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.

(C) To Lefferts Boulevard-Ozone Park; (A) To Mott Avenue-Far Rockaway


EE Broadway Local

Recommended Posts

Why do some want the (C) extended to Lefferts Boulevard-Ozone Park and the (A) reduced to Mott Avenue-Far Rockaway?

 

Maybe I'm wrong but here are faults I see with this:

* The (C)will stay local after Euclid Avenue.

* The (A) will be reduced to every 12/16 minutes on weekdays and every 20/24 minutes on weekends unless (A) service from Mott Avenue is boosted.

* Liberty Avenue riders heading for Brooklyn and Manhattan will likely change for the (A) at Rockaway Boulevard.

* With a (C) train at 10 minutes and an (A) train at 12/16 minutes, only the three station section between Rockaway Boulevard and Euclid Avenue would see a train every 5.5/7.5 (average) on weekdays; every 9.5/11.5 minutes (average) on weekends.

 

Am I off target here?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If it were to be changed ... it would be assuming that (A) trains which currently run out of 207 St/Manh would terminate at Mott Av or Rockaway Pk. (A) headways should remain the same or close to it. I don't see a problem with (C) riders changing for the (A) if they want an express. There are numerous other places in the system which have similar situations. New Lots (3) riders have to change at Utica or Franklin Av if they want an express and (R) riders have to change for the (N) if they want express. In all of these cases it's only a few stops. I don't see the big deal with the "one-seat ride" nonsense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Could Far Rockaway use additional service? That is, if the (A) were bumped to, say, 10 minutes rush hours, 12 minutes middays and 15/20 minutes weekends to compensate for only one (A) service, would it be utilized at stations between Mott Avenue and Howard Beach-JFK?

 

The present schedule has the (A) no closer than 12 minute headways.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It doesn't matter that the riders will tend to transfer to the (A) at Rockaway Boulevard. If more trains are sent to the Rockaways (say, about 12 TPH rush hours peak direction), as opposed to the current 5-7, the current number of Rockaway riders will be distributed over a larger number of trains, and there should be ample room on the (A) train to accommodate the Lefferts riders and those getting on at Fulton St stations. It might not be a "one-seat ride", but the chances of getting a seat are not that bad.

 

They could keep sending 5 or 6 (A) trains to and from Lefferts Boulevard, and send the present 6 or 7 (C) trains to the Lefferts branch, so effective headway at Lefferts will still be no more than 5 minutes. This has the unfortunate consequence that (C) train headways cannot be shortened without additional cars.

 

I have suggested increasing (C) service in the past, but I realize that if all the Lefferts riders get off at Rockaway Blvd, then (C) ridership will not increase and it is a waste of cars to increase (C) frequency from the current 6 TPH. On the other hand, on the trip towards Lefferts Blvd, riders would need to get off at Rockaway Blvd and wait a significant length of time for the (C).

 

This is why my current proposal is:

 

1) Send more (but not all) (A) trains to the Rockaways, in proportion to the ridership; i.e. the Rockaways line (both branches + JFK/Aqueduct/BC) has 6 million riders and Lefferts 3.3 million. About two-thirds of the (A) trains should go there. Thus, out of 17 (A) trains leaving 207th St between 3:59 and 4:57pm, at least 11 (or 12) (A) trains should go to the Rockaways, and the remaining 5 or 6 to Lefferts.

 

2) Keep the (C) at 6 TPH, but send it to Lefferts to compensate for lost (A) service.

 

This model:

 

1) Doesn't deprives Lefferts riders of (A) service altogether, just proportions service based on ridership numbers.

 

2) Compensates for the change in (A) train service with (C) service, ensuring 11-12 TPH during rush hours in the peak direction, thus keeping headways to a minimum.

 

I know I will lose support from the Fulton St local station users by not improving the (C), but I guess you cannot please everyone.

 

It is my experience that with the current pattern, up to 35-40% of travel time is spent waiting for the right (A) train at the station. My current proposal will allow Lefferts riders to get to their stations without too long a wait at Rockaway Blvd (assuming they aren't already on a (C) or a Lefferts-bound (A) train), and let Rockaway riders get their fair share of service and reduce the 12-16 minute rush hour headways that so bothers us now.

 

Rockaway Park service should remain as it is. It can be annoying that they run one Rockaway (S) for every two (A) trains that reach Broad Channel (once every 20 minutes or so), meaning that half the time one will get off the first (A) and have to wait 15-18 minutes for the next one to come and go before the shuttle comes in, but that is a sacrifice one has to make (I use the shuttle frequently too, I accept that there are sometimes long waits). Of course, during evening rush hours a few (A) trains do go to Rock Park, so the effective headway for Rock Park service is then 10 minutes. Unless the western part of the Rockaways increases in population, the current pattern is justified. Besides, you can take the Q21 or the Q53 if you do not like the shuttle.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

However, with all that, rename the Lefferts (A) the (K) to avoid tourist confuzzling: Does this go to JFK? Does this go to JFK? Does this go to JFK? Does this go to JFK?

 

Actually that is a good idea. Thus, the service pattern for the Fulton St lines should be (rush hour peak direction):

 

1) 11 or 12 (A) TPH to/from Far Rockaway/Rockaway Park.

 

2) 5 or 6 (K) TPH to/from Lefferts Boulevard.

 

3) 6 (C) TPH to/from Lefferts Boulevard.

 

Also, with so many express trains, Fulton St local riders wouldn't have to wait too long at an express station platform for an (A) or (K) train. Their only issue will be the wait for the local, which is a very predictable 10 minutes, so they can plan their trip to reduce the wait at the local station.

 

See, everyone's ideas can be accommodated (except those of Ozone Park politicians;)).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.