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

what about the pre 1992 configuration, (C) to Rockaway Park, (A) to Lefferts or Far Rockaway and (S) during late nights

 

lilibluefoxie here are the reasons the (NYCT) stopped that pattern. Guys correct me if i wrong but i heard the story from realtives who lived in the Far Rockaway at the time.

1. ©to Rockaway Park. the (C) prior to 1992 ran between beford park & Rockaway Park as the rush hour concourse local that the (B)now operates. Even starting at 168th St that would be nearly a 2-hour trip. plus the ridership at the Rockaway park station aka the Rock Park shuttle between Beach 116th and Broad Channel has by far the lowest ridership usage in the subway system.

 

so imo a peak hour (A) beach 116th branch service is fine.

 

2.(S) to the Rockaways Overnights and the (A)to Lefferts 24/7. The reason why this service pattern was for one the Rockaways coordior late nights had more riders than does Lefferts. Especially those going to JFK and transfer at Howard Beach for the now current (JFK)airtrain.

The Rockaways Overnight (S) then known as the (H) aka "Rockaway Robin" would start at Euclid then run via Broad Channel to Rockaway Pk and then Far Rockaway. then the train crew/TO would 'terminate' and have to switch sides. Then start the train again and run it to Far Rockaway. Then end at Far Rock and then start the trip back to Euclid. Far Rock riders already with the longest ride to/from Manhattan 'complained' and thus the current service pattern in

place.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

rush hours and middays

 

(A) 207 St - Far Rockaway Mott Av express

(C) 168 St - Ozone Park Lefferts Blvd local

(H) 207 St - Rockaway Park B 116 St express

 

evenings and weekends

(A) 207 St - Far Rockaway Mott Av express

(C) 168 St - Ozone Park Lefferts Blvd local

(H) Broad Channel - Rockaway Park B 116 St shuttle

 

late nights

(A) 207 St - Far Rockaway Mott Av local

(C) Euclid Avenue - Ozone Park Lefferts Blvd shuttle

(H) Broad Channel - Rockaway Park B 116 St shuttle

 

Rockaway (A) and Rockaway (S) are eliminated completely, and combined into the new (H) service.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Except, Ozone Parkers would complain. They would demand a new (K) Fulton exp to make the following TPHs (I know this was already said):

 

(A) 13 TPH 207 St - Far Rock via exp

(C) 6 TPH 168 St - Lefferts Blvd via lcl

(H) I don't know the TPH of the Rock Park shuttle

(K) 5 TPH 207 St - Lefferts Blvd via exp

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rockaway (A) and Rockaway (S) are eliminated completely, and combined into the new (H) service.

 

The (H) concept isn't needed. Rock Park shuttle mainly serves students that attend Beach Channel HS. Not many people use that except for that. Having a lone train to go to 116 St would be a waste. The only time it would be useful would be during the summer times, but its not bad waiting for the (S). The (H) would just cause a load of train traffic, and thatll mean that i would have to wait longer just to see a Far Rock (A).

 

I say keep the (S), and just send (A)'s over there rush hours only.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I still don't see why it'd be so difficult to turn the signs on Lefferts-bound (A) trains to (K) and leave it at that?

 

No adjusting TPH or anything, Current (A) to Far Rockaway stays (A), current (A) to Lefferts becomes (K). Noone gains or looses service, but it's less confusing for people.

 

Edit: I see the only downsides as:

1) Need to stick K's on the subway map

2) Need to put K back on the signs at A stations

3) Occasionally need to flip the roll sign up front from A to K.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Except, Ozone Parkers would complain. They would demand a new (K) Fulton exp to make the following TPHs (I know this was already said):

 

(A) 13 TPH 207 St - Far Rock via exp

(C) 6 TPH 168 St - Lefferts Blvd via lcl

(H) I don't know the TPH of the Rock Park shuttle

(K) 5 TPH 207 St - Lefferts Blvd via exp

 

Thanks for summarizing. I think Far Rock can do with 11 (A) TPH during rush hours; they can send the other 5 or 6 trains as the (K) to Lefferts (currently, the busiest rush hour sees a total of 17 (A) trains. Car shortages and the capacity of Cranberry St Tunnel prevent an increase in this number).

 

I still don't see why it'd be so difficult to turn the signs on Lefferts-bound (A) trains to (K) and leave it at that?

 

No adjusting TPH or anything, Current (A) to Far Rockaway stays (A), current (A) to Lefferts becomes (K). Noone gains or looses service, but it's less confusing for people.

 

Edit: I see the only downsides as:

1) Need to stick K's on the subway map

2) Need to put K back on the signs at A stations

3) Occasionally need to flip the roll sign up front from A to K.

 

The problem is that we are trying to improve service to both the Lefferts and Far Rockaway terminals, and following the proposals made earlier in this thread (summarized by NX Express above), service can be improved (headways shortened).

 

The renaming is a secondary consideration, and should by no means be allowed to dominate the discussion. Plenty of trains have variable terminals during rush and non-rush hours (e.g. the (M) is the most extreme example, as well as (5) to Nereid Avenue), and no one proposes giving them new service designations.

 

The following are pretty much established truths by now:

 

1) The Rockaways have more riders than Lefferts and deserve/require more trains per hour.

 

2) Sending more (A) trains to the Rockaways, in proportion to ridership, would be all good for Rockaways riders, but unfair to Lefferts riders, who would suffer long headways.

 

3) To solve the above-mentioned problem, the (C) will also be extended to Lefferts. This will allow Lefferts riders to get a train quickly every time they walk in to the station.

 

Thus, Lefferts Blvd riders will have to pay a penalty for having fewer riders by having half of its trains a local ((C)). That is, Far Rockaway will get about 11-12 (A) TPH during rush hours, and Lefferts will get 6 (A) TPH and 6 (C) TPH. If Lefferts riders want express service they just need to wait longer, or transfer from the (C) at Rockaway Boulevard.

 

No one will lose a "one-seat express ride" to Manhattan in the process.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Exactly, that's all that's needed, rename one A line branch to a different letter and maybe add a couple extra train sets and no need to change things as is.

Ends the confusion and keeps service the same.

 

No. We need a service change to improve headways in both Lefferts and Rockaway branches.

 

Only a few more trains need to get re-routed to the Rockaways to improve headways vastly.

 

Sending the (C) to Lefferts will also improve headways significantly on that branch.

 

Adding more train sets is not feasible because:

 

1) There aren't enough cars at Pitkin/207th St.

 

2) The capacity of Cranberry Street Tunnel cannot be exceeded

 

3) It will worsen already atrocious congestion between Hoyt-Schermerhorn and Canal St stations where the (A) and (C) share tracks.

 

4) Why add trains and increase costs when service can be improved at no cost to the (MTA)/the rider?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I still don't like the idea of sending the C to Lefferts as you will have nothing but empty C trains running from Rockaway Blvd to Euclid and even more packed A trains.

 

Ok maybe a compromise would be the extra two trains will be Cs to Lefferts to help the K, but other than that I still don't see how much sense it would make to run all Brooklyn express trains to Far Rock only.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I never found the time to reply to this thread, but now I will:

 

I have always wondered why the (A) is the only line that has two daytime terminals on its southern end. Think of any other line that has more than one daytime terminal on either end (by daytime, I mean everyday from 6 a.m. to midnight). This is why I've seriously pushed for the (A) to just be reduced to Far Rockaway and the (C) to lefferts. Since the (C) is local already, extending it several stops to Lefferts should be no biggie at all. But the problem lies with the riders who live between Lefferts Boulevard and Rockaway Boulevard; they'll think that extending the (C) and pushing the (A) off would be a "cut" because they no longer have express service in Brooklyn. If they made the (A) operate to Lefferts during the rush hours when ridership is always at its highest then maybe a service plan like this could be implemented. Unfortunately, this would cost money to implement which the MTA doesn't really have right now.

 

I'm in full support of extending the (C) to Lefferts, because the ©'s TPH can increase from 6 TPH to 9 TPH which is much more of a reasonable interval, and even better, the (C) could become full-length. Besides, no one should have to wait more than six minutes for a train during rush hour.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I still don't like the idea of sending the C to Lefferts as you will have nothing but empty C trains running from Rockaway Blvd to Euclid and even more packed A trains.

 

Ok maybe a compromise would be the extra two trains will be Cs to Lefferts to help the K, but other than that I still don't see how much sense it would make to run all Brooklyn express trains to Far Rock only.

 

I don't think so. People love taking the first train that comes along (I don't know why), so I expect a lot of Lefferts-bound passengers would continue taking the Far Rock-bound (A), instead of waiting for a (K) or (C) to Lefferts. (So much for their bit**ing about one-seat express rides). The people waiting on the platform at Rockaway Blvd will just as happily take a (C) as they will take a (K), since there is only three stops left and every train is local.

 

The (C) pretty much empties out by Broadway Junction, so if it wasn't for the 3 local stops between Junction and Euclid, you might as well have terminated the (C) at Junction. It is unlikely that the (C) will ever have much ridership after Junction; local stops are local for a reason: they have few riders and are thus not important enough for all trains to stop there. However, they do need some kind of service, and the (C) must cater to the lesser-used Fulton St lines simply because no one else will.

 

If there are people dumb enough to not take the (C) to Lefferts from Euclid, Grant, 80, 88 or Rockaway Blvd, let them suffer in silence. I know there are people who grumble about the lack of express service when they are making journeys between two local stops. If the (C) fails to attract riders (even short-distance ones like Rockaway Blvd to Lefferts Blvd) because of the stigma of taking a local, that is unfortunate and cannot be dealt with.

 

RE: LRG's post. With current numbers of cars, the capacity of Cranberry Street Tunnel to consider and the congestion between Hoyt and Canal, it is impractical to increase the total number of trains on the Fulton St line. Increasing the (C) can only be done at the cost of decreasing the number of (A) trains. If Far Rock then gets the majority of (A) service (as it should) this would leave Lefferts riders with almost nothing. Also the fewer express trains will be massively overcrowded. While I sympathize with the 10-minute headways on the Fulton local stations, initially it would be very hard to increase (C) trains.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I still don't like the idea of sending the C to Lefferts as you will have nothing but empty C trains running from Rockaway Blvd to Euclid and even more packed A trains.

 

Ok maybe a compromise would be the extra two trains will be Cs to Lefferts to help the K, but other than that I still don't see how much sense it would make to run all Brooklyn express trains to Far Rock only.

 

Run the (A) train peak express in Queens and force the passengers to stay on the (C)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

MAA89, sorry but I still disagree, I don't feel Lefferts riders should lose their one seat express service. Now I have said I would not mind if they gave more priority to the Far Rock branch, but I don't think you should cut all express service from going to Lefferts in the first place.

Rename one branch of the A to the K and to support the K, have some Cs go to Lefferts. No need to increase the total amount of trains via the river tunnel.

 

I do not believe in the 'take it or leave it' approach. Lefferts may not be as long as the Far Rock segment is, but they do not deserve to be shafted just so Far Rock riders can benefit at their expense. Of course C trains from Lefferts will empty out at Rockaway Blvd, no one is going to stay on the C unless they were getting off before Euclid.

 

To extend the C, you will likely need to cut some trains from the A and then you will have fewer A trains overall and those fewer As will be more crowded because riders will not want to stay on the C.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

MAA89, sorry but I still disagree, I don't feel Lefferts riders should lose their one seat express service. Now I have said I would not mind if they gave more priority to the Far Rock branch, but I don't think you should cut all express service from going to Lefferts in the first place.

Rename one branch of the A to the K and to support the K, have some Cs go to Lefferts. No need to increase the total amount of trains via the river tunnel.

 

I do not believe in the 'take it or leave it' approach. Lefferts may not be as long as the Far Rock segment is, but they do not deserve to be shafted just so Far Rock riders can benefit at their expense. Of course C trains from Lefferts will empty out at Rockaway Blvd, no one is going to stay on the C unless they were getting off before Euclid.

 

To extend the C, you will likely need to cut some trains from the A and then you will have fewer A trains overall and those fewer As will be more crowded because riders will not want to stay on the C.

 

That's what I have been saying all along in this thread.

 

I never (on this forum) argued for all express service to go to Far Rock, only for express trains to be proportional to the ridership of the branch.

 

And my reason for extending the (C) to Lefferts has always been that sending most (A) trains to Far Rock would make headways awfully long in the Lefferts branch, and the (C) is an obvious solution to this. I have no personal interest in extending the (C); I have always suggested it keeping Lefferts riders in mind. I realize that someday I am just as likely to live in Ozone Park someday and try to see it from their point-of-view.

 

You will admit that the summarized plan is not a bad deal for Lefferts riders:

 

1) 6 (K)express trains per hour during rush hour peak direction.

 

2) 6 (C) local trains per hour at all times.

 

3) At least 3 (K)express trains per hour at all other times, except late nights.

 

4) 4 or 5 Lefferts Blvd shuttles late nights.

 

This ensures a minimum of 9 TPH (~7 minute headways) at all times (except late nights), 12TPH during rush hours (5 minute headways, plus a quick transfer from the (C) to an express if the need arises), and 15 minute headways overnight.

 

For a line with 3.3 million riders per year (compared to 6 million on the Rockaway branch, that is still a very good deal), since even according to my plan, the Rockaways will only get 11TPH (~5.5 minute headways) for just one hour in the morning and evening rush hours, and about 6 TPH (once every 10 minutes) at other times, i.e. longer headways and longer commutes for more people. However, that would still be an improvement on existing patterns. This is about as much a concession as a Rockaway passenger can reasonably be expected to make. Worse headways, especially non-rush hours, make it impractical to use the subway in the Rockaways at all.

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.