and extension of the service that got merged with the M in June 2010. Other than running on the 6th Ave local tracks, this train would be different from the old service. It would run on the same tracks as the until Jay St, where it would run express to Church, then local to Stillwell (with the running local to/from Church). I wouldn't call that a revival of the old train that got cut in June 2010.

[itmaybeokay]

What's wrong with reusing the letter for the Culver Express service? Would it really be more confusing than using < F >? This would not be a revival and extension of the service that got merged with the M in June 2010. Other than running on the 6th Ave local tracks, this train would be different from the old service. It would run on the same tracks as the until Jay St, where it would run express to Church, then local to Stillwell (with the running local to/from Church). I wouldn't call that a revival of the old train that got cut in June 2010.

 

Yes, it would be confusing since the not to long ago, last ran with a completely different service pattern. 

 

Also as posted earlier in this thread, the current policy is express service along the same route is designated with a Diamond bullet. 

[Eric B]

As I had said earlier, the current policy is to label such services with a diamond version of the regular route. They had considered new route designations in the past with the "#8-14" bullets on the R62's, but have moved away from that. I too think that's a waste of a character. The as a separate line would have been the CTL local via 53rd St. service (truly a different route), but that has been made the now.

 

I guess if they had just done the cutback to Chambers without the merger, that would have freed up the additional cars needed, as well as the track capacity.

[itmaybeokay]

Since 2001!?!?!??!?!??? Seriously???? It's 2013 for Christ's sake!!  They can't be serious with keeping the same balance on both lines... When will they be able to squeeze in more trains?? I mean I'm no train expert, but if the balance has remained the same for over 11 years it's no wonder why both lines are crush loaded....

 

18/12 versus 15/15 is the same 30 express TPH along queens blvd. 

 

Rebalancing them would not solve loading issues existing along both lines.

[T to Dyre Avenue]

Since 2001!?!?!??!?!??? Seriously???? It's 2013 for Christ's sake!!  They can't be serious with keeping the same balance on both lines... When will they be able to squeeze in more trains?? I mean I'm no train expert, but if the balance has remained the same for over 11 years it's no wonder why both lines are crush loaded....

 

18/12 versus 15/15 is the same 30 express TPH along queens blvd. 

 

Rebalancing them would not solve loading issues existing along both lines.

Yes, seriously. It's 2013, Queens' population has grown considerably over the last 40 years, yet the borough has basically the same rail infrastructure it had in 1973. And the subways have basically the same track and signal systems it had in 1973. A much more modern signal system might allow more than 30 trains per hour to run on the QB express tracks, but until Albany or the Feds show the MTA the money, 30 tph is what we're stuck with. They have to work within that limit. Before Dec 2001, it was 12 and 18 trains. They could go back to that split and they could then split those 18 F's into 12 locals and six expresses. It's still 30 tph on the QB express tracks. Running more than 18 F's is not an option right now because it would significantly impact the E.