News Coalition urging MTA to restore “express” F train service

[46Dover]

I remember there was a post about the Brooklyn express. It got like 130 replies before being locked lol

[T to Dyre Avenue]

And we'll just pretend to not see the shitstorm that Park Slope riders will throw once they realize that they'll lose a one seat ride to Midtown

But maybe that's the whole point. They need to see that the existing system just can't accommodate this express service. It needs to be pointed out to people who are advocating for the express exactly what will happen if they get their wish. They get it and in return:

 

A. They get reduced service and longer waits at the local stops between Church and Jay with a near 50-50 split.

 

B. They get all service going express between Church and Jay and passengers would have to transfer from the to the at 7th Ave (I'm sure that will go really well with the Carroll Gardens folks). They could reopen Bergen St lower level, but that will take significant time, effort and money. Also, Bergen becomes another stop the express has to make, reducing the express's time savings.

 

C. They get a limited express service at just 6 tph. A 4-6 minute wait for an uncrowded train south of Church just increased to a 10-minute wait for a more crowded train that could lose the time it saved on the express if it has to wait for an local train that just left Bergen St. The  would also have to deal with merging with the at Broadway-Lafayette. Sorry, but the is not returning to the Nassau St Line.

 

D. They get a train running express between Church and Jay, also running at only 6 tph. Also suffers the same train-frequency and merging issues as in Choice C, but also has to deal with merging at West 4th with the . Also, you now have the issue of the replacing the , crowding the Cranberry St Tunnel and over-serving the low-ridership Fulton St local stops in eastern Brooklyn. And also the issue of having to transfer for 6th Ave service at Church or 7th Ave after having direct 6th Ave service for six decades and counting.

 

E. They get an train running local to/from Church. Or express to/from Coney Island, allowing the to turn at Church. Either way, they're looking at the same merging issues in Choices C and D, only worse because the runs much more frequently than the or a potential . They could run just half the trains to Brooklyn, but then they have to cut service at Spring, Canal and WTC. Think that'll go well with SoHo/TriBeCa riders? No? Neither did I.

 

All that for a train that's only going to skip a few stops? Show this to people advocating for an express and I think you'll see just how quickly they sour on this idea. I know I have...

[Quill Depot]

Or you could split 's 50-50, with half going local and turning around at church, and the other half express and running to Coney. 2nd Av needs switches to the terminal platforms for trains going uptown, so a new line can run between Church and 2nd Ave, local.

[T to Dyre Avenue]

Or you could split 's 50-50, with half going local and turning around at church, and the other half express and running to Coney. 2nd Av needs switches to the terminal platforms for trains going uptown, so a new line can run between Church and 2nd Ave, local.

 

 

But maybe that's the whole point. They need to see that the existing system just can't accommodate this express service. It needs to be pointed out to people who are advocating for the express exactly what will happen if they get their wish. They get it and in return:

 

A. They get reduced service and longer waits at the local stops between Church and Jay with a near 50-50 split.

A 50-50 split would have the same result, only there would also be longer waits south of Church with locals turning back there. Any way you slice it, someone's going to lose service even if they get an express. Is it really worth it?

 

And it's impossible to build new switches to allow trains coming from Brooklyn to turn back at 2nd Ave because the outside tracks at 2nd Ave drop down below the center tracks and turn south almost immediately out of the station. And who really would use a train coming from Brooklyn that only goes to 2nd Ave? Most riders in Brooklyn would let it pass and just wait for a train that's going further into Manhattan.

[ConcourseExp]

people can just take the  at the stops

[Eric B]

Either way, they're looking at the same merging issues in Choices C and D, only worse because the runs much more frequently than the or a potential . They could run just half the trains to Brooklyn, but then they have to cut service at Spring, Canal and WTC. Think that'll go well with SoHo/TriBeCa riders? No? Neither did I.

You wouldnt switch them at W4th, you would switch them at Jay St. 

[T to Dyre Avenue]

But then the half of the trains would have to switch from the local to the express tracks at Canal (along with the ), then share those same tracks with all of the and trains as far as Jay. Then they'd have to switch over to the tracks before entering Jay southbound (or leaving Jay northbound). Then they'd have to switch off of the depending on which service goes local or express. Can the tracks from Jay to Canal handle the extra 's in addition to their current service?

 

And would Culver el riders be willing to trade up a 4-6 minute wait for a local train in favor of an express train running every 7-8 minutes? Would Park Slope/Carroll Gardens riders be willing to put up with 7-9-minute waits for a local even if it's empty because it started its run at Church Ave? Would you even call these trains , or would they get a different letter like or , to minimize confusion with the 's that would still turn at WTC?

[BronxBombers]

I don't think there is any reasonable solution for a Culver Express. The only option is to make the serve the local stops and make the run express. All the other options people are mentioning will just create a mess.

[T to Dyre Avenue]

people can just take the  at the stops

Oh sure. See the bold text below about why that won't go over so well.

 

But maybe that's the whole point. They need to see that the existing system just can't accommodate this express service. It needs to be pointed out to people who are advocating for the express exactly what will happen if they get their wish. They get it and in return:

 

B. They get all service going express between Church and Jay and passengers would have to transfer from the to the at 7th Ave (I'm sure that will go really well with the Carroll Gardens folks). They could reopen Bergen St lower level, but that will take significant time, effort and money. Also, Bergen becomes another stop the express has to make, reducing the express's time savings.

 

The as the only local between Church Ave and Bergen St will not work for three reasons:

1. It doesn't run as frequently as the .

2. trains are only four cars long.

3 (and most importantly). It doesn't go to Manhattan!

 

I don't think there is any reasonable solution for a Culver Express. The only option is to make the serve the local stops and make the run express. All the other options people are mentioning will just create a mess.

Which is a non-starter. There may very well just not be a reasonable way to run a Culver Express, and I really think Brooklyn pols and community leaders/activists should maybe look at other options for increasing and/or improving train service on other Brooklyn lines.

[R32 3838]

I think the only way this could work is this

 

Rush hours only:

to kings hwy would make all stops

New express service to Coney Island would operate express peak direction between church ave and kings hwy and both directions between jay st and Church ave

 

Or just call the local (F)'s the to ease confusion, the same amount of trains that are used for the current now would be used for this new service, the would be rush hours only while the would only go express rush hours only

 

Basically like the and just one makes all stops while one goes express, the would be unaffected

 

The local service would run every 5-8 minutes same goes for the exp, since the current runs about every 2-4 minutes during the rush and uses the most amount of trainsets (50 trains I think are required for the )

[Eric B]

But then the half of the trains would have to switch from the local to the express tracks at Canal (along with the ), then share those same tracks with all of the and trains as far as Jay. Then they'd have to switch over to the tracks before entering Jay southbound (or leaving Jay northbound). Then they'd have to switch off of the depending on which service goes local or express. Can the tracks from Jay to Canal handle the extra 's in addition to their current service?

 

And would Culver el riders be willing to trade up a 4-6 minute wait for a local train in favor of an express train running every 7-8 minutes? Would Park Slope/Carroll Gardens riders be willing to put up with 7-9-minute waits for a local even if it's empty because it started its run at Church Ave? Would you even call these trains , or would they get a different letter like or , to minimize confusion with the 's that would still turn at WTC?

I don't know, but in actual practice, there always seems to be bigger gaps in the service (the Lefferts and Far Rock trains will come one right behind the other, and there's a lot of space behind them), and it always looks to me like there is room for more service.

 

In any case, wouldn't a benefit be the easing of congestion in the two pocket WTC terminal?

[RollOver]

Because of its long, winded route, that is. The two South Channel Bridges are also prone to problems as well at times. Plus, with constant flagging with track/signal maintainers in the peninsula branch. Yes, I've seen it as I've been talking the almost everyday as well.

 

The is not crowded anywhere along its route, like almost every other line in the system, during the middle of the day and later in the evening. It should get its headway lowered from 9 tph to 6 tph (between 10 am and 4 pm). Leave the headways at 10 minutes (west of Rockaway Blvd) and 20 minutes (east of Rockaway Blvd) during middays, evenings and weekends due to the constant flagging like pretty much every other elevated structures in the subway system in board daylight.

[ttcsubwayfan]

The is not crowded anywhere along its route, like almost every other line in the system, during the middle of the day and later in the evening. It should get its headway lowered from 9 tph to 6 tph (between 10 am and 4 pm).

 

As someone who has ridden jam packed trains at 2 PM and 8:30 PM, I beg to differ.

[T to Dyre Avenue]

I don't know, but in actual practice, there always seems to be bigger gaps in the service (the Lefferts and Far Rock trains will come one right behind the other, and there's a lot of space behind them), and it always looks to me like there is room for more service.

 

In any case, wouldn't a benefit be the easing of congestion in the two pocket WTC terminal?

I would think so. I mean, trains have to wait to get in and out of WTC all the time. I've noticed the same thing about the all the time as well, so when I see 15-18 tph on these message boards, I sometimes have to wonder, "Really? Not from what I see."

 

But would Brooklyn  riders really want a direct 8th Ave service? As an express? Maybe the MTA or someone working on their behalf ought to poll them.

[bstar1]

Because of its long, winded route, that is. The two South Channel Bridges are also prone to problems as well at times. Plus, with constant flagging with track/signal maintainers in the peninsula branch. Yes, I've seen it as I've been talking the almost everyday as well.

 

The is not crowded anywhere along its route, like almost every other line in the system, during the middle of the day and later in the evening. It should get its headway lowered from 9 tph to 6 tph (between 10 am and 4 pm). Leave the headways at 10 minutes (west of Rockaway Blvd) and 20 minutes (east of Rockaway Blvd) during middays, evenings and weekends due to the constant flagging like pretty much every other elevated structures in the subway system in board daylight.

A usually are jam packed AM & PM Rush hours and overnight hours.

[RollOver]

As someone who has ridden jam packed trains at 2 PM and 8:30 PM, I beg to differ.

 

Obviously, either it was an additional 5-10 minutes late or so, or perhaps you were at one of the crowded end cars. 59th, 42nd, 34th, 14th and Canal are the only ones that have that issue. Been through that too. Doesn't necessarily mean more service is warranted.

 

A usually are jam packed AM & PM Rush hours and overnight hours.

 

I know that. I'm talking about middays & evenings.

[RollOver]

I don't know, but in actual practice, there always seems to be bigger gaps in the service (the Lefferts and Far Rock trains will come one right behind the other, and there's a lot of space behind them), and it always looks to me like there is room for more service.

 

In any case, wouldn't a benefit be the easing of congestion in the two pocket WTC terminal?

 

I would think so. I mean, trains have to wait to get in and out of WTC all the time. I've noticed the same thing about the all the time as well, so when I see 15-18 tph on these message boards, I sometimes have to wonder, "Really? Not from what I see."

 

But would Brooklyn  riders really want a direct 8th Ave service? As an express? Maybe the MTA or someone working on their behalf ought to poll them.

 

As we know, flagging with track/signal maintainers NEVER happen during the rush, when trains are more or close to being on time based on their printed schedules of course. During the off-peak, especially on the elevated structures, however is when the subway system is constantly plagued by flagging with track/signal maintainers.

 

This is where adding more trains=more congestion. A full shutdown, however, is much cheaper, faster and safer than under traffic.

 

Going by that logic, what do all of you guys here prefer? Keeping them crowded or seated loaded with some standees? Or running more service which potentially leads to loads being well below and wasting money? This never-ending business about wanting the Brooklyn express really needs to die. The Bronx express has died shortly after it proved to be a huge unpopular failure. Is it really worth bypassing 5 simple stops between Bergen and Church just so people can save a minute or two? Similar to the Broadway Line? I don't think so. You guys seriously have to get over this already. It's not even a big deal. The is a public city train route, not a race car.

[ttcsubwayfan]

Obviously, either it was an additional 5-10 minutes late or so, or perhaps you were at one of the crowded end cars. 59th, 42nd, 34th, 14th and Canal are the only ones that have that issue. Been through that too. Doesn't necessarily mean more service is warranted.

 

Happened way too often to be a coincidence, I'll say as much.

 

The 2 PM was from Broad Channel going northbound. By that time all the seats had been taken and we only took on more load as the train snaked through Brooklyn. By Borough Hall it was packed.

 

I'm not saying that more service is necessarily required, but you're kidding yourself when you say that is not crowded off peak.

[RollOver]

I'm not "kidding" myself. Obviously, the is "more crowded" than it used to. As long as everyone is able to fit and nobody was left behind on each station, then more service won't be required. Many of the Rockaway, Broad Channel, Howard Beach, Ozone Park and ENY residents should be at work in the CBDs during that time anyway. The train that you were on was obviously running an additional 10 minutes late or so. So yeah, overcrowding can happen unusually resembling the morning rush.

[realizm]

In agreement. The A is usually with exceptions, not crowded unless its rush hours where it will be jampacked practically nowhere to sit by Jay Street. Otherwise off peak trains gain good usage but not crushloaded. Even though once it hits Manhattan it can become crowded on trains off peak, weekdays (after school rush). Weekends, it can be busy too, not surprisingly as weekend ridership is skyrocketing.

[CenSin]

Going by that logic, what do all of you guys here prefer? Keeping them crowded or seated loaded with some standees? Or running more service which potentially leads to loads being well below and wasting money? This never-ending business about wanting the Brooklyn express really needs to die. The Bronx express has died shortly after it proved to be a huge unpopular failure. Is it really worth bypassing 5 simple stops between Bergen and Church just so people can save a minute or two? Similar to the Broadway Line? I don't think so.

When you choose between frequent local service and infrequent express service, you're going to have to consider that:

1. A frequent local service gives you a much higher chance (but does not guarantee) that you will catch a train by the time you reach the platform. If there isn't a train, you can bet your wait will be short.
2. A frequent local service, however, guarantees that you will spend x amount of time or more stopping at local stations. You will never get to your destination earlier than x minutes.
3. An infrequent express service gives you a lower chance of catching a train upon reaching the platform. You will spend an average of h/2 minutes (where h is the headway) waiting for an express train.
4. An infrequent express service will often be faster, shaving a minute or two for each station skipped. If the average waiting time is greater than the time savings, then it is not worth waiting for an express.

You guys seriously have to get over this already. It's not even a big deal. The is a public city train route, not a race car.

People put have different priorities. I, for one, think that every minute saved adds to the value of a service. For those who are tardy, it's a godsend. For those who aren't, it could mean an extra few minutes to fix make-up or to chow down on breakfast.

[ttcsubwayfan]

I'm not "kidding" myself. Obviously, the is "more crowded" than it used to. As long as everyone is able to fit and nobody was left behind on each station, then more service won't be required. Many of the Rockaway, Broad Channel, Howard Beach, Ozone Park and ENY residents should be at work in the CBDs during that time anyway. The train that you were on was obviously running an additional 10 minutes late or so. So yeah, overcrowding can happen unusually resembling the morning rush.

 

Arrived shortly after the shuttle did, which, according to the schedules provided at each stop on Google Maps, it's supposed to.

 

Again, I'm not saying more service is necessarily the answer, but that your statement "The is not crowded anywhere along its route, like almost every other line in the system, during the middle of the day and later in the evening." is not true. Just saying.

[RollOver]

@Eric B

 

Please allow me to clarify my response a little more to your post.

 

Obviously, there are long gaps after two trains come back to back and then an 8 minute wait without service. It happens on virtually every line. You can throw 9 extra roundtrips onto the route on top of the current 9 round trips and the amount of ridership would remain fairly low. All trains and buses run based on schedule, and are not just thrown at random out of the blue. That is, unless the aforementioned plagues get in the way of course. Then, there's the fact that service becomes irregular and why people keep saying ___ is full to the brim and so on. And also, the fact of why people propose X to go to Y.

 

More trains? Great. Empty trains and many seats/space available? Not so great. You can throw in as many, many more trains as you want and then there will be congestion further up the line. You want extra trains people? There are extra trains located in Manhattan and Brooklyn for ya - they're called the , which is basically apart of/the shorten version of the . Who says that those trains mention can't handle the extra load? Unless they're going further out north of 168th or east of Euclid, that is. Only then should adding more trains for that purpose be considered....

 

Part of the reason why we won't see a Culver Express anytime soon is all the reasons confirmed by us members of this site and the . Part of the reason why we won't see increases in service on most lines in the system is either because of the length of its route and sharing with other lines, and most importantly, the amount of ridership. What more could we all ask for?

[RollOver]

@CenSin

 

Hey, you can treat any train/buses routes as race cars all you want. That's you. So I guess 5 stops is too much for you to handle then that is. Meanwhile, screwing up riders at those 5 local stops just so you can shave an itsy bitsy 1-2 minutes off your commute.

[TheKorean]

Isnt F train expresss line ionly a single track? Between the local tracks?