news MTA board member wants (A) to serve Rockaways only...

[Lance]

@P3F: Thanks for posting the stats for the Lefferts and Rockaways stations. If anything, this lends more proof to the claim that the should run to Lefferts in lieu of the . There's no reason why the terminal station ranking in the low 200s should see on average 15 minute intervals outside of rush hour.

 

@Wallyhorse: While I commend you for posting your reasoning behind your idea, it still makes no sense. Similar to what T to Dyre stated previously, I can understand the retention of limited trains to/from Lefferts Blvd during the rush hours to avoid a large number of people transferring at Rockaway Blvd or Euclid Av. After all, that's the reason why the limited runs to/from Rockaway Park exist in the first place. However, you have not given any real reason why either the should be extended to twice its current route during the late nights or why the should run 24/7. There is no political pull for such drastic changes to overnight service and even if there was, there's insufficient ridership to warrant such changes. As I've stated before, the late night Lefferts shuttle has operated for nearly a quarter of a century. You'd think that if there was a problem with the service, we'd hear about it through the usual means.

[Wallyhorse]

@P3F: Thanks for posting the stats for the Lefferts and Rockaways stations. If anything, this lends more proof to the claim that the should run to Lefferts in lieu of the . There's no reason why the terminal station ranking in the low 200s should see on average 15 minute intervals outside of rush hour.

 

@Wallyhorse: While I commend you for posting your reasoning behind your idea, it still makes no sense. Similar to what T to Dyre stated previously, I can understand the retention of limited trains to/from Lefferts Blvd during the rush hours to avoid a large number of people transferring at Rockaway Blvd or Euclid Av. After all, that's the reason why the limited runs to/from Rockaway Park exist in the first place. However, you have not given any real reason why either the should be extended to twice its current route during the late nights or why the should run 24/7. There is no political pull for such drastic changes to overnight service and even if there was, there's insufficient ridership to warrant such changes. As I've stated before, the late night Lefferts shuttle has operated for nearly a quarter of a century. You'd think that if there was a problem with the service, we'd hear about it through the usual means.

The point is, I'm placating pols looking to get some sort of a "win" even if it doesn't make sense to most people.  While I do agree there not have been many complaints about the late-night two-seat ride to/from Lefferts, it's something I'm sure pols would want eliminated if most of the one-seat ride express trains (excluding a few peak-direction runs) are eliminated. That was my thinking there.

 

There is also another reason I would be looking at doing so as well, and that is the area the and runs through on Fulton Street.  That looks like the next area of Brooklyn to get a major build-up in the next 20-30 years (just like Willamsburg has been in recent years and continues to be), and that has already started to happen.  Now, I don't see the Fulton Line getting to the levels of late-hour sardine can riding on the , but I definitely can see that line becoming much bigger in the years ahead, and having both the and operate local along the line late nights can go a long way towards building that area up even more.  That's why I said a side benefit of my plan would be having twice as many local trains operating on Fulton late nights, either with:

 

running as it does now late nights (except at 4TPH split between Far Rockaway and Rockaway Park) and

running Canal Street-Lefferts Boulevard

 

OR

 

truncated late nights (at 4 TPH split) running from 34th Street to Far Rockaway and Rockaway Park (skipping Spring and 23rd Streets)

and  extended late nights in Manhattan to 207th Street (running Lefferts-207)

 

This to me would make for a compromise that can work.  

[Around the Horn]

The point is, I'm placating pols looking to get some sort of a "win" even if it doesn't make sense to most people.  While I do agree there not have been many complaints about the late-night two-seat ride to/from Lefferts, it's something I'm sure pols would want eliminated if most of the one-seat ride express trains (excluding a few peak-direction runs) are eliminated. That was my thinking there.

 

There is also another reason I would be looking at doing so as well, and that is the area the and runs through on Fulton Street.  That looks like the next area of Brooklyn to get a major build-up in the next 20-30 years (just like Willamsburg has been in recent years and continues to be), and that has already started to happen.  Now, I don't see the Fulton Line getting to the levels of late-hour sardine can riding on the , but I definitely can see that line becoming much bigger in the years ahead, and having both the and operate local along the line late nights can go a long way towards building that area up even more.  That's why I said a side benefit of my plan would be having twice as many local trains operating on Fulton late nights, either with:

 

running as it does now late nights (except at 4TPH split between Far Rockaway and Rockaway Park) and

running Canal Street-Lefferts Boulevard

 

OR

 

truncated late nights (at 4 TPH split) running from 34th Street to Far Rockaway and Rockaway Park (skipping Spring and 23rd Streets)

and  extended late nights in Manhattan to 207th Street (running Lefferts-207)

 

This to me would make for a compromise that can work.  

 

For the last time, there is no need for a second late night service on Fulton Street and I doubt there's a need for 4 TPH either.

[Wallyhorse]

For the last time, there is no need for a second late night service on Fulton Street and I doubt there's a need for 4 TPH either.

The only reason the would be 4TPH would be due to the fact that otherwise, Far Rockaway and Rockaway Park would only have service every 40 minutes.  If you want to keep it 3 TPH and have the serve both Far Rockaway and Rockaway Park, you could do it where the runs the old round-robin route late nights (timed so those coming from Rockaway Park have 3-4 minutes to make the necessary crossover from the the going from Rockaway Park to Far Rockaway to get the going to Manhattan at Beach 67th Street) OR have the go to Far Rockaway with an shuttle that runs between Far Rockaway (or Beach 67th Street) and Rockaway Park during those hours.   

[collagedchen300]

The only reason the would be 4TPH would be due to the fact that otherwise, Far Rockaway and Rockaway Park would only have service every 40 minutes. If you want to keep it 3 TPH and have the serve both Far Rockaway and Rockaway Park, you could do it where the runs the old round-robin route late nights (timed so those coming from Rockaway Park have 3-4 minutes to make the necessary crossover from the the going from Rockaway Park to Far Rockaway to get the going to Manhattan at Beach 67th Street) OR have the go to Far Rockaway with an shuttle that runs between Far Rockaway (or Beach 67th Street) and Rockaway Park during those hours.

Probably the good idea. Also, the will be extended to Leffert Blvd, so that no commuters will be confused. Furthermore, if the Far Rockaways terminus at both West and East are packed, then trains may be short turned at Howard Beach JFK.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Around the Horn]

The only reason the would be 4TPH would be due to the fact that otherwise, Far Rockaway and Rockaway Park would only have service every 40 minutes.  If you want to keep it 3 TPH and have the serve both Far Rockaway and Rockaway Park, you could do it where the runs the old round-robin route late nights (timed so those coming from Rockaway Park have 3-4 minutes to make the necessary crossover from the the going from Rockaway Park to Far Rockaway to get the going to Manhattan at Beach 67th Street) OR have the go to Far Rockaway with an shuttle that runs between Far Rockaway (or Beach 67th Street) and Rockaway Park during those hours.   

 

Just run the Rockaway Park Shuttle late nights, goes from 207- Far Rockaway, as currently. I doubt you'd fill a full train with all the ridership from one night on the Rockaway Park branch. There is no point in providing through service. 

[CenSin]

1. There is a loss of express service on Lefferts with the exclusively serving the Rockaways since the would become the Lefferts Line.

 

2. Many such people also have been unhappy for years if coming home late or going to work in the late night hours (or very early in the morning) having to change trains somewhere between Euclid and Rockaway Boulevard if going to Lefferts.

I don’t know what the ridership numbers at night look like, but it certainly can’t be a significant fraction of the daytime ridership. You’re telling us that by taking switching out the low-frequency express service for double-frequency local service, the pols will try to implore the MTA to provide a costly, full-length route that only benefits 1% of the ridership originally affected by the extension.

 

3. You placate the bulk of the people who travel in rush hour by adding a limited number of trains running in the peak direction to and from Lefferts. Not perfect, but it does enough to calm the loss of their one-seat ride to Manhattan (even though they would actually see twice as much service with the running to Manhattan, albeit via local and if they really want the being able to switch anywhere between Rockaway Boulevard and Euclid Avenue on the same platform (cross-platform at Euclid).

Placating the bulk of 5% is still just 5%.

 

4. You throw Lefferts residents a bone by giving them a 24/7 one-seat ride to Manhattan

Since a majority travel between the hours of 6 AM and 11 PM, 95% will never see that bone. If a pol were serious about pursuing the MTA for “damages” to the ridership, late night service would be the least likely target to pick for concessions. …unless maybe his voters all happen to travel late nights and the daytime ridership contributes nothing to his campaign.

[BreeddekalbL]

if you execute the variable of the to far rock all times what would turning trains at Howard beach JFK say you turn every other train there would it cause problems?

[NY1635]

if you execute the variable of the to far rock all times what would turning trains at Howard beach JFK say you turn every other train there would it cause problems?

 

I assumed that the service to the Rockaways would be evenly split between B.116th and Mott Avenue in both directions. Far Rockaway doesn't seem like it has the capacity for extra service.

[BreeddekalbL]

I assumed that the service to the Rockaways would be evenly split between B.116th and Mott Avenue in both directions. Far Rockaway doesn't seem like it has the capacity for extra service.

 

im saying does B116 need the extra service? if not just turn half of trains at howard beach JFK and keep rockaway service as is and they still get their rush hour service 

[Wallyhorse]

I assumed that the service to the Rockaways would be evenly split between B.116th and Mott Avenue in both directions. Far Rockaway doesn't seem like it has the capacity for extra service.

My plan would actually be a 4/3 split most of the time (four trains to Far Rockaway for every three to Rockaway Park).  That can be increased to a 5/3 split between the two terminals if ridership warrants it.  

[checkmatechamp13]

Yes, and daytime service would actually increase on the Lefferts line (as well as Rockaway) in this format since you would have a full-run of trains going there along with (in my format) a limited number of peak-direction trains to/from Lefferts in rush hours.  That is most important.  The concern is, some may just look as taking away service even if they actually are gaining service with twice as many trains as trains because of losing their one-seat express ride.  That's why eliminating the late-night shuttle to me is important to throw them a bone (with the side benefit of Fulton Street riders getting possibly double late-night local service) either by:

 

During rush hour, the Lefferts runs approximately as frequently as the train. So rush hour, they don't really gain any service (which is why I agree with adding a few rush hour train there.

 

That I suspect would do enough to placate those on Lefferts, especially if they realize they are getting twice as much service AND a limited number of rush-hour trains and a 24/7 one-seat ride to Manhattan in exchange for allowing the to replace the to Lefferts and the going to The Rockaways (other than some rush-hour service) exclusively. 

 

Yes, those imaginary Lefferts branch riders who would complain in any significant number. The vast majority of whom are not riding overnight. You know why? Because if you're working overnight, chances are you're working really long hours and don't have time to go to these monthly community board meetings.

 

The only reason the would be 4TPH would be due to the fact that otherwise, Far Rockaway and Rockaway Park would only have service every 40 minutes.  If you want to keep it 3 TPH and have the serve both Far Rockaway and Rockaway Park, you could do it where the runs the old round-robin route late nights (timed so those coming from Rockaway Park have 3-4 minutes to make the necessary crossover from the the going from Rockaway Park to Far Rockaway to get the going to Manhattan at Beach 67th Street) OR have the go to Far Rockaway with an shuttle that runs between Far Rockaway (or Beach 67th Street) and Rockaway Park during those hours. 

 

Or just keep the Broad Channel-Rockaway Park shuttle instead of overcomplicating things.

 

I assumed that the service to the Rockaways would be evenly split between B.116th and Mott Avenue in both directions. Far Rockaway doesn't seem like it has the capacity for extra service.

 

im saying does B116 need the extra service? if not just turn half of trains at howard beach JFK and keep rockaway service as is and they still get their rush hour service 

 

Capacity....I don't see how it's any different from other two-track terminals that handle a lot of trains (Woodlawn, 242nd/VCP, etc)

[Italianstallion]

Average weekday ridership in 2015, with rank:

 

Far Rockaway - 4,989 (297 out of 421)

B 25 Street - 1,861 (402 out of 421)

B 36 Street - 936 (416 out of 421)

B 44 Street - 624 (418 out of 421)

B 60 Street - 2,501 (387 out of 421)

B 67 Street - 2,407 (390 out of 421)

 

Far Rockaway Branch Total: 13,318 average weekday riders

 

Rockaway Park - 747 (417 out of 421)

B 105 Street - 305 (421 out of 421)

B 98 Street - 608 (419 out of 421)

B 90 Street - 946 (415 out of 421)

 

Rockaway Park Branch Total: 2,606 average weekday riders

 

Broad Channel - 310 (420 out of 421)

Howard Beach - 3,059 (368 out of 421)

N Conduit Avenue - 1,181 (412 out of 421)

Aqueduct Racetrack - 1,711 (405 out of 421)

 

South of Rockaway Boulevard Total: 22,185 average weekday riders

 

Lefferts Boulevard - 7,732 (201 out of 421)

111 Street - 2,727 (379 out of 421)

104 Street - 1,890 (400 out of 421)

 

East of Rockaway Boulevard Total: 12,349 average weekday riders

 

So the South Of Rock. Blvd. ridership is double that of the Lefferts branch, but they get equal daytime service. Hmmmm.

[Caelestor]

So the South Of Rock. Blvd. ridership is double that of the Lefferts branch, but they get equal daytime service. Hmmmm.

 

The Lefferts Blvd branch has significantly higher ridership by mile. 

[T to Dyre Avenue]

Honestly, the more I read about this proposal, the less I like it. It's going to make the service patterns on the and trains MORE complicated, not less. And wasn't the point of this proposal to simplify the service patterns? Many of the posts in this thread are calling for the exact opposite of that. The is still going to have three Queens terminals, only in this case, the much busier Lefferts branch would only have the during rush hours (along with the ...yes, I get that it would be more frequent service on Lefferts that way) while the Rockaway Park branch which has four of the 10 least-used stations in the entire system would get full-time service. That doesn't make sense to me. And what makes even less sense is the idea to terminate some of those extra Rockaway-bound A's at Howard Beach if Far Rock and Rock Park can't turn all of them. That would give the train FOUR Queens terminals, thus making its service pattern MORE complicated, not less.

 

And what about the ? Ok, you extend it to Lefferts, giving the branch a full service instead of the "half-service" it currently has. But then you have to have the and trains merge yet again at both Euclid and Rockaway Blvd - on top of the two existing mergers at Canal and Hoyt. Is that really such an improvement over the current A/C service patterns? Won't the two extra merges limit the number of trains per hour even more so than the current pattern?

[T to Dyre Avenue]

Probably the good idea. Also, the will be extended to Leffert Blvd, so that no commuters will be confused. Furthermore, if the Far Rockaways terminus at both West and East are packed, then trains may be short turned at Howard Beach JFK.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Do we really need the train to have four Queens terminals? Wouldn't that be even more confusing than what we already have?

[Gotham Bus Co.]

A Sign - Forum.JPG

An MTA board member wants A trains to serve both the East & West

ends of the Rockaways at all times, saying that would be a boon to

beachgoers & residents.

 

A trains now serve only the east end, except for a few during rush hours,

forcing passengers to change to a shuttle at Broad Channel.

 

Andrew Albert wants half the A trains to go to the east end; the others to the west.

 

Service to Lefferts Boulevard would be provided by extending the C line from Euclid Avenue.

 

The change would benefit beachgoers and area residents, said Albert, adding he’s trying

to convince his fellow board members.

 

Read more: Source

 

 

I seem to recall the Port Authority asking for this service pattern so that airport passengers would transfer to the AirTrain instead of the Q10 bus.

[Lance]

Honestly, the more I read about this proposal, the less I like it. It's going to make the service patterns on the and trains MORE complicated, not less. And wasn't the point of this proposal to simplify the service patterns? Many of the posts in this thread are calling for the exact opposite of that. The is still going to have three Queens terminals, only in this case, the much busier Lefferts branch would only have the during rush hours (along with the ...yes, I get that it would be more frequent service on Lefferts that way) while the Rockaway Park branch which has four of the 10 least-used stations in the entire system would get full-time service. That doesn't make sense to me. And what makes even less sense is the idea to terminate some of those extra Rockaway-bound A's at Howard Beach if Far Rock and Rock Park can't turn all of them. That would give the train FOUR Queens terminals, thus making its service pattern MORE complicated, not less.

 

And what about the ? Ok, you extend it to Lefferts, giving the branch a full service instead of the "half-service" it currently has. But then you have to have the and trains merge yet again at both Euclid and Rockaway Blvd - on top of the two existing mergers at Canal and Hoyt. Is that really such an improvement over the current A/C service patterns? Won't the two extra merges limit the number of trains per hour even more so than the current pattern?

What I envision is simply an extension of the to Lefferts and all trains currently running to Lefferts Blvd would be rerouted to Far Rockaway. Some Far Rockaway-bound trains would terminate at Howard Beach in the same vein as the Kings Hwy-bound trains. I don't see the need for the to run to Rockaway Park outside of the current rush-hour trips. Besides the summer months, the Rockaway Park end of the line does not have enough ridership to justify expanded through service.

[Wallyhorse]

What I envision is simply an extension of the to Lefferts and all trains currently running to Lefferts Blvd would be rerouted to Far Rockaway. Some Far Rockaway-bound trains would terminate at Howard Beach in the same vein as the Kings Hwy-bound trains. I don't see the need for the to run to Rockaway Park outside of the current rush-hour trips. Besides the summer months, the Rockaway Park end of the line does not have enough ridership to justify expanded through service.

As said, I would do a Far Rockaway and Rockaway Park on a 4/3 or even a 5/3 split (four or five trains to Far Rockaway for every three to Rockaway Park).   That eliminates the shuttle (except maybe in the overnights between Rockaway Park and Broad Channel,

[BreeddekalbL]

As said, I would do a Far Rockaway and Rockaway Park on a 4/3 or even a 5/3 split (four or five trains to Far Rockaway for every three to Rockaway Park).   That eliminates the shuttle (except maybe in the overnights between Rockaway Park and Broad Channel,

 

why would you elimnate the shuttle? as you saw the numbers the b116 branch is ranked close to the bottom in ridership i would keep the shuttle and Lance's idea is more pratical

[Trainmaster5]

What I envision is simply an extension of the to Lefferts and all trains currently running to Lefferts Blvd would be rerouted to Far Rockaway. Some Far Rockaway-bound trains would terminate at Howard Beach in the same vein as the Kings Hwy-bound trains. I don't see the need for the to run to Rockaway Park outside of the current rush-hour trips. Besides the summer months, the Rockaway Park end of the line does not have enough ridership to justify expanded through service.

It seems that only you,and very few others, understood why I asked for the ridership stats a while back. I thought that it would be rather obvious that the Rockaway Park branch didn't need an increase in service no matter how one tried to justify it. Although the stats weren't broken down into hourly numbers my guess is that the rush hours account for 85% or more of those numbers. The Far Rock branch always had more residences along it's route so, IMO, it would be hard to compare the two branches. IIRC the Mott Avenue end also had a few health facilities in the area which would seem to indicate that there's a steadier flow of riders compared to the area west of Hammels Wye. This is my personal recollection of the area. I go back to the era when Rockaway Playland was open, people paid an extra fare when leaving the station , and the Round Robin ran at night. Carry on.

[P3F]

It seems that only you,and very few others, understood why I asked for the ridership stats a while back. I thought that it would be rather obvious that the Rockaway Park branch didn't need an increase in service no matter how one tried to justify it. Although the stats weren't broken down into hourly numbers my guess is that the rush hours account for 85% or more of those numbers. The Far Rock branch always had more residences along it's route so, IMO, it would be hard to compare the two branches. IIRC the Mott Avenue end also had a few health facilities in the area which would seem to indicate that there's a steadier flow of riders compared to the area west of Hammels Wye. This is my personal recollection of the area. I go back to the era when Rockaway Playland was open, people paid an extra fare when leaving the station , and the Round Robin ran at night. Carry on.

I was thinking about the situation. Is it possible that people don't use the Rockaway Park branch simply because the service is poor? According to MTA's Trip Planner, the trip via the Q52 or Q53 to Rockaway Boulevard is actually about two minutes faster than taking the shuttle to Broad Channel and then transferring. Since those two buses stop by every station on the Rockaway Park branch, they directly compete with the shuttle. While the buses run every 5 minutes during the peak of rush hour, the best headway the Rockaway Park branch sees is 8 minutes (16 minutes between shuttles; trains fill in the gaps). Since buses are also trackable on Bus Time, while the and are not on Subway Time, it's not hard to see why the shuttle stops get little ridership -- there are simply more convenient options available.

[NewFlyer 230]

I was thinking about the situation. Is it possible that people don't use the Rockaway Park branch simply because the service is poor? According to MTA's Trip Planner, the trip via the Q52 or Q53 to Rockaway Boulevard is actually about two minutes faster than taking the shuttle to Broad Channel and then transferring. Since those two buses stop by every station on the Rockaway Park branch, they directly compete with the shuttle. While the buses run every 5 minutes during the peak of rush hour, the best headway the Rockaway Park branch sees is 8 minutes (16 minutes between shuttles; trains fill in the gaps). Since buses are also trackable on Bus Time, while the and are not on Subway Time, it's not hard to see why the shuttle stops get little ridership -- there are simply more convenient options available.

It would be much easier to take the Q53 to the train at Rockaway Blvd and catch the train with double the frequency than waiting 20 minutes for an or the outside of rush hour.

The Q53 runs every 7 minutes so it has the advantage in that way.

Also in the general areas that the Shuttle serve the ridership base is pretty limited. If you looks at the area around B105th which has the least ridership of any station there are just two apartment buildings down the block and a factory of some type right outside the station.

Plus you also have the option of taking the Q35 to the and stop so you don't have to backtrack.

[Wallyhorse]

I was thinking about the situation. Is it possible that people don't use the Rockaway Park branch simply because the service is poor? According to MTA's Trip Planner, the trip via the Q52 or Q53 to Rockaway Boulevard is actually about two minutes faster than taking the shuttle to Broad Channel and then transferring. Since those two buses stop by every station on the Rockaway Park branch, they directly compete with the shuttle. While the buses run every 5 minutes during the peak of rush hour, the best headway the Rockaway Park branch sees is 8 minutes (16 minutes between shuttles; trains fill in the gaps). Since buses are also trackable on Bus Time, while the and are not on Subway Time, it's not hard to see why the shuttle stops get little ridership -- there are simply more convenient options available.

Exactly.  If you did a 5/3 split where the ran to both Far Rockaway and Rockaway Park (five to Far Rockaway for every three to Rockaway Park), that to me would give more people on the Rockaway Park side incentive to use the since it would be a one-seat ride on their end to the mainland.  

[CenSin]

Exactly.  If you did a 5/3 split where the ran to both Far Rockaway and Rockaway Park (five to Far Rockaway for every three to Rockaway Park), that to me would give more people on the Rockaway Park side incentive to use the since it would be a one-seat ride on their end to the mainland.  

Funny… it wasn’t until P3F’s comment that I thought sending trains to the other Rockaway branch would have any merit. Certainly, there are other reasons to send some of those trains turning at Howard Beach to Rockaway Beach instead: terminating trains would have to share a track with through trains, causing congestion.