|
|
| Re: Culver Line (1549335) | |||
 |
|||
| Home > SubChat | |||
|
[ Read Responses | Post a New Response | Return to the Index ] |
|
||
|
Re: Culver Line |
|
|
Posted by BusMgr on Sat May 30 17:33:43 2020, in response to Re: Culver Line, posted by Jackson Park B Train on Sat May 30 00:21:39 2020. Not necessarily. The Culver "shuttle" was much like the Paulina Connector in Chicago. In both cases, construction of a new subway connection rendered the slower elevated obsolete. The elevated Culver line was retained for passenger shuttle service, while the Paulina Connector was retained for non-passenger use as the sole connection between several west side lines and the rest of the rapid transit system. A portion of the Paulina Connection, not necessary for maintaining that connection, was demolished in 1964. But the rest remained to provide a physical connection with the rest of the system. Critically for passenger services, this connection provided flexibility. In the late 1950s, Douglas Park trains used the connector when the Garfield Park route was not available and the Congress Expressway had not yet been completed. Douglas Park trains returned to that route again, this time permanently, starting in 2006. Both times, however, no intermediate stations were served. In other words, there was no attempt to serve "travel demand" along the Paulina Connection. The sole purpose of the Paulina Connection was to provide routing flexibility and to be able to increase service levels where bottlenecks restricted throughput. In the case of the Culver "shuttle," there was no need to maintain a physical connection between two separated rapid transit networks. But the route served to provide flexibility in the provision of service. And that utility does not require that there be a "travel market" along 39th Street, just as the reactivation of the Paulina Connection did not require that there be a "travel market" along Paulina Street. It is that operational flexibility that would be the most significant basis for reconstructing the Culver "shuttle," more so than there being a "travel market"; if there were definitively no need for that flexibility, then there would no cause for its reconstruction. |
|
|
|