news MTA Releases Culver Line Report, Proposes Viaduct Express Service

[LLQBTT]

Reducing service at Smith-9th, Carroll, and Bergen is pure folly. Ridership is very high at these stops. Plus, Red Hook takes another transit ding.

[Threxx]

I do want to know if there is any long term plan to re-open the lower level of Bergen Street, even if not immediately. That could help alleviate crowding issues at least at that station.

[Lance]

if the station were to be active thereis no walking ramp to go down there right?

If there's no room for elevators, where would a ramp fit in there?

[R32 3838]

You guys fail to realize that service will increase with full length trains in 2019, it might happen early because of this but we will see

[Metro CSW]

You guys fail to realize that service will increase with full length trains in 2019, it might happen early because of this but we will see

To add, the shut down is also a reason for the upcoming service increase.

 

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk

[BreeddekalbL]

If there's no room for elevators, where would a ramp fit in there?

 

im only asking cause im not familiar with the station

[Interested Rider]

I waited to respond to this proposal that seemed to come out of left field all of a sudden until I had a chance to look at the report and see the responses from the "local elected leaders". Taking a look from the political point of view, on one hand, the politicians were complaining about the capacity issue and on the other hand when a solution is proposed that would provide more seating capacity with less crowded trains, the complainers do not like the solution. I agree that there is a cut in service but I feel that there is a silver lining that is being overlooked, that is the possible use of Church Avenue (again like prior to Christie Street) as a terminal for F trains especially during the 8 AM - 9 AM and 5 PM - 6 PM hours which will provide the heavily used stations with better service with fewer trains as the MTA states that it has an equipment shortage . This eliminates  the complaints about the crowded trains and eliminates the political problem as well. It sounds like an oxymoron and while the MTA says the trains will terminate at Kings Highway, it is my belief that until the switches are re-installed at Kings Highway in 2019 or later, do not rule out Church Avenue in the interim as a terminal during rush hours. In order to understand the current political climate involving transit, one must accept that the political dictators have taken over the decision making process at the MTA. Once that is understood then one can figure out how this decision came about in the first place.

[Dj Hammers]

If there's no room for elevators, where would a ramp fit in there?

I can confirm that the central stairway bank between the levels can be converted in to an elevator shaft. Furthermore, the structural design of the station allows for multiple escalators or stairs to be broken through the upper level platform at several locations for increased vertical capacity, as the vertical support columns are far enough away from the wall. The upper level platform is just a concrete slab.

 

Yes, you need the $$$, but there is no engineering-related issue with this sort of work, and the benefits of having an open Bergen lower would be significant.

[paulrivera]

What's this I'm hearing about a express pilot program starting this summer?

[Lance]

You guys fail to realize that service will increase with full length trains in 2019, it might happen early because of this but we will see

I haven't forgotten. I just feel it doesn't really help riders who want the to Manhattan. The is an option, but it requires a transfer at 7 Avenue or Hoyt-Schermerhorn Sts.

 

I waited to respond to this proposal that seemed to come out of left field all of a sudden until I had a chance to look at the report and see the responses from the "local elected leaders". Taking a look from the political point of view, on one hand, the politicians were complaining about the capacity issue and on the other hand when a solution is proposed that would provide more seating capacity with less crowded trains, the complainers do not like the solution. I agree that there is a cut in service but I feel that there is a silver lining that is being overlooked, that is the possible use of Church Avenue (again like prior to Christie Street) as a terminal for F trains especially during the 8 AM - 9 AM and 5 PM - 6 PM hours which will provide the heavily used stations with better service with fewer trains as the MTA states that it has an equipment shortage . This eliminates  the complaints about the crowded trains and eliminates the political problem as well. It sounds like an oxymoron and while the MTA says the trains will terminate at Kings Highway, it is my belief that until the switches are re-installed at Kings Highway in 2019 or later, do not rule out Church Avenue in the interim as a terminal during rush hours. In order to understand the current political climate involving transit, one must accept that the political dictators have taken over the decision making process at the MTA. Once that is understood then one can figure out how this decision came about in the first place.

From what I read, terminating the local trains at Church Av is not advised. It would cause too much overcrowding because trains would run every eight minutes between Church Av and Stillwell Av. Based on the report, it's recommended that express trains start at Stillwell Av while locals enter service at Kings Highway.

 

I can confirm that the central stairway bank between the levels can be converted in to an elevator shaft. Furthermore, the structural design of the station allows for multiple escalators or stairs to be broken through the upper level platform at several locations for increased vertical capacity, as the vertical support columns are far enough away from the wall. The upper level platform is just a concrete slab.

 

Yes, you need the $$$, but there is no engineering-related issue with this sort of work, and the benefits of having an open Bergen lower would be significant.

Good to know. If that was the only problem with the lower level, we might have a better chance of seeing it reopened.

[Javier]

Don't forget the is getting R143's/R160's in 2019 so we might as well see R143's on the as well.

[MysteriousBtrain]

Don't forget the is getting R143's/R160's in 2019 so we might as well see R143's on the as well.

Let me tell you why that won't happen.....

The is one of the most popular lines in the city. Riders will not be happy when they have to squeeze their way into 8 cars as opposed to 10. Hell, even with 10 car sets there is not enough space at times, which is why there was a proposal to make the 11 cars.

[Javier]

Ah, I keep forgetting the R143's are 8 cars...

[Interested Rider]

I read the report again to check if the Church Avenue option was explored and discussed in the report. It has and it is mentioned on pp. 4, 5 and 26 is discussed on pp.22-23 with the following statement:"The ability of Church Avenue to operate as a terminal for 7 F trains needs to be investigated as recent track and signal modification project changed the track configuration of the tail tracks"  "However it will require an additional transfer for those traveling south of Church Avenue and that is why it was not studied". (pp.22-23). This does not mean that the suggestion was dismissed but if the powers that be would have asked for it to be examined and discussed, it would have been part of the report.

The "political keys" here are two with the first "the complaints of the Coney Island crowd" and second "the Park Slope-Red Hook crowd". Each group has its own political agenda and its mouthpieces in the local media that will support its position with Coney Island wanting express service and Park Slope-Red Hook wanting less crowded trains. Again, I go back to the statement that the MTA has become a totally political operation and unlike previous years where either the governor or the mayor would not be interfering in its operation, this does not exist based on the present political climate in this city . Unfortunately now we have the two of them using their political power to influence the Board through their appointees as both of them are using the Board for political purposes. While this report is a straight forward presentation of the F Line situation, it is my opinion that what service will be provided and when will come down to money and which political group has more power to get what it wants. This is why I believe that if push comes to shove with the express service, there will be F local trains terminating at Church Avenue in the AM rush (definitely) and in the PM rush (most likely) even though the report did not study that option as the Park Slope - Red Hook crowd have the upper hand.

[Lance]

If that does happen, I foresee riders (and their elected officials) complaining about the loss of service south of Church Av. Remember, there are no plans for adding more service, so there will still be 15 trains leaving 179 Street per hour. If the locals terminate at Church Av, service between Church Av and Stillwell Av will be cut in half to eight minute headways. It will essentially negate any savings on the proposed express.

[T to Dyre Avenue]

Well, I'll be...they're actually going to do the express. After all the threads here and on Subchat, and the many blog posts on Second Ave Sagas and other blogs. After all the media articles and local officials clamoring for it, the is actually going through with it. I can't say I'm in favor of this because the local stations between Church and Jay stand to get a big service cut with half the trains skipping those stations. Maybe if was a 2:1 split in favor of the local, then maybe it could work - provided the were to run at least 18 tph. But I have a strong feeling this 50-50 split is going to spell trouble down the road.

 

Don't forget the is getting R143's/R160's in 2019 so we might as well see R143's on the as well.

We will not see R143s on the . There aren't any extra B-cars that could be added to make them into 10-car trains. None of the Eastern Division-based R160s will run on the for the same reason. If the R143/160/179 cars were configured in pairs (like the R32s), this wouldn't be an issue because it would have been easy to just add another pair to an 8-car train. But the wanted linked 4- and 5-car sets, claiming they are cheaper to purchase and maintain, so ENY-based NTT trains will be a problem to run on the .

[T to Dyre Avenue]

If that does happen, I foresee riders (and their elected officials) complaining about the loss of service south of Church Av. Remember, there are no plans for adding more service, so there will still be 15 trains leaving 179 Street per hour. If the locals terminate at Church Av, service between Church Av and Stillwell Av will be cut in half to eight minute headways. It will essentially negate any savings on the proposed express.

It didn't take long for them to complain. There's an article in today's AM New York about how many of the same Brooklyn pols who supported bringing back the express are upset because the is keeping the total number of rush hour trains per hour at the current 15.

[Lance]

Well, I'll be...they're actually going to do the express. After all the threads here and on Subchat, and the many blog posts on Second Ave Sagas and other blogs. After all the media articles and local officials clamoring for it, the is actually going through with it. I can't say I'm in favor of this because the local stations between Church and Jay stand to get a big service cut with half the trains skipping those stations. Maybe if was a 2:1 split in favor of the local, then maybe it could work. But I have a strong feeling this 50-50 split is going to spell trouble down the road.

They can't do a 2:1 local/express ratio as it makes the express almost entirely useless. At 12 minute headways, the express will not run frequently enough to justify the service. If a rider misses that express train, they'll be better off waiting for a local because the next express would equal a net loss of any time savings.

 

It didn't take long for them to complain. There's an article in today's AM New York about how many of the same Brooklyn pols who supported bringing back the express are upset because the keeping the total number of rush hour trains per hour at the current 15.

Of course riders are complaining. It isn't so much the MTA is trying to bring back the Culver express; it's the matter of stealing service for it. Carroll Gardens, Gowanus and Park Slope will have to light a fire under the MTA to get them to add another service to offset the 50% reduction in local service or go back to the drawing board with this.

[T to Dyre Avenue]

They can't do a 2:1 local/express ratio as it makes the express almost entirely useless. At 12 minute headways, the express will not run frequently enough to justify the service. If a rider misses that express train, they'll be better off waiting for a local because the next express would equal a net loss of any time savings.

 

 

Of course riders are complaining. It isn't so much the MTA is trying to bring back the Culver express; it's the matter of stealing service for it. Carroll Gardens, Gowanus and Park Slope will have to light a fire under the MTA to get them to add another service to offset the 50% reduction in local service or go back to the drawing board with this.

Sorry, I lost my phone signal in the train tunnel just as I was about to edit my first post.

 

I know it's the matter of stealing of local service to provide this express service. Eric Adams even said so for the article. Now, they could possibly do 2:1 if they went to 18 tph. But then they'd have to reduce the to 12 tph to accomplish that (they used to run 12 E's and 18 F's before the was rerouted to the 63rd St tunnel). With 18 F's per hour it doesn't have to be an exact 2:1 split. It could be 10 or 11 locals and 7 or 8 expresses. But again, it still would require some kind of reduction in service.

 

Riders aren't the ones complaining...yet.

[Around the Horn]

Riders aren't the ones complaining...yet.

You wait till the first rush hour of this service pattern... It's gonna be bad.

 

Bergen and Carroll are guaranteed to be a mess.

[T to Dyre Avenue]

I believe it. I'm not in support of this express service for exactly that point. Service at the stations north of Church (save 7th Ave) are going to take a huge hit. I'd like to be proven wrong, but I can't see how this express service will succeed without an increase in the total number of rush hour trains per hour.

[T to Dyre Avenue]

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.

Doesn't the Culver Line already have two options - the and the (above Church)? Too many one-seat rides are a big reason why the subways constantly face delays due to all the merging. Why do we need more of that?

[P3F]

Doesn't the Culver Line already have two options - the and the (above Church)? Too many one-seat rides are a big reason why the subways constantly face delays due to all the merging. Why do we need more of that?

The will merge with the with or without a Culver Express extension...

[Union Tpke]

Sorry, I lost my phone signal in the train tunnel just as I was about to edit my first post.

 

I know it's the matter of stealing of local service to provide this express service. Eric Adams even said so for the article. Now, they could possibly do 2:1 if they went to 18 tph. But then they'd have to reduce the to 12 tph to accomplish that (they used to run 12 E's and 18 F's before the was rerouted to the 63rd St tunnel). With 18 F's per hour it doesn't have to be an exact 2:1 split. It could be 10 or 11 locals and 7 or 8 expresses. But again, it still would require some kind of reduction in service.

 

Riders aren't the ones complaining...yet.

 

The only way for this to work would be to swap the and . This could work as with increased ridership there would be more trains to serve the 63rd Street Corridor as opposed to when the was created.

[TransitJusticeForAll]

So how's the Ditmas-Stillwell express portion going to work, if there is one? From CI to Manhattan AM and From Manhattan to CI PM, right?