T to Dyre Avenue Posted March 20, 2017 Share #26 Posted March 20, 2017 This is article is from May 2016 and the study just suggests it. The article does seem to suggest it's a done deal, which is poor reporting on the author's part. Fall 2017 though. We'll see (or not)...I don't think we'll see it this fall, unless starts advertising it online and we start seeing community meeting posters at line stations. Even though I don't ride the in Brooklyn, I really don't think the express service - as proposed - is a good idea. Having an equal number of local and express trains will yield a significant cut in service to some of the busier stations along the line. And because the stations south of Church have much lower ridership than the local stations north of Church, it's only going to be a relatively small portion of train riders who benefit from an express between Church and Jay. If the proposed local/express split was an unequal split with more local F's than expresses, then I might get on board with the idea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deucey Posted March 21, 2017 Share #27 Posted March 21, 2017 Reopening the lower level at Bergen Street is something that should be done anyway if you are going to have some express service. I have previously said what I would be looking at doing is this, however: diverts from the 8th Avenue line at West 4th and becomes the Culver Express to Coney Island (except late nights) terminates with the at Church Avenue (except late nights when it would run as it does now plus a few peak runs to/from Kings Highway) This keeps Park Slope riders happy since the would run as it does now (albeit truncated to Church Avenue other than late nights) while the would run via Rutgers with the . This also gives those at Coney Island an 8th Avenue option at all times (other than late nights) along with those on the Culver Line whom if they are specifically looking for 6th Avenue midtown can either transfer to the at Church Avenue or do a same platform transfer at Broadway-Lafayette to any 6th Avenue line. The big issue as also noted before would be how many trains can run through Broadway-Lafayette if the and all stop there on the "local" track since that would be at or just over the 30 TPH limit. I can see the railfan value of having an 8th Ave train connecting to Coney Island - since earlier the IND had to 168th (IIRC) And to Bedford Park Bl, ostensibly to give Bronx riders a one-year ride to 8th Av or 6th Av stations, but I don't see why that's necessary now. Plus, if there were a good number of people going between Coney Island and 8th Av stations and it saved time, TA would've already put that service pattern in place. But maybe doing something similar was being tested a few weekends ago when ran to Euclid, to Coney Island and ran down Culver Line while the West End line was closed. I don't foresee it happening permanently though since Coney Island folks can get to 8th Av by switching at MetroTech or West 4th. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daniel The Cool Posted March 21, 2017 Share #28 Posted March 21, 2017 I can see the railfan value of having an 8th Ave train connecting to Coney Island - since earlier the IND had to 168th (IIRC) And to Bedford Park Bl, ostensibly to give Bronx riders a one-year ride to 8th Av or 6th Av stations, but I don't see why that's necessary now. Plus, if there were a good number of people going between Coney Island and 8th Av stations and it saved time, TA would've already put that service pattern in place. But maybe doing something similar was being tested a few weekends ago when ran to Euclid, to Coney Island and ran down Culver Line while the West End line was closed. I don't foresee it happening permanently though since Coney Island folks can get to 8th Av by switching at MetroTech or West 4th. Railfan value? That was no test. The went to CI due to trackwork being done between Jay Street and Bergen Street having the go to Euclid and that Train via Culver and Train via West End G.O occurred due to Sixth Avenue being shutdown and not being able to resume their Brooklyn routes after being rerouted in Manhattan. West End wasn't shutdown. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lawrence St Posted March 21, 2017 Share #29 Posted March 21, 2017 What're you talking about? The only reason why the and swap in Brooklyn happened was because there is no physical track connection to allow trains from 8th Avenue to access the bridge and there's no connection to allow trains via the Bridge to return to Culver. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daniel The Cool Posted March 21, 2017 Share #30 Posted March 21, 2017 What're you talking about? The only reason why the and swap in Brooklyn happened was because there is no physical track connection to allow trains from 8th Avenue to access the bridge and there's no connection to allow trains via the Bridge to return to Culver. Thats what I basically said.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lawrence St Posted March 21, 2017 Share #31 Posted March 21, 2017 Thats what I basically said.... I didn't see your post, jeez... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RFWLover Posted March 24, 2017 Share #32 Posted March 24, 2017 I didn't see your post, jeez... Don't worry about him. Daniel can be rude to people. Just ignore people like that. Anyways, TBH I don't see them running the F express service until after Canarsie is finished. Anyway, the bottleneck is probably Church Avenue, not Bergen St. They could always turn some/all G trains at 18th Ave to reduce delays at Church Avenue when they increase G frequency. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T to Dyre Avenue Posted March 25, 2017 Share #33 Posted March 25, 2017 I can see the railfan value of having an 8th Ave train connecting to Coney Island - since earlier the IND had to 168th (IIRC) And to Bedford Park Bl, ostensibly to give Bronx riders a one-year ride to 8th Av or 6th Av stations, but I don't see why that's necessary now. Plus, if there were a good number of people going between Coney Island and 8th Av stations and it saved time, TA would've already put that service pattern in place. But maybe doing something similar was being tested a few weekends ago when ran to Euclid, to Coney Island and ran down Culver Line while the West End line was closed. I don't foresee it happening permanently though since Coney Island folks can get to 8th Av by switching at MetroTech or West 4th. Yes! If there were a critical mass of riders looking for a one-seat ride between Coney Island and the 8th Ave Line via the Culver El, the MTA would already be running it. But there's not, so they don't. Likewise, the to Euclid and to Coney won't ever be implemented as permanent services. It was done a few years ago for a series of weekend G.O.'s and they brought it back a few weeks ago for the same reason. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CenSin Posted March 25, 2017 Share #34 Posted March 25, 2017 Don't worry about him. Daniel can be rude to people. Just ignore people like that. He speaks what some of us only think. Yes! If there were a critical mass of riders looking for a one-seat ride between Coney Island and the 8th Ave Line via the Culver El, the MTA would already be running it. But there's not, so they don't. Gentrification is well underway. I reckon some sort of service improvement will be called for whether it’s train frequency, speed, or route options. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MassTransitHonchkrow Posted March 25, 2017 Share #35 Posted March 25, 2017 A "50%" reduction in service is not true as they still have the train. They should try to reopen Bergen Street lower level though Is that what those staircases are for? Does the 174th St (Concourse) station also have a LL? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LongLiveRock Posted March 25, 2017 Share #36 Posted March 25, 2017 Is that what those staircases are for? Does the 174th St (Concourse) station also have a LL? Just a cross-under? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MassTransitHonchkrow Posted March 25, 2017 Share #37 Posted March 25, 2017 Regarding express service, can't they start it anyways (like right now) and have trains cover local stops (like they already do)? And if customers want local trains, they can stay on the and get off at Hoyt-Schermerhorn to continue local service. I think that would decongest the platforms during school dismissal hours and weekend afternoons and wouldn't be as dramatic as having the run to Stilwell (which seems inconsiderate to the as it serves an irksome rider base already fed up with long lines and shoddy trains). Don't worry about him. Daniel can be rude to people. Just ignore people like that. Anyways, TBH I don't see them running the F express service until after Canarsie is finished. Anyway, the bottleneck is probably Church Avenue, not Bergen St. They could always turn some/all G trains at 18th Ave to reduce delays at Church Avenue when they increase G frequency. and during the Canarsie closure they plan to beef up service on the lines anyway. I even think we'll see ten car sets on the trains. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mtatransit Posted March 25, 2017 Share #38 Posted March 25, 2017 Regarding express service, can't they start it anyways (like right now) and have trains cover local stops (like they already do)? And if customers want local trains, they can stay on the and get off at Hoyt-Schermerhorn to continue local service. I think that would decongest the platforms during school dismissal hours and weekend afternoons and wouldn't be as dramatic as having the run to Stilwell (which seems inconsiderate to the as it serves an irksome rider base already fed up with long lines and shoddy trains). and during the Canarsie closure they plan to beef up service on the lines anyway. I even think we'll see ten car sets on the trains. That would cause people At Bergen, Caroll, Smith-9 St to take the to Hoyt, walk to the other side then take the . If they needed the 6 AV Line that will be another transfer. Half-Half or slightly more local should work Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daniel The Cool Posted March 25, 2017 Share #39 Posted March 25, 2017 Regarding express service, can't they start it anyways (like right now) and have trains cover local stops (like they already do)? And if customers want local trains, they can stay on the and get off at Hoyt-Schermerhorn to continue local service. I think that would decongest the platforms during school dismissal hours and weekend afternoons and wouldn't be as dramatic as having the run to Stilwell (which seems inconsiderate to the as it serves an irksome rider base already fed up with long lines and shoddy trains). and during the Canarsie closure they plan to beef up service on the lines anyway. I even think we'll see ten car sets on the trains. How is the 10 Car Train going to be possible if the stations in Brooklyn hold only 8 cars? And the is supposed to receive the R179s (8 Car Trains) so that won't even work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MysteriousBtrain Posted March 25, 2017 Share #40 Posted March 25, 2017 Regarding express service, can't they start it anyways (like right now) and have trains cover local stops (like they already do)? And if customers want local trains, they can stay on the and get off at Hoyt-Schermerhorn to continue local service I tried to once when there were issues on the , its terrible. Lol.... The G isn't used all that interchangeably with the F, even b/w Bergen & Church..... I'm with you 100% on this one... It's not a substitute. No way in f*** would I bother with doing the G to the A/C, or the G to the L further north, to get to Manhattan.... While it's good that the G got the extension to Church, there are still issues with reliability with the line.... The transfer at Hoyt is a PITA. It's not only potentially 15 minutes out of the way, but the layout at Hoyt is not intuitive: the Manhattan-bound is on the opposite platform as the Queens-bound . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MassTransitHonchkrow Posted March 25, 2017 Share #41 Posted March 25, 2017 How is the 10 Car sets Train sets going to be possible if the stations in Brooklyn hold only 8 cars? Oh, so the platforms are the reason? Figures. I'm guessing expanding the length isn't in the Viaduct plan? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MassTransitHonchkrow Posted March 25, 2017 Share #42 Posted March 25, 2017 @Bosco the Queens bound - [EastNY/Rockaways/Ozone] [LIC] trains on the Hoyt-Schermerhorn are on the same side - the Manhattan are on the other side as the Kensington-bound Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Around the Horn Posted March 25, 2017 Share #43 Posted March 25, 2017 Oh, so the platforms are the reason? Figures. I'm guessing expanding the length isn't in the Viaduct plan? No thats purely for replacement of structurally deficient bridges... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Around the Horn Posted March 25, 2017 Share #44 Posted March 25, 2017 @Bosco the Queens bound - [EastNY/Rockaways/Ozone] [LIC] trains on the Hoyt-Schermerhorn are on the same side - the Manhattan are on the other side as the Kensington-bound Yeah, that's the problem. There is no way passengers from 7th Avenue to Bergen Street will be fine with taking the to the (and transferring again to the , as realistically most riders are looking for either Delancey Street, 2nd Avenue or the 6th Avenue line in Midtown) It's literally robbing Peter to pay Paul as this section has the majority of all the ridership in Brooklyn, by far... The express is ridiculous, unless there is a second Manhattan bound local service at current frequencies, which is impossible without another Manhattan trunk. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RR503 Posted March 25, 2017 Share #45 Posted March 25, 2017 Yeah, that's the problem. There is no way passengers from 7th Avenue to Bergen Street will be fine with taking the to the (and transferring again to the , as realistically most riders are looking for either Delancey Street, 2nd Avenue or the 6th Avenue line in Midtown) It's literally robbing Peter to pay Paul as this section has the majority of all the ridership in Brooklyn, by far... The express is ridiculous, unless there is a second Manhattan bound local service at current frequencies, which is impossible without another Manhattan trunk. I agree that doing just local is ridiculous, but vast majority of riders is wrong. The Culver El has nearly the same # of riders as the IND Smith St. Section, providing the onus for a ~50/50 split. I agree that culver needs more service, but as you say, we need another trunk for that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T to Dyre Avenue Posted March 27, 2017 Share #46 Posted March 27, 2017 There is considerably more ridership north of Church Avenue (Smith St Line) versus south (Culver El). The split between local and express trains should not be 50/50. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RR503 Posted March 27, 2017 Share #47 Posted March 27, 2017 There is considerably more ridership north of Church Avenue (Smith St Line) versus south (Culver El). The split between local and express trains should not be 50/50. Incorrect. The difference is 4% http://web.mta.info/nyct/service/pdf/F_express.pdf See pg. 22, 30-32, 37 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
checkmatechamp13 Posted March 27, 2017 Share #48 Posted March 27, 2017 Incorrect. The difference is 4% http://web.mta.info/nyct/service/pdf/F_express.pdf See pg. 22, 30-32, 37 The report mentions that if anything, the express would be more crowded since it would be picking up riders from Church Avenue & 7th Avenue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wallyhorse Posted March 27, 2017 Share #49 Posted March 27, 2017 What is your hard on for taking the off of Fulton? So since now we'd be over serving Culver, what's going to serve Fulton Street? We don't have the anymore and we don't have nearly enough equipment to send the that way. The can't even handle its own riders and you're going to ask them to make room for local riders in Brooklyn? Nah man, you're crazy. Once the newer equipment arrives, this could be done. The idea was this: Rush hours: About half the trains (running on the express track) run with the via Fulton Street to Euclid with the rest (including ALL trains to/from 179) beginning and ending at Chambers. All Times: A new train runs between Chambers and 168 as a supplement running 2-5 TPH while the runs to Euclid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CenSin Posted March 27, 2017 Share #50 Posted March 27, 2017 It's literally robbing Peter to pay Paul as this section has the majority of all the ridership in Brooklyn, by far... These statements are all relative. It’s equally applicable to say this for when the express was cut from regular service. “Paul was robbed to pay Peter.” Or in that case, the termination of express service made the commutes of those who lived farther out much longer, benefiting those who already lived relatively close to Manhattan. I agree that doing just local is ridiculous, but vast majority of riders is wrong. The Culver El has nearly the same # of riders as the IND Smith St. Section, providing the onus for a ~50/50 split. I agree that culver needs more service, but as you say, we need another trunk for that. I looked at the ridership figures some years ago. It was true that all the stations from Coney Island–Stillwell Avenue to Church Avenue plus 7 Avenue and Bergen Street had a ridership level similar to Carroll Street, Smith–9 Streets, 4 Avenue–9 Street, 15 Street–Prospect Park, and Fort Hamilton Parkway. The ridership may have changed since. Once remark I’ve read in an MTA document pertaining to the express said that by implementing express service, the could draw ridership away from nearby lines like the , , and to the stations from Church Avenue to Coney Island–Stillwell Avenue. The resultant increase in ridership itself would justify express service. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.