From Ben:
Last week, Gersh Kuntzman’s Brooklyn weekly The Brooklyn Paper ran a scathing (and, in my opinion, very short-sighted) editorial entitled “Who needs an F express?” As you may have guessed from the non-too-subtle title, Kuntzman, supposedly a champion of Brooklyn, isn’t in favor of this added train service on tracks that have existed since these subway lines opened in the 1930s.
In response to this outrageous editorial, I wrote a letter to the editor. The letter, co-signed by the other two major proponents of the F Express Plan, Gary Reilly, the driving force behind the F Express and author of Brooklyn Streets, Carroll Gardens, and Kensington (Brooklyn), disputes every contention made by The Brooklyn Paper in its editorial. While we hope the letter will appear in an upcoming issue of the paper, here it is in its entirety:
We were dismayed, surprised and saddened by your Sept. 15 editorial entitled “Who needs an F express?” Chock-full of misconceptions, gross oversimplifications and simply wrong information, the editorial provides a disservice to residents of not just Carroll Gardens and Cobble Hill but to all Brooklynites who stand to benefit from express service along the F line and an overall increase of service along the Culver Line.
First among your charges is that due to a supposed bottleneck at York St., “there may not be enough capacity to add trains.” This is an unfounded claim. Elsewhere in the system – the 7 line comes to mind – where express and local tracks feed into one, express service and increased train capacity have led to a lessening of crowded trains. If our greatest concern is one focusing on a scheduling issue past Jay St./Borough Hall, the real location of the bottleneck, then we have nearly won the battle for express service.
Next up is your claim of “simple populism” levied against our local politicians. These politicians are signing on to the research we have conducted that shows our proposal is more than just “simple populism.” As we have stressed over and over again, we don’t need to build new subway tracks to increase service along the Culver Line. The express tracks – the only unused express tracks in the City – were built with the subway line in the 1920s. We don’t need the hard work, vision or money to build new subways; we just need an MTA willing to utilizing underused tracks.
With our plan encompassing V service into Brooklyn past its current Second Ave. terminus and F express service into Kensington and beyond, we fail to see how Brownstone Brooklynites won’t enjoy any benefits. The V will, in our plan, service the current F stops, and the F will service the express stations. Both trains will run frequently, and both will be less crowded.
Overall, it is true that Brooklyn – much like New York City on the whole – needs a bold vision to bring about the next generation of transit enhancements. But we can’t afford to ignore or dismiss the solution right under our noses. Brooklyn needs a restored F express and extended V local, and everyone will benefit from that service.
21 comments:
v is less frequent than the f
thats my worry
good to take on gersh kuntzman. he still writes in that snarky new york post style.
question - are you going to report on the kermit place weekend event?
thanks.
8:51a -- V less frequent than the F currently? You don't ride much at rush hour, apparently.
The frequency of the V will be whatever the MTA wants it to be.
Indeed. Watching V, B and D trains come and go and come and go while I wait for a packed F is enough to make me weep with frustration some nights.
the V is less frequent than the F.
during rush hours, the average time between v trains is longer than f trains
http://www.straphangers.org/statesub07/F.pdf
http://www.straphangers.org/statesub07/V.pdf
Wow not only are you guys ruining Kensington but you're selfish too! Great job!
The problem with extending the 'V' to Church Avenue is that it would add to the V's turnaround time which would penalize Queens riders. Btter idea is add enought trains to the 'F' to allow for express and local service from Kings Highway to Jay Street. There is no bottleneck. The express and local tracks merge after Bergen Street. The system is capable of handling express and local trains because it was buitl that way back in the 1930s.
No - don't extend the V train! I catch it downtown and transfer to the F at 2nd Ave. It's the only chance to sit down on my daily commute. There's always a seat on the V.
hey its tara, here is the website i was talking about where i made the extra summer cash.......... the website is here
I agreed with the Brooklyn paper article--rational and well argued. Simply, we *all* need more service (which would speed up everyone's commute). As someone who hears trains expressing by while the platform at Ft. Hamilton is packed, I can only imagine the mess if they installed an Express. Extending the V would help, but let's face it, there are many more of us who rely on this train and there are no underused stops anymore. We need more trains, but an express would just cause more problems.
10:17, an express would ease your commute in two ways. It would free up seats for you on a local, and it would give you an opportunity to switch to an express relatively early in your commute, at 7th Avenue. The infrastructure exists. We should be using it.
10.17 here. I don't buy that argument. There will be fewer trains for me and everyone at a local stop. We'll wait longer while you get more trains (local and express) and a faster commute. That is not a trade off that solves the problem that *everyone* needs better service, thus more trains for all, not an express for a few.
Beside the seat argument makes no sense. If I change at 7th Ave after waiting while trains express by, I give up that seat (which I don't get now anyway) and stand.
I understand you want to get to work faster but if you lived at any of the stops on the F where service would inevitably be diminished, you'd change your mind. I can't see why we can't just lobby for improved F service. Given that the MTA engineers say the F express is a lost cause (Bergen Street fire, the York St bottleneck, V taking up tracks from 2nd Ave, the 9th Avenue problem with vibrations and the Viaduct work), it would make more sense to call for something that can be implemented.
I think the F trains actually run quite often when they are on schedule. Certainly more trains would be great if it is possible, but I bet having express service would cut down delays on all routes since trains would be less crowded and would not be held up by people trying to squeeze into already-stuffed cars.
10:17/9:15, you're just wrong.
The seats argument is valid, because people who ride expresses will not be using your local train, which means...more seats for you!.
If you want to get to work faster... take the local two stops north to 7th Avenue and change for the express!
You're stuck on existing F service being diminished. Do you have any proof that this will be the case? Has anyone advocating an express on teh F line asked for it to be done at the expense of existing service? Seriously, you get all wound up about a made up threat to the point where you can't see that it'd actually benefit everyone to have more trains running through the neighborhood.
I change from express to local every single day. It's really, really easy. I know the F train doesn't currently give you a chance to practice this skill so maybe you shhould hop onto another line and give it a try some time.
There would be diminished local service, if an express ever comes into being, for several reasons--the York Street-Delancey track is a single track, the Queens track is already full and running at capacity and the viaduct issue.
Please, stop being so rude. I'm not stupid and I do NOT WANT EXPRESS. MORE TRAINS FOR ALL.
12:14, reread your post and then stop and think about what you're writing. You go on at some length about how the existing infrastructure ("the York Street-Delancey track is a single track, the Queens track is already full and running at capacity and the viaduct issue...") is incapable of handling the additional traffic an express would bring...
...and then, after your linebreak, you're right back saying you want more trains for everyone! Do all of the supposed infrastructure issues you cite magically disappear if the additional trains are locals instead of expresses? Is a local somehow less overwhelming to the supposedly already crowded tracks than an express. In plain point of fact, a new express would be signifigantly less taxing on the infrastructure than more local service...because the express would not be taking up more space on the local tracks during large portions of its run, while the additional local service you say you want would be.
You don't want an express because you believe- completely without basis or merit- that you would not benefit from it, simply because it would not stop directly at your station. You're being short-sighted and selfish, and you're completely out of step with what happens on very nearly every other subway corridor in the city.
I think some of those arguing against a restored F Express in Brooklyn are confused. What they seem to observe at times is in fact provisional Skip Stop service, not Express. Rarely does the F skip stations to catch up to schedule while utilizing the Express tracks. When you're forced to exit the train at 7th avenue are you stepping off the inside or outside track?
Laila, Please try not to be rude--it doesn't help your argument. I recognize the contradictions I mentioned above, but it doesn't preclude some service improvements. It just makes an F-express an option that will lead to reduction in local service. I believe we're all better off with more trains. If I used Church Ave I'd still want more service for all, not better for a few (maybe it is old fashioned but I believe in the common good transcending all).
Given the infrastructure, an express would be at the cost of service in the skipped stops and I find that unacceptable. There are real limitations with the extant tracks--including the possibility that Viaduct repairs will leave us all with no service whatsoever--and the cost of running and purchasing new trains to service any F-express, not to mention salaries and line maintenance.
These limitations cannot be wished away (confession: I'm a train nerd and know too much about MTA engineering, projects and track history). The problems with single tracks are exacerbated by spacing requirements between F and V (eliminating/extending the V would help all of us--service has been notably worse since it started). Until new electronic systems are in, that won't change, and the delays and cancelled service on the L are necessary for those changes.
HOWEVER, the F doesn't run as scheduled. Our service is poor compared to other lines. We need to be a unified voice to change this. The F-express is a red herring. The MTA have real engineering grounds for saying it isn't possible. They do offer an F train service that does not work on schedule. We can justifiably lobby the MTA about the decline in F frequency and service--lengthy delays, failure to meet schedules, the priority given to G and E trains at interchanges, etc.
The F line in Queens is also running at 100% capacity (it shares tracks between 36-74th St. with the E, which is a better train and runs more often). This limits extra F service. I don't know what can be done but again the problems point to the need to run the V into Brooklyn.
Despite this, I think they can run more Fs. I know you'd rather they ran the same number of Fs and an F express, or made any extra trains express, but I'd rather we all have better service. The stops that are skipped are heavily used by passengers who pay the same for their metrocard as you do and are as frustrated by waiting.
I've lived at a stop served by Express and Local trains and, yes, those riders are better off. But not because they have express trains but because they have *more* trains, and thus options.
I think we should stop bickering and collaborate. We all want more service and a faster commute, we all rely on the F and we all hate seeing a near-empty V coast into stations in Manhattan or G trains just shutting back and forth through stations beyond Smith-9th and not stopping for passengers. So why not work together for reliable and faster service for all and not an express for a few? Let everyone work on the things we agree on and not focus on petty and unproductive differences that descend into name calling, rudeness, spite, and contempt towards total strangers who we might actually like in person.
You can't expect me to respond to or take seriously a post so riddled with contradictions and misconceptions. Saying the same thing over and over and over just makes you persistent, not right.
"You can't expect me to respond to or take seriously a post so riddled with contradictions and misconceptions."
Such as?
Cop out.
Such as the main contradiction which reduces all else to absurdity...that express service will overtax the existing infrastructure, but somehow increased local service will not. This is the primary flaw. There are many others, but resolving this contradiction might make the others worth trying to talk through.
Post a Comment