Should the MTA bring back the K train?

[Far Rock Depot]

now where would the cars to provide service comefrom??

atleast with renaming Lefferts trains to the cars are already there.

[MAA89]

now where would the cars to provide service comefrom??

atleast with renaming Lefferts trains to the cars are already there.

 

I know. That's the major issue. In a perfect world, however, 8Av/Fulton St would not have a car shortage. If enough cars could be procured, then LRG's plan would make a lot of sense instead of keeping things as it is.

 

Discussions on this forum are just that: ideas about how to improve service. We all know this is hypothetical; that technical details would prevent these from being implemented, at least at present. That doesn't mean they should not be suggested. Far too many users here take it too seriously and/or personally.

[hoodciti]

I know. That's the major issue. In a perfect world, however, 8Av/Fulton St would not have a car shortage. If enough cars could be procured, then LRG's plan would make a lot of sense instead of keeping things as it is.

 

Discussions on this forum are just that: ideas about how to improve service. We all know this is hypothetical; that technical details would prevent these from being implemented, at least at present. That doesn't mean they should not be suggested. Far too many users here take it too seriously and/or personally.

 

Yea I've noticed that many seem to be offended and pretty aggressive when a what if or hypothetical route change is brought up. :mad::cry:

 

But yes LRG's plan actually does sound useful and feasible.

[LRG]

I know. That's the major issue. In a perfect world, however, 8Av/Fulton St would not have a car shortage. If enough cars could be procured, then LRG's plan would make a lot of sense instead of keeping things as it is.

 

Discussions on this forum are just that: ideas about how to improve service. We all know this is hypothetical; that technical details would prevent these from being implemented, at least at present. That doesn't mean they should not be suggested. Far too many users here take it too seriously and/or personally.

 

People tend to think that service changes would be impractical because they would cost too much money and the MTA is in the toilet right now. But not in this case!

 

I'm gonna see if I can make an example of how the can be added without being a financial burden to the MTA. I'm gathering all my statistics from the timetables for the and train. Between the hours of approximately 3:30 and 8 p.m. (the evening rush hour), there are about 7-10 TPH on the from Manhattan to Queens (and I'm not including service to Rockaway Park). So that'd mean that you'll have roughly 4-5 trains an hour heading to either Far Rockaway or Lefferts Boulevard! Sadly, the operates 6 TPH, with during at least for only one hour during the p.m. rush, the headway is 7 TPH. It's a pity that you'll have to let at least three trains pass in order to get a , which is already crowded. This can be solved! You can have 8-9 (or even 10!) TPH operating on the but because there all trains are operating to Far Rockaway and none to Lefferts Boulevard there's one way that less trains can be on the road. With the express in Manhattan you can have 8-9 TPH on that route as well and because of just that there's another way to have less trains on the road as well. Whatever can be done with those extra cars sitting at 207th and Pitkin? Simple: those trains will make up the new (which could provide 8-9 TPH, and peak-direction <A> service to/from Lefferts Boulevard and Rockaway Park (similar to how the <A> to Rockaway Park operates now: only 5 trains. But with two peak terminals, there will be 10 put-ins, or five put-ins for the two terminals that would be served). If this procedure were to work (which I believe it should), then the MTA would not have to take out a single dime out of their pocket, trust me! (Not to mention that the will operate only on Manhattan, so how many train sets do you even need on the road for a Manhattan-only route?)

 

Yea I've noticed that many seem to be offended and pretty aggressive when a what if or hypothetical route change is brought up. :mad::cry:

 

But yes LRG's plan actually does sound useful and feasible.

 

Thank you! :tup: Constructive criticism, for once!

[7LineFan]

If this procedure were to work (which I believe it should), then the MTA would not have to take out a single dime out of their pocket, trust me!

 

Actually, they would... because they'd have to change all the station signs!

 

Just making good fun. IMHO the idea's pretty good though.

[LRG]

Actually, they would... because they'd have to change all the station signs!

 

Just making good fun. IMHO the idea's pretty good though.

 

Lol...thanks! And in regards to the station signage, the MTA can cover the old ones with stickers, like they always do! They really cover them up with metal sheetings, but they'll use stickers if the change is not so big, although they tend to come out sloppy....

[7LineFan]

Lol...thanks! And in regards to the station signage, the MTA can cover the old ones with stickers, like they always do! They really cover them up with metal sheetings, but they'll use stickers if the change is not so big, although they tend to come out sloppy....

 

It would be big though... they'd have to change quite a bit:

 

No to Lefferts, so they'd have to change that.

 

All to Lefferts AND express service in Manhattan.

 

And add the .

 

Too much for a sticker. :cool:

[LRG]

It would be big though... they'd have to change quite a bit:

 

No to Lefferts, so they'd have to change that.

 

All to Lefferts AND express service in Manhattan.

 

And add the .

 

Too much for a sticker. :cool:

 

I see it now, at Hoyt-Schermerhorn Streets:

 

To Queens via Fulton Street

 

To Far Rockaway; p.m. rush hours

also to Lefferts Boulevard or

Rockaway Park. Late nights via local.

 

To Lefferts Boulevard;

late nights take

at Euclid Avenue.

 

To Manhattan via Eighth Avenue

 

To Inwood-207th Street via

Eighth Avenue Express;

late nights via local.

 

To Washington Heights-168th Street

via Eighth Avenue Express; weekends

via local; late nights take .

 

At Chambers Street:

 

Uptown via Eighth Avenue

 

To Inwood-207th Street via

Eighth Avenue Express;

late nights via local.

 

To Washington Heights-168th Street

via Eighth Avenue Express; weekends

via local; late nights take .

 

To Brooklyn via Fulton Street

 

To Far Rockaway; p.m. rush hours

also to Lefferts Boulevard or

Rockaway Park. Late nights via local.

 

To Lefferts Boulevard;

late nights take

at Euclid Avenue.

 

At 145th Street:

 

Local:

 

To Washington Heights-168th

Street, either train,

except late nights.

 

Late nights

to 207th Street

stops here.

 

Express:

 

To Inwood-207th Street;

late nights take

across platform.

 

To Washington Heights-168th Street;

weekends take across platform; late

nights take across platform.

 

Local:

 

To the World Trade Center,

weekdays only. Other times

take or .

 

To Lefferts Boulevard via

Brooklyn Local, weekends;

weekdays take .

 

Late nights to

Far Rockaway

stops here.

 

Express:

 

To Far Rockaway via Brooklyn

Express; late nights take

across platform.

 

To Lefferts Boulevard via Brooklyn

Local; weekends take across

platform; late nights take .

[Eric B]

The ideal situation would be to have something connect to the Court St. stub. That would then automatically feed into the Fulton local to Euclid. The would be express to Lefferts. Any not needed in the Rockaways could still serve the airport (and find a way to turn it there).

the would be express to 42nd St, and build a flyover at 50th St. (which does not appear to be very hard to do. In fact, southbound, you could even use the interlocking that used to lead to thelower level, and add a switch from the local to the express).

[hoodciti]

The ideal situation would be to have something connect to the Court St. stub. That would then automatically feed into the Fulton local to Euclid. The would be express to Lefferts. Any not needed in the Rockaways could still serve the airport (and find a way to turn it there).

the would be express to 42nd St, and build a flyover at 50th St. (which does not appear to be very hard to do. In fact, southbound, you could even use the interlocking that used to lead to thelower level, and add a switch from the local to the express).

 

That should most likely be the (in 80+ years if it ever happens). The IND second system plan has the second ave line connecting to the court street station which would still make sense if the SAS phase IV is completed.

[LTA1992]

I would think if they were to bring back the , to have it run from Canarsie-Rockaway Parkway to Inwood-207th Street as the 8th Avenue Express in both directions. Broadway Elevated Express between Broadway Junction and Marcy Avenue in Peak Direction. If there are people who think this is impossible, look at a few track maps at nycsubway.org and try to tell me that that service is not possible.

[MAA89]

That should most likely be the (in 80+ years if it ever happens). The IND second system plan has the second ave line connecting to the court street station which would still make sense if the SAS phase IV is completed.

 

So it would take 160 years to build the SAS (planning began in 1929)? I wonder why they even bother?

[Eric B]

That should most likely be the (in 80+ years if it ever happens). The IND second system plan has the second ave line connecting to the court street station which would still make sense if the SAS phase IV is completed.

 

Another idea would be to connect the local track at Jay St directly to the local track at Hoyt, so that you wouldn;t have to cross to the express track between Jay and Hoyt. then, 6th Ave service from Tutgers St tunnel would feed directly onto Fulton local.

But this was a Manhattan Bridge alternative. (If the bridge were fully closed, the B would run to Euclid, stopping at a Franklin--expanded to full capacity as part of another option-- for displaced Brighton riders).

 

But then, perhaps you could do that and squeeze in a which would cross from 8th Av to 6th at W4th.

Again, the would be free to go express, to Lefferts (and then, it would probably have to go to Bedford Pk again, and somethign else would have to be done with the (.)

 

But the Jay-Hoyt connection was ruled out for being too disruptive to the surface. If they ever go through with the full downtown plans where they rebuild the whole area, that would be the time to do that.

[Zman]

I see it now, at Hoyt-Schermerhorn Streets:

 

To Queens via Fulton Street

 

To Far Rockaway; p.m. rush hours

also to Lefferts Boulevard or

Rockaway Park. Late nights via local.

 

etc...

 

 

Whattya trying to do? Everybody knows that the TA sign department is allergic to puncuation marks.

[R32 Anthony]

I see everyone is talking about the 8th Ave. line. I say bring back the old line from Jamaica Center, along the line and connect it with the 6th Ave. ( and . Eliminated the

[LRG]

Whattya trying to do? Everybody knows that the TA sign department is allergic to puncuation marks.

 

Lol...allergic. If you ask me they need to learn proper grammar because the language on the sign is far from Standard English. There's a sign at Jamaica Center that reads, "Be safe use handrails". That's not even a sentence!

[LTA1992]

I see everyone is talking about the 8th Ave. line. I say bring back the old line from Jamaica Center, along the line and connect it with the 6th Ave. ( and . Eliminated the

 

Or follow my plan and have the run from Canarsie-Rockaway Parkway to either Inwood-207th and/or Norwood-205th.

[R32 3348]

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.

Aside from the Howard Beach station, the Rockaway stations are the least used in the system. One of the station (E. 1XX street or something) generates 200 something riders a day. The Lefferts stations are more used.

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.

I don't know why it didn't run outside of rush hours but if it was for capacity reasons then this plan won't work.

Yea I've noticed that many seem to be offended and pretty aggressive when a what if or hypothetical route change is brought up. :mad::cry:

I don't know about other people but whenever I critique someone's service proposal I don't take it seriously or personally at all. This is the internet, some guy you don't even know should not hurt your feelings (I'm not talking about you, just in general). I'm all for bringing up service proposals as long as the person has rational thinking behind it (i.e. "Is this feasible?" "What will be the pros and cons?"), like LRG's plan.

I would think if they were to bring back the , to have it run from Canarsie-Rockaway Parkway to Inwood-207th Street as the 8th Avenue Express in both directions. Broadway Elevated Express between Broadway Junction and Marcy Avenue in Peak Direction. If there are people who think this is impossible, look at a few track maps at nycsubway.org and try to tell me that that service is not possible.

I'm pretty sure it's not a good idea that running 8 car trains on Queens Blvd. is not a good idea. People may say the is empty but last year the was at 51% capacity. That number is probably higher this year and that number will rise higher if you remove 20% of the cars.

I see everyone is talking about the 8th Ave. line. I say bring back the old line from Jamaica Center, along the line and connect it with the 6th Ave. ( and . Eliminated the

Jamaica Center can't even handle all of the trains that terminate there and you expect to operate a whole new line out of it...?

Or follow my plan and have the run from Canarsie-Rockaway Parkway to either Inwood-207th and/or Norwood-205th.

The is at capacity.

[LRG]

I don't know why it didn't run outside of rush hours but if it was for capacity reasons then this plan won't work.

 

That's because the , and ran during rush hours and the , and ran at all other times. The thought of having the being the only express and the , and all local would be absurd.

[LTA1992]

The is at capacity.

 

How can that be when the wants to add more trains to reduce crowding. The wouldn't really affect it if it shares 5 stops would it?

[Maserati7200]

How can that be when the wants to add more trains to reduce crowding. The wouldn't really affect it if it shares 5 stops would it?

 

The now the CBTC is in effect, the Canarsie has a little more wiggle room to put more trains, but that isn't enough to have another entire line without reducing service. And trust me, reducing service is bad.

[LRG]

The now the CBTC is in effect, the Canarsie has a little more wiggle room to put more trains, but that isn't enough to have another entire line with reducing service. And trust me, reducing service is bad.

 

Not to mention that another route to interfere with CBTC would not fly so well with the (L)'s General Manager.

[EE Broadway Local]

There were two trains: The original ran 1968-1972 as the (KK) from 168th Street-Jamaica Terminal to 57th Street then 1973-1976 as the from "Broadway Junction" to 57th Street.

 

When the double letters were dropped, the (AA) became the second train.

[R32 3348]

How can that be when the wants to add more trains to reduce crowding. The wouldn't really affect it if it shares 5 stops would it?

service can't be added if the terminals are already at full capacity. Sharing a line would interfere with CBTC which IINM is not advanced enough for multiple lines for only a short section.

[Eric B]

There were two trains: The original ran 1968-1972 as the (KK) from 168th Street-Jamaica Terminal to 57th Street then 1973-1976 as the from "Broadway Junction" to 57th Street.

 

When the double letters were dropped, the (AA) became the second train.

 

A third K, printed on the R110B signs (in gray) was to be a Canarsie Skip-Stop.