Service expansion on the F, G, R and other lines starting in 2012 after recession

[Maserati7200]

Don't forget the new transfer at Jay-Lawrence!

 

When is that going to be completed?

[MTR Admiralty]

When is that going to be completed?

2011, IINM. I read it in a recent document Fan Railer gave all of us.

[Matt91]

Running the to Queens Blvd would not work for a few main reasons:

 

1-Express QBlvd tracks are already at capacity (30 tph)

2-Local tracks can't turn 3 services at CTL. Ridership past CTL (ie to 179) doesn't warrant the service to be extended past that, but which if done, that would also definitely make the Q "too long" for crews.

 

This would only be during late nights:

to 71 ave via QB LCL with the (if the isn't running) or actually run the with it [] and make the QB EXP

This makes 2 Locals at night and either 1 or 2 expresses, with only the locals turning at CTL

 

The and also arent as frequent for late nights so capacity shouldn't be an issue at that time of night. As for it being too long, just look at the or late night. They're as long if not longer

[MAA89]

Don't forget the new transfer at Jay-Lawrence!

 

Where's Jay-Lawrence and how is this different from the current Jay St-Borough Hall station (which they just completing construction on)?

 

I hope the riders enjoy their express service and I guess that article answered a question I asked earlier about what they plan to do with the service to Church Avenue from 2013 onwards.

 

Aside from that, they should just stick to completing important projects like the Fulton Street Transit Center and the Second Avenue Subway before embarking on wildly ambitious ones like a Brooklyn-Bronx subway and a LaGuardia AirTrain (though badly needed). Past experience shows such projects invariably have massive cost overruns, problems with funding and delays in completion.

 

I often take the during rush hours and almost always find a seat, even with 8-car trains and a 10-12 minute headway. While riders deserve shorter waits (waited 12 minutes for a at Franklin Avenue last Wednesday, three trains going by in the meantime), it may be okay to leave the as 8 car trains. No train or its riders should have to suffer the ignominy of shortened trains, but the ridership on the line doesn't justify it, especially if headways were to be shortened.

 

I don't understand why nothing is ever said about improved rush hour service from the Rockaways. Morning rush hour headways are never shorter than 8 minutes, except between the two trains that leave far Rockaway at 7:38 and 7:43, and are as long as 15 minutes between 7:50 and 8:05 departures (I am assuming these still count as rush-hour trains). I understand that the line is congested due to trains leaving the three southern terminals, but the long headways mean embarrassing delays if one misses a train by a few seconds, and there is usually no seating room by the time the trains reach Beach 67th (maybe even Beach 60th). The Rockaway Park trains are spaced 20 minutes apart, but the shuttle tends to run closer to one train than exactly 10 minutes between each, so you may have to wait 15 minutes on the platform. And if you live in the stretch of Arverne between 67th and 90th St (which has no nearby station due to the branch at Hammels Wye) and don't feel like walking, the Q22 will never show up promptly when you need it. I can understand why riders feel neglected, but riders in the Rockaways, and possibly those from Lefferts too, have a real hard time of it. 15 minute rush hour headways (effectively 4 TPH from either terminal) is inexcusable.

 

EDIT: Oh, and the proposed changes are nothing new, and the "if the recession is over" bit is the new tune to MTA's song (Howard Roberts made that a condition on every one of the changes he promised in his reply to Hudson River's letter). Elliot Sander proposed all this stuff back in the pre-credit crunch, pre-financial crises, pre-death-of-congestion pricing days. As demonstrated by this article:

 

http://www.nypost.com/seven/03052008/postopinion/editorials/subway_pie_in_the_sky_100543.htm

 

It wasn't considered very realistic even back then. I am no fan of the New York Post, but I think the grandiose visions were way too far-fetched and a meek attempt at trying to convince riders that the MTA gives a damn. As noted, there was little to no idea on where the $29,600,000,000 were to come from; congestion pricing would only have provided an optimistic estimate of $4.5 billion. The Bronx-Brooklyn subway line, more frequent trains, 10-car locals that few people ride, and LGA AirTrain are all castles-in-the-air, given that the estimated completion date for the most attainable (and essential: see my post of the "Stations needing rehab" thread) project, the Fulton Street Transit Center keeps getting pushed back. If Sander knew how all this could be done, even in a post-recession world, why did he have to resign? If they can't find a billion dollars to complete FSTC (even with a supposed $497 million of Federal Stimulus funds), I do not see where they will find 30 billion to do all this. Other than the Culver Viaduct rehab and permanent extension of the (still not a certainty), there will be no changes whatsoever.

 

EDIT 2: I am surprised everyone prophecies increased frequencies on the without taking into account that that would probably exceed the capacity of the Cranberry St Tunnel. While it may be possible to re-route the via the Rutgers St tunnel along with the , that too would be impossible if the was to be extended to Brooklyn. While re-routing the would have been good for the the (even though it would have to pick up the extra passengers at Broadway-Nassau and High St), the jam caused at Jay St and Hoyt-Schermerhorn Sts would be a nightmare. I really cannot see how the lines could have improved service if the bottleneck at the last three stops in Brooklyn remains.

[EE Broadway Local]

Expanded service hours on eleven subway lines? That sounds sweet. Maybe one of those could be the until Midnights, allowing the to run express between 168th Street and Euclid Avenue until 11:00 or 11:15pm and maybe another could be the Concourse express and the Jamaica skip-stop service hours?

[Matt91]

Expanded service hours on eleven subway lines? That sounds sweet. Maybe one of those could be the until Midnights, allowing the to run express between 168th Street and Euclid Avenue until 11:00 or 11:15pm and maybe another could be the Concourse express and the Jamaica skip-stop service hours?

 

They should increase the time that the runs. What good does it do to have it run for less than 1 or 2 hrs? NONE ✘✘✘✘ !! They should make it run at least 3 or 4 hrs during the rush

[Y2Julio]

Where's Jay-Lawrence and how is this different from the current Jay St-Borough Hall station (which they just completing construction on)?

 

The new connection will make a transfer available between Jay St-Borough Hall on the and Lawrence Street-Metrotech on the . People won't have to exit to transfer to either lines now.

[LRG]

The new connection will make a transfer available between Jay St-Borough Hall on the and Lawrence Street-Metrotech on the . People won't have to exit to transfer to either lines now.

 

Or have to go to Manhattan to transfer.

[Maserati7200]

The new connection will make a transfer available between Jay St-Borough Hall on the and Lawrence Street-Metrotech on the . People won't have to exit to transfer to either lines now.

 

I'll definitely be using that connection often

[MAA89]

Or have to go to Manhattan to transfer.

 

That's only if you are going in the southbound-direction. If you are planning to go somewhere on the Queens Boulevard line, you might as well go to Manhattan and transfer at 34th St-Herald Sq (if you were on the ) or 42nd St-PABT (if you are transferring from the or the ).

 

But it's an useful addition nonetheless, especially for south Brooklyn residents.

 

I do hope the keeps making common sense upgrades like this one and not attempt wildly optimistic ones like a Brooklyn-Bronx subway. If they cannot finish a subway line in Manhattan in nigh on 100 years, they sure as he** won't finish one between two outer boroughs in a reasonable amount of time.

 

I maintain that none of the upgrades mentioned by the original poster will occur anytime soon; once "the recession is over", the will find another excuse (maybe dig up the failure of congestion pricing again).

 

I have little knowledge on the geography of the area, but would just like to ask if any further new connections (free transfers) are being considered or constructed in that area. A connection between the Fulton Street trains and the and at either Hoyt St or Nevins St would certainly be a boon, given that you could take the or trains to Atlantic Avenue and transfer to the ( and , without having to go to Manhattan. Currently its only possible to go from the Fulton St line to the and by taking the to Franklin Av and transferring to the shuttle and going to Botanic Gardens.

 

I have also often wondered why there is no connection from the Eighth Avenue line to the in Lower Manhattan, with the transfer at Chambers St being with the and at Park Place instead. While 6 Av () riders can transfer directly at 14th St, riders would need to transfer to the first, or exit the 8 Av line and walk (say, at Chambers St or from W4 to Christopher). While I understand that construction in Lower Manhattan is not easy, it would certainly provide an easier way to get to South Ferry. (The Bowling Green and Whitehall St stations are a short walk from the SI Ferry terminal, while the connects to it directly, so for ferry riders, it is much better to take the ).

[Y2Julio]

I'll definitely be using that connection often

 

Same here. Means I won't have to climb that crazy climb up to the 4th Avenue station from the to grab the for the .

[rmcconnell]

I wonder what the alignment of the LGA Airtrain will turn out to be. In a perfect world it would connect to the and at Astoria Boulevard and run on an elevated structure over the Grand Central Parkway.

[Maserati7200]

Same here. Means I won't have to climb that crazy climb up to the 4th Avenue station from the to grab the

 

I did that transfer recently, and that passage way was very creepy :eek:

[Shortline Bus]

Other than extending the which Astoria/Elmhurst NIMBYS opposed about a decade ago when Mayor Rudy proposed, I disagree and think buliding a LGA would be better suited for the Willets Points/Cifield subway & LIRR Pt. Washington stations.

[LRG]

I did that transfer recently, and that passage way was very creepy :eek:

 

Forget about the passageway, the platforms are really poorly connected. They should install elevators and/or escalators, but that may be too extensive and complex.

[Pelham Bay Dave]

Some of my Toughs.

Line should stay as is the ridership is low on the line since most riders use the Express or service to Chambers WTC or Queens. However they should beef up Service in the evenings and weekends.

The should run service to Lefferts and keep the all going to the Rockaways but the people of ozone Park don't want it because they would have to give up a one seat Express ride.

The service is not needed late nights to Continental. The could just simply have service make local stops from 21 Queensbridge to 179 Street so local stops get serviced every 10 Minutes. In Manhattan run service Local via Tunnel to 57/7.

The schedule for the it should be reliable but its not because of condictions along the line like track work and merging with other lines. When the gets extended it will be just as unreliable and between the two lines could cause more delays along the lines. Even with that being said it would be a good idea to send service into Brooklyn at least Rush Hours and Middays but how is this going to work? The plan I last seen in a Memo before our last CTO retired was operate Local and both terminal at Church Ave which would cause a back up. If this got a shot of working one of the lines needs to be Extended from Church Ave to Kings Highway.

 

Also I am hearing now service will become full lenght trains by the end of the year or early next year served 8 Car R46's.

[Shortline Bus]

Some of my Toughs.

Line should stay as is the ridership is low on the line since most riders use the Express or service to Chambers WTC or Queens. However they should beef up Service in the evenings and weekends.

The should run service to Lefferts and keep the all going to the Rockaways but the people of ozone Park don't want it because they would have to give up a one seat Express ride.

The service is not needed late nights to Continental. The could just simply have service make local stops from 21 Queensbridge to 179 Street so local stops get serviced every 10 Minutes. In Manhattan run service Local via Tunnel to 57/7.

The schedule for the it should be reliable but its not because of condictions along the line like track work and merging with other lines. When the gets extended it will be just as unreliable and between the two lines could cause more delays along the lines. Even with that being said it would be a good idea to send service into Brooklyn at least Rush Hours and Middays but how is this going to work? The plan I last seen in a Memo before our last CTO retired was operate Local and both terminal at Church Ave which would cause a back up. If this got a shot of working one of the lines needs to be Extended from Church Ave to Kings Highway.

 

Also I am hearing now service will become full lenght trains by the end of the year or early next year served 8 Car R46's.

 

Pelham Bay Dave while i agree on most on your points above, i disagree with the keeping its existing service hours and the serving the Tunnel late nights. Other than Whitehall St, the Broadway local stops in Lower Manhattan/Downtown Brooklyn are almost ghost towns overnight. If anything the imo should run 'local' between Canal-57th Street only late nights on a coordior that busy 24/7. Running just one line in Lower Manhattan either the or is fine.

 

Also there still issue of Crush loaded crowding on the manly after Knick/Ranger games or concerts at MSG and also at stops between 59-Columbus Circle and Jay St. between 1030pm-Midnight every night just as service is ending. No one seems to want to address that issue. The should just run another hour-90 minutes at least until 1230am. To pay for later service i made another topic thread in which Sunday Morning service would start later at 7-8am instead of 6am.

 

Just my takes.

[MAA89]

Some of my Toughs.

Line should stay as is the ridership is low on the line since most riders use the Express or service to Chambers WTC or Queens. However they should beef up Service in the evenings and weekends.

The should run service to Lefferts and keep the all going to the Rockaways but the people of ozone Park don't want it because they would have to give up a one seat Express ride.

 

Finally someone (and a TA employee at that) agreed with what I had been proposing on these forums for months.

 

Last time I asked about extending the to Lefferts, I was shot down on the basis that adding 7 closely-spaced stops to the line would bring on crew fatigue and be a safety concern. I would like to ask Pelham Bay Dave and other TOs/CRs if that is a valid concern (The late night local that makes 58 stops in 51 km of track seems to run every night without untoward incident).

 

The local stops along Fulton St add at most 10-11 minutes to the journey times of riders to and from Queens. Often, getting off at Rockaway Blvd (or earlier) and waiting for an to your desired destination takes as long or longer (alternatively, you can wait an extra 6-8 minutes at your original station). I cannot understand the grumbling of people who clamor for a "one-seat express" when more than half the time, they won't get a one-seat ride anyway (due to having to transfer from a Far Rockaway or Rockaway Park train during rush-hours, or taking the shuttle at Euclid Avenue late nights). What use is a "one seat express ride" when 10 out of 16 trains during rush-hours (7 trains go to Far Rock and three to Rock Park for the 16 trains starting in Manhattan between 3:50pm and 4:51pm) and 16 out of 16 trains late nights DO NOT go to your stop? This is like insisting the 15% bonus on your pay-per-ride MetroCard is bad because it leaves you with an inexact number of rides.

 

The fact that dividing service into 3 parts reduces it to a pitiful 4-5 TPH from each (Far Rock or Lefferts) terminal during morning rush-hours in the peak direction should serve to emphasize why changes are necessary. Even the does better with 7 TPH during rush hours.

 

The changes proposed would improve ridership on the (which currently runs almost half-empty during rush hours and at 20% capacity otherwise), making it a viable line and justifying sending 75-footers to the . In agreement with Hudson River's concern, the should run in Manhattan until 12:30 am, so that the last reaches Lefferts at 1:10 or so, before the shuttle takes over for the next five hours. I believe Howard Roberts mentioned something like that in his reply to Hudson River's letter to the MTA.

[KTrainExp]

Last time I asked about extending the to Lefferts, I was shot down on the basis that adding 7 closely-spaced stops to the line would bring on crew fatigue and be a safety concern. I would like to ask Pelham Bay Dave and other TOs/CRs if that is a valid concern (The late night local that makes 58 stops in 51 km of track seems to run every night without untoward incident).

 

 

Isn't there a crew change on some trains at Euclid Avenue? If so, they why can't they have a crew change on the and then have another guy do the rest of the route to Lefferts.

[Shortline Bus]

Finally someone (and a TA employee at that) agreed with what I had been proposing on these forums for months.

 

Last time I asked about extending the to Lefferts, I was shot down on the basis that adding 7 closely-spaced stops to the line would bring on crew fatigue and be a safety concern. I would like to ask Pelham Bay Dave and other TOs/CRs if that is a valid concern (The late night local that makes 58 stops in 51 km of track seems to run every night without untoward incident).

 

The local stops along Fulton St add at most 10-11 minutes to the journey times of riders to and from Queens. Often, getting off at Rockaway Blvd (or earlier) and waiting for an to your desired destination takes as long or longer (alternatively, you can wait an extra 6-8 minutes at your original station). I cannot understand the grumbling of people who clamor for a "one-seat express" when more than half the time, they won't get a one-seat ride anyway (due to having to transfer from a Far Rockaway or Rockaway Park train during rush-hours, or taking the shuttle at Euclid Avenue late nights). What use is a "one seat express ride" when 10 out of 16 trains during rush-hours (7 trains go to Far Rock and three to Rock Park for the 16 trains starting in Manhattan between 3:50pm and 4:51pm) and 16 out of 16 trains late nights DO NOT go to your stop? This is like insisting the 15% bonus on your pay-per-ride MetroCard is bad because it leaves you with an inexact number of rides.

 

The fact that dividing service into 3 parts reduces it to a pitiful 4-5 TPH from each (Far Rock or Lefferts) terminal during morning rush-hours in the peak direction should serve to emphasize why changes are necessary. Even the does better with 7 TPH during rush hours.

 

The changes proposed would improve ridership on the (which currently runs almost half-empty during rush hours and at 20% capacity otherwise), making it a viable line and justifying sending 75-footers to the . In agreement with Hudson River's concern, the should run in Manhattan until 12:30 am, so that the last reaches Lefferts at 1:10 or so, before the shuttle takes over for the next five hours. I believe Howard Roberts mentioned something like that in his reply to Hudson River's letter to the MTA.

 

 

 

 

Personally i agree 100% that sending the to Lefferts makes the most sense. The only reason i never proposed it in my subway expansion ideas, as i know the Ozone Park NIMBYS would go nuts and think it would be a 'service cut.'

 

A compromise could be in addition to full time ©Lefferts-Manhattan service could be peak direction (similar to the starting/ending few trips at New Lots during Rush hours)<A> express trains on 3 trips in each direction ie 645am 715am and 8am to Manhattan and 345pm, 445pm and 6pm leaving Dyckman St.

 

Again politics plays a huge role(it should not)in all decisions at the MTA in subway and bus operations decisions.

[MAA89]

Personally i agree 100% that sending the to Lefferts makes the most sense. The only reason i never proposed it in my subway expansion ideas, as i know the Ozone Park NIMBYS would go nuts and think it would be a 'service cut.'

 

A compromise could be in addition to full time ©Lefferts-Manhattan service could be peak direction (similar to the starting/ending few trips at New Lots during Rush hours)<A> express trains on 3 trips in each direction ie 645am 715am and 8am to Manhattan and 345pm, 445pm and 6pm leaving Dyckman St.

 

Again politics plays a huge role(it should not)in all decisions at the MTA in subway and bus operations decisions.

 

Thanks. I have always supported rush-hour peak direction trains to and from Lefferts Blvd to ease congestion.

 

I cannot understand how Ozone Park resident have so much leverage in service change decisions. The three stops on the Lefferts branch have a combined yearly ridership of 3.2 million. The combined Rockaway ridership (Far Rock plus Rock Park) is over 6 million (although a million of these go to Howard Beach). Also, it takes only 35 minutes for an train (under ideal conditions) to get from West 4th St to Rockaway Boulevard, and another 6 minutes at best to get to Lefferts Blvd (the Lefferts shuttle gets from Euclid to Lefferts in 11 minutes). On the other hand, the journey from West 4th to Beach 67th St takes at least 53 minutes on a midday or weekend express run, and longer during rush hours. It takes over an hour to reach Far Rockaway-Mott Avenue from Manhattan under ideal conditions.

 

The fact that twice as many riders as that on the Lefferts branch need to spend an additional twenty minutes to get to their terminal should itself be rectified. The fact that half the time, the Far Rockaway-bound rider will have to transfer from a Lefferts-bound train, or wait up to 18-20 minutes at their Manhattan stops for the appropriate train, means that journey times are 38-40 minutes longer (the average commute for a New Yorker is 38.4 minutes, and this is the highest in the USA, and Rockaway riders frequently spend three times as long to get home). Also, Rockaway Park-bound riders often need to transfer twice (from a Lefferts to a Far Rock to the Rock Park shuttle), adding to 20 minutes or more to their commute simply spending time waiting for their train at the station.

 

The fact that Rockaways riders put twice as much money into the (MTA)'s coffers and get inferior service is a great wrong. Getting Lefferts riders (with their smaller numbers and shorter commutes) to compromise isn't a sin.

 

I do not understand, though, why the Rockaways don't have a stronger lobby at the , but that's another story. The eastern half of the Rockaways are some of the bleakest and poorest neighborhoods in the city, and could hugely benefit from improved service if that would bring in more tourists to their beaches. Unfortunately, the disgruntlement I observed in the line of people and surfboards having to board a crowded shuttle bus during a summer weekend G.O. that suspended Rockaway service suggests that is not going to happen. An economically disadvantaged area is never strong lobbying force anywhere. I bet even if the MTA found gold along their Rockaway ROW, the service would not get any better.

 

The swanky, new Arverne-by-the-Sea development would have brought in many young urban professionals, but poor transportation links and a weak local economy drove many away. The houses were then sold to any takers, often with zero-down payment to people with poor credit, and a significant number of foreclosures have occurred already, but City Hall and 2 Broadway couldn't be less concerned. (My family had rented a house in the neighborhood that is now in the process of getting foreclosed. We moved a few blocks away, but are never sure if the landlords are paying their mortgages on time).

[Shortline Bus]

Maa89 great analysis of the situation in Queens and the Rockaways along th line. Unlike some employees you seem to be fair and objective in your comments on the boards here.

 

 

Thanks. I have always supported rush-hour peak direction trains to and from Lefferts Blvd to ease congestion.

 

I cannot understand how Ozone Park resident have so much leverage in service change decisions. The three stops on the Lefferts branch have a combined yearly ridership of 3.2 million. The combined Rockaway ridership (Far Rock plus Rock Park) is over 6 million (although a million of these go to Howard Beach). Also, it takes only 35 minutes for an train (under ideal conditions) to get from West 4th St to Rockaway Boulevard, and another 6 minutes at best to get to Lefferts Blvd (the Lefferts shuttle gets from Euclid to Lefferts in 11 minutes). On the other hand, the journey from West 4th to Beach 67th St takes at least 53 minutes on a midday or weekend express run, and longer during rush hours. It takes over an hour to reach Far Rockaway-Mott Avenue from Manhattan under ideal conditions.

 

The fact that twice as many riders as that on the Lefferts branch need to spend an additional twenty minutes to get to their terminal should itself be rectified. The fact that half the time, the Far Rockaway-bound rider will have to transfer from a Lefferts-bound train, or wait up to 18-20 minutes at their Manhattan stops for the appropriate train, means that journey times are 38-40 minutes longer (the average commute for a New Yorker is 38.4 minutes, and this is the highest in the USA, and Rockaway riders frequently spend three times as long to get home). Also, Rockaway Park-bound riders often need to transfer twice (from a Lefferts to a Far Rock to the Rock Park shuttle), adding to 20 minutes or more to their commute simply spending time waiting for their train at the station.

 

The fact that Rockaways riders put twice as much money into the (MTA)'s coffers and get inferior service is a great wrong. Getting Lefferts riders (with their smaller numbers and shorter commutes) to compromise isn't a sin.

 

I do not understand, though, why the Rockaways don't have a stronger lobby at the , but that's another story. The eastern half of the Rockaways are some of the bleakest and poorest neighborhoods in the city, and could hugely benefit from improved service if that would bring in more tourists to their beaches. Unfortunately, the disgruntlement I observed in the line of people and surfboards having to board a crowded shuttle bus during a summer weekend G.O. that suspended Rockaway service suggests that is not going to happen. An economically disadvantaged area is never strong lobbying force anywhere. I bet even if the MTA found gold along their Rockaway ROW, the service would not get any better.

 

The swanky, new Arverne-by-the-Sea development would have brought in many young urban professionals, but poor transportation links and a weak local economy drove many away. The houses were then sold to any takers, often with zero-down payment to people with poor credit, and a significant number of foreclosures have occurred already, but City Hall and 2 Broadway couldn't be less concerned. (My family rented a house in the neighborhood that is in the process of getting foreclosed, and moved a few blocks away, but are never sure if the landlords are paying their mortgages on time).

[MAA89]

Maa89 great analysis of the situation in Queens and the Rockaways along th line. Unlike some employees you seem to be fair and objective in your comments on the boards here.

 

Thanks. I wish other people in the Rockaways were less passive, even if they can do little to change the (MTA)'s plans.

 

Public transit here needs a major revamp/upgrade. Another area I would like to see an improvement in is the Express Bus service. The QM16 and QM17 buses serve the Rockaways, providing fast and comfortable ride to Midtown Manhattan. Unfortunately, they only run from 6 to 8 in the morning, and from 3:30 to 7:00 in the afternoon from Manhattan. Seniors and people with disabilities qualify for a reduced-fare ticket, but only on non-rush hour express buses, which, in the Rockaways, does not exist. Midday and late evening service, even if one bus every 40 minutes or so, will be a valuable addition. It's very unfair of the to promise a benefit (i.e. reduced-fare rides), then impose a condition (non-rush hours only) and then purposefully deny that benefit (no midday or evening service) to people living here (while other areas in other boroughs and Queens get those benefits). While I myself do not qualify for reduced-fare rides, I can understand the disappointment of those who do (especially given that Rockaway Park-Beach 116th St is the only ADA-compliant station in these parts).

[MAA89]

Isn't there a crew change on some trains at Euclid Avenue? If so, they why can't they have a crew change on the and then have another guy do the rest of the route to Lefferts.

 

I am not aware if that is the case. It's possible that it is carried out on late night trains to avoid fatiguing the train crew, or, more likely, because certain trains reach Euclid at times that mark the end of a crew's shift and the beginning of another's. (The crew from the last train might wait to take over at the next arriving , perhaps).

 

It would be impractical to do this on the because:

 

1) There would only be 7 stops and at most 11 minutes left in the journey to Lefferts Blvd, hence, fatigue is not an issue.

 

2) It would take time to switch crews and, especially at rush-hour, would back up traffic a long way.

 

I used to take an train at Manhattan shortly after midnight for a few months last year, and I am fairly certain there were no crew changes. Pelham Bay Dave or one of the other T/Os may be able to clarify.

[Shortline Bus]

Trying to convince Lefferts riders to get rid of their one-seat express service would be extremely difficult. Prior to October 1992, all late-night (A)'s went to Lefferts Boulevard. Does anyone think that Lefferts riders would want to deal with a similar situation? I think not. The current pattern works fine and has been woring fine since October of 1992.

 

The one negative though of the current (A)split Leffferts/Far Rockaway service is tourists and even occasional riders going to JFK-Howard Beach station to transfer to the Airtrain getting on the "wrong rain aka Lefferts train." Before i left city 3 years ago when the airtrain was still only couple of years old and railfan the Lefferts branch, Riders wanting the airtrain that got lost, were confused to get to JFK.

 

In most cases at Lefferts i would tell the tourists to just take the Q10 bus instead of going back to Rockaway Blvd and then maybe getting lost again.

 

While i support extending the to Lefferts as i think the NIMBYS on the Lefferts line are being short sighted and would actually benefit w/ full time local service & peak hour 'express' service to Manhattan, it would mean more TPH for Ozone Park area residents. It would benrfit Fulton Local riders in Brooklyn as well.

In that case, a compromise could also be renaming the Lefferts-8th Ave express branch the as well.