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.

Why don't they extend the (C) to Lefferts?


duelingdragons

Recommended Posts

By the way, the (C) idea to Lefferts stinks.

 

I totally agree. I don't feel lefferts riders should be shafted just so Far Rockaway can get a few more trains. Plus overall it'll mean fewer A trains because those Cs will be taking away A trains to go to Lefferts [and likely empty].

the locals have made it quite clear they don't want the local.

 

Heh, well played.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What I don't understand is, what or how many locals (people) are we talking about? If the (C) ran to Lefferts there would only be a three stop change for the (A): 104th st., 111th st., and Lefferts blvd. Not doing something that clearly makes more sense because a few riders don't want to transfer is not a good idea. I've been hearing that the local has been beating the express on the Fulton line in more than a few posts, also. Splitting the (A) between two terminals is silliness to me. I can only imagine the wait time for having to let your train pass because it's not the destination you want. And then there's still the transfer to the (S) if you want to ride to Rockaway Park. So because three stations want a one seat ride, everyone else has to suffer potentially longer than average wait times? No bueno. The fact that this issue keeps coming up just tells you something's wrong.

 

(A) to Far Rock

(C) to Lefferts

(S) to Rockaway Park

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What I don't understand is, what or how many locals (people) are we talking about? If the (C) ran to Lefferts there would only be a three stop change for the (A): 104th st., 111th st., and Lefferts blvd. Not doing something that clearly makes more sense because a few riders don't want to transfer is not a good idea. I've been hearing that the local has been beating the express on the Fulton line in more than a few posts, also. Splitting the (A) between two terminals is silliness to me. I can only imagine the wait time for having to let your train pass because it's not the destination you want. And then there's still the transfer to the (S) if you want to ride to Rockaway Park. So because three stations want a one seat ride, everyone else has to suffer potentially longer than average wait times? No bueno. The fact that this issue keeps coming up just tells you something's wrong.

 

(A) to Far Rock

(C) to Lefferts

(S) to Rockaway Park

 

It's not just '3 stops' they are also heavily used stops. Plus the C will have to merge with the A after Euclid vs. the A being split.

 

There are only 5 rush hour A trains to Rockaway Park, otherwise it is just the S.

 

Finally the problem is everything is grouped under the 'A', but the A is really two lines in one. What is really needed is to designate one branch as a (K) or something. All you are doing with the C is to give people a different letter, but you shaft riders past Rockaway Blvd by giving them a local they don't want.

People are just going to get off the C and jam into the A at Rockaway Blvd than to stay on all the way to Euclid, making the C empty and useless from Rockaway Blvd to Euclid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not just '3 stops' they are also heavily used stops. Plus the C will have to merge with the A after Euclid vs. the A being split.

 

There are only 5 rush hour A trains to Rockaway Park, otherwise it is just the S.

 

Finally the problem is everything is grouped under the 'A', but the A is really two lines in one. What is really needed is to designate one branch as a (K) or something. All you are doing with the C is to give people a different letter, but you shaft riders past Rockaway Blvd by giving them a local they don't want.

People are just going to get off the C and jam into the A at Rockaway Blvd than to stay on all the way to Euclid, making the C empty and useless from Rockaway Blvd to Euclid.

 

I honestly figure that the Manhattan-bound (A) they get off for might not pass that (C) until late Brooklyn, early Manhattan, if ever. I use the QBL. If an express runs slow for any reason, you can watch a local go right by. I think it's like letting a Main Street-bound (7) pass, to catch an <7> at Grand Central-42nd St. You don't really catch up to that local train until Woodside, if you catch up at all, before that point. This express, local deal only comes into play when traveling a really long distance, or, the full length of a line.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I understand, but as far as that area of the A line, it is best that only the A serves past Euclid. You can't change what people think. Plus it is only the A and C compared to like Queens Blvd where there are 4 lines.

The only solution is to rename one A line branch into the (K), cuz that's where the confusion lies when riders see an A train coming. Sending the C out just so that is is another letter solves nothing and gives Lefferts riders a train service they don't want. That's why you should leave things as is, but rename the Lefferts A trains. That's all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would agree with Grand Concourse about renaming either the Lefferts or the Far Rock branch of the (A) as the (K) to reduce confusion. However, I also feel that the (A) needs separate tracks from the (C) between Hoyt-Schermerhorn and Canal St to prevent bottlenecking. On another note, how about splitting the Lefferts and Far Rock branches of (A) service at Euclid by building new track on Pitkin that has a stop at the legendary 76 St before connecting to the existing trackage just north of Howard Beach while Lefferts trains connect to the current trackage. My purpose in suggesting this is to get that dangerous turn just past Rockaway Blvd out of revenue service.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A seperate river tunnel for the A and C will never happen, but if it ever does happen, it would involve the E needing to stop in Brooklyn as the WTC stop will need to be used and that will likely be connected to the current Court St [transit museum] stop. Then you can have the A isolated from the locals.

 

As for Rockaway Blvd, that connection is hardly dangerous. So long as the t/o isn't speeding, it is safe. If you are talking about dangerous, you need to look no further than Crescent St-Cypress Hills on the J line where it has to pass thru two 90 degree turns.

If anything, a new el segment should be built on Jamaica Av and then the J's Fulton St stops can be demolished and replaced by the ones along Jamaica av.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And make the (A) run to the Rockaways at all times? This confuses me... is it just because of low ridership to/from the Rockaways?

 

Thanks all. :)

 

I gave that same idea about a year ago and it got shot down. I think its best to leave everything the way it is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i love how a new person brings up a question like this, and heads start sayin how its been asked already. then other heads, who were inolved in earlier threads of the same topic, start up again. then you know whats gonna happen next.....

foam

flame

name calling

 

so how about we:

:lock:

 

before it gets out of hand again....

 

...please.

 

theres more posts on this exact same subject then NYCT has subway cars.

 

restart the disscussion on those threads. and if they were closed...

 

...there's a reason!

 

and noticed how the OP hasnt responded.

Probably cause they read the first 2 or 3 replies and went to the older threads. Smart person! :tup:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What I don't understand is, what or how many locals (people) are we talking about? If the (C) ran to Lefferts there would only be a three stop change for the (A): 104th st., 111th st., and Lefferts blvd. Not doing something that clearly makes more sense because a few riders don't want to transfer is not a good idea. I've been hearing that the local has been beating the express on the Fulton line in more than a few posts, also. Splitting the (A) between two terminals is silliness to me. I can only imagine the wait time for having to let your train pass because it's not the destination you want. And then there's still the transfer to the (S) if you want to ride to Rockaway Park. So because three stations want a one seat ride, everyone else has to suffer potentially longer than average wait times? No bueno. The fact that this issue keeps coming up just tells you something's wrong.

 

(A) to Far Rock

(C) to Lefferts

(S) to Rockaway Park

To this, I would add:

(A) to Far Rock

(C) to Lefferts

(K) (the Lefferts (A)) to Lefferts

(S) to Rock Park

 

The amount of (K)s would be less then today's amount of Lefferts (A)'s.

This is done to give everyone either more trains, more choices of trains, or both.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why would you have the (C) and (K) trains both go to Lefferts? That's too much unnecessary merging. Better to leave the (C) as it is now and just rename the Lefferts (A) as the (K).

 

1. Lefferts gets a choice of local or express trains.

2. Rockaways get more trains and smaller headways.

3. People are happier.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

By the way, the (C) idea to Lefferts stinks.

 

 

i personally dont think it stinks!!!!!

(MTA) would also lose money on hiring extra train crews.

 

how will the MTA have to hire extra Crews just for extending a train?!?!?!? i say (C) to Lefferts and have the (A) split Far Rock and AND Rockaway Park! get rid of the (S)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i personally dont think it stinks!!!!!

 

 

how will the MTA have to hire extra Crews just for extending a train?!?!?!? i say (C) to Lefferts and have the (A) split Far Rock and AND Rockaway Park! get rid of the (S)

If no increase in amount of crews, Extra distance=less trains per mile=larger headways.

If amount of trains is increased, more crews are needed.

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.