Jump to content

F express in Brooklyn to start...this year?


46Dover

Recommended Posts

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 (F) line stations. Even though I don't ride the (F) in Brooklyn, I really don't think the express service - as proposed - is a good idea. Having an equal number of (F) 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 (F) 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


  • Replies 226
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Reopening the lower level at Bergen Street is something that should be done anyway if you are going to have some (F) express service.

 

I have previously said what I would be looking at doing is this, however:

 

(C) diverts from the 8th Avenue line at West 4th and becomes the Culver Express to Coney Island (except late nights)

(F) terminates with the (G) 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 (F) would run as it does now (albeit truncated to Church Avenue other than late nights) while the (C) would run via Rutgers with the (F). 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 (F) 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 (C)(F) and (M) 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 (B) to 168th (IIRC) And (C) 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 (F) ran to Euclid, (G) to Coney Island and (D) 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

I can see the railfan value of having an 8th Ave train connecting to Coney Island - since earlier the IND had (B) to 168th (IIRC) And (C) 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 (F) ran to Euclid, (G) to Coney Island and (D) 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 (G) went to CI due to trackwork being done between Jay Street and Bergen Street having the (F) go to Euclid and that (D) Train via Culver and (F) 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

What're you talking about? The only reason why the (D) and (F) 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 (F) trains via the Bridge to return to Culver.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What're you talking about? The only reason why the (D) and (F) 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 (F) trains via the Bridge to return to Culver.

Thats what I basically said....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

I can see the railfan value of having an 8th Ave train connecting to Coney Island - since earlier the IND had (B) to 168th (IIRC) And (C) 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 (F) ran to Euclid, (G) to Coney Island and (D) 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 (F) to Euclid and (G) 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

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

Regarding (F) express service, can't they start it anyways (like right now) and have (G) trains cover local stops (like they already do)?

And if customers want local trains, they can stay on the (A) 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 (C) run to Stilwell (which seems inconsiderate to the (A) 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 (G)(J) lines anyway.

I even think we'll see ten car sets on the (C)(M) trains.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Regarding (F) express service, can't they start it anyways (like right now) and have (G) trains cover local stops (like they already do)?

And if customers want local trains, they can stay on the (A) 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 (C) run to Stilwell (which seems inconsiderate to the (A) 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 (G)(J) lines anyway.

I even think we'll see ten car sets on the (C)(M) trains.

That would cause people At Bergen, Caroll, Smith-9 St to take the (G) to Hoyt, walk to the other side then take the (A). 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

Regarding (F) express service, can't they start it anyways (like right now) and have (G) trains cover local stops (like they already do)?

And if customers want local trains, they can stay on the (A) 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 (C) run to Stilwell (which seems inconsiderate to the (A) 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 (G)(J) lines anyway.

I even think we'll see ten car sets on the (C)(M) trains.

 

How is the 10 Car (M) Train going to be possible if the stations in Brooklyn hold only 8 cars?

 

And the (C) is supposed to receive the R179s (8 Car Trains) so that won't even work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Regarding (F) express service, can't they start it anyways (like right now) and have (G) trains cover local stops (like they already do)?

And if customers want local trains, they can stay on the (A) and get off at Hoyt-Schermerhorn to continue local service

I tried (G) to (A)(C) once when there were issues on the (F), 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 (A)(C) is on the opposite platform as the Queens-bound (G).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Bosco the Queens bound (A)(C) - [EastNY/Rockaways/Ozone] (G) [LIC] trains on the Hoyt-Schermerhorn are on the same side -  the Manhattan (A)(C) are on the other side as the Kensington-bound (G)

 

Yeah, that's the problem. There is no way passengers from 7th Avenue to Bergen Street will be fine with taking the (G) to the (A)(C) (and transferring again to the (B)(D)(F)(M), 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 (F) ridership in Brooklyn, by far...

 

The (F) 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

Yeah, that's the problem. There is no way passengers from 7th Avenue to Bergen Street will be fine with taking the (G) to the (A)(C) (and transferring again to the (B)(D)(F)(M), 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 (F) ridership in Brooklyn, by far...

 

The (F) 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 (G) 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

What is your hard on for taking the (C) off of Fulton? So since now we'd be over serving Culver, what's going to serve Fulton Street? We don't have the (JFK) anymore and we don't have nearly enough equipment to send the (E) that way. The (A) 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 (E) trains (running on the express track) run with the (A) via Fulton Street to Euclid with the rest (including ALL trains to/from 179) beginning and ending at Chambers.

 

All Times: A new (K) train runs between Chambers and 168 as a supplement running 2-5 TPH while the (E) runs to Euclid.  

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's literally robbing Peter to pay Paul as this section has the majority of all the (F) 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 (G) 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 (F) express said that by implementing express service, the (F) could draw ridership away from nearby lines like the (D), (N), and (Q) 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

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.