Should the MTA bring back the K train?

[Lefferts Blvd X]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (Danger hiptop 3.3; U; rv:1.7.12) Gecko/20050920)

 

U kno what the best part is ... if u desginate the lefferts to the u can open the possibility of placing 160's on the and the until they could figure out the eletrical issues in far rock .... then again I can only dream ...

[Zman]

There's no need to bring back the . The is dead. Period.

 

And the to Lefferts is one of the most idiotic ideas ever presented. I see it now: a crowded train leaving Lefferts on the AM rush...which totally empties out at Rockaway Blvd so that they can get an express because the Fulton St Local run takes forever. I've made that local run numerous times. It sucks as an operator, but it's twice as painful as a passenger. "But the will go express in Manhattan!" Oh, big fukking whoop-de-do. I save three stops to go to work at 59th St, who's feet do I kiss?

 

Oh, and with proposing all this glorious service, how do you expect to pay for all this? Do you know how many millions it would cost every year to send every single practically empty out to the Rockaways and to extend the to Queens? Buffs never think about things such as cost or expenses when formulating their grandiose ideas.

[mediccjh]

Please, watch the Nazi Banksters Crimes Ripple Effect at http://jforjustice.co.uk/banksters

[LRG]

There's no need to bring back the . The is dead. Period.

 

And the to Lefferts is one of the most idiotic ideas ever presented. I see it now: a crowded train leaving Lefferts on the AM rush...which totally empties out at Rockaway Blvd so that they can get an express because the Fulton St Local run takes forever. I've made that local run numerous times. It sucks as an operator, but it's twice as painful as a passenger. "But the will go express in Manhattan!" Oh, big fukking whoop-de-do. I save three stops to go to work at 59th St, who's feet do I kiss?

 

Oh, and with proposing all this glorious service, how do you expect to pay for all this? Do you know how many millions it would cost every year to send every single practically empty out to the Rockaways and to extend the to Queens? Buffs never think about things such as cost or expenses when formulating their grandiose ideas.

 

Well then, if you have something better, spill it out instead of negative criticism (I HATE that!).

 

Bringing the to Brooklyn would create an enormous bottleneck, okay?! The should not go to Brooklyn. Some people are making ideas because they want to see service the way they want to without a care in the world. My ideas have logic behind them. The sucks as it is because the hog all the cars. Give some of the cars to the and the problem is basically solved. Tweak the ©'s route a bit and you have less trains coming in and out of the yard. The extra trains if necessary can create a new service, which would cost barely anything at all! Sheesh!

[Urbanfortitude]

Actually in its defense the is actually a decent enough train. The is the more packed train because 1: its express 2: it goes out to JFK and queens residential areas. If the really needed its cars extended I would like to think it would have been given the full 10 car set by now. The runs frequently enough that I don't have gripes with it and when it comes to the UWS and parts of Washington Heights most of the stops people live off of are accessible moreso by the . I don't know what's with all the crap about adding lines. How about looking at the ones we have already and seeing if they aren't already at capacity or could be improved (ie extended or shortened). Adding a new line isn't the answer to everything and just from Zman's point of view as a T/O could actually make things more complicated.

[LRG]

Actually in its defense the is actually a decent enough train. The is the more packed train because 1: its express 2: it goes out to JFK and queens residential areas. If the really needed its cars extended I would like to think it would have been given the full 10 car set by now. The runs frequently enough that I don't have gripes with it and when it comes to the UWS and parts of Washington Heights most of the stops people live off of are accessible moreso by the . I don't know what's with all the crap about adding lines. How about looking at the ones we have already and seeing if they aren't already at capacity or could be improved (ie extended or shortened). Adding a new line isn't the answer to everything and just from Zman's point of view as a T/O could actually make things more complicated.

 

7TPH is frequent enough? I beg to differ, especially during rush hours. The will become 10 cars when there are less that 200 R32s at 207, that's for sure. I really don't know how complicated it can get, but I've become indifferent with the matter. Sure, ZMan's a T/O, but how much more would a T/O know more than a passenger? Yeah, they have more inside info, but the passenger is always the one who puts out our money into the MTA and make their paydays possible. As a passenger, the was just an opinion on how service could be improved along Eighth Avenue, but like I said, I'm indifferent on the matter now.

[Urbanfortitude]

Considering i never wait for more than 5 - 7 minutes for a when i do wait for it I'd say its doing pretty good and did we miss my point about seeing if the existing lines are or arent running at capacity first before adding lines? What makes u think running an extra line would handle a TPH issue on the line that putting more trains on an existing line wouldn't do. I would like to think its less expensive as well. Also BECAUSE he's a T/O there is a LOT more that he would know than the ordinary passenger...half the people that just commute cant wrap their fingers around where the other lines go.

[rmcconnell]

If we're going to bring back the designation, just use "(K)" for the trains to Lefferts -- nothing else. Service would stay the same as it is now, otherwise.

[kawasaki3]

No one not talking bringing back line back.

[Zman]

LRG - my criticism wasn't aimed necessarily at you, but rather at those who want the to go to Lefferts while sending all (A)'s to the Rock.

 

However, NOW I'll criticize your idea.

 

Whereas the 8th Avenue corridor currently has a car shortage, it would make it worse as the additional trains needed for service would outweigh the fewer trains needed for weekday service; the 8-10 minute savings each way on the as opposed to a full 35 minute service is simple math which shows that extra cars will be needed to run both services. Of course the shortage won't last forever, but your plan would make the current situation worse.

 

Congestion would also be a problem. During rush hours, the can get a little backed up going into WTC on its three minute headways. Adding a into the mix would make it worse and could potentially make northbound service as reliable as a crackhead with a grocery list and a $20 bill with its schedule being thrown out the window. Not to mention the congestion which would result on Central Park West, especially south of 59th Street on the northbound express track. Three services on one extended track would be a recipe for disaster when a train lays down due to an emergency brake application or other mechanical problems. Even a simple delay such as a door problem could adversely affect service on a line in which there is little room for error.

 

And there's no such thing as you say, "The extra trains if necessary can create a new service, which would cost barely anything at all!" Each additional train incurrs expenses such as increased costs for increased maintenance, power distribution, and about $54 per hour per train for crew salaries (not including overtime and supervisory/managerial expenses). Adding only ten trains between the hours of 6 am and 10 pm would entail an expense of roughly $3.5 million per year.

 

The only thing that the 8th Avenue corridor needs is 10 car ©'s. But what do I know, I'm just a Train Operator...who also works on the Union's behalf in examining and tweaking train timetables and crew schedules in both divisions with TA Operations & Planning before they are actually implemented.

[KNIGHTRIDER3:16]

No one not talking bringing back line back.

 

I never did like the (H)ospital train because it's blue now taking the and put it as A <R>68 now we talking in addition take the make it Franklin ave shuttle instead of that boring that's there just bring that back and blend it in somewhere.

 

P (H)isn't A bad train just turn the color of it to white with red border <R> and kill that C already it's A boring train.

[R32 3348]

Just because the 8th Ave. line has two locals and one express doesn't mean anything has to be changed at all. You never have to wait more than 5 minutes for an during rush hour. The local track sees 18TPH (one train every 3-4 minutes). If you want to extend the to Lefferts so the has two branches, that's essentially renaming the lefferts branch the . Again, things are just fine as it is right now. Don't forget that if you do add 8th Ave. express service, you create even more congestion at points like 145th St., 59th St., Canal St. and Hoyt-Schermerhorn Sts. (just like Urbanfortitude said).

[R110B]

Like Everoyne says the lefferts branch should be relabled the and end of story.

[7LineFan]

Just because the 8th Ave. line has two locals and one express doesn't mean anything has to be changed at all. You never have to wait more than 5 minutes for an during rush hour. The local track sees 18TPH (one train every 3-4 minutes). If you want to extend the to Lefferts so the has two branches, that's essentially renaming the lefferts branch the . Again, things are just fine as it is right now. Don't forget that if you do add 8th Ave. express service, you create even more congestion at points like 145th St., 59th St., Canal St. and Hoyt-Schermerhorn Sts. (just like Urbanfortitude said).

 

And why not do that? It would remove confusion for airport-goers as to which train to take, as we all know that many people don't read the signs and just look at the letters in the bullets.

 

@kawasaki3: The is what is currently the Rockaway .

 

@KnightRider3099: What the heck are you talking about?

[R32 3348]

And why not do that? It would remove confusion for airport-goers as to which train to take, as we all know that many people don't read the signs and just look at the letters in the bullets.

 

@kawasaki3: The is what is currently the Rockaway .

 

@KnightRider3099: What the heck are you talking about?

There will be confusion for the same reason there used to be confusion on the . Any train doesn't go to Lefferts the whole day. It has to switch terminals. This will require changing the signs in the terminal which takes up a lot of time, time that you don't have during the rush hour. Unless you have NTT trains where it can be done in the push of a button it's not worth it.

 

BTW, if you want to reply to more than one person you can quote what they want to say using multi-quote. Just press the multi-quote button on whoever's post you want to quote and then quote anyone's post and everyone's quoted posts will come up in the reply screen.

[R110B]

i think it would less confuse people about riders that will only go to 1terminal and 2 on rush.

[7LineFan]

There will be confusion for the same reason there used to be confusion on the . Any train doesn't go to Lefferts the whole day. It has to switch terminals. This will require changing the signs in the terminal which takes up a lot of time, time that you don't have during the rush hour. Unless you have NTT trains where it can be done in the push of a button it's not worth it.

 

BTW, if you want to reply to more than one person you can quote what they want to say using multi-quote. Just press the multi-quote button on whoever's post you want to quote and then quote anyone's post and everyone's quoted posts will come up in the reply screen.

 

Can't they do that with the R44s? All it requires is that they change the front and the back, and the rest by computer, right?

 

And I know about the multiquote. I decided to respond to their posts after I hit the quote button.

[R110B]

idk if the R44s have the(K)rollsign?

[via White Plains Road]

idk if the R44s have the(K)rollsign?

They do....I seen it one day when the R-44's was layed up on the express track along Fulton Street!

[Luis1985]

it would be nice.

[MAA89]

Just because the 8th Ave. line has two locals and one express doesn't mean anything has to be changed at all. You never have to wait more than 5 minutes for an during rush hour. The local track sees 18TPH (one train every 3-4 minutes). If you want to extend the to Lefferts so the has two branches, that's essentially renaming the lefferts branch the . Again, things are just fine as it is right now. Don't forget that if you do add 8th Ave. express service, you create even more congestion at points like 145th St., 59th St., Canal St. and Hoyt-Schermerhorn Sts. (just like Urbanfortitude said).

 

I think LRG's proposal is to have the and the both terminate local runs in Manhattan. By switching the to the express track in Manhattan, you won't have any more congestion at Canal St than there is already.

 

No congestion issues need arise on the Fulton Street line if the runs express to Far Rockaway (plus rush hours to/from Rockaway Park) and the runs on the local track to Lefferts. The main problem with this is Lefferts riders would complain about the greater number of stops along the Fulton Street local and would crowd the until Rockway Blvd instead.

 

With LRG's plan, the and the run local above 59th St, while the , and run express. While the and already do the local run without significant problems, the presence of three express lines could foreseeably cause congestion.

 

LRG's proposal (one I support) is not the same thing as renaming the Lefferts to . The idea is that and remain as it is on the Fulton Street line, except with the going to Lefferts instead of terminating at Euclid and the running to the Rockaways only (an idea that seems to have gained traction since I raised the topic earlier). No one said anything about a new express in Manhattan, except that having the and running local means the would have to go somewhere, and it might as well become express. The Eighth Avenue local can handle two lines and is doing it quite well, so nothing changes there. Eighth Avenue Express below 59th St could use some extra service; 12-14 minute headways are not uncommon during middays and evenings, and even at rush hours I often wait 8-10 minutes for an at West 4th St, either because I just missed one or because I chose not to get on a Lefferts-bound train.

 

Final summation of ideas:

 

1) Two locals in Manhattan as usual, with the and 50th St and below, and and 59th St and above.

 

2) Two expresses in Manhattan below 59th St to reduce headways and differentiate service to Lefferts and Rockways.

 

3) One local and one express in Brooklyn along Fulton Street. LRG proposes a local going to Lefferts Blvd, meaning angry Lefferts riders will just have to take the in Manhattan and transfer at some point.

 

4) runs express to the Rockaways 24/7. Shuttle replaces to Lefferts late nights as terminates at Euclid or earlier.

 

5) Special rush-hour peak direction service runs to or from Lefferts to provide riders an alternative to the (which is local in Brooklyn).

 

6) No on weekends, runs local in Manhattan instead. becomes only express service in Manhattan on weekends.

 

None of these would require major route or service changes. The only effective changes are:

 

1) The route of the current terminates at WTC and is relabeled the .

 

2) The current Lefferts Blvd is replaced by the and runs local in Brooklyn.

 

I think it's a fair idea. As I said before, Lefferts riders in a hurry can transfer to the at one of the major stations (Euclid, Broadway Junction, Utica, or Nostrand).The rest can look forward to express service in Manhattan on the . Rush-hour peak direction trains can take care of excess demand for express service from the Lefferts.

 

Zman's claim that trains would run to/from Far Rockaway nearly empty is a bit far-fetched. The 9 stations on the Far Rock line (10 including Aqueduct Racetrack) generate far more riders than the three on the Lefferts line, so if anything, full-time to Lefferts runs the risk of low ridership.

[agonyisfun]

Hey,whats a Train?? B)

[via White Plains Road]

Hey,whats a Train?? B)

 

was part of the 8th Avenue Line it ran b/w World Trade Center and 168th Street-Washington Heights via 8th Avenue and Central Park West local but was discontinued back in late 1980's!

[Joe]

Hey,whats a Train?? B)

 

You mean people read that brochure?

[LRG]

I think LRG's proposal is to have the and the both terminate local runs in Manhattan. By switching the to the express track in Manhattan, you won't have any more congestion at Canal St than there is already.

 

No congestion issues need arise on the Fulton Street line if the runs express to Far Rockaway (plus rush hours to/from Rockaway Park) and the runs on the local track to Lefferts. The main problem with this is Lefferts riders would complain about the greater number of stops along the Fulton Street local and would crowd the until Rockway Blvd instead.

 

With LRG's plan, the and the run local above 59th St, while the , and run express. While the and already do the local run without significant problems, the presence of three express lines could foreseeably cause congestion.

 

LRG's proposal (one I support) is not the same thing as renaming the Lefferts to . The idea is that and remain as it is on the Fulton Street line, except with the going to Lefferts instead of terminating at Euclid and the running to the Rockaways only (an idea that seems to have gained traction since I raised the topic earlier). No one said anything about a new express in Manhattan, except that having the and running local means the would have to go somewhere, and it might as well become express. The Eighth Avenue local can handle two lines and is doing it quite well, so nothing changes there. Eighth Avenue Express below 59th St could use some extra service; 12-14 minute headways are not uncommon during middays and evenings, and even at rush hours I often wait 8-10 minutes for an at West 4th St, either because I just missed one or because I chose not to get on a Lefferts-bound train.

 

Final summation of ideas:

 

1) Two locals in Manhattan as usual, with the and 50th St and below, and and 59th St and above.

 

2) Two expresses in Manhattan below 59th St to reduce headways and differentiate service to Lefferts and Rockways.

 

3) One local and one express in Brooklyn along Fulton Street. LRG proposes a local going to Lefferts Blvd, meaning angry Lefferts riders will just have to take the in Manhattan and transfer at some point.

 

4) runs express to the Rockaways 24/7. Shuttle replaces to Lefferts late nights as terminates at Euclid or earlier.

 

5) Special rush-hour peak direction service runs to or from Lefferts to provide riders an alternative to the (which is local in Brooklyn).

 

6) No on weekends, runs local in Manhattan instead. becomes only express service in Manhattan on weekends.

 

None of these would require major route or service changes. The only effective changes are:

 

1) The route of the current terminates at WTC and is relabeled the .

 

2) The current Lefferts Blvd is replaced by the and runs local in Brooklyn.

 

I think it's a fair idea. As I said before, Lefferts riders in a hurry can transfer to the at one of the major stations (Euclid, Broadway Junction, Utica, or Nostrand).The rest can look forward to express service in Manhattan on the . Rush-hour peak direction trains can take care of excess demand for express service from the Lefferts.

 

Zman's claim that trains would run to/from Far Rockaway nearly empty is a bit far-fetched. The 9 stations on the Far Rock line (10 including Aqueduct Racetrack) generate far more riders than the three on the Lefferts line, so if anything, full-time to Lefferts runs the risk of low ridership.

 

This is precisely what I meant. People were jumping the gun saying that the train be in Brooklyn, when in fact I was not proposing that at all. Why create a bottleneck when it can mainly be avoided? Having the operate express in Manhattan can eliminate delays at Canal Street. And WTC is adequate enough to handle two lines (because the and the (K)/© shared terminals except rush hours and nights). Although WTC would be serving two lines all day on a weekday, it can handle both lines just fine.