dustclee Posted August 14, 2009 Share #76 Posted August 14, 2009 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. I don't think putting people with luggage on the with its crowds and smaller cars is such a good idea. It makes more sense to send the LGA AirTrain to the with the bigger cars and less riders. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shortline Bus Posted August 14, 2009 Author Share #77 Posted August 14, 2009 I don't think putting people with luggage on the with its crowds and smaller cars is such a good idea. It makes more sense to send the LGA AirTrain to the with the bigger cars and less riders. I agree that extending the to the airport or buliding an LGA airtrain via Grand Central Pwy and connecting at the Astoria Blvd station is best idea. However the NIMBYS in Astoria especially the homeowners and political officals will block that plan. I suggested the GCP via Willets Point-Citifield and LIRR station as an compromise since very few homeowners/residents live in that area. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LRG Posted August 14, 2009 Share #78 Posted August 14, 2009 I couldn't agree any more that there should be all service to the Rockaways. What makes me mad about the is that there are not enough trains to operate the line during rush hours, or any time of the day. Only 7TPH during rush hours is absurd. I've found myself waiting 20-25 minutes for a train one time, and because it was held up the train had to do a battery run and it still took a long ass time for another train to come behind the "battery" train. I really feel that all riders are under-served at all times, especially on weekends when the is by itself along Central Park and in Brooklyn whenever it operates. Having the operate to Lefferts Boulevard would see an increase in both and service. There will be more trains for the to head to Far Rockaway and all the trains that are left over can go to the (which may see R44s and R46s!). People are always complaining about loss of service, but in this case, I see an improvement of service: more trains and more trains. And during rush hours, when service is very frequent, passengers may be more than lucky to meet an train at Euclid Avenue waiting for the which would be right behind it (because of the holding lights). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eric B Posted August 15, 2009 Share #79 Posted August 15, 2009 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). That was an respondent that "shot it down"? He was off the wall on this point. Yeah; if they extended it the 7 stops, they would have to get rid of all the three trippers, which are already way beyond reason for a line of that length. (and no; there's no crew change; not even a switchman or double end on the Euclid end! Crew change is only for when the goes local in GO's, and that was so crews wouldn't book off sick). But for a two tripper, going those extra stops would not be as much as a whole third trip. In other words, if they can have three trips on this line, then having two trips with the extra stops is nothing compared to that. So no; it's not crew fatigue they're concerned about! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MAA89 Posted August 15, 2009 Share #80 Posted August 15, 2009 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. Unfortunately, it's the "stigma" associated with having to go home on a local that seems to bother most people. I see northbound riders getting angry about weekday G.O.s that make the local, even if they are only going to Broadway Junction (Shepherd, Liberty and Van Siclen add about 3 minutes to their trip). I have conceded that the three million Lefferts riders deserve some rush-hour peak direction service. However, this should be only to complement another regular service that operates to and from Lefferts (i.e. similar to the trains from Rockaway Park complementing regular shuttle service). The most logical move here would be to extend the full-time (except late nights) to Lefferts. Even if we had the current 7TPH train starting from Lefferts during rush-hour, plus 3 <A> trains starting at Lefferts per hour during morning rush, you would still get 10 trains per hour at the branch (more than the current 6 or 7 trains), or one every 6 minutes. As we shall see, by reducing service to Lefferts, it will be possible to improve service, and Lefferts riders would never need to wait more than 5 minutes for a train during rush hours. What makes me mad about the is that there are not enough trains to operate the line during rush hours, or any time of the day. Only 7TPH during rush hours is absurd. That is pretty much exactly the same thing I feel (and I am sure our friends on the Lefferts branch feel as well). There are only 7 trains leaving Far Rockaway between 7:00 and 8:00am, as well as 7 from Lefferts between 7:06 to 8:02, and only FOUR between 8:00am and 9:00am from Far Rockaway, while Lefferts for some reason gets six trains between 8:00 and 9:00. 7TPH occurs for only one hour during the morning, at other times, the average headway is 15 minutes for Far Rockaway and 10 for Lefferts. Having the operate to Lefferts Boulevard would see an increase in both and service. There will be more trains for the to head to Far Rockaway and all the trains that are left over can go to the (which may see R44s and R46s!). People are always complaining about loss of service, but in this case, I see an improvement of service: more trains and more trains. And during rush hours, when service is very frequent, passengers may be more than lucky to meet an train at Euclid Avenue waiting for the which would be right behind it (because of the holding lights). If 10 of those 14 trains between 7:00 and 8:02am were to start from Far Rockaway, the average headway in the Rockaways would be 6.2 minutes. Even with 4 trains and 7 trains, the Lefferts branch would fare better, with 11 trains and 5.5 minute headways. Simply providing another service would cut waiting times and would actually benefit riders going from the Lefferts to a local stop (by not having to transfer again, i.e. a one-seat ride). If they desperately want an , they can always plan their trip to take one of the trains leaving Lefferts, and, in case they miss it, take a and wait for an coming from Far Rockaway (which should have enough space since Rockaway riders got more trains to get on). The fact that diverting all trains at all other times would reduce the demand for cars on the , allowing more interlining and more frequent service, which if extended to Lefferts means an arrangement that would benefit Fulton St local riders (more frequent trains), Lefferts riders (shorter overall headways due to a mixture of and ), and Rockaways riders (more trains). That was an respondent that "shot it down"? He was off the wall on this point. Yeah; if they extended it the 7 stops, they would have to get rid of all the three trippers, which are already way beyond reason for a line of that length. (and no; there's no crew change; not even a switchman or double end on the Euclid end! Crew change is only for when the goes local in GO's, and that was so crews wouldn't book off sick). But for a two tripper, going those extra stops would not be as much as a whole third trip. In other words, if they can have three trips on this line, then having two trips with the extra stops is nothing compared to that. So no; it's not crew fatigue they're concerned about! No, it wasn't an employee, it was another user on this site, and maybe "shot it down" was to put a bit strongly; frankly, the person's argument hinged on little else, so it wasn't a good argument at all. I didn't mean to accuse or implicate any MTA employee by putting "an MTA employee at that" in parenthesis. I only mentioned it to emphasize that it had the support of at least one T/O, who I presume is in a position to know whether a particular change in service would be good for the passengers it would affect, as well as provide assurance that there are no technical hurdles (capacities of bridges or tunnels or track switches). Thanks for clarifying the confusion over crew changes, and for explaining why fatigue would not be an issue. (Frankly, three trips on a long local seems a bit much to me, and I am sure cutting it down to two trip shifts would be easier on the crew). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pelham Bay Dave Posted August 15, 2009 Share #81 Posted August 15, 2009 If they extended the to Lefferts it only puts 10 Minutes more to the running time so a half a trip would take 1 Hr 14 Min which is still less then runs on the (Dyre to Flat) Lines. They would have to get rid of all 3 trippers and make it 2 Trips then also add a few jobs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El person Posted November 29, 2009 Share #82 Posted November 29, 2009 I think that both the air train and and the 10 car going to Lefferts are heavily needed ideas that should be put into place as soon as possible. I live on the IND Culver line, and I don't think that the need for express service is that urgent. If there is express, I think it would make the most sense for the express service to run on the 8th av line north of West 4th. It could be called the . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Queens Surface Posted November 29, 2009 Share #83 Posted November 29, 2009 Do you know how much congestion you are putting on regular service with this added "(K)" service? It will cause more delays then actually make service better because of having the train switch over. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El person Posted November 29, 2009 Share #84 Posted November 29, 2009 Are you talking about my service? They would have to add another switch north of West 4th for it to congest the . It would only run express in Brooklyn, and run local in Manhattan. But then again, it would cause even more congestion on the and . Looks like it will be a long time till my dream becomes a reality. :cry: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fishmech Posted November 30, 2009 Share #85 Posted November 30, 2009 I'd hope the LGA AirTrain would cut across to Manhattan somehow, possibly somewhat following the route of the M60 bus? That is, connecting with Metro-North and the Lexington Avenue IRT over 125th street, and running over or next to the Triboro but then staying on/over 278 and then the GCP to get to LaGuardia. And for the Queens side, why stop near the Willets Point area? Why not have a stop there, and then continue down to meet up with the JFK Airtrain at Jamaica? You run from LGA down the GCP, cross between the GCP and the Van Wyck with the interchange to the 7 and LIRR in the middle, and then turn over top of the Van Wyck to get down to Jamaica, where you turn off again. With JFK and LGA linked by AirTrain (Although I rather doubt we'd have any trains running directly from LGA terminals to JFK terminals) this also makes transferring between those airports easier for people who have to do it. Not to mention having a more direct route to both JFK and LGA from Metro-North will be quite useful for people in the northern suburbs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El person Posted November 30, 2009 Share #86 Posted November 30, 2009 I'd hope the LGA AirTrain would cut across to Manhattan somehow, possibly somewhat following the route of the M60 bus? That is, connecting with Metro-North and the Lexington Avenue IRT over 125th street, and running over or next to the Triboro but then staying on/over 278 and then the GCP to get to LaGuardia. And for the Queens side, why stop near the Willets Point area? Why not have a stop there, and then continue down to meet up with the JFK Airtrain at Jamaica? You run from LGA down the GCP, cross between the GCP and the Van Wyck with the interchange to the 7 and LIRR in the middle, and then turn over top of the Van Wyck to get down to Jamaica, where you turn off again. With JFK and LGA linked by AirTrain (Although I rather doubt we'd have any trains running directly from LGA terminals to JFK terminals) this also makes transferring between those airports easier for people who have to do it. Not to mention having a more direct route to both JFK and LGA from Metro-North will be quite useful for people in the northern suburbs. The MTA won't have money for an Air Train running across midtown for a long long time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luis1985 Posted November 30, 2009 Share #87 Posted November 30, 2009 That was an respondent that "shot it down"? He was off the wall on this point. Yeah; if they extended it the 7 stops, they would have to get rid of all the three trippers, which are already way beyond reason for a line of that length. (and no; there's no crew change; not even a switchman or double end on the Euclid end! Crew change is only for when the goes local in GO's, and that was so crews wouldn't book off sick). But for a two tripper, going those extra stops would not be as much as a whole third trip. In other words, if they can have three trips on this line, then having two trips with the extra stops is nothing compared to that. So no; it's not crew fatigue they're concerned about! wow man, i love ur signature sign!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luis1985 Posted November 30, 2009 Share #88 Posted November 30, 2009 The MTA won't have money for an Air Train running across midtown for a long long time. that would be so funny if it did. just think of it....it wouldnt even be AIRTRAIN, it would be a letter or number or something. lol. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grand Concourse Posted November 30, 2009 Share #89 Posted November 30, 2009 I'd hope the LGA AirTrain would cut across to Manhattan somehow, possibly somewhat following the route of the M60 bus? That is, connecting with Metro-North and the Lexington Avenue IRT over 125th street, and running over or next to the Triboro but then staying on/over 278 and then the GCP to get to LaGuardia. And for the Queens side, why stop near the Willets Point area? Why not have a stop there, and then continue down to meet up with the JFK Airtrain at Jamaica? You run from LGA down the GCP, cross between the GCP and the Van Wyck with the interchange to the 7 and LIRR in the middle, and then turn over top of the Van Wyck to get down to Jamaica, where you turn off again. With JFK and LGA linked by AirTrain (Although I rather doubt we'd have any trains running directly from LGA terminals to JFK terminals) this also makes transferring between those airports easier for people who have to do it. Not to mention having a more direct route to both JFK and LGA from Metro-North will be quite useful for people in the northern suburbs. I agree about having the AT run over the GCPkwy and what to do with it on the Manattan bound side, I agree with that as well. Obviously it depends on if the PA will build it. As for the JFK AT, people can just take that to either the A,E,J/Z lines or LIRR. There's no need for the AT to go directly to Midtown Manhattan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luis1985 Posted November 30, 2009 Share #90 Posted November 30, 2009 Heres what i think: (im only suggesting) : Inwood/207 St-Far Rockaway (All times) (: Harlem/145 St-Brighton Beach (Daily including weekends 6AM-12AM) : Bedford Park Blvd-Brighton Beach (Weekday Rush Hours) : Washington Hts/168 St-Ozone Park/Lefferts Blvd (5AM-11PM daily including weekends) (10 cars) : Euclid Av-Ozone Park/Lefferts Blvd (11PM to 5 AM daily including weekends) (10 cars) : Normal ( Local late night services continues via 4 Av) : Jamaica/179 St-Coney Island/Stillwell Av (Culver Express Weekdays 6AM-11PM) : Jamaica/179 St-Coney Island/Stillwell Av (Culver Local All Other Times) : Long Island City/Court Sq-Church Av (6AM-11PM Weekdays) : Forest Hills/71 Av-Church Av (11PM-5AM and all day weekends) : Normal : Middle Village/Metropolitan Av-Bay Parkway (All Day Weekdays) : Middle Village/Metropolitan Av-Chambers St/City Hall (Late Nights Only) : Normal : Forest Hills/71 Av-Bay Ridge/95 St (Daily including weekends 6AM-11PM) : Queens Plaza-Bay Ridge/95 St (Late Nights 11PM-5AM) : Normal : Forest Hills/71 Av-Church Av (All Day Weekdays only 6AM-11PM) : Astoria/Ditmars Blvd-Kings Hwy/Sea Beach Line (Rush Hours Only) : Astoria/Ditmars Blvd-Whitehall St (Weekdays) : Normal : Eastchester/Dyre Av-New Lots Av (Selected Rush Hour Trains Only) : Other times: Normal : Woodlawn-Utica Av (Express in the Bronx Rush Hours Only) : Normal : Pelham Bay Park-South Ferry Station* or Bowling Green (Late Nights Only) : Normal other times : Normal : Rush Hours Only w/o Skip-Stop service *Can that even happen? _______________________________________________________________________________________________________ The ones in RED are the ones we're focusing on. Everything else is just my ideas/suggestions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pelham Bay Dave Posted November 30, 2009 Share #91 Posted November 30, 2009 Oh one thing changes since Eric's Post. The no longer does crew changed at Euclid. Now crews operate the whole trip Local from 207 St to Far Rockaway when is not running and crews are Extra List again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eric B Posted November 30, 2009 Share #92 Posted November 30, 2009 What caused them to do that? What they should do then is give everybody just one trip, and use however many crews to fill in. As it stands by giving everyone 2 local trips, the crews will end up filling in for all the crews that book off, in addition to extra board people on other lines having G.O.s! I'd hope the LGA AirTrain would cut across to Manhattan somehow, possibly somewhat following the route of the M60 bus? That is, connecting with Metro-North and the Lexington Avenue IRT over 125th street, and running over or next to the Triboro but then staying on/over 278 and then the GCP to get to LaGuardia. And for the Queens side, why stop near the Willets Point area? Why not have a stop there, and then continue down to meet up with the JFK Airtrain at Jamaica? You run from LGA down the GCP, cross between the GCP and the Van Wyck with the interchange to the 7 and LIRR in the middle, and then turn over top of the Van Wyck to get down to Jamaica, where you turn off again. With JFK and LGA linked by AirTrain (Although I rather doubt we'd have any trains running directly from LGA terminals to JFK terminals) this also makes transferring between those airports easier for people who have to do it. Not to mention having a more direct route to both JFK and LGA from Metro-North will be quite useful for people in the northern suburbs. Provisions were built for a junction for a bypass of the JFK Airtrain to continue straight down Van Wyck to connect with a LGA system. So both would go to the Jamaica terminal, but some could bypass it as well. But as others said, it's the money, now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AJ023 Posted November 30, 2009 Share #93 Posted November 30, 2009 JFK AirTrain, Newark Air Train, the missing part now is LGA Air Train. But what about MacArthur Airport? It is still 1 1/2 miles from the LIRR. For all of NYC Travel, JFK, Newark and LGA will cover the entire gamut. LGA needs to get done. MacArthur I could personally live without in my lifetime since Long Islanders have cars plus you have a shuttle bus service that takes you the 1 1/2 miles. So LGA Air Train we could really really use it, and I am hopeful we can do it. MacArthur Air Train only makes sense though after LGA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pelham Bay Dave Posted November 30, 2009 Share #94 Posted November 30, 2009 This is what they did Most crews are doing 2 trips Local one to the Rock and one to Lefferts with Early reports and late clears. Crews are getting other lines or open jobs on the like G.O jobs. They keep 6 crews total on the board. Saturday mostly all did a job or balance with lots of Book offs on the Sunday I'm not sure I was on the Board at 168 and they sent me to Bedford Pk to pick up a Balance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MAA89 Posted November 30, 2009 Share #95 Posted November 30, 2009 What does the have to do with AirTrain. I thought the AirTrains (at JFK and Newark Intl) were run by the Port Authority. In any case a La Guardia AirTrain to Midtown is a pipe dream. Focus on something more realistic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AJ023 Posted November 30, 2009 Share #96 Posted November 30, 2009 What does the have to do with AirTrain. I thought the AirTrains (at JFK and Newark Intl) were run by the Port Authority. In any case a La Guardia AirTrain to Midtown is a pipe dream. Focus on something more realistic. Who runs the Air Train doesn't matter. But the LGA Air Train is definitely going to get done. There are some products that need to be focused on and the LGA Air Train is one of them which needs to get done. Connection to all of NYC's airports to the rail lines is a must because it will eliminate slowdowns due to extensive traffic on the roadways which is only getting worse. LGA needs to and will get done in due time. MacArthur could be done, but doesn't really need it as much as NYC does. LGA Air Train isn't a pipe dream, its just a matter of time before it gets started. It will get done. 100% certainty. The question however is when such time it will be appropriate for it to get started. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NX Express Posted December 1, 2009 Share #97 Posted December 1, 2009 LGA Air Train isn't a pipe dream, its just a matter of time before it gets started. LGA Airtrain isn't a pipe dream, but LGA Airtrain to Midtown is definitely. For airport service from Manhattan, the would be better via an extension of the . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fishmech Posted December 1, 2009 Share #98 Posted December 1, 2009 Uh, when the heck did 125th street in Harlem become Midtown Manhattan? I suggested putting an LGA AirTrain to there as one of the terminals as a way to allow Metro-North folks to get there, since most MNCR East-of-Hudson trains stop there. Unless I've missed a post where someone wanted the LGA AirTrain to go to Grand Central? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AJ023 Posted December 1, 2009 Share #99 Posted December 1, 2009 If the LGA Air Train terminates at Willets point on the LIRR, then for all practical purposes it will have direct access when the Grand Central connector is done. Think of the Air Trains as a way to connect back to LIRR Terminals which also have connecting access to the subways. It ties back into the system and you can get to where you want to go. NYC has it all, from water taxi to choppers to airplanes to the Long Island Railroad, and Subways and car sharing, rental cars, privately owned automobiles and the like. The missing link for NYC is the connection to La Guardia back to the LIRR + Connecting subways. Once its connected, it can get to anywhere and quicker once the grand central connector is online along with the 2nd avenue subway and the like. With all the other projects online, the one that is remaining which needs approval is the LGA Airtrain and in time it will get done. I flew out of LGA, JFK and was at MacArthur (waited at the terminal for someone, don't recall ever taking a flight from there, I could have though when I was younger and I fergot) and have taken NJ Transit and passed the Newark Air Train stop before. MacArthur is not run by the port authority and is 1 1/2 miles from the LIRR. It would be really nice for it to have connecting service for those who want to fly into Eastern Long Island and if a Air Train could be installed there too. Convenience and options for transit is a good thing indeed. MacArthur is very small though so it may not qualify for an Air Train because of lack of passenger volumes and limited carriers so I could understand that. But there are routes which will do the La Guardia thing and not JFK. For instance: 1 Atlanta, Georgia 1,071,000 AirTran, Delta 2 Chicago (O'Hare), Illinois 1,047,000 American, United 3 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 668,000 Northwest, JetBlue, Spirit 4 Dallas-Fort Worth, Texas 559,000 American 5 Miami, Florida 541,000 American 6 Boston, Massachusetts 523,000 Delta, US Airways 7 Washington (Reagan), DC 489,000 US Airways, Delta 8 Detroit, Michigan 486,000 Northwest, Spirit, American Eagle 9 Charlotte, North Carolina 434,000 US Airways 10 Denver, Colorado 369,000 Frontier, United Those are the busiest routes out of LGA. Now on the Ft Lauderdale route, you can get those airlines out of JFK but on some of the other routes, you can't get service out of JFK. When you are moving, what counts is time and the Van Wyck and Grand Central get backed up in traffic while the Air Trains can go straight through saving crucial time especially as population counts increase. So having direct transit access to JFK and LGA and Newark is ideal. Small commuter jets are just too risky and unsafe based on the known laws of science combined with how those small carriers run their airlines and for local travel I refuse to use them. Lots of cases I can cite. What is needed is localized rail transit to connect to all the airports to the existing commuter rail lines and keep those in the best shape possible. For our region LGA is just so critical. Having access to it just improves life for everyone in so many different ways in addition to the other projects being undertaken right now. LGA will definitely get done eventually. The ironic thing is I vividly remember the Emirates Airlines ads at the Jamaica Station and on the overpasses on the parkways and the economy in Dubai just took a turn for the worse. So it could take some time for the economy to recover and for LGA to get done, but it definitely will. It isn't a matter of "IF". When the next budgets come in and the resources are there for them to allocate funds they will eventually. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EE Broadway Local Posted December 5, 2009 Share #100 Posted December 5, 2009 What does the have to do with AirTrain. I thought the AirTrains (at JFK and Newark Intl) were run by the Port Authority. In any case a La Guardia AirTrain to Midtown is a pipe dream. Focus on something more realistic. How about a La Guardia AirTrain to either: A) Queens Plaza Or 61st Street-Woodside? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.