Add More <F> Express Trains

The New York City subway system is one of the few subway systems to have express tracks on many of its lines. These tracks significantly reduce the length of commutes with their faster service. Many Stuyvesant students rely especially on express services to speed up their commutes, and dealing with lengthy, all-local service might not even be a thought for them. Yet, there are subway lines with these express tracks but said tracks do not regularly run despite their great potential. 

In many cases, these lines have a third track that reduces the flexibility of running express service. In two cases, however, four-track segments that allow for express trains in both directions with significant flexibility are only minimally used. A three-mile segment in eastern Queens has only seven E trains per day that run express—where it could handle at least ten per hour—due to the capacity constraints at their usual terminal. A 4.25-mile segment in southern Brooklyn down a windy path from downtown Brooklyn to Coney Island has only five F express trains each day—four of them publicly advertised as a Diamond <F> express service. An expansion of express service along the F in southern Brooklyn would have a greater impact than in eastern Queens, but both can be done.

Both of these lines were originally constructed in the 1930s as a part of the New York City-built Independent Subway System (IND). The northern segment of the Culver Line has four tracks—the express tracks continuing to Manhattan—while the local tracks continue crosstown towards Queens, with the IND engineers seeming to believe that Manhattan-bound commuters wanted the fastest service possible while crosstown commuters could use the local trains. This greatly constrained the potential for express service—especially with an awkward temporary terminal for the line until 1954—limiting the number of trains that could be run. After this, growing urban decay and white flight only led to the use of these express tracks between 1967 and 1976 after capacity was added in Manhattan. Afterward, when budget cuts due to the aforementioned issues occurred, they were discontinued. 

Since then, proposals have been made to reactivate and add additional express service—though many dynamics have changed. The northern segment has seen gentrification and property values explode since the 1990s, resulting in the ridership balance shifting from slightly against local stops to slightly in favor of local stops. By contrast, the southern segment has been left rather untouched, but with all-local service, residents along the line have some of the longer commutes in the city. Some of the additional Manhattan capacity has also been diverted to the popular M service that serves the increasingly gentrifying areas of northern Brooklyn as the region saw rises in train service that increased its attractivity. Extremely limited express flyer trips were added in 2019—labeled as diamond <F> trains—with two trains in peak direction each day.

The complexity of this issue should not disincentivize the expansion of express service along the Culver line. The four-track northern express segment along the Culver line saves around 1.5-1.7—and sometimes as much as two—minutes per stop skipped, in part thanks to using a shorter alignment to traverse the steep slope that separates Park Slope from points further south. For reference, saving one minute per stop skipped is generally considered to be a good figure for express segments, and many express segments save even less time per stop skipped. The three-track southern express segment also has one of the higher speed limits for trains in the system—at around 50 miles per hour—though its three-track nature makes it more complex to implement. More express trains would reduce commute times and increase the attractiveness of south Brooklyn as a housing market, which would also ideally stimulate the rezoning of the region to increase housing density. Although gentrification is often seen negatively, it is an important stimulator of housing demand if balanced with appropriate rezonings to prevent people from being priced out, and this could easily be done with a booming south Brooklyn housing market.

I—along with quite a few other Stuyvesant students who live along the line—already benefit from this limited express service. The first morning departure lines up quite well with the start of Stuyvesant’s first period, and the first afternoon departure is convenient with the 5:00 p.m. end of unsupervised Stuyvesant club activities. Outside of this, though, we are forced to use the local train which is slower and often backed up by the G train, contributing to longer commutes. An expansion in express service would substantially help reduce commute times, stress, and delays.

The issue’s complexity can also be combated with this proposal. The frequency of F service during the rush hour period is increaseable with signaling infrastructure from 15 trains per hour to 20 trains per hour. This frequency can then be split evenly between local (F) and express <F> trains for a frequency of 10 trains per hour to approximate the ridership ratio while ensuring reliable service. This would mean a slight increase in wait times at local stations, which could be counteracted by significantly reduced train crowding on local trains. (F) trains would end at Church Avenue while <F> trains would continue to Coney Island. To ensure all the F trains could fit, E-service could be slightly reduced from 15 trains per hour to 12 trains per hour, and F and M trains would switch tunnels between Manhattan and Queens to simplify service patterns and allow for the expansions in express service. <F> trains would run express in both directions along Hillside Avenue (replacing the limited E train service), the northern segment of the Culver Line, and possibly the southern segment of the Culver Line.  The ratio of 20 F trains to 12 E trains per hour was also briefly operated in the early 1990s and is operable with relative ease. These service patterns could be increased in the near future while traditional signaling is upgraded to communications-based train control signaling.

Adding more <F> express trains is clearly a capability that the New York City Transit (NYCT) has that would alleviate some of the longer commutes in the city while minimizing impact to those negatively affected. It would benefit me—in addition to many other commuters—as it would guarantee a shorter and less stressful commute while providing considerably more flexibility. The barrier to this has been inadequate demand or inadequate supply of capacity for the service, but this reality has been changing and can change even further through the stimulation of induced demand—which is the concept that demand actually increases in a transportation network when improvements are made to it. Capacity is alleviating with upgrades in signaling technology while demand is becoming more apparent as F trains grow crowded and gentrification marches south. The NYCT could very well implement this service pattern with minimal impact and cost, and they have said this is possible with the upgrades in signaling technology in the next decades. With that, it is only right that they honor their commitment to their riders and expand <F> express service.