Jump to content

Attention: In order to reply to messages, create topics, have access to other features of the community you must sign up for an account.
Sign in to follow this  
MAA89

C train and Hoyt-Schermerhorn Sts station

Recommended Posts

The (A) has three southern terminals, and during the AM rush hours, trains run toward Manhattan from all three (Rockaway Park-Beach 116th St, Lefferts Blvd and Far Rockaway-Mott Avenue). The (C) train joins the Fulton St line at Euclid Avenue. All is well as long as the (C) runs on the local track. However, at the last few stations in Brooklyn (Hoyt-Schermerhorn, Jay St-Borough Hall and High Street), as well as Broadway-Nassau and Chambers St in Manhattan, (A) and (C) trains are required to run on the same track, causing much congestion and delaying the average trip by 7 to 10 minutes. It is obvious the system would benefit from segregating the (A) and (C) throughout.

 

I have often wondered whether it would not be possible to run the (C) in two sections; in Manhattan from 168 St to Chambers St (where it could share the track ending in bumper blocks used by the (E)), and from Euclid Avenue to Hoyt-Schermerhorn Sts. I would like to know if the MTA has any plans of using the outermost track at Hoyt-Schermerhorn someday, as this would facilitate running the C in two sections. I would also like to know what people think of this idea in general.

 

Thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This was done a long time ago back when the IND first opened. Things are the way they are now because it works and it is what the riders want. It gives Fulton riders who use the local stations a one seat ride to the City and the same goes for those who live between 59th Street and 125th Street. Also, since the Transit Museum occupies Court Street, there would be no place to turn (C) trains in Brooklyn and trying to use Hoyt would couse even more delays. Also in the City, you could end (C) trains at WTC, but I don't think WTC could handle both the (C) and (E) trains turing there. Its a nice idea but it won't work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The people that would get off the train and wait for the (A) at either Hoyt or WTC and wait for a train would be so long and crowded it would be impossible to get all the people in the train. You would have to wait on the platform for about 3 or 4 (A) trains before you could get on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This was done a long time ago back when the IND first opened. Things are the way they are now because it works and it is what the riders want. It gives Fulton riders who use the local stations a one seat ride to the City and the same goes for those who live between 59th Street and 125th Street. Also, since the Transit Museum occupies Court Street, there would be no place to turn (C) trains in Brooklyn and trying to use Hoyt would couse even more delays. Also in the City, you could end (C) trains at WTC, but I don't think WTC could handle both the (C) and (E) trains turing there. Its a nice idea but it won't work.

 

WTC can handle both lines. remember, the (C) used to terminate there on evenings and weekends (imitating the old (K) route) and the (A) made all stops in Brooklyn, but that was changed in 1999 because Fulton Street customers said they wanted seven-day express service on their line. believe me, they do because everytime there is a G.O. that requires the (C) to be suspended and the (A) to run local, riders will curse out any (NYCT) worker they see.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you ask me its bad enough that the (C) only operates 7-8 trains during the height of the rush hour (especially P.M., which is why it's longer). I really don't see how the (C) can be split up as permanent service. G.O., maybe, like how the (A) operates sometimes when service is interrupted between Jay Street and Utica Avenue, but permanent, no.

 

Of course, I remember a time (M) and <M> service was split, but that was only because of Williamsburg Bridge reconstruction, which was temporary, but the changes were reflected on the map because it impacted service greatly...just thought I'd mention it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
WTC can handle both lines. remember, the (C) used to terminate there on evenings and weekends (imitating the old (K) route) and the (A) made all stops in Brooklyn, but that was changed in 1999 because Fulton Street customers said they wanted seven-day express service on their line. believe me, they do because everytime there is a G.O. that requires the (C) to be suspended and the (A) to run local, riders will curse out any (NYCT) worker they see.

 

I agree entirely! If I was ever lucky back in the 90s, I would arrive at 34th St from 88 St at around an hour and 15 minutes. Otherwise, it would take much longer due to that horrendous stretch along the Fulton.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
WTC can handle both lines. remember, the (C) used to terminate there on evenings and weekends (imitating the old (K) route) and the (A) made all stops in Brooklyn, but that was changed in 1999 because Fulton Street customers said they wanted seven-day express service on their line. believe me, they do because everytime there is a G.O. that requires the (C) to be suspended and the (A) to run local, riders will curse out any (NYCT) worker they see.

 

thats been every weekend with the exception of like 2 or 3 this year. I understand the need for track maintenance but seriously its like every weekend there's no (C) service. :P Is the track work really that extensive?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
thats been every weekend with the exception of like 2 or 3 this year. I understand the need for track maintenance but seriously its like every weekend there's no (C) service. :P Is the track work really that extensive?

 

I doubt there is much track work going on, except construction at Jay Street. It seems highly probable that the (MTA) just doesn't want to overwork the 45 year old R32s on the (C) line.

 

I understand the outer tracks at Hoyt cannot be used due to it being located under the Transit Museum, and that there is no other way to turn the (C) around. However, I wonder how they manage when the outer tracks are used for filming?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I doubt there is much track work going on, except construction at Jay Street. It seems highly probable that the (MTA) just doesn't want to overwork the 45 year old R32s on the (C) line.

 

I understand the outer tracks at Hoyt cannot be used due to it being located under the Transit Museum, and that there is no other way to turn the (C) around. However, I wonder how they manage when the outer tracks are used for filming?

 

the outter tracks do not lead under the transit museum, they lead INTO the transit museum. and for filming they manage fine. the platform is Non-revenue and if they need to move the train out of the station to the east end where it conects to the fulton line, the 20 minute headways overnight causes a minimum or no service delays.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I doubt there is much track work going on, except construction at Jay Street. It seems highly probable that the (MTA) just doesn't want to overwork the 45 year old R32s on the (C) line.

 

I understand the outer tracks at Hoyt cannot be used due to it being located under the Transit Museum, and that there is no other way to turn the (C) around. However, I wonder how they manage when the outer tracks are used for filming?

 

 

I had that in the back of my head but I didn't want to jump the gun. It's just to the point now I'm shocked if I see the (C) running on weekends.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I doubt there is much track work going on, except construction at Jay Street. It seems highly probable that the (MTA) just doesn't want to overwork the 45 year old R32s on the (C) line.

 

I understand the outer tracks at Hoyt cannot be used due to it being located under the Transit Museum, and that there is no other way to turn the (C) around. However, I wonder how they manage when the outer tracks are used for filming?

 

I don't think suspendeing the (C) on the weekends during GOs is to not over work the R32s. I think it is about having less trains running so work is not interupted as much as so there is more safety for track workers. As someone who wants to work for the TA in the MoW department, I am fine with anything that makes the job safer for the guys on the tracks even if that ment even longer headways while work is being done.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On a similar note, should the (NYCT) permanently run a shuttle from Euclid Avenue to Lefferts Boulevard and re-route all (A) trains to the Rockaways? Seeing as there are only three stations on the Lefferts line after Rockaway Blvd (104th, 111th and Ozone Park), it seems that the aggregate number of riders going to Lefferts is far outstripped by those on the Rockaway lines (simply due to a larger number of stations).

 

I know Lefferts Blvd riders will want a single-seat ride to Manhattan, but will it be a PR disaster if the (NYCT) streamlined (A) service by reducing service to Lefferts? It would certainly be welcomed by Rockaway residents and loads of confused tourists trying to get to Howard Beach to take the AirTrain.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The stations along the Rockaway Park leg of the wye are among the least used in the system.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the (C) should terminate at Lefferts long with the part-time (A). People in Lefferts would have the choice of either train instead of waiting for the Part time (A) to arrive and depart Lefferts. However, the problem with how many trains can they turn in order to avoid delays is always the major issue. If they could manage that, the Rockaways could benefit from the extra service to Lefferts by the the (C) and you could run more (A) trains to the Rockaways. Who knows with the (MTA)?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

or...listen to me for a second..the MTA could leave it as is! Why must people continue on wanting to change stuff around? I'm sure that the MTA has employees that jobs are to see that the current service works as is. Like the saying goes, if it's not broken, don't fix it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
or...listen to me for a second..the MTA could leave it as is! Why must people continue on wanting to change stuff around? I'm sure that the MTA has employees that jobs are to see that the current service works as is. Like the saying goes, if it's not broken, don't fix it.

 

See that's the thing...it kinda is broken! The (C) train has 8 car trains and runs 7 trains an hour. That needs to be fixed!!! I definitely needs to be expanded to 10 cars, which will happen when there are less than 200 R32s at 207. This problem is being fixed. As for service to Lefferts Boulevard that's not a bad idea because there are more (A)s than ©s and by extending the (C) there will be an even distribution of trains. I think that during rush hours in the peak direction, however, <A> trains can operate to Lefferts Boulevard operating express from grant to Lefferts supplementing the (C). Just a suggestion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The stations along the Rockaway Park leg of the wye are among the least used in the system.

 

I know. I am not advocating full-time service to the Rockaway Park branch.

 

By 2008 subway ridership numbers, a total of 6,178,284 passengers used the stations on the Rockaway line (both branches, and including Aqueduct-North Conduit, Howard Beach-JFK and Broad Channel), of which just over 1 million was on the Rockaway Park branch. It would make perfect sense to keep the Rockaway Park shuttle and rush-hour peak direction trains to and from Rockaway Park, as it is now.

 

The remaining 5 million riders could greatly benefit from increased service to Far Rockaway. By comparison, the Lefferts Boulevard line carried 3,748,744 passengers in 2008, of which 2.4 million was at the last stop. 104th St is ranked 404th out of 422 stations for 2008 ridership. A greater number of people transfer from Lefferts Blvd (A) trains to Rockaway trains at Rockaway Blvd than those that transfer to the Lefferts line. The late night Euclid Avenue shuttle (to Lefferts) often runs virtually empty. This is why I say that Lefferts Blvd doesn't deserve regular service any more than Rockaway Park does. The 5 million riders on Aqueduct, Howard Beach, Broad Channel and the Far Rockaway branch deserve proportionally more service in my opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think the (C) should terminate at Lefferts long with the part-time (A). People in Lefferts would have the choice of either train instead of waiting for the Part time (A) to arrive and depart Lefferts. However, the problem with how many trains can they turn in order to avoid delays is always the major issue. If they could manage that, the Rockaways could benefit from the extra service to Lefferts by the the (C) and you could run more (A) trains to the Rockaways. Who knows with the (MTA)?

 

Good idea. Thanks!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
or...listen to me for a second..the MTA could leave it as is! Why must people continue on wanting to change stuff around? I'm sure that the MTA has employees that jobs are to see that the current service works as is. Like the saying goes, if it's not broken, don't fix it.

 

Unfortunately, people demand change and change is inevitable. Demographic pattern changes will always require changes in the established system. A cursory look at the (A) train's service pattern provides an example:

 

" In 1963, the E train was extended to the Rockaways, and the (A) train ran local to Euclid Avenue or Lefferts Boulevard at all times. (HH shuttle service from Euclid Avenue provided all service to the Rockaways). On July 9, 1967, the (A) train was extended to Far Rockaway middays, evenings, and weekends, replacing the HH shuttle on that branch. Five years later, it would also be extended during rush hours. On January 2, 1973, the (A) train became the express service along Fulton Street and the (E) train became the local. Finally, in 1976, the (C) became the Fulton Street Local during rush hours.

 

"Until 1990, the main service was to Lefferts Boulevard, while the Far Rockaway service did not run late nights; at this time, a transfer to a shuttle at Euclid Avenue was available. In 1990, this pattern was switched, with late-night (A) service running to Far Rockaway only. A shuttle now provides service from Euclid Avenue to Lefferts Boulevard during late nights. A few years later, special (A) service began running from Rockaway Park to Dyckman Street during the morning rush, and from 59th Street–Columbus Circle to Rockaway Park during the evening rush." (from Wikipedia)

 

As Rockaway populations have grown and Ozone Park population remained stagnant, further changes in service are necessary to reflect this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
See that's the thing...it kinda is broken! The (C) train has 8 car trains and runs 7 trains an hour. That needs to be fixed!!! I definitely needs to be expanded to 10 cars, which will happen when there are less than 200 R32s at 207. This problem is being fixed. As for service to Lefferts Boulevard that's not a bad idea because there are more (A)s than ©s and by extending the (C) there will be an even distribution of trains. I think that during rush hours in the peak direction, however, <A> trains can operate to Lefferts Boulevard operating express from grant to Lefferts supplementing the (C). Just a suggestion.

 

I like your last suggestion; turning the Lefferts branch to something like the current Rockaway Park branch (shuttle or (C) trains at all times and (A) trains during rush hours in the peak direction). While this would do little to reduce congestion along the (A) line, I think it is a justifiable solution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I like your last suggestion; turning the Lefferts branch to something like the current Rockaway Park branch (shuttle or (C) trains at all times and (A) trains during rush hours in the peak direction). While this would do little to reduce congestion along the (A) line, I think it is a justifiable solution.

 

I would also like to see a return of the (K) train to operate local in Manhattan and make the (C) operate express in Manhattan on weekdays as well. So there will be less congestion on the (A) and riders will have full express service on the weekday. On weekends when express service is less of a priority, the (C) would run local. I have always thought of having full-time (A) express service, even during late nights...wonder if that'll ever happen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They just built all those houses out in the Rockaways so I would expect transit to adapt to it.

 

They should send the (C) to Lefferts during the day and keep the Shuttle at night and run both (A) trains to rock park and Far rock

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
They just built all those houses out in the Rockaways so I would expect transit to adapt to it.

 

They should send the (C) to Lefferts during the day and keep the Shuttle at night and run both (A) trains to rock park and Far rock

 

Really? I don't think transit really cares about full-time through service to Rockaway Park due to low ridership (Beach 105th Street is REALLY low). I'm just surprised they haven't closed the branch, maybe because Rock Park riders would bawl. But as to Lefferts Boulevard service, make the (C) operate as the shuttle during late nights between Lefferts Boulevard and Euclid Avenue. But there really should be two weekday Eighth Avenue expresses and two locals, just like how Sixth Avenue has two locals and expresses on weekdays. Make the (A) and (C) go express and the (E) and (K) local.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  


×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.