news MTA Releases Culver Line Report, Proposes Viaduct Express Service

[Caelestor]

Don't include Bergen St in any Culver express plans. That station is permanently out of service pending a full rebuild. Express stations will be Jay St, 7 Avenue and Church Av. Also, the headways of the are largely irrelevant as most riders are travelling between Brooklyn and Manhattan.

 

I don't see much of a change in fleet requirements as there will still be the same number of trains per hour from 179 Street. Also, the number of trains turning at Kings Hwy will be the same as they are today, just running slightly faster.

 

On a side note,  this express plan does nothing for riders south of Kings Hwy either, seeing as they still have only the local.

 

I'm not optimistic about the lower level of Bergen St being reopened either, which is why I think the express will end up like the express. Again, this is a net reduction in service, but I wanted to show the rationale for why the MTA would approve such a plan.

 

First, the merging at Bergen St. Right now, scheduled service is - - and so forth. Due to antiquated signaling, a delayed or train will delay up to 2 trains behind it. If the express goes through, then scheduled service becomes - - - . In theory, the longer headways will improve schedule recovery.

 

Second, the fleet requirements. Assuming a Jay St - 7 Av - Church Ave express service, that's 6 stops skipped in each direction for 4+ minutes savings, plus additional time saved by removing the Bergen St delays and by taking the direct express tracks south of 7 Av. So in theory, a Kings Hwy - 179 Av train that currently takes 85 minutes one way will now make the trip in 80 minutes. Right now, ~25 trains are used to provide the supplemental rush hour service (85-minute trip times). With 80-minute trip times, only 20-22 trains are needed, since some of the trains will make 3 instead of 2 rush-hour trips.

 

In reality, the express trains are running to Coney Island and the local trains are running to Ave X / Kings Hwy. It looks as if the real rationale is to improve travel times and ridership on the lower Culver line, as well as possibly making the area more desirable - wouldn't be surprised to see increases similar to those experienced by the reroute, albeit on a lesser scale. Bergen and Carroll Sts are going to be dangerously overcrowded under this plan.

 

In summary, riders get less service, but operating the trains becomes more efficient. If the ridership south of Church Ave was on par with that north of the station, there would be no issues with the express, but since the ratio is 2:1, there's going to be a lot of outcry over this once local station riders have to put up with less service. A transfer at Bergen St would go a long way to placate the complaints of riders.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

How in the heck is it going to shave 15 minutes off of commutes?? The service will only be bypassing 6 stations (5 if Bergen Lower ever reopens), and the shortcut really only saves about half a mile in distance. It shouldn't save more than 5 minutes......

What a surprise... Another employee damning anything that the does to make commutes better... If we had folks like you running the show, we'd have a subway system comparable to the 80s (which is almost where we're at now). The communities have fought hard for this, and good for them that they're getting what they've requested.  Given how delay prone the subways have been, any form of express service for Brooklyn in particular should be considered.

[GojiMet86]

Just because you made your personal views on the matter clear does not mean that other people agree.  You say the decision to implement express service is 'pitiful and sad', and go on to call the agency 'corrupt' for it.  I find that laughable.  (The MTA is corrupt, but for other things and in different ways).  Contrary to what many bean-counters  and apologists who defend the status quo on these boards say, frequencies are not always paramount.  How often a train runs is irrelevant when getting from A to B takes longer than it should.  Hell, it's about damn time they started doing something to speed up service; they should also look at the between 145th and 96th as well as the between Burnside and 149th.  

 

Do you ride the between 145th and 96th? That is one of the busiest sections on the entire line. The rush hour is the busiest time. I have ridden that portion for years now. It would make the lives of commuters very miserable to cut the service frequency at 116th and 137th. Trains are already stuffed between 7 and 9 in the morning.

 

What's next, run express service between Coney Island and 59th Street via Sea Beach? Lefferts or Howard Beach to Rockaway Blvd?

[Around the Horn]

What a surprise... Another employee damning anything that the does to make commutes better... If we had folks like you running the show, we'd have a subway system comparable to the 80s (which is almost where we're at now). The communities have fought hard for this, and good for them that they're getting what they've requested.  Given how delay prone the subways have been, any form of express service for Brooklyn in particular should be considered.

Take a look at the numbers though, VG8.

 

If we look at ridership (I posted this earlier), the stations being skipped have twice the ridership than the stations getting express service. This particular plan is a hindrance not a help.

 

F ridership between W 8th and Ditmas Av: 9,275,934 (11 stops)

F ridership at Ft Hamilton, 15th, Fourth Av, Smith-9th, Carroll: 13,311,607 (5 stops)

F ridership at those local stops PLUS Bergen: 17,019,907 (6 stops)

[Lance]

WHAT!? They've completely f--ked this up. Run the Coney Island trains express and the Kings Highway trains local or else there is no point...

I'm assuming the lack of necessary switches at Kings Highway prevents them from running the Coney Island trains express, as they should.

 

Frankly this entire plan is backwards. They might as well not change service at all. This will fail horribly.

Wonder how the Kings Hwy   will work out. I really don't see it being too successful like in the 1980's.

I'm not optimistic about the lower level of Bergen St being reopened either, which is why I think the   express will end up like the   express.

As this discussion continues, I get the feeling that this is the expected outcome. Run a sub-par express service which cuts service to the riders who use it the most and does not have the intended effect of actually speeding up service for riders on the southern end of the line (if the article's to be believed). When riders complain about said sub-par service, they'll quietly remove it or run all the trains local while touting better overall service, much like they did when the original Culver express service was eliminated in '76. At the end of the day, they can say they tried to run express service and point out its documented failure.

 

True on the , but it might encourage some to take the to Hoyt-Schermerhorn for the , especially if they work west of 6th Avenue.

 

<2nd Ave service proposals removed as they are irrelevant>

Riders already have an option for 8th Ave service at Jay St, which is a much better transfer point than Hoyt-Schermerhorn.

 

What a surprise... Another employee damning anything that the does to make commutes better... If we had folks like you running the show, we'd have a subway system comparable to the 80s (which is almost where we're at now). The communities have fought hard for this, and good for them that they're getting what they've requested.  Given how delay prone the subways have been, any form of express service for Brooklyn in particular should be considered.

Haven't seen you in a while.

 

First off, if the subways are so delayed, what's going to stop these express trains from getting delayed? Secondly, where does he say he's against what riders want? He was stating that the opinion of the person quoted in the article that he'd save 15 minutes with an express are quite ludicrous since the MTA's own documents state there would only be a savings of about five minutes by skipping the local stops between Jay St and Church Av.

 

Also, this plan shifts the burden on those at said local stops. Under the alternate local/express proposal, riders between Jay St and Church Av will have to wait eight minutes for a Manhattan-bound train as opposed to the current four. Basically, this idea shifts the burden from the southern half of the Culver line to the northern half.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

Take a look at the numbers though, VG8.

 

If we look at ridership (I posted this earlier), the stations being skipped have twice the ridership than the stations getting express service. This particular plan is a hindrance not a help.

I should take a look at them, but quite frankly Brooklyn NEEDS more express subway service.  There is just too much growth in population and the trains CRAWL.  I would also like to see the running on weekends.  I've said it before and I still believe it should run express.  Taking the to South Brooklyn is just torture.  I think the real problem at play is the amount of excessive delays with the subway service in general.  I knew it was bad, but my experiment at using the subway this month has really shown me how bad things have become.  The plan may have its flaws, but I don't think the riders that will get express service care.  When you're on a crammed subway as I have been taking the at times, any sort of skipped stops is a help.  Fewer people trying to cram on already packed cars and holding the doors further delaying the train.  I have been on at least three or four trains now that have went express from 137th to 96th street because they were severely delayed from people trying to pack on them. Passengers were so thrilled with it that they yelled out loud.  That just goes to show you the problem with our subways.  They CRAWL for the most part.  

 

 

 

 

Haven't seen you in a while.

 

First off, if the subways are so delayed, what's going to stop these express trains from getting delayed? Secondly, where does he say he's against what riders want? He was stating that the opinion of the person quoted in the article that he'd save 15 minutes with an   express are quite ludicrous since the MTA's own documents state there would only be a savings of about five minutes by skipping the local stops between Jay St and Church Av.

 

Also, this plan shifts the burden on those at said local stops. Under the alternate local/express proposal, riders between Jay St and Church Av will have to wait eight minutes for a Manhattan-bound train as opposed to the current four. Basically, this idea shifts the burden from the southern half of the Culver line to the northern half.

 

Oh you're absolutely right, but there is a sense of frustration with subway riders that they are happy to get ANYTHING that appears to be faster, even if it's flawed, and I think this a prime example of it.

[Lance]

I should take a look at them, but quite frankly Brooklyn NEEDS more express subway service.  There is just too much growth in population and the trains CRAWL.  I would also like to see the running on weekends.  I've said it before and I still believe it should run express.  Taking the to South Brooklyn is just torture.  I think the real problem at play is the amount of excessive delays with the subway service in general.  I knew it was bad, but my experiment at using the subway this month has really shown me how bad things have become.  The plan may have its flaws, but I don't think the riders that will get express service care.  When you're on a crammed subway as I have been taking the at times, any sort of skipped stops is a help.  Fewer people trying to cram on already packed cars and holding the doors further delaying the train.  I have been on at least three or four trains now that have went express from 137th to 96th street because they were severely delayed from people trying to pack on them. Passengers were so thrilled with it that they yelled out loud.  That just goes to show you the problem with our subways.  They CRAWL for the most part. 

I'm sure the passengers at those bypassed stations were positively ecstatic.

 

Of course the riders who benefit from such service don't care. If someone randomly gave me $10,000, I wouldn't care. I'm sure the person who got robbed of that $10,000 would probably care though. It's the same thing here. Riders at the bypassed stations will see a service cut at the expense of other riders. Also, all of those situations you're talking about will get shifted north. More riders will likely have to cram onto more crowded trains and will likely hold trains in the station, thus delaying service because of the cut in service between Jay St and Church Av.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

I'm sure the passengers at those bypassed stations were positively ecstatic.

 

Of course the riders who benefit from such service don't care. If someone randomly gave me $10,000, I wouldn't care. I'm sure the person who got robbed of that $10,000 would probably care though. It's the same thing here. Riders at the bypassed stations will see a service cut at the expense of other riders. Also, all of those situations you're talking about will get shifted north. More riders will likely have to cram onto more crowded trains and will likely hold trains in the station, thus delaying service because of the cut in service between Jay St and Church Av.

Well I don't think the status quo is sufficient either, and if it was, the communities wouldn't have been fighting for it for years.  There has to be a good reason that they've gone this long trying to get it, and I think it goes back to what I said about there being too many delays in service.  A trip that used to take 20 minutes on the subway can now take twice that, so while the savings may not seem like much, it adds up.  I think the needs to be honest about why on-time service for subways continues to worsen (even outside of rush hour) and look at ways to address these issues.

[B46 via Utica]

TBH I don't really see what this express service is going to accomplish. I know that the whole point of this is to reduce the number of trains on the line probably to benefit the shutdown in 2019 but service looks like it can reduce to.

[46Dover]

This may sound outlandish for all you pro via Sixth Ave folks, but here goes anyway:

 

I always thought that if they were going to bring back the Culver Express, they should've kept the train to use it as a rush hour supplement to the and have it work as the Culver Local from Bergen St to Church Av and terminate it at either Kings Highway or Avenue X for yard access (doing the work of the pre-1987 setup). Then the would do Culver Local nights and weekends.

 

Leaving the on original path

[Around the Horn]

This may sound outlandish for all you pro via Sixth Ave folks, but here goes anyway:

 

I always thought that if they were going to bring back the Culver Express, they should've kept the train to use it as a rush hour supplement to the and have it work as the Culver Local from Bergen St to Church Av and terminate it at either Kings Highway or Avenue X for yard access (doing the work of the pre-1987 setup). Then the would do Culver Local nights and weekends.

 

Leaving the on original path

If they never tried the Sixth Av , then yes that could happen. This change has been so successful however that I just don't see them reverting it.

 

(Then again, just today, they announced the Culver Express would return so I don't know what to think at this point)

[P3F]

If they had a couple billion dollars they could extend the tracks from World Trade Center to connect with the Culver Express, with some intermediate stops as well.

[Union Tpke]

http://web.mta.info/nyct/service/F_Express.htm

[Missabassie]

IMHO 8 Avenue trains don't have any business on Culver anyway, the should be able to handle its business...
 

                                                                                                                                         - Carry On

[P3F]

IMHO 8 Avenue trains don't have any business on Culver anyway, the should be able to handle its business...

 

- Carry On

It would give Culver riders two options, instead of one, similarly to the Brighton Line.

 

Also, connecting the express tracks to another line would mean that the local stations would not need to lose service.

[Missabassie]

It would give Culver riders two options, instead of one, similarly to the Brighton Line.

 

Also, connecting the express tracks to another line would mean that the local stations would not need to lose service.

 

I do see your point, but that will cause a switching nightmare at Jay st.

[P3F]

I do see your point, but that will cause a switching nightmare at Jay st.

The cheapest connection would be to have the Montague tunnel connect to the Culver express tracks. Then the could run as the express.

[Around the Horn]

The cheapest connection would be to have the Montague tunnel connect to the Culver express tracks. Then the could run as the express.

How?

[CenSin]

I don’t know how many people here ride the , but in my experience, the makes the very delay-prone, especially going southbound. Staying out of the ’s way will mostly assuredly save a significant amount of time during rush hours for those using the south of Church Avenue.
 

At the end of the day, they can say they tried to run express service and point out its documented failure.

If they’re setting it up for failure, I think it’s a long foregone conclusion what’s going to happen. But then again, shutting down the was something planned a while back and look at where it is now.
 

Yeah...so? Whatever term I use really doesn't matter. My main concern is what the express will do for the aforementioned reasons, which is why I am against it. I, for one, just think it's wrong so the shouldn't really bother with it. Even some others (such as you and Lance) seem to not like the idea either. All of my other concerns are just secondary. After all, we are talking about high ridership at these local Culver stations anyway.

Anyway, since the "corrupted" thing seems to bug you and that R10 guy, I'll fixed that error by saying it's just simply not a good thing. But it's kinda too late for me to edit that now.

I’m not really qualified give a diagnosis or speak for others, but your attitude is not very welcomed in a forum. Unchecked rage, random tantrums, lack of empathy, and sociopathy are all things I perceive from reading your posts. Keep it up in real life and you’ll fence yourself off from life’s bountiful opportunities.

[P3F]

How?

[46Dover]

If they never tried the Sixth Av , then yes that could happen. This change has been so successful however that I just don't see them reverting it.

 

(Then again, just today, they announced the Culver Express would return so I don't know what to think at this point)

Hindsight is a mofo, ain't it. Lol

[Caelestor]

How?

 

 

Not exactly an easy connection, since you have to dive under a lot of buildings and tunnels. Still the cheapest option, since it's the only one - all other tunnels except Rutgers are at capacity.

[RollOver]

I’m not really qualified give a diagnosis or speak for others, but your attitude is not very welcomed in a forum. Unchecked rage, random tantrums, lack of empathy, and sociopathy are all things I perceive from reading your posts. Keep it up in real life and you’ll fence yourself off from life’s bountiful opportunities.

 

 

I'll agree with implementing the Culver Express as long as local service is kept the same. I do like P3F's idea a little bit. At least his proposal seems alot more sensible unlike the real world one.

[CenSin]

If they’re setting it up for failure, I think it’s a long foregone conclusion what’s going to happen. But then again, shutting down the was something planned a while back and look at where it is now.

I read the study in full, and the facts do support an express service. These guys really did their homework (obviously because they also have data that us laymen do not have). I’m convinced that this should be given a chance.

 

Some interesting diagrams…

 

Can anyone find the two mistakes in this?

 

This is the proposed service. The express will be bidirectional.

 

At a glance, you can see that the benefits are modest but outweigh any negatives.

[P3F]

I read the study in full, and the facts do support an express service. These guys really did their homework (obviously because they also have data that us laymen do not have). I’m convinced that this should be given a chance.

 

Some interesting diagrams…

 

Can anyone find the two mistakes in this?

 

 

This is the proposed service. The express will be bidirectional.

 

 

At a glance, you can see that the benefits are modest but outweigh any negatives.

 

Personally, I support any express service that won't be cancelled due to being a bad idea after a few years. I think there would be more benefit if there was a connection to another line, though. (For example, the one I showed above.)