Should the MTA bring back the K train?

[MAA89]

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.

 

You are referring to the Rockaway Park branch of the line. Beach 105th St serves 86,000 riders a year, or 235 per day. The Far Rockaway branch (Beach 67th, Beach 60th, Beach 44th, Beach 36th, Beach 25th and Far Rockaway-Mott Avenue) generates far more riders, about 5 million a year combined with Howard Beach, Broad Channel and Aqueduct North Conduit. (The Rockaway Park branch serves only 1 million). The Lefferts line serves about 3 million riders, so while it is significant, it is eclipsed by Far Rockaway, and its proximity to Euclid makes extending service a logical step. The proposals made so far have all stated Far Rockaway as the intended destination of service and not Rockaway Park.

[LRG]

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.]

 

You are referring to the Rockaway Park branch of the line. Beach 105th St serves 86,000 riders a year, or 235 per day. The Far Rockaway branch (Beach 67th, Beach 60th, Beach 44th, Beach 36th, Beach 25th and Far Rockaway-Mott Avenue) generates far more riders, about 5 million a year combined with Howard Beach, Broad Channel and Aqueduct North Conduit. (The Rockaway Park branch serves only 1 million). The Lefferts line serves about 3 million riders, so while it is significant, it is eclipsed by Far Rockaway, and its proximity to Euclid makes extending service a logical step. The proposals made so far have all stated Far Rockaway as the intended destination of service and not Rockaway Park.

 

That is correct, not to mention that Beach 105th is the least used station in the system (besides Aqueduct Racetrack, which isn't even open all the time). And over the years ridership to Far Rockaway has grown so much that full time trains went to Far Rockaway during late nights instead of Lefferts Boulevard. And since the Lefferts Boulevard Branch is not as popular, it would make sense to extend service for the to Lefferts Boulevard to compensate for the lack of service to begin with, which only runs 7 TPH during the heigh of rush hour (which is a shame), which will pull those extra cars off the and be placed on the . Although riders may bicker about local service from Lefferts, the best way to combat that problem is to either wait at Euclid Avenue for an Express or just ride into Manhattan because they will be getting an express run anyway.

[MAA89]

 

That is correct, not to mention that Beach 105th is the least used station in the system (besides Aqueduct Racetrack, which isn't even open all the time). And over the years ridership to Far Rockaway has grown so much that full time trains went to Far Rockaway during late nights instead of Lefferts Boulevard. And since the Lefferts Boulevard Branch is not as popular, it would make sense to extend service for the to Lefferts Boulevard to compensate for the lack of service to begin with, which only runs 7 TPH during the heigh of rush hour (which is a shame), which will pull those extra cars off the and be placed on the . Although riders may bicker about local service from Lefferts, the best way to combat that problem is to either wait at Euclid Avenue for an Express or just ride into Manhattan because they will be getting an express run anyway.

 

Right. Also, I have noticed massive exaggeration of the amount of time it takes to make local stops on Fulton Street. By my calculations of the running local late nights and, inevitably, weekends, its only an extra 10-12 minutes, meaning that, while on average an takes 45-47 minutes (non rush-hours) to get from Beach 67th St to Broadway-Nassau, the local makes it about 57. This is not nearly as bad as another user once claiming it took him more than 75 minutes to get from 88 St to 34th St-Penn Station. The smaller ridership on the Lefferts branch justifies the extra 9 stops on Fulton St.

 

Rush hours, however, it frequently takes 53-55 minutes to get into Manhattan from Beach 67th St, so to rely on local service would be a killer (even though Lefferts riders have a shorter commute to Manhattan than their Rockaway counterparts). Hence the need for rush hour peak direction service from all southern terminals on the . (I won't begrudge the Rock Park or Lefferts riders this amenity, even though the system already results in rush hour peak direction headways of 13-15 minutes on the Far Rockaway line (check the schedule: the train after 6:50AM leaves Far Rockaway at 7:03AM, and the one after 7:50AM starts at 8:05AM)).

[Shortline Bus]

You are referring to the Rockaway Park branch of the line. Beach 105th St serves 86,000 riders a year, or 235 per day. The Far Rockaway branch (Beach 67th, Beach 60th, Beach 44th, Beach 36th, Beach 25th and Far Rockaway-Mott Avenue) generates far more riders, about 5 million a year combined with Howard Beach, Broad Channel and Aqueduct North Conduit. (The Rockaway Park branch serves only 1 million). The Lefferts line serves about 3 million riders, so while it is significant, it is eclipsed by Far Rockaway, and its proximity to Euclid makes extending service a logical step. The proposals made so far have all stated Far Rockaway as the intended destination of service and not Rockaway Park.

 

I created a separte thread topic on what to do with Rockaway subway aka ending late night Rockaway Park shuttle service?

[LRG]

I created a separte thread topic on what to do with Rockaway subway aka ending late night Rockaway Park shuttle service?

 

I just checked it out.

[LTA1992]

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.

 

We don't need CBTC anyway. Last time i checked, i remember hearing that CBTC was being implemented to RUN TRAINS CLOSER TOGETHER SO MORE TRAINS COULD BE ADDED TO REDUCE CROWDING.

[Y2Julio]

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

That service already exists on the zing!

[LRG]

That service already exists on the zing!

 

Lol...in a way it actually does. With the CBTC technology trains can run much more frequently. You never have to wait more than 4 minutes for a train during rush hour.

[MTR Admiralty]

We don't need CBTC anyway. Last time i checked, i remember hearing that CBTC was being implemented to RUN TRAINS CLOSER TOGETHER SO MORE TRAINS COULD BE ADDED TO REDUCE CROWDING.

It depends on both the definition and the scenario. I want to ask you, where would the K run?

 

The CBTC on the L project is only a pilot project to test the new technology. If it is successful and is shown to allow for better intervals, it can be implemented throughout the city.

[KTrainExp]

We don't need CBTC anyway. Last time i checked, i remember hearing that CBTC was being implemented to RUN TRAINS CLOSER TOGETHER SO MORE TRAINS COULD BE ADDED TO REDUCE CROWDING.

 

You got the second part right. And CBTC does bring trains closer together. Since we already invested in it, I don't think has no logical choice, but to accept the technology that they have already invested in.

[Y2Julio]

I believe it was ***** that made this comment so don't quote me on it but I believe with ATO/CBTC, they were only able to add one extra train on the during rush hours.

[MAA89]

The other thread with Howard Roberts' letter got closed. So here is a gist of what I thought and posted on that thread:

 

1) There is barely any need for two locals along 8 Avenue in Manhattan below 42th St (and presumably 59th). The is nearly empty late mornings and evenings and even during rush hours, it is almost always possible to get a seat.

 

2) Rush-hour train frequency is acceptable, running between 12-13 trains per hour. The issue is one of southern terminals. Barring the Rock Park special , the trains are evenly split between the Far Rock and Lefferts branches. Far Rock needs more trains (at least 65 percent), IMO. No express is needed during rush hours and is actually something best avoided to prevent clogging up the track.

 

3) One main complaint about the is its low frequency, only 7 TPH during rush hours. Improving rush hour frequency to about 9-10 TPH should pacify these complaints. That, however, is prevented both by a car shortage, and the fact that the Cranberry Street Tunnel that carries the under the East River can only handle 27 trains an hour.

 

4) Late evening and late night ridership is too low to even justify two locals (as is now the case below 59th: and ). However, the may be extended to 1AM, especially to absorb crowds from Madison Square Garden or Yankee Stadium events. This means the could run express until 1AM. Surely, you wouldn't need two expresses between 11PM and 1AM?

 

5) It might be worth trialling the as an express during middays, but while Uptown local riders may need two locals (( and proposed ), downtown the and the would become extremely redundant.

 

6) It might be a better idea to run the express uptown during late nights and weekends and have some kind of shuttle between 168th and 59th St to serve the local stops.

 

As I see it, there is absolutely no demand for more local service Downtown, especially with the as frequent as it is. Moving the to the express, while good for some, creates more problems than it solves (one less local train, but not enough extra riders to justify a new local). Uptown may be another story, but still too few riders to justify creating a new local train.

 

I do encourage the extension of the to Lefferts Blvd from 6AM to 1AM. Lefferts riders can transfer from the express to save time. At nights (1AM to 6AM) the Lefferts shuttle can take care of the few riders there.

[LRG]

The other thread with Howard Roberts' letter got closed. So here is a gist of what I thought and posted on that thread:

 

1) There is barely any need for two locals along 8 Avenue in Manhattan below 42th St (and presumably 59th). The is nearly empty late mornings and evenings and even during rush hours, it is almost always possible to get a seat.

 

2) Rush-hour train frequency is acceptable, running between 12-13 trains per hour. The issue is one of southern terminals. Barring the Rock Park special , the trains are evenly split between the Far Rock and Lefferts branches. Far Rock needs more trains (at least 65 percent), IMO. No express is needed during rush hours and is actually something best avoided to prevent clogging up the track.

 

3) One main complaint about the is its low frequency, only 7 TPH during rush hours. Improving rush hour frequency to about 9-10 TPH should pacify these complaints. That, however, is prevented both by a car shortage, and the fact that the Cranberry Street Tunnel that carries the under the East River can only handle 27 trains an hour.

 

4) Late evening and late night ridership is too low to even justify two locals (as is now the case below 59th: and ). However, the may be extended to 1AM, especially to absorb crowds from Madison Square Garden or Yankee Stadium events. This means the could run express until 1AM. Surely, you wouldn't need two expresses between 11PM and 1AM?

 

5) It might be worth trialling the as an express during middays, but while Uptown local riders may need two locals (( and proposed ), downtown the and the would become extremely redundant.

 

6) It might be a better idea to run the express uptown during late nights and weekends and have some kind of shuttle between 168th and 59th St to serve the local stops.

 

As I see it, there is absolutely no demand for more local service Downtown, especially with the as frequent as it is. Moving the to the express, while good for some, creates more problems than it solves (one less local train, but not enough extra riders to justify a new local). Uptown may be another story, but still too few riders to justify creating a new local train.

 

I do encourage the extension of the to Lefferts Blvd from 6AM to 1AM. Lefferts riders can transfer from the express to save time. At nights (1AM to 6AM) the Lefferts shuttle can take care of the few riders there.

 

I guess this is justifiable. The (A)s that go to Lefferts can be renamed the and just operate local in Manhattan and Brooklyn. Extra service to Far Rockaway can be provided as a result, so maybe a is not really needed. But it was a shot to throw the idea out there, so we all learned something.

 

So thanks for your comments guys I do appreciate them!

[Trainmaster5]

I believe it was Trainmaster5 that made this comment so don't quote me on it but I believe with ATO/CBTC, they were only able to add one extra train on the during rush hours.

 

Wasn't me, I only deal with the line. I do believe that lines that are near or at capacity can't be helped by CBTC or ATS because of issues like terminal capacity. If you can squeeze in a train or two it's going to look good.....until those trains start bunching up at the end of the line.

[Y2Julio]

 

Wasn't me, I only deal with the line. I do believe that lines that are near or at capacity can't be helped by CBTC or ATS because of issues like terminal capacity. If you can squeeze in a train or two it's going to look good.....until those trains start bunching up at the end of the line.

Ah, my mistake. Sorry for misquoting you.

[Shortline Bus]

The other thread with Howard Roberts' letter got closed. So here is a gist of what I thought and posted on that thread:

 

1) There is barely any need for two locals along 8 Avenue in Manhattan below 42th St (and presumably 59th). The is nearly empty late mornings and evenings and even during rush hours, it is almost always possible to get a seat.

 

2) Rush-hour train frequency is acceptable, running between 12-13 trains per hour. The issue is one of southern terminals. Barring the Rock Park special , the trains are evenly split between the Far Rock and Lefferts branches. Far Rock needs more trains (at least 65 percent), IMO. No express is needed during rush hours and is actually something best avoided to prevent clogging up the track.

 

3) One main complaint about the is its low frequency, only 7 TPH during rush hours. Improving rush hour frequency to about 9-10 TPH should pacify these complaints. That, however, is prevented both by a car shortage, and the fact that the Cranberry Street Tunnel that carries the under the East River can only handle 27 trains an hour.

 

4) Late evening and late night ridership is too low to even justify two locals (as is now the case below 59th: and ). However, the may be extended to 1AM, especially to absorb crowds from Madison Square Garden or Yankee Stadium events. This means the could run express until 1AM. Surely, you wouldn't need two expresses between 11PM and 1AM?

 

5) It might be worth trialling the as an express during middays, but while Uptown local riders may need two locals (( and proposed ), downtown the and the would become extremely redundant.

 

6) It might be a better idea to run the express uptown during late nights and weekends and have some kind of shuttle between 168th and 59th St to serve the local stops.

 

As I see it, there is absolutely no demand for more local service Downtown, especially with the as frequent as it is. Moving the to the express, while good for some, creates more problems than it solves (one less local train, but not enough extra riders to justify a new local). Uptown may be another story, but still too few riders to justify creating a new local train.

 

I do encourage the extension of the to Lefferts Blvd from 6AM to 1AM. Lefferts riders can transfer from the express to save time. At nights (1AM to 6AM) the Lefferts shuttle can take care of the few riders there.

 

IMO late nights the should run express only between Canal-59th Street and local the rest of the way in Manhattan and Brooklyn.

[Pu3rToRoCk8947]

nah no need to bring back the old K service pattern,wasn't necessary with the c service pattern back then and definately not needed now.in the age of crumbling infrastructure and alphabet soup letters,people were often confused with service interruptions and the old maps,lets not ressurect something that is already dead.

[LRG]

IMO late nights the should run express only between Canal-59th Street and local the rest of the way in Manhattan and Brooklyn.

 

I think the can become the full-time Manhattan Express but only stops at 155th and 163rd Street, and the ban become local. The only thing bad about that is passengers will complain that there is lack of local service below 59th Street. If some sort of local/express alternation was initiated then it wouldn't be so bad (i.e. one train leaves 207th Street and operates express south of 145th Street and the next one that leaves will become local. The only thing is that headways would have to be increased from 20 minutes to 15 minutes, so at a local station, the station would see an every half hour. But since the could be local above 59th Street and the already local below it, then pasengers would never have to wait long for an because all that they want is to get into Brooklyn.

[MAA89]

IMO late nights the should run express only between Canal-59th Street and local the rest of the way in Manhattan and Brooklyn.

 

Makes sense, since 50th St and Spring St are two of the least used stations on the line, and have even fewer people late nights, so in the absence of the and from 1AM to 6AM, the can still handle all passengers.

[engineerboy6561]

The only way to run three trains on the Fulton line would be to construct new express trackage underneath the existing tracks from Canal to Hoyt-Schermerhorn. What would work to permanently eliminate the bottleneck at Canal would be this:

 

1) Build a new lower level at Hudson Terminal for the to terminate.

2) Convert the upper terminal into a regular 4-track express station with the on the center tracks and the on the outer tracks.

3)Connect the tracks to the existing ROW from Chambers St to north of Jay St.

4)Build two new express tracks beneath the existing ROW that stop at Broadway-Nassau and skip High St.

5)Send the to a new lower level at Jay St. to connect to the lower level of Bergen St.

6)Connect the tracks to the outer tracks of the Jay St. upper level and then to the outermost tracks at Hoyt-Schermerhorn Sts. Build switches south of Jay to the upper level of Bergen St and between the new tracks and the new tracks for use during a GO.

7)Connect the new tracks to the existing ROW at Jay St.

[LRG]

The only way to run three trains on the Fulton line would be to construct new express trackage underneath the existing tracks from Canal to Hoyt-Schermerhorn. What would work to permanently eliminate the bottleneck at Canal would be this:

 

1) Build a new lower level at Hudson Terminal for the to terminate.

2) Convert the upper terminal into a regular 4-track express station with the on the center tracks and the on the outer tracks.

3)Connect the tracks to the existing ROW from Chambers St to north of Jay St.

4)Build two new express tracks beneath the existing ROW that stop at Broadway-Nassau and skip High St.

5)Send the to a new lower level at Jay St. to connect to the lower level of Bergen St.

6)Connect the tracks to the outer tracks of the Jay St. upper level and then to the outermost tracks at Hoyt-Schermerhorn Sts. Build switches south of Jay to the upper level of Bergen St and between the new tracks and the new tracks for use during a GO.

7)Connect the new tracks to the existing ROW at Jay St.

 

And where is the MTA going to get the money to do this?! That requires too much reswitching and reinforcing. There is no need for new infrastructure like this. The only thing I'd like to see, which may probably never happen (and if so, not anytime in the near future) is subway service to Staten Island.

[MTR Admiralty]

The only way to run three trains on the Fulton line would be to construct new express trackage underneath the existing tracks from Canal to Hoyt-Schermerhorn. What would work to permanently eliminate the bottleneck at Canal would be this:

 

1) Build a new lower level at Hudson Terminal for the to terminate

Not feasible. The R/W tracks are situated in the vicinity. Plus you have a lot of subgrade WTC-related infrastructure. And I am sure the mezzanine of the station at the south end is suppose to link up with the new hub, just like it did with the old hub.

2) Convert the upper terminal into a regular 4-track express station with the on the center tracks and the on the outer tracks.

Won't happen on any chance. You must build ramps leading to a new lower level. This can interfere with neighbouring subway lines. Remember, the area is a mecca of subway lines. Doing so will require underpinning of subway lines.

3)Connect the tracks to the existing ROW from Chambers St to north of Jay St.

4)Build two new express tracks beneath the existing ROW that stop at Broadway-Nassau and skip High St.

To do this, you must underpin an existing tunnel, this will cause numerous disruptions. NUMEROUS G.Os to account for. And I don't think you would want to underpin an East River tunnel.

5)Send the to a new lower level at Jay St. to connect to the lower level of Bergen St.

Inadequate planning, this minimises flexibility of service. Plus, you must construct new ramps and underpin the existing infrastructure. I'm pretty sure this will conflict with the new connection to Lawrence Street. And you must sandwich the line between the existing Jay Street and Lawrence Street. It's not an easy process.

6)Connect the tracks to the outer tracks of the Jay St. upper level and then to the outermost tracks at Hoyt-Schermerhorn Sts. Build switches south of Jay to the upper level of Bergen St and between the new tracks and the new tracks for use during a GO.

You will have to demolish the connection to Bergen, then curve to Schermerhorn. And this can affect the siding to Hoyt Street (museum). Also, you must reopen those platforms that are now closed.

7)Connect the new tracks to the existing ROW at Jay St.

In conclusion, just to add ONE LINE, why do you need to do all of this stuff?

[engineerboy6561]

I'm not necessarily saying the restoration of the is a good idea. I'm only saying that it would take work on that scale to make a via Fulton feasible. As it is, the stretch that I speak of augmenting is already at or beyond capacity with two subway lines. Add a third and that whole stretch will end up with delays and backups rivaling the logjams at 71 Av on QBL. Even if the thing never happens this work would prove to be worth the expense and inconvenience it may cause, as commuters would never again be delayed at Canal or have to worry about crap between Canal and Jay Sts forcing two additional lines onto the train.

 

1) I am not saying we would want to underpin the tunnel on the East River stretch. In fact, the express tunnel could take a different route from Fulton to Jay just so long as it GOT to Jay within a reasonable distance.

2) As to the underpinning of the Manhattan trackage, the only other option would be to build a standard four-track configuration as far as Broadway-Nassau, which may cause even more disruption due to the need to convert Fulton into a four-track express station and High St into a four-track local station.

3) It might be possible to build a West 4th St-style interchange north of Jay between and tracks, solving the flexibility issue you raised. South of the station, a new pair of ramps could allow trains access to either level of Bergen St as needed.

4) The new lower level of Jay St would end up being below Lawrence St with extended Lawrence St platforms used as a mezzanine between the two levels.

[MTR Admiralty]

I'm not necessarily saying the restoration of the is a good idea. I'm only saying that it would take work on that scale to make a via Fulton feasible. As it is, the stretch that I speak of augmenting is already at or beyond capacity with two subway lines. Add a third and that whole stretch will end up with delays and backups rivaling the logjams at 71 Av on QBL. Even if the thing never happens this work would prove to be worth the expense and inconvenience it may cause, as commuters would never again be delayed at Canal or have to worry about crap between Canal and Jay Sts forcing two additional lines onto the train.

 

1) I am not saying we would want to underpin the tunnel on the East River stretch. In fact, the express tunnel could take a different route from Fulton to Jay just so long as it GOT to Jay within a reasonable distance.

2) As to the underpinning of the Manhattan trackage, the only other option would be to build a standard four-track configuration as far as Broadway-Nassau, which may cause even more disruption due to the need to convert Fulton into a four-track express station and High St into a four-track local station.

3) It might be possible to build a West 4th St-style interchange north of Jay between and tracks, solving the flexibility issue you raised. South of the station, a new pair of ramps could allow trains access to either level of Bergen St as needed.

4) The new lower level of Jay St would end up being below Lawrence St with extended Lawrence St platforms used as a mezzanine between the two levels.

First of all, your plan will cause a myriad of unwanted disruptions.

Second of all, it is not cost efficient nor cost effective, due to the significant cost and environmental impact.

Third, your plan will call for many ramps which may affect operation speed in that stretch.

Fourth, the Fulton local was intended to link up with the Second Avenue subway. Those two tracks at Hoyt are not meant to be used to go into Manhattan.

Fifth, the numerous disruptions your plan will cause would plague commuters even more. Flexibility will be limited because the GOs would be more direct and disruptive.

Sixth, there are other projects in the city that need deserving attention.

 

The next stop for this thread is the Fantasy Forum.

[lilbluefoxie]

if it were me, I would try to simplify the system, and use less routes, particularly redundant ones like and , and offer more trains per hour instead, taking advantage of new technology. I liked the system on the that lets you know how long between trains. To replace the and offer more , and trains per hour, the train transfers might be more inconvienient, but not so much if the trains came more frequently during rush hour.