Jump to content

Officials to restore express F train service to Coney Island


GojiMet86

Recommended Posts

The (K) in this is STRICTLY a supplemental line for those as noted too lazy at Chambers-WTC to walk to the (A) platform for trains there (especially if going to Penn Station or Port Authority, where going uptown the main exit is the rear of the station) and for people on CPW who actually need stations south of West 4th and don't want to have to switch trains. That's why I only have it at 2-4 TPH, it's purpose is to supplement the (C) and handle what the (C) currently does between West 4 and Chambers.

 

The idea of making the (C) the Culver Express is that it:

 

Gives riders at Coney Island a one-seat 8th Avenue option they currently don't have (they would still have a 6th Avenue option with the (D) )

 

Gives riders in Park Slope BOTH additional service AND (at express stations) a one-seat 8th Avenue option to Midtown, Penn Station and Port Authority (this will become more important when the Hudson Yards project opens).

 

Gives riders on the Fulton branch (and especially at Jay Street) the option of switching to the (C) at Jay if they are looking for 8th Avenue Midtown as such would skip what some still call The Financial District as the (F) does. Also gives riders at Jay Street-Metrotech additional service to Manhattan since the (E) would become the Fulton local at all times.

 

Gives riders on 8th Avenue the option of switching at Broadway-Lafayette to the (6) (and (4) overnights).

 

The only difference would be riders on the Culver if they are looking for 6th Avenue midtown would have a two-seat ride, but those riders can make a same platform transfer at Broadway-Lafayette to the (B)(D)(F) or (M).

^^^ Case in point lol

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Replies 107
  • Created
  • Last Reply

The (K) in this is STRICTLY a supplemental line for those as noted too lazy at Chambers-WTC to walk to the (A) platform for trains there (especially if going to Penn Station or Port Authority, where going uptown the main exit is the rear of the station) and for people on CPW who actually need stations south of West 4th and don't want to have to switch trains.  That's why I only have it at 2-4 TPH, it's purpose is to supplement the (C) and handle what the (C) currently does between West 4 and Chambers.  

 

The idea of making the (C) the Culver Express is that it:

 

Gives riders at Coney Island a one-seat 8th Avenue option they currently don't have (they would still have a 6th Avenue option with the (D) )

 

Gives riders in Park Slope BOTH additional service AND (at express stations) a one-seat 8th Avenue option to Midtown, Penn Station and Port Authority (this will become more important when the Hudson Yards project opens).

 

Gives riders on the Fulton branch (and especially at Jay Street) the option of switching to the (C) at Jay if they are looking for 8th Avenue Midtown as such would skip what some still call The Financial District as the (F) does.   Also gives riders at Jay Street-Metrotech additional service to Manhattan since the (E) would become the Fulton local at all times. 

 

Gives riders on 8th Avenue the option of switching at Broadway-Lafayette to the (6) (and (4) overnights).

 

The only difference would be riders on the Culver if they are looking for 6th Avenue midtown would have a two-seat ride, but those riders can make a same platform transfer at Broadway-Lafayette to the (B)(D)(F) or (M)

Wally,I like your (C) idea.I was just looking at other alternatives because Im just skeptical of the (E) extension working.I think it might be too long...

^^^ Case in point lol

I actually like his 8th Avenue idea.It needs some fixes ( (E) on Fulton!?) but its a good start.

 

This whole thing is a waste that I hope never happens but its still fun come up with a foamer plan for it...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I fixed this for you.

 

Seriously, the hard-on some people have for a Culver Express is mind-boggling, when there is no good way to do it and there isn't any demonstrable need for one other than to get some foamers off.

How about no? I'm sorry, but even though clicking the Strikethrough button is fun, it adds nothing to the conversation. If you want to do so, then please have legitimate suggestions. You're acting as if my plan would actually get considered, and you making that post would do something about it. Grow up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How about no? I'm sorry, but even though clicking the Strikethrough button is fun, it adds nothing to the conversation. If you want to do so, then please have legitimate suggestions. You're acting as if my plan would actually get considered, and you making that post would do something about it. Grow up.

 

Why does anything have to be done about the Culver Express? Just because the tracks exist for it doesn't mean we should run service for it. Your plan screws over the 53rd St/8 Av crowd, which is pretty significant due to all the Penn-Midtown commuting. You screw over Ridgewood residents by taking away the (M) from them (and if you run three services together, which is essentially what this is, you screw over everyone with delays the way the Broadway Line does today at the 60th St tunnel.). And for what? An express that saves a few minutes and skips more than half the riders at express stops, just to see another letter or diamond on the map? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why does anything have to be done about the Culver Express? Just because the tracks exist for it doesn't mean we should run service for it. Your plan screws over the 53rd St/8 Av crowd, which is pretty significant due to all the Penn-Midtown commuting. You screw over Ridgewood residents by taking away the (M) from them (and if you run three services together, which is essentially what this is, you screw over everyone with delays the way the Broadway Line does today at the 60th St tunnel.). And for what? An express that saves a few minutes and skips more than half the riders at express stops, just to see another letter or diamond on the map? 

That's why as I would do it (with the (C)(F) and (M) all stopping on the local track at Broadway-Lafayette) if necessary I would have 1-2 (F) trains per hour during peak periods only run via the Crosstown that actually would help supplement the (G) along that also would remove a little rider pressure from the (E) and (7) as you have people who live in Queens but work in Brooklyn and vice versa that if they know when such Crosstown (F) trains are running they would use those.  That I think is a fair compromise if it means increased service on the Culver Line via a (C) express and (F) and (G) locals. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't see an express working on the culver line without it messing service up. None of the Queens Blvd routes can serve that portion. The MTA isn't moving the (E) and the (M) isn't going anywhere because that would leave Metropolitan unserved.

I would say that the (G) could possibly be the express but at the same time it will not happen for two reasons. One it only uses four train cars and two it doesn't even touch Manhattan which is what many riders are seeking.

I can't think of a way the culver can have an express service and the (F) is already at its capacity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why does anything have to be done about the Culver Express? Just because the tracks exist for it doesn't mean we should run service for it. Your plan screws over the 53rd St/8 Av crowd, which is pretty significant due to all the Penn-Midtown commuting. You screw over Ridgewood residents by taking away the (M) from them (and if you run three services together, which is essentially what this is, you screw over everyone with delays the way the Broadway Line does today at the 60th St tunnel.). And for what? An express that saves a few minutes and skips more than half the riders at express stops, just to see another letter or diamond on the map?

 

....So? It's a proposal by someone who works nowhere near transit, on a public forum. It's not an actual (MTA) or municipal government proposal. Please stop being offended by it for no reason.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Damn this topic has been discussed to death on these forums hasn't it here's what I think they should do when the R211s arrive

-Have the (E) run to Euclid via Fulton Local (if Jamaica yard has enough trains)

 

-Have the (C) run via the (F) from West 4 st to Jay st metro tech then culver express to Kings highway (with the (F) and (G) running local of course). IMO that's what should happen it's just a suggestion please don't take it to seriously.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Damn this topic has been discussed to death on these forums hasn't it here's what I think they should do when the R211s arrive

-Have the (E) run to Euclid via Fulton Local (if Jamaica yard has enough trains)

 

-Have the (C) run via the (F) from West 4 st to Jay st metro tech then culver express to Kings highway (with the (F) and (G) running local of course). IMO that's what should happen it's just a suggestion please don't take it to seriously.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Damn this topic has been discussed to death on these forums hasn't it here's what I think they should do when the R211s arrive

-Have the (E) run to Euclid via Fulton Local (if Jamaica yard has enough trains)

 

-Have the (C) run via the (F) from West 4 st to Jay st metro tech then culver express to Kings highway (with the (F) and (G) running local of course). IMO that's what should happen it's just a suggestion please don't take it to seriously.

Now you're creating a bottleneck at W 4 St, slashing service between W 4 & Jay St on the (A) (it would be the only one serving there now, (E) don't really counnt), and how would it run express in both directions south of Church with only 3 tracks?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To sum up a few things:

The F has to stay local in brooklyn. They tried making the F exclusively express and G local decades ago and riders were pissed at that idea and for the most part that was why the express service was killed off. Bergen lower level needs major work to be used for service again. There is an entrance to the lower level platform behind the big metal doors. Of course don't go past them or you will be trespassing. Just look for them on the current platform, you can't miss them unless they have been covered behind something.

 

M is probably never going to be changed back to what it used to be. So forget about terminating the M back to chambers or somewhere in south brooklyn again. If they revive the culver express, it has to be a split of F service.

 

As for the V designation, i would guess they could use that instead of the <F>. As said, take away the extra E trains to 179th and re designate them as the V, but have them run thru 53rd. 53rd won't be able to handle more than that, so any other V trains would have to run with the F via 63rd. culver express is needed for rush hours only, so basically riders south of church wanting to skip he park slope stops can take the V, park slope riders can have emptier local trains. As said, the express isn't going to save much time, but the idea is to carry more people, so it should be looked into to expand capacity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yay, this again. As if this topic hasn't been driven to the ground and stomped on enough. Once again, the proponents of the F express always miss the important details. Unless the F is split between locals and expresses, similar to the 6 and 7, there needs to be a local and express route that runs into Manhattan. Running the F express and the G local along the Crosstown Culver line is a non-starter, despite statements to the contrary. We tried this in the '70s and it ended poorly and was one of the few service cuts not enacted due to the budget situation. Compile that with the fact that the lower level of Bergen St is unlikely to see service again any time soon, that means 7 Av and Church Av are the only express/local transfer points. A non-Manhattan train as the local will never fly.

 

With that out of the way, let's move onto the other problem, besides the fact that the Crosstown Culver stations are among the busiest of the F-line stations in Brooklyn, which is where that secondary Manhattan-local service will come from. Splitting up the F will result in reduced service at the local stops, which will not be tolerated, so that's out. The only real option is to bring an existing service over to the Culver line as a local while the Coney Island-express remains as is. I see that once again, the C and E are thrown about as viable options. Moving one of those lines disrupts service at the World Trade Center and/or along the Fulton St line. A C option almost forces the E to run to Brooklyn, which is something that's to be avoided given the current frequency of the E. Taking the E away from the World Trade Center (because the line would have to run down Rutgers due to spacial constraints) would reduce service to a rapidly growing area. None of that takes into consideration that the C/E would have to run with the F and M along Houston St. We all know how much Broadway sucks because of the merging problems. Why are we trying to bring that over to 6th Avenue?

 

All in all, this comes up every so often and the answer remains the same: it can't happen with the way the lines are currently set up. And by the way, the M/V reversal is not going to happen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's why they should just split F alternate exp and loc. Rush hours only usually run pretty rapid back to back.

Can't happen because even that will mean waiting roughly about 12 minutes at the local stations. The (F) currently runs between 4-7 minutes during rush hours and it can't get any better because it shares tracks with the (E) and (M). The (G) is out due to the length of trains frequency and it doesn't touch Manhattan at all which will require you to transfer to the (F). The only way express would work is if you had the old (V) returned and ran express but that's not going to happen because the (M) is doing so well. It's more frequent than the (R) and (V) was. So express on Culver is still something that can't happen.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yay, this again. As if this topic hasn't been driven to the ground and stomped on enough. Once again, the proponents of the F express always miss the important details. Unless the F is split between locals and expresses, similar to the 6 and 7, there needs to be a local and express route that runs into Manhattan. Running the F express and the G local along the Crosstown Culver line is a non-starter, despite statements to the contrary. We tried this in the '70s and it ended poorly and was one of the few service cuts not enacted due to the budget situation. Compile that with the fact that the lower level of Bergen St is unlikely to see service again any time soon, that means 7 Av and Church Av are the only express/local transfer points. A non-Manhattan train as the local will never fly.

 

With that out of the way, let's move onto the other problem, besides the fact that the Crosstown Culver stations are among the busiest of the F-line stations in Brooklyn, which is where that secondary Manhattan-local service will come from. Splitting up the F will result in reduced service at the local stops, which will not be tolerated, so that's out. The only real option is to bring an existing service over to the Culver line as a local while the Coney Island-express remains as is. I see that once again, the C and E are thrown about as viable options. Moving one of those lines disrupts service at the World Trade Center and/or along the Fulton St line. A C option almost forces the E to run to Brooklyn, which is something that's to be avoided given the current frequency of the E. Taking the E away from the World Trade Center (because the line would have to run down Rutgers due to spacial constraints) would reduce service to a rapidly growing area. None of that takes into consideration that the C/E would have to run with the F and M along Houston St. We all know how much Broadway sucks because of the merging problems. Why are we trying to bring that over to 6th Avenue?

 

All in all, this comes up every so often and the answer remains the same: it can't happen with the way the lines are currently set up. And by the way, the M/V reversal is not going to happen.

I'm not sure about the other people but I at least do not like this idea of a Culver Express at all.I'm just approaching this as a what if scenario.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm really starting to think that if they really want an express train to Coney Island, then perhaps it should run via one of the other lines that serves Stillwell Ave. Maybe a new (V) train that runs express along 6th Ave, 4th Ave and the Sea Beach Line. It may sound stupid to run a second service on the not-very-busy Sea Beach Line, but the point is to run a faster train that gets people to the beach, aquarium, park rides and Cyclones games. The (N) would continue to provide the service for the regular SB riders. Maybe rebuild 8th Ave and Bay Pkwy (the busiest SB line stops) so that trains running on the middle track can stop at those stations, making the (V) more attractive than the short-lived NX train that ran non-stop between 59th St and Stillwell. Also, unlike the 1967-68 NX train, this (V) should run outside of rush hours and should terminate at Stillwell (not continue past Stillwell to Brighton Beach like the NX did).

 

Because unlike on the (F) line, there is spare capacity on the Sea Beach line and the 6th Ave express tracks. Maybe city and MTA officials can take that into consideration.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yay, this again. As if this topic hasn't been driven to the ground and stomped on enough. Once again, the proponents of the F express always miss the important details. Unless the F is split between locals and expresses, similar to the 6 and 7, there needs to be a local and express route that runs into Manhattan. Running the F express and the G local along the Crosstown Culver line is a non-starter, despite statements to the contrary. We tried this in the '70s and it ended poorly and was one of the few service cuts not enacted due to the budget situation. Compile that with the fact that the lower level of Bergen St is unlikely to see service again any time soon, that means 7 Av and Church Av are the only express/local transfer points. A non-Manhattan train as the local will never fly.

 

With that out of the way, let's move onto the other problem, besides the fact that the Crosstown Culver stations are among the busiest of the F-line stations in Brooklyn, which is where that secondary Manhattan-local service will come from. Splitting up the F will result in reduced service at the local stops, which will not be tolerated, so that's out. The only real option is to bring an existing service over to the Culver line as a local while the Coney Island-express remains as is. I see that once again, the C and E are thrown about as viable options. Moving one of those lines disrupts service at the World Trade Center and/or along the Fulton St line. A C option almost forces the E to run to Brooklyn, which is something that's to be avoided given the current frequency of the E. Taking the E away from the World Trade Center (because the line would have to run down Rutgers due to spacial constraints) would reduce service to a rapidly growing area. None of that takes into consideration that the C/E would have to run with the F and M along Houston St. We all know how much Broadway sucks because of the merging problems. Why are we trying to bring that over to 6th Avenue?

 

All in all, this comes up every so often and the answer remains the same: it can't happen with the way the lines are currently set up. And by the way, the M/V reversal is not going to happen.

The (C) I do but with as noted in another post 1-2 (F) trains per hour run via the Crosstown if needed so the (C)(F) and (M) can all stop on the local track at Broadway-Lafayette.  As I noted in my plan, during rush hours some (E) would terminate at Chambers and at all times you would have a limited-service (2-4 TPH) (K) train that would run between Chambers and 168 that would serve to mainly supplement the (C) and serve those on CPW looking for Spring and those at Chambers too lazy to walk to the express platform, especially those looking for Port Authority and Penn Station.  My plan keeps the (F) and (G) local on Park Slope and makes the (C) an express on the Culver line to Coney Island. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are already bottlenecks at Canal and Hoyt-Schermerhorn where the (A) and (C) merge. Your plan to reroute the (C) via the (F) line south of West 4th St will require the more-frequent (E) to replace the (C) in Brooklyn. Those two spots will get a lot worse with more trains having to merge. And you're creating a new merge point at West 4th, where there's the potential to delay (E), (F) and (M) trains. Even if you reroute 1-2 (F) tph via the (G) line to reduce congestion, you risk overcrowding the other (F) trains with Manhattan-bound riders who had to get off an (F) train that's not going there.

 

As for replacing the (E) at WTC with a (K) train running only every 15-30 minutes, that is definitely a non-starter. I take the (E) out of WTC regularly and those trains leave SRO. There is no way you are replacing an (E) train running every 4 minutes with a (K) train running no more frequently than every 15 minutes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I too would say that rearouting anything via Rutgers is out.

But is Cranberry really that at capacity that some (E)'s at least couldn't be sent through? Every time I wait for the (A)(C), it seems like between both (A)'s will come right behind each other, and teventually, the (C), and it's a long wait between all of them (like 10 min.; like the normal headway on one line), and I would wish there were more trains on the line.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cranberry isn't maxed out, that's for sure. But if you replace the (C) with the (E), you'd either have to kill off the Rock Park (A) service or continue to turn some (E) trains (probably about half of them) at WTC. There's no way the (A) and (E) trains on their current rush hour frequencies could operate between Canal and Hoyt delay-free. It's just too many trains merging in and out.

 

That's why I say they should consider running an express train to Coney Island on either the Sea Beach or West End lines, where there's excess capacity. My preference is a (V) express train over the Sea Beach because that line has fewer sharp curves and fewer stops. And it can capture many 6th Ave line riders by running on the 6th Avenue express tracks. Yes, it would be an extra service that may not be cost-effective to run...I'm fully aware of that. But the same thing could be said about the (F) express that Councilman Treyger wants. And most of us can agree that service would be running on tracks that are already at or near capacity, especially north of Church Ave. The Sea Beach, 4th Ave express and 6th Ave express tracks have much more available capacity.

 

And by the way, has anyone else noticed that there has been nothing new about this latest (F) express proposal from city officials or the media since Monday's News 12 story?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cranberry isn't maxed out, that's for sure. But if you replace the (C) with the (E), you'd either have to kill off the Rock Park (A) service or continue to turn some (E) trains (probably about half of them) at WTC. There's no way the (A) and (E) trains on their current rush hour frequencies could operate between Canal and Hoyt delay-free. It's just too many trains merging in and out. 

Well, I wasn't thinking of replacing the (C) with the (E), or sending all (E)'s out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are already bottlenecks at Canal and Hoyt-Schermerhorn where the A and C merge. Your plan to reroute the C via the F line south of West 4th St will require the more-frequent (E) to replace the (C) in Brooklyn. Those two spots will get a lot worse with more trains having to merge. And you're creating a new merge point at West 4th, where there's the potential to delay (E), (F) and (M) trains. Even if you reroute 1-2 (F) tph via the (G) line to reduce congestion, you risk overcrowding the other (F) trains with Manhattan-bound riders who had to get off an (F) train that's not going there.

 

As for replacing the (E) at WTC with a (K) train running only every 15-30 minutes, that is definitely a non-starter. I take the (E) out of WTC regularly and those trains leave SRO. There is no way you are replacing an (E) train running every 4 minutes with a (K) train running no more frequently than every 15 minutes.

My plan would during peak hours have some (E) trains still terminate at Chambers (most likely any excess over what is currently sent to Brooklyn on the (C) ) in addition to having the supplemental (K) line during rush hours (so it would be considerably more than the 4 TPH of the (K) during those hours, most likely around 10 TPH combined).  And the (E) would STILL be otherwise stopping at Chambers, it would just be with the (A) on that platform.  

 

As for the (C)(F)(M) situations, that to me is a minor inconvenience if it means giving Park Slope additional service overall.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.