DOCSLIB.ORG

March 2010 Bulletin.Pub

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
March 2010 Bulletin.Pub TheNEW YORK DIVISION BULLETIN - MARCH, 2010 Bulletin New York Division, Electric Railroaders’ Association Vol. 53, No. 3 March, 2010 The Bulletin CITY BEGAN OPERATING STATEN ISLAND TROLLEY Published by the New CARS IN 1920 York Division, Electric Railroaders’ Association, Street railways were hard hit by World War I Lake, Concord, Richmond, St. George and Incorporated, PO Box and the tremendous increase in costs follow- Port Richmond to Midland Beach, and Manor 3001, New York, New ing it. In this three-part series, we are ex- Road. York 10008-3001. plaining how New York City’s street railways From January 19 to December 1, 1920, were able to maintain service during this diffi- Richmond Light & Railroad operated cars on For general inquiries, cult period. The December, 2009 issue dis- the Silver Lake Line between St. George and contact us at nydiv@ cussed the Brooklyn and Queens companies’ Clove Road. The city operated an inefficient erausa.org or by phone at (212) 986-4482 (voice problems, the next issue analyzed the Man- bus service, which could not handle the traf- mail available). The hattan and Bronx companies’ difficulties, and fic. Starting May 21, 1920, Midland operated Division’s website is this issue will reveal the problems encoun- one car on each line, except three cars on St. www.erausa.org/ tered on Staten Island. George to Port Richmond via Concord be- nydiv.html. In 1919, two companies operated trolley tween 10 AM and 5:25 PM. Editorial Staff: cars on Staten Island. Richmond Light & Rail- On November 17, 1920, 28 cars, probably Editor-in-Chief: road Company provided service, but Staten single-truck Birneys, were delivered to Staten Bernard Linder Island Midland Railway ceased operating on Island. Municipal operation by the Depart- News Editor: January 19, 1920 because of inadequate ment of Plant and Structures began on De- Randy Glucksman cember 1, 1920 over the former Midland Contributing Editor: receipts, depriving thousands of Staten Is- Jeffrey Erlitz land passengers of needed transportation. routes. With ten additional Birneys and sev- The Public Service Commission and the city eral second-hand Second Avenue Railroad Production Manager: had advance notice of the company’s prob- cars, the fleet was increased to 69 cars in David Ross lems, and the former made every effort to 1921. help the company. But the Board of Estimate Six years later, trolley service ended sud- and Apportionment refused the company’s denly because the Controller refused to pay plea for relief. Without the Board’s consent, the electric bill. In April, 1927, Staten Island PSC could not save the company. In the Edison asked the city to pay a year and a ©2010 New York summer of 1919, the company informed PSC half overdue electric bill. A month later, the Division, Electric Railroaders’ that it would cease operating if relief were not matter was brought up and received no at- Association, granted. PSC was able to persuade the com- tention. When the city received the notice to Incorporated pany to continue operating a little longer. In discontinue power, it asked for an extension December, 1919, the company finally set the of time. On July 1, one month’s notice was date for closing down. At a hearing held on given to the city. On July 30, 1927, there was In This Issue: December 29, 1919, the company revealed an all-day conference regarding the unpaid A History of F that it was operated at a loss in 1919 and $175,000 electric bill. The Controller said that and V Train several previous years. Service was discon- the operation was illegal, and he agreed to Service tinued January 19, 1920 despite a Supreme pay the final bill after trolley service was dis- Court restraining order served on the com- continued. The Commissioner of Plant and (Continued) pany’s Traffic Superintendent. Structures said that he could serve Staten ...Page 2 The following lines ceased operating: Silver (Continued on page 5) NEXT TRIP: 207TH STREET1 SHOP TOUR—MARCH 20 NEWNEW YORK YORK DIVISION DIVISION BULLETIN BULLETIN OCTOBER,- MARCH, 2010 2000 A HISTORY OF F (AND V) TRAIN SERVICE (Continued from February, 2010 Issue) by George Chiasson GENESIS OF THE F TRAIN, PART I: THE plex currently exists across from the New York Aquar- PROSPECT PARK & CONEY ISLAND RAILROAD ium. (1874-99) In its earliest incarnation, PP&CI's stations were lo- The present day Culver Line of MTA New York City cated at Greenwood Depot, Turner-City Line (Ft. Hamil- Transit had its beginnings as the Prospect Park & ton Parkway), Parkville (Avenue I), Washington Station Coney Island Railroad, one of four privately-owned ex- (Avenue K), Harris-Woodlawn (Avenue N), Kings High- cursion lines linking populous neighborhoods of Brook- way, The Brooklyn Jockey Club (Avenue T), Gravesend lyn with the "resort" community of Coney Island. In the (Neck Road), Van Sicklen (Neptune Avenue), and The time immediately surrounding the Civil War the then- Culver Depot. The station at Turner-City Line (Ft. Hamil- independent city of Brooklyn experienced a massive ton Parkway) was an early casualty in 1876, but sum- growth phase, in which it started to be transformed from mer traffic was good enough to increase service after a mostly suburban, semi-agrarian setting to an urban the first year, and in time for the 1878 season the line landscape. As Lower Manhattan provided much of the was double-tracked from Parkville to Coney Island area's economic energy even at that time, Brooklyn's Creek (south of Van Sicklen). It was then extended via greatest area of early development was largely contigu- single track from Culver Depot to Norton's Point ous to both it and the burgeoning downtown area of (approximately Surf & Mermaid Avenues) on June 9, Brooklyn. In turn the central business district was linked 1879, from which a connecting ferry boat operation to to nearby residential neighborhoods by a developing the Rockaway Peninsula was instituted on June 17, system of surface transit (i.e. horsecar) lines, with 1881. Things were going so well at this point that major a steam railway (the Long Island RR) aimed at points enlargement and renovation was performed on the further away. Brooklyn's large ocean front was an early Culver Depot and adjoining hotel in time for the 1883 summer refuge for city dwellers, and a few entrepre- summer season. neurs sought to exploit this opportunity by establishing a By 1885, the appeal of PP&CI had caught on suffi- resort experience that included transportation, accom- ciently to draw the attention of the Long Island Rail Road, and a joint seasonal venture begun which con- modation and recreation. Through this effort, a group of rd steam excursion lines was gradually built that focused nected LIRR's 63 Street Ferry Terminal in Bay Ridge on Coney Island, as did another serving Canarsie and with the Gravesend Race Track (of the Brooklyn Jockey the Rockaway Peninsula. Club) before continuing on to the Culver Depot at Originally incorporated on October 9, 1874, the Pros- Coney Island. To accomplish this the two lines were pect Park & Coney Island Railroad more popularly car- physically tied together at "Parkville Junction" (roughly McDonald Avenue at 47th Street) and a portion of ried the name of its financier and founder, Andrew R. rd Culver, to thus gain its name as Culver('s) Line. As PP&CI's service rerouted to the 63 Street Ferry termi- opened on June 19, 1875, in plenty of time to garner nal via what is now the Bay Ridge Branch of LIRR. As early summer traffic, PP&CI was laid out as a single- well, LIRR began to acquire a financial interest in track railroad from a terminal at the Greenwood station PP&CI, which enhanced its fiscal performance all the (next to the present Greenwood Cemetery on one edge more. of Prospect Park) to the Gravesend station (located By the late 1880s PP&CI was preparing to shift its fo- at the present Neck Road), with passing sidings located cus away from seasonal excursion traffic to full-time at the Harris-Woodlawn and Gravesend stations. The urban transportation corridor, but even so it did com- line followed what is now 20th Street eastward a short plete a replacement terminal at its Greenwood Depot in distance before turning south onto Gravesend (now 1888 after the original was burned on November 14, 1887. On June 7, 1890 PP&CI rerouted most of its McDonald) Avenue, a largely unoccupied survey with rd little density along what would become a teeming boule- trains from both Greenwood Depot and the 63 Street Ferry LIRR terminal to a new Union Depot. This was vard of southern Brooklyn. In time the cur- th rent streetscape of McDonald Avenue enveloped located at 36 Street & Fifth Avenue, and served jointly the railroad corridor, which ran along the surface over with another Coney Island excursion road, the Brooklyn, its first 45 years of existence. Eight days after its initial Bath & West End Railway. It was also adjacent to the opening, PP&CI was extended via single track to the Brooklyn Elevated Railway's Fifth Avenue “El,” which Coney Island oceanfront terminal known as "Culver's provided a swift, year-round connection to Downtown th Depot." This was located at approximately W. 5 Street (Continued on page 3) and Surf Avenue, about where a large apartment com- 2 NEW YORK DIVISION BULLETIN - MARCH, 2010 A History of F (and V) Train Service commenced its final year of joint operation to Manhattan Beach, with service offered from the 39th Street Ferry (Continued from page 2) and, more importantly, from the Park Row elevated ter- Brooklyn (and Lower Manhattan via the Brooklyn minal in Manhattan as well.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Your Family's Guide to Explore NYC for FREE with Your Cool Culture Pass
    coolculture.org FAMILY2019-2020 GUIDE Your family’s guide to explore NYC for FREE with your Cool Culture Pass. Cool Culture | 2019-2020 Family Guide | coolculture.org WELCOME TO COOL CULTURE! Whether you are a returning family or brand new to Cool Culture, we welcome you to a new year of family fun, cultural exploration and creativity. As the Executive Director of Cool Culture, I am excited to have your family become a part of ours. Founded in 1999, Cool Culture is a non-profit organization with a mission to amplify the voices of families and strengthen the power of historically marginalized communities through engagement with art and culture, both within cultural institutions and beyond. To that end, we have partnered with your child’s school to give your family FREE admission to almost 90 New York City museums, historic societies, gardens and zoos. As your child’s first teacher and advocate, we hope you find this guide useful in adding to the joy, community, and culture that are part of your family traditions! Candice Anderson Executive Director Cool Culture 2020 Cool Culture | 2019-2020 Family Guide | coolculture.org HOW TO USE YOUR COOL CULTURE FAMILY PASS You + 4 = FREE Extras Are Extra Up to 5 people, including you, will be The Family Pass covers general admission. granted free admission with a Cool Culture You may need to pay extra fees for special Family Pass to approximately 90 museums, exhibits and activities. Please call the $ $ zoos and historic sites. museum if you’re unsure. $ More than 5 people total? Be prepared to It’s For Families pay additional admission fees.
    [Show full text]
  • Capital Program Oversight Committee Meeting
    Capital Program Oversight Committee Meeting April 2021 Committee Members P. Foye, Chair N. Zuckerman, Vice Chair A. Albert J. Barbas N. Brown M. Fleischer R. Glucksman R. Herman D. Jones K. Law R. Linn D. Mack J. Samuelsen V. Tessitore Capital Program Oversight Committee Meeting 2 Broadway, 20th Floor Board Room New York, NY 10004 Wednesday, 4/21/2021 10:00 AM - 5:00 PM ET 1. PUBLIC COMMENTS PERIOD 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES MARCH 17, 2021 CPOC Committee Minutes - Page 3 3. COMMITTEE WORK PLAN 2021 - 2022 CPOC Committee Work Plan - Page 4 4. PRESIDENT’S REPORT President's Report - Page 6 5. CAPITAL PROGRAM UPDATE Progress Report on Signals and Train Control - Page 10 IEC Project Review on Signals and Train Control - Page 14 6. CAPITAL PROGRAM STATUS Commitments, Completions, and Funding Report - Page 31 MINUTES OF MEETING MTA CAPITAL PROGRAM OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE March 17, 2021 New York, New York 10:00 A.M. Because of the ongoing COVID‐19 public health crisis, the MTA Chairman convened a one‐day, virtual Board and Committee meeting session on March 17, 2021, which included the following committees: Long Island Rail Road and Metro‐North Railroad; New York City Transit; MTA Bridges and Tunnels; ; Finance Capital Program Oversight Committee; Corporate Governance. To see a summary of the CPOC Committee meeting, please refer to the March 17, 2021 Board minutes in the April Board Book available here on the Board materials website: https://new.mta.info/transparency/board‐and‐committee‐meetings/april‐2021 ________________________________________________________________________________ Master Page # 3 of 46 - Capital Program Oversight Committee Meeting 4/21/2021 2021- 2022 CPOC Committee Work Plan I.
    [Show full text]
  • Transit Optimization Plan September 2017
    Transit Optimization Plan September 2017 Prepared by: Contents Introduction ................................................................................................................................6 Goals and Focus ........................................................................................................... 6 Study Process ............................................................................................................... 7 Report Contents ........................................................................................................... 8 Existing Conditions .....................................................................................................................9 Market Assessment ...................................................................................................... 9 Population ..........................................................................................................................9 Employment .......................................................................................................................9 Development Patterns ........................................................................................................9 Regional Growth ............................................................................................................... 10 Growth in Senior Population ............................................................................................. 10 Transit’s Role in Mobility ..................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Part 1: Downtown Transit Center and Circulator Shuttle
    Howard Research and Development Corporation Downtown Columbia Downtown Transit Center and Circulator Shuttle Feasibility Study: Part 1 - Downtown Transit Center & Downtown Circulator Shuttle (Part of CEPPA #5) DRAFTDecember 2011 Table of Contents Introduction ................................................................................................................................................................. iv Chapter 1. Downtown Columbia Transit Center ....................................................................................................... 1 Chapter 2. Downtown Columbia Circulator Shuttle ............................................................................................... 12 Appendix A. Regional Transit System Evaluation .............................................................................................. 21 Appendix B. Regional Transit Market Analysis .................................................................................................. 46 Appendix C. Transit Circulator Design ................................................................................................................ 64 Appendix D. Transit Center Site Evaluation ...................................................................................................... 764 Appendix E. Transit Development Plan ............................................................................................................... 79 DRAFT Page i• Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. Table of Figures Figure 1 Existing
    [Show full text]
  • The Bulletin the MILEPOSTS of THE
    ERA BULLETIN — JANUARY, 2017 The Bulletin Electric Railroaders’ Association, Incorporated Vol. 60, No. 1 January, 2017 The Bulletin THE MILEPOSTS OF THE Published by the Electric NEW YORK SUBWAY SYSTEM Railroaders’ Association, Incorporated, PO Box by ERIC R. OSZUSTOWICZ 3323, New York, New York 10163-3323. Many of us are familiar with the chaining three former divisions (plus the Flushing and system for the tracks of the New York sub- Canarsie Lines) had one zero point. Most of For general inquiries, or way system. Each track on the system has a these signs have been removed due to vari- Bulletin submissions, marker every 50 feet based on a “zero point” ous construction projects over the years and contact us at bulletin@ for that particular track. For example, the ze- were never replaced. Their original purpose erausa.org. ERA’s ro point for the BMT Broadway Subway is is unknown, but shortly after their installation, website is just north of 57th Street-Seventh Avenue. The they quickly fell into disuse. www.erausa.org. southbound local track is Track A1. 500 feet Over the years, I have been recording and Editorial Staff: south of the zero point, the marker is photographing the locations of the remaining Editor-in-Chief: A1/5+00. One hundred fifty feet further south, mileposts before they all disappear com- Bernard Linder the marker is A1/6+50. If you follow the line pletely. These locations were placed on a Tri-State News and all the way to 14th Street-Union Square, one spreadsheet. Using track schematics show- Commuter Rail Editor: Ronald Yee will find a marker reading A1/120+00 within ing exact distances, I was able to deduce the North American and World the station.
    [Show full text]
  • Review of the G Line
    Review of the G Line ,. July 10, 2013 NYC Transit G Line Review Executive Summary Executive Summary The attached report provides a comprehensive review of operations on the G line. Based on NYC Transit’s standard measures of On-Time Performance and Wait Assessment, the G performs well relative to the average subway line. At the same time, the G differs from other NYC Transit subway lines because the route is relatively short and never enters Manhattan, and thus serves primarily as a feeder/distributor with most riders transferring at least once before reaching their destinations. This review identifies a number of opportunities to improve operations on the G line, with recommendations chiefly intended to provide more even train headways and passenger loading, as well as to improve customer communication. Key Findings: While G ridership has grown significantly in recent years, it still remains relatively low compared to the rest of the system, and average passenger loads on the G are within service guidelines during both peak and off-peak hours. Scheduling the G train around the busier and more frequent F train causes uneven headways and passenger loads on the G, most significantly during the afternoon peak period, when G service is scheduled at the minimum guideline frequency of 6 trains per hour (an average 10-minute headway). G riders make twice as many transfers as the average subway rider; this high transfer rate is inconvenient for customers who must wait for multiple trains. Trains shorter than the platform length cause uncertainty about where the G train stops, contributing to uneven passenger loads.
    [Show full text]
  • Compilation of Concerns, Comments and Recommendations Received
    Compilation of Concerns, Comments and Recommendations Received from the Legislature and the Permanent Citizens Advisory Committee to the MTA Pursuant to Chapter 25 of the Laws of 2009 February 1, 2011 through July 31, 2011 Metropolitan Transportation Authority Office of Legislative and Community Input Compilation of Concerns, Comments and Recommendations Pursuant to Chapter 25 of the Laws of 2009 February 1, 2011 through July 31, 2011 Senate, Legislator's Name of Date Request/Concern/ Close Out Agency/Tracking Assembly or Name (none Legislator's or Agency Response Received Recommendation Expressed Date PCAC if PCAC) PCAC Contact Complaints received about NYCT personnel at the Fresh Pond Nolan, Parking is very limited in the depot and elsewhere but they will try to have personnel park NYCT7503 Assembly Diane Ballek 10/4/10 Depot parking their private vehicles on the streets adjacent to 2/2/2011 Catherine T. in other locations. the Depot. Pheffer, NYCT8061 Assembly Mary Lou 10/6/10 Inquiry about Rockaway park line station projects Information provided. 2/2/2011 Audrey I. LIRR993 Senate LaValle, Ken Abbondola, V. 10/22/10 Late train Provided information 4/4/2011 Site walk-thru conducted with Assembly Member Farrell at Tour conducted on 11/19 and cost estimate developed. Approval letter for use of Capital Farrell, Earnestine Bell NYCT9547 Assembly 11/19/10 155th Street Station BD concerning Assembly funded station Reserve Funds for repairs discussed during 11/19 tour sent to Assemblymember Farrell 3/11/2011 Herman D. Temple improvements on 3/11/11. Approval Pending. NYCT supervisors inspected areas cited in letter.
    [Show full text]
  • Operations and Financial Analysis
    OPERATIONS AND FINANCIAL ANALYSIS APRIL 22, 2015 PREPARED BY: LOUIS BERGER WATER SERVICES TABLE OF CONTENTS A) EXECUTIVE SUMMARY B) OPERATIONS ANALYSIS C) FINANCIAL ANALYSIS D) APPENDICES EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Introduction Louis Berger was tasked by the Baltimore City Department of Transportation (BCDOT) to evaluate the Charm City Circulator (CCC) bus operation and analyze financial performance, and develop route operations alternatives that maximize ridership while minimizing costs. Objective The objective is to develop and evaluate alternatives to eliminate the annual deficits while providing maximum service to riders within existing financial resources. Description of Current System Existing Condition The CCC consists of four routes, Purple, Orange, Green and Banner providing “Fast. Friendly. Free.” service throughout downtown Baltimore 362 days per year, with hours of service varying by day type and by season. Key characteristics of each route: Purple Route- runs north - south from Federal Hill to Historic Mount Vernon. Ten (10) minute headways require six (6) buses to operate. Heaviest ridership of all the routes. Orange Route- runs east – west from Historic Fell’s Point and Harbor Point in the east beyond University of Maryland, Baltimore in the west. Ten (10) minute headways require five (5) buses to operate. Ridership is second best in the system. Green Route- roughly U shaped route serves Johns Hopkins University Hospital East Baltimore Campus (JHUH) connecting south to Harbor Point and Harbor East, then northwest to park and ride lots, looping down near City Center then back around. Ten (10) minute headways require six (6) buses. Longest route, least productive in terms of riders. Banner Route- angles southeast of the city past Federal Hill to Fort McHenry.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 12: Transportation Page 231 CITY of WESTMINSTER Transportation 2009
    Transportation 2009 2009 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Transportation 2009 Chapter 12: Transportation Page 231 CITY OF WESTMINSTER Transportation 2009 What is the Transportation Element? Community Vision for At the 1997 session, the General Assembly passed five Transportation pieces of legislation and budget initiatives known collectively as "Smart Growth." Maryland has adopted the principles of Smart Growth to be incorporated into the According to the 2008 Community Survey, Comprehensive Plan. Westminster drivers are concerned with the difficulties they encounter turning on and The following Smart Growth principle relates to the Transportation Element: off roads due to issues with visibility or merging. Some residents suggested that the Facilitate an adequate mix of transportation modes City should consider the addition of lanes, roundabouts, or left turn signals. A second To reduce traffic congestion throughout the City challenge with driving in Westminster is the To coordinate land use and transportation high volume of traffic. Residents describe traffic to be an issue on Route 140 during To create resiliency, and connectivity within the City commuting times in the early morning or road networks early evening because of the high number of To ensure connectivity between pedestrian, bike, commuters that leave Westminster everyday to work outside of Carroll County. transit, and road facilities From the timing to the synchronization, Revitalize existing neighborhoods into safe, residents listed challenges with traffic lights walkable, and livable communities throughout Westminster. In some cases, it is not the use of a traffic light, but rather the To mix land uses and build compactly, thus reducing lack of a traffic light that most concerned trips and make walking a more viable alternative residents.
    [Show full text]
  • May 18 2016 TC Presentation Revised
    Transportation Commission WORK SESSION May 18, 2016 2016 Transportation Long Range Plan Work Session Proposed Schedule April Overview / Guidance / Methodology for LRP update (Study Session) May Review draft of new LRP projects / Removed projects (Study Session) June Initial screening of projects July Finalize screening of projects (Draft LRP) Sept. Public Hearing Adoption of LRP by Transportation Commission 3 Removed Projects • #15-21 – S. Van Dorn Street Improvements • #15-23 – West End Commuter Hub 4 Projects moved to Developer Contingent List • #15-4 - Pedestrian / Bicycle connection from Potomac Yard to Four Mile Run Trail • #15-18 – Library Lane Extension • #15-22 – Elizabeth Lane Extension • #15-26 – New road to Four Mile Run Park 5 Consolidated Projects • #15-5 – Mt. Vernon at Russell Road New 01 • #15-6 – Mt. Vernon at Four Mile Road • #15-7 – Mt. Vernon at E/W Glebe Road New • #15-24 – Van Dorn at Braddock Road 02 • #15-25 – Beauregard at Braddock Road • #15-28 – Quaker at Seminary (Consolidate with New project #10) 6 Studies for Removal • #15-7 – Edsall from Van Dorn to S. Pickett • #15-8 – Commonwealth Ave / Reed Ave Signal Studies to be Consolidated • #15-3 – Feasibility of a pedestrian connection between the Braddock Metrorail station and the Northern gateway through Braddock Place development • #15-4 – Feasibility of a walking route along the road parallel to the Metrorail embankment to also include transit and bike New Study • #New 02 – Braddock Road Multimodal Connections (Removed from CIP) 7 2016 LRP New Projects • Two
    [Show full text]
  • Capital Program Oversight Committee Meeting
    Capital Program Oversight Committee Meeting November 2020 Committee Members P. Foye, Chair N. Zuckerman, Vice Chair A. Albert J. Barbas N. Brown M. Fleischer R. Glucksman R. Herman D. Jones K. Law R. Linn D. Mack J. Samuelsen V. Tessitore Capital Program Oversight Committee Meeting 2 Broadway, 20th Floor Board Room New York, NY 10004 Wednesday, 11/18/2020 10:00 AM - 5:00 PM ET 1. PUBLIC COMMENTS PERIOD 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OCTOBER 28, 2020 Minutes from October ‘20 - Page 3 3. COMMITTEE WORK PLAN 2020 - 2021 CPOC Committee Work Plan - Page 4 4. C&D CAPITAL PROGRAM UPDATE Update on Signals and Train Control - Page 6 IEC Project Review on Queens Boulevard CBTC - Page 10 IEC Project Review on Culver Line CBTC - Page 15 IEC Project Review on 8th Avenue CBTC - Page 19 IEC Project Review on Bus Radio System - Page 24 5. UPDATE ON OMNY, MTA’s NEW FARE PAYMENT SYSTEM Update on OMNY - Page 28 IEC Project Review on OMNY - Page 36 IEC OMNY Appendix - Page 41 6. UPDATE ON SMALL BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM Small Business Development Program - Page 44 7. UPDATE M/WBE, DBE, and SDVOB PARTICIPATION on CAPITAL PROJECTS M/WBE, DBE, and SDVOB Participation - Page 74 8. CAPITAL PROGRAM STATUS Commitments, Completions, and Funding Report - Page 75 MINUTES OF MEETING MTA CAPITAL PROGRAM OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE October 28, 2020 New York, New York 10:00 A.M. Because of the ongoing COVID‐19 public health crisis, the MTA Chairman convened a one‐day, virtual Board and Committee meeting session on October 28, 2020, which included the following committees: Joint Long Island Rail Road and Metro‐North Railroad Committees; New York City Transit and MTA Bus Committee; Bridges and Tunnels Committee; Finance Committee; Audit Committee; Safety Committee; Capital Program Oversight Committee.
    [Show full text]
  • Feasibility and Analysis of Fexpress Service in Brooklyn May 2016
    Feasibility and Analysis of F Express Service in Brooklyn May 2016 MN F Brooklyn F Express Study Table of Contents I. Introduction 6 II. Population and Ridership 8 Recent Trends in Ridership 12 Projected Future Growth in Corridor 16 III. History of Brooklyn F Express 18 Comparisons to Other Express Corridors 20 IV. Current Express Option 21 Limits on Total F Service 26 Limits on Span of F Express 27 V. Express Ridership and Travel Time Savings 27 Potential Shift from Other Corridors 33 Loading Impacts 33 Station Impacts 35 VI. Recommendations 36 MN 1 F Brooklyn F Express Study List of Figures Figure 1 – Culver Line Track Configuration 7 Figure 2 – Population Density, F Corridor 9 Figure 3 – Labor Force as % of Population, F Corridor 10 Figure 4 – F Line Station Weekday Entries and Growth by Segment, 1998-2014 13 Figure 5 – F Line Peak Hour Load Trend 14 Figure 6 – Projected Population Growth, 2015-2035 17 Figure 7 – History of F Train Service Patterns 19 Figure 8 – Proposed F Express Pattern 22 Figure 9 – Current Conditions at Bergen St Lower Level 25 Figure 10 – AM Travel Time Savings by Entry Station, Church Av to Jay St Express 30 Figure 11 – PM Travel Time Savings by Entry Station, Church Av to Jay St Express 32 List of Tables Table 1 – Northbound AM Peak Hour Ridership Profile 11 Table 2 – 2014 Average F Peak Hour Passenger Volume and Percent of Guideline Capacity 12 Table 3 – Culver Line Change in Weekday Entries by Hour, 2007-2014 15 Table 4 – Comparison of Selected Express/Local Corridors 21 Table 5 – Test Train Travel Times (Minutes) 25 Table 6 – Travel Time Impacts Between Selected Station Pairs, AM Peak* 28 Table 7 – Impacts to Riders by Magnitude of Travel Time Impact, Jay St to Church Av Express, AM Peak Hour 29 Table 8 – Impacts to Riders by Magnitude of Travel Time Impact, Jay St to Church Av Express, PM Peak Hour 31 Table 9 – Current and Projected Northbound Departing Loads by Station, AM Peak Hour 34 MN 2 F Brooklyn F Express Study Executive Summary NYCT has prepared this study of F express service on the Culver line in Brooklyn.
    [Show full text]