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  
Shortline Bus

Should the Rockaway Park line stations close at nights 7 days a week?

Recommended Posts

Guys a new topic and dicussion. Should the Rockaway Park line stations close at nights 7 days a week?

Before the Albany bailout, i was very surprised that the Rockaway Park (S) was not on the infamous 'doomesday list' of service cuts.

 

I been on it a few times(my sister in law parents live in the Rockaways)and even on daytime during the non summer i be the only passenger aboard.

IMO it a waste of money and those trains/manpower could be used on the Lefferts (A) line branch for 24/7 overnight service.

 

I think overnights 1-5am, the Rock Park (S)should be replaced by both Q53(loop in/out of the Broad Channel station late nights) and the Q22 which both would get 'hawk' service?

 

Similar to the (4) extended to New Lots in Brooklyn late nights when the (3)Brooklyn ervice is not running, the (C) late nights is extended to Lefferts Blvd.

Along the main Fulton/8th Ave line between 207th and Rockaway Bl. (A)(C) trains would have 15-minute headways(every 30 minutes to either outer stations on Far Rock or Lefferts)

 

Reactions?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What about that thing the (H) did where it goes to the one side, then over to the other side then back up?

 

Too confusing and plus the ridership on Far Rock branch is higher overnights than Lefferts. Biggest reason is riders boarding at Howard Beach to go to JFK airtrain.

 

So guys what you think?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guys a new topic and dicussion. Should the Rockaway Park line stations close at nights 7 days a week?

Before the Albany bailout, i was very surprised that the Rockaway Park (S) was not on the infamous 'doomesday list' of service cuts.

 

I been on it a few times(my sister in law parents live in the Rockaways)and even on daytime during the non summer i be the only passenger aboard.

IMO it a waste of money and those trains/manpower could be used on the Lefferts (A) line branch for 24/7 overnight service.

 

I think overnights 1-5am, the Rock Park (S)should be replaced by both Q53(loop in/out of the Broad Channel station late nights) and the Q22 which both would get 'hawk' service?

 

Similar to the (4) extended to New Lots in Brooklyn late nights when the (3)Brooklyn ervice is not running, the (C) late nights is extended to Lefferts Blvd.

Along the main Fulton/8th Ave line between 207th and Rockaway Bl. (A)(C) trains would have 15-minute headways(every 30 minutes to either outer stations on Far Rock or Lefferts)

 

Reactions?

 

I kinda like this suggestion. The fact that Rockaway Park is not a really popular section of the Rockaways even during the daytime would save the MTA money to maintain it at night. If necessary, a shuttle bus service can be initiated instead between Rockaway Park and Broad Channel, similar to how the Shuttle bus connected 148th Street and 135th Street when the (3) did not run at nights, with the Q53 and Q22 as other viable options. But last time I checked, those buses do not run at night, so maybe a shuttle bus service can be used instead.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that closing the (H) at night is a good idea. It's ridership is way too low to justify any sort of train service. It might be necessary in the peak season, but otherwise, busses to Beach 67.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think that closing the (H) at night is a good idea. It's ridership is way too low to justify any sort of train service. It might be necessary in the peak season, but otherwise, busses to Beach 67.

 

agreed. This is only subway coordior in NYC imo that should close late at night. The money wasted on running the (H)shuttle could instead be used to either run 24/7 the (A)on the Lefferts Branch to Manhattan or the (5)between Dyre and the Lex line.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quite frankly, I would never want to cut service unless absolutely necessary. If I lived by the Rock Park branch I'd be pissed that my only subway connection was taken away at night.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quite frankly, I would never want to cut service unless absolutely necessary. If I lived by the Rock Park branch I'd be pissed that my only subway connection was taken away at night.

 

No offense but why run a train that gets zero riders on most trips between 1-5am? Also most of the people living in Rockaway Park stations have cars. You confusing Masrati with Far Rockaway statons that needs 24/7 service and is one of the poorer neighborhoods in all of NYC.

 

Meanwhile that money wasted on the Rock Park shuttle could be used instead to run for instance the (5) 24/7 between Bowling Green and Dyre or the (A) all night between Lefferts and Manhattan.

Under that plan Rock Park would still have either a shuttle bus or expanded Q53 service as well late nights.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Agreed, it should be just some kind of shuttle bus service. I used to date a girl on beach 121 street years ago and when I would go home some nights the trains would be almost completly empty. The MTA would save so much money on the electricity alone from the trains that run back and forth at night.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does NYCT even pay for power? I only ask because I read on one of these forums that the LIRR hasn't paid their bill in over 10 years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Heck no. You could have a (H) type run signed up as the (S) overnight and cut (A) back to howard beach, but no suspension of service. It's an irritating frustrating hinderance when there's a train track and no pax service running when the rest of the day it does. If you're going to cut service back you might as well change it back to LIRR and have a (S) to howard beach to connect it.

 

- A

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The BEST idea yet!!.............. NOT

 

This idea is terrible, no offense, especially late night service on a bus takes for ever, I imagine the Q22(Which doesnt run late nights). Who would wanna wait at a bus stop in the winter and its cold and snowing as hell. Thats part of the reason why the (3) train resumed late night service from 148th to 42nd TSQ, instead of a (3) shuttle bus from 148th to 135th, cuz no one would wanna wait on a cold night for a bus, for when ever it comes..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thats part of the reason why the (3) train resumed late night service from 148th to 42nd TSQ, instead of a (3) shuttle bus from 148th to 135th

 

They weren't concerned with the weather.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its the Q21 and it doesnt run over night. The shuttle bus wouldnt take forever as it would just from from Beach 116st, B105, B98, B90 and to Broadchannel and back. Its a 10- 15 minute bus ride in each direction at night.

 

Yes MTA and LIRR pay electric. Whether on time or not they still get billed. In all of their substations and train stations there are Con-Ed meters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Agreed, it should be just some kind of shuttle bus service. I used to date a girl on beach 121 street years ago and when I would go home some nights the trains would be almost completly empty. The MTA would save so much money on the electricity alone from the trains that run back and forth at night.

 

Lol...NICE!

 

They weren't concerned with the weather.

 

Weather did play a part with the (3) train resuming overnight service. And it was a good idea because there was no express service in Manhattan so riders got it above 42nd Street where Express service was almost always popular.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lol...NICE!

 

 

 

Weather did play a part with the (3) train resuming overnight service. And it was a good idea because there was no express service in Manhattan so riders got it above 42nd Street where Express service was almost always popular.

 

Ummmmmmmmmmmmmmm.... yes there was always Express Service.. (D) From 145th-St. Nicholas Avenue to West 4th Street-6th Ave, and the (Q) from Midtown-57th St and Canal St. For the IRT there was none of course until the (3) made it in. So 1 for IRT, 1 for IND, 1 for BMT..

 

For Queens its only the (F) of course from 21st Street Queensbridge and Forest hills. So only Manhattan and Queens has Express Service.

 

For the (4) in Brooklyn, I wouldn't count Skipping Hoyt St an Express Service as you can still take a (2) and it would be there about the same time as the (4) if you were heading to ether Borough Hall or Nevis. If a (2) made in first tho..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
They weren't concerned with the weather.

 

Yes there was, people kept complaining that the (3) train shuttle buses were taking long to come during the night especially when it was cold and snowing badly through the night. I think the other reason was to allow passengers to get a seat on the (3) to head to Harlem above 135th instead of getting off for a shuttle bus at night

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In this case, there's only one thing to do. Before I'd go cutting other people's subway service, I'd do a test study. I'd go to the line myself during the nights and see exactly how the ridership is. Only after I do that would I think about cutting this (S) service.

 

As of right now, no, I don't think the service should be cut.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Again this is not an insult against people on Rock Park line but others lines like the (5) which would get much more riders overnight than this ever will, does not have full time 24/7 service? And under my proposal the riders during the winter would wait at a safe station with 'heat' at Broad Channel until the Q53 or shuttle bus arrives.

 

Running empty (S) is a waste. A better compromise besides the 'shuttle bus/Expanded Q22 and Q53 service idea is running the Rock Park every hour but the current set up from 1-5am is a waste of taxpayer monies.

 

The riders going to Rock Park stations already wait in cold and sometimes snow connecting to the (S)in outdoor and cold Broad Channel so not a great excuse.

Edited by Hudson River

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
A better compromise besides the 'shuttle bus/Expanded Q22 and Q53 service idea is running the Rock Park every hour but the current set up from 1-5am is a waste of taxpayer monies.

 

The bus wouldnt be the Q22 it would be the Q21 as the Q21 runs from B116th street to broadchannel and beyond. The Q21 gets you off the peninsula the Q22 runs from far rock to neponsit Beach 169

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The bus wouldnt be the Q22 it would be the Q21 as the Q21 runs from B116th street to broadchannel and beyond. The Q21 gets you off the peninsula the Q22 runs from far rock to neponsit Beach 169

 

Mistype. I meant riders at Rock Park can take either the Q53(transfer at Broad Channel) or Q22(transfer at Beach 67th)besides the shuttle bus.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One of the best things about the New York subway system is that it runs 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. The same can't be said for most other cities.

 

Do we really want to change this? And, by eliminating night service on the shuttle, are they really saving that much money?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It wouldn't save money as what you are replacing the shuttle you would also have to hire bus drivers and maintenance on the buses so what is the difference. If you ever stood waiting for the shuttle in the cold you would have never brought up this subject.

 

Maybe they should shut down the dyre line instead.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
agreed. This is only subway coordior in NYC imo that should close late at night. The money wasted on running the (H)shuttle could instead be used to either run 24/7 the (A)on the Lefferts Branch to Manhattan or the (5)between Dyre and the Lex line.

 

I think that this statement pretty much disqualifies HR from continuing with his "idea". The overnight Rock Park (S) uses three T/O's and four Station Agents. I'm quite sure they'd need a helluva lot more T/O's and C/R's for the overnight (5) than is used for the (S).

 

Here's the kicker. A 20 hour day (between his proposed Rock Pk (S) open hours of 5 am and 1 am) would create a four hour overlap for S/A's. This overlap would have to be paid at time-and-a-half to the AM and PM clerks PLUS you'd have to pay them extra OT (on top of the OT already earned) to shut down or open up the station. Then late PM and early AM T/O's would have to be paid extra to layup and putin shuttles. You'd have to keep the Dispatcher and Tower Operator at Rock Park to operate the South Channel Bridge, so you'd actually lose productivity savings because now they wouldn't have to work as hard...no savings there. Then you'd have to pay Bus Operators for overnight service plus fuel and maintenance costs...which means that, overall, it would wind up being more expensive to shut down the line than it would be to leave it open. You ever hear the saying "cheaper to keep her" when it comes to husband and wife strife? Same here except you'd add the word 'open' to the phrase.

 

This would be the point when W.C. Fields would say, "Get away from me kid, ya bother me."

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.