MAA89 Posted July 24, 2009 Share #26 Posted July 24, 2009 I've brought this up so many times. Expanded service on the by making it operate to Lefferts Boulevard and have all service to Far Rockaway would see better service on both lines, especially the . I don't have a problem with it being a local (take the express my friend!), but it's so infrequent! I suppose you can improve frequency by moving some (but less than half) of the cars now used in trains, to the line. There would be shorter wait times for those transferring from the to the , and in spite of there being fewer trains, headways on the would be reduced from the current nightmarish 13-15 minute morning rush hour train intervals. The changes would also improve ridership on the , which presently runs with empty seats even during rush hours, and 80% of those who do use it exit or transfer by Nostrand or Utica Avenue. It is a good idea, but consider the position of the community As I explained above, Lefferts riders will have a much easier time of it, taking the to Rockaway Boulevard and waiting on the platform for a very short time for a . I assure you the Rockaways will rejoice at reduced headways and one-seat service. It always puzzled me why some people oppose a seeming win-win situation. (Remember a one-seat ride to Manhattan from Lefferts would still exist, it would be up to the riders to decide whether to spend an extra 10-11 minutes stopping at 9 more stations). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MTR Admiralty Posted July 24, 2009 Share #27 Posted July 24, 2009 As I explained above, Lefferts riders will have a much easier time of it, taking the to Rockaway Boulevard and waiting on the platform for a very short time for a . I assure you the Rockaways will rejoice at reduced headways and one-seat service. It always puzzled me why some people oppose a seeming win-win situation. (Remember a one-seat ride to Manhattan from Lefferts would still exist, it would be up to the riders to decide whether to spend an extra 10-11 minutes stopping at 9 more stations). A very short time for a ? You have got to be kidding me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MAA89 Posted July 24, 2009 Share #28 Posted July 24, 2009 The to Lefferts Bl would be a pretty long ride, especially if it stays local. How would adding 7 more closely spaced stops make the an intolerably long line? It would still be much shorter than the , which runs local in Queens anyway. It takes only 7-8 minutes to get from Euclid Avenue to Rockaway Blvd, and an additional 4.5 minutes or so on the Lefferts branch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MTR Admiralty Posted July 24, 2009 Share #29 Posted July 24, 2009 How would adding 7 more closely spaced stops make the an intolerably long line? It would still be much shorter than the , which runs local in Queens anyway. It takes only 7-8 minutes to get from Euclid Avenue to Rockaway Blvd, and an additional 4.5 minutes or so on the Lefferts branch. The train crews won't like it at all. The is already a long local line by itself. Extending it will only exacerbate the current scenario. And plus to an earlier point, the Lefferts riders would have to get off at Rockaway Blvd and wait for either the or the , depending on direction. You want them to stand there for a couple of minutes? Plus, the is not very frequent. The scheduling can be erratic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MAA89 Posted July 25, 2009 Share #30 Posted July 25, 2009 The train crews won't like it at all. The is already a long local line by itself. Extending it will only exacerbate the current scenario. And plus to an earlier point, the Lefferts riders would have to get off at Rockaway Blvd and wait for either the or the , depending on direction. You want them to stand there for a couple of minutes? Plus, the is not very frequent. The scheduling can be erratic. They wouldn't have to transfer to an at Rockaway Boulevard. If it is raining or snowing outside, they could always wait to get underground (Grant or Euclid) to transfer. If the scheduling can be designed to ensure that and trains will frequently enter Euclid/Broadway Junction/Utica Ave at the same time, then a transfer would be a walk across the platform and not a wait. If we throw in a few rush hour peak direction trains, the bulk of the riders would get one-seat express rides anyway (unlike the Rock Park which runs too late to fit most people's schedules, given that Rock Park is far from Manhattan, Lefferts trains starting at similar times will not be late for the morning shift commuters). As I said, the key is to improve frequency by increasing the number of cars assigned to the . This would make any transfers required bearable. Where to get the extra cars for the is anyone's guess, but I am thinking it may be possible to send some R44s/46s from the to the . Given scrapping of service to Lefferts, this should not affect service unduly. I am not sure to what extent the train crews' input affect policy anyway. I am all for the crew's comfort, but unless extending the puts pressure on the crews to the extent of it being a safety concern for passengers, I do not see why complaints would need to be upheld. Dealing with changes is part of their job: if they are not willing to do it, they should get another job. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LRG Posted July 25, 2009 Share #31 Posted July 25, 2009 They wouldn't have to transfer to an at Rockaway Boulevard. If it is raining or snowing outside, they could always wait to get underground (Grant or Euclid) to transfer. If the scheduling can be designed to ensure that and trains will frequently enter Euclid/Broadway Junction/Utica Ave at the same time, then a transfer would be a walk across the platform and not a wait. If we throw in a few rush hour peak direction trains, the bulk of the riders would get one-seat express rides anyway (unlike the Rock Park which runs too late to fit most people's schedules, given that Rock Park is far from Manhattan, Lefferts trains starting at similar times will not be late for the morning shift commuters). As I said, the key is to improve frequency by increasing the number of cars assigned to the . This would make any transfers required bearable. Where to get the extra cars for the is anyone's guess, but I am thinking it may be possible to send some R44s/46s from the to the . Given scrapping of service to Lefferts, this should not affect service unduly. I am not sure to what extent the train crews' input affect policy anyway. I am all for the crew's comfort, but unless extending the puts pressure on the crews to the extent of it being a safety concern for passengers, I do not see why complaints would need to be upheld. Dealing with changes is part of their job: if they are not willing to do it, they should get another job. THANK YOU! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
R32 3348 Posted July 25, 2009 Share #32 Posted July 25, 2009 I am not sure to what extent the train crews' input affect policy anyway. I am all for the crew's comfort, but unless extending the puts pressure on the crews to the extent of it being a safety concern for passengers, I do not see why complaints would need to be upheld. Dealing with changes is part of their job: if they are not willing to do it, they should get another job. Train crew comfort can in some cases have a positive correlation with train breakdowns, which are more frequent on a longer line and less frequent on a short line. However I don't see line length as an issue here. Since a northbound extension seems to be resolved as infeasible in this thread, I won't go there. As for a Queens extension, keep in mind that Lefferts riders apparently want a one-seat express ride instead of the local. If they didn't have such a preference then this would be feasible but the political pressure on the would likely prohibit them from doing it though. Although, even if you restricted the to one branch (the Rockaway Park branch sees like 5-10 trains a day so I don't count it), you're overserving the Rockaway line. The main reason people take the Rockaway line is because of JFK Airport. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MTR Admiralty Posted July 25, 2009 Share #33 Posted July 25, 2009 Train crew comfort can in some cases have a positive correlation with train breakdowns, which are more frequent on a longer line and less frequent on a short line. However I don't see line length as an issue here. Since a northbound extension seems to be resolved as infeasible in this thread, I won't go there. As for a Queens extension, keep in mind that Lefferts riders apparently want a one-seat express ride instead of the local. If they didn't have such a preference then this would be feasible but the political pressure on the would likely prohibit them from doing it though. Although, even if you restricted the to one branch (the Rockaway Park branch sees like 5-10 trains a day so I don't count it), you're overserving the Rockaway line. The main reason people take the Rockaway line is because of JFK Airport. Thank you! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MAA89 Posted July 26, 2009 Share #34 Posted July 26, 2009 Train crew comfort can in some cases have a positive correlation with train breakdowns, which are more frequent on a longer line and less frequent on a short line. If a 45-year old R32 breaks down, it's just as likely to be the train's fault as it is the operator's, if not more so. Besides, trains running on longer lines will obviously see more breakdowns. That is one of the most obvious statements about the nature of all things mechanical. I can't imagine the 42nd Street shuttle breaking down halfway between Grand Central and Times Sq on the first run of the day. I would venture to guess, though, that the MDBF would be fairly consistent across all lines of significant length (shuttles not considered). The higher number of breakdowns on longer lines is simply a result of the longer distance traveled by each train (coupled to the fact that the always puts the oldest cars on the longest lines: the and ). Although, even if you restricted the to one branch (the Rockaway Park branch sees like 5-10 trains a day so I don't count it), you're overserving the Rockaway line. The main reason people take the Rockaway line is because of JFK Airport. You forget that the Rockaway Park is the only shuttle that runs 8-car R44 trains, albeit only on summer weekends. When the (MTA)'s G.O. suspended service to the Rockaways last week, the line of people and surfboards waiting to get on a shuttle bus to Rock Park stretched from the JFK parking lot to the Howard Beach station mezzanine. While Howard Beach-JFK serves about a million riders a year, the Far Rock branch serves 4 million more, and the Rock Park branch serves another million, for a total of 6 million. The three Lefferts stops only serve 3.3 million. It doesn't seem fair that, barring the 10 Rock Park trains a day (5 in each direction), service is split 50-50 between Far Rock and Lefferts. Unless you bring back the , the split should send more trains to the Rockaways. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MAA89 Posted July 26, 2009 Share #35 Posted July 26, 2009 THANK YOU! You are welcome! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tbirdbassist Posted July 27, 2009 Share #36 Posted July 27, 2009 Last time I was in the Rockaways, about two-ish months ago, I saw 4 car trains. Unless they shorten trains on the weekends... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MAA89 Posted July 28, 2009 Share #37 Posted July 28, 2009 Last time I was in the Rockaways, about two-ish months ago, I saw 4 car trains. Unless they shorten trains on the weekends... Were you there on a weekend? They lengthen trains on summer weekends, beginning about mid-June, so I guess you would have been too early anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EE Broadway Local Posted August 7, 2009 Share #38 Posted August 7, 2009 and so THIS must be why C train terminates at 168th correct? Not only that there is the 174th Street Yard, but north of 168th Street, the line is two tracks. Historically, the Washington Heights local has always terminated at 168th Street just as the Concourse local always terminated at Bedford Park Boulevard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.