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

[EE Broadway Local]

You know, There was a reason why the was shortened to Euclid Avenue and the was shortened to Broad Channel on October 23, 1993 just as there was a reason the was changed to run to Mott Avenue at all times and Lefferts Boulevard got a shuttle late nights in 1990.

 

Residents on Liberty Avenue have the best of both worlds - the provides local service for short trips and express service when they want to go to Brooklyn and Manhattan.

 

While it isn't perfect (and nothing is, really), the Mott Avenue and Lefferts Boulevard (A)s come together at Rockaway Boulevard to produce the headways we have and a trunk line that runs to 207th Street with express service between Euclid Avenue and 168th Street.

[NX Express]

You know, There was a reason why the was shortened to Euclid Avenue and the was shortened to Broad Channel on October 23, 1993 just as there was a reason the was changed to run to Mott Avenue at all times and Lefferts Boulevard got a shuttle late nights in 1990.

 

Residents on Liberty Avenue have the best of both worlds - the provides local service for short trips and express service when they want to go to Brooklyn and Manhattan.

 

While it isn't perfect (and nothing is, really), the Mott Avenue and Lefferts Boulevard (A)s come together at Rockaway Boulevard to produce the headways we have and a trunk line that runs to 207th Street with express service between Euclid Avenue and 168th Street.

Well, extending the and making the is trying to make it more perfect.

[S78 via Hylan]

As some have said, just leave everything the same. No need to extend the past Eucild Avenue.

[m7zanr160s]

To this, I would add:

to Far Rock

to Lefferts

(the Lefferts ) to Lefferts

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.

 

OK, I think I can agree with that .

[m7zanr160s]

i personally dont think it stinks!!!!!

 

 

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

 

I was thinking that too. That split makes more sense.

[Grand Concourse]

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

2. Rockaways get more trains and smaller headways.

3. People are happier.

 

You'll still have empty C trains. Riders will not be that much happier. It's best to leave things as is.

 

As some have said, just leave everything the same. No need to extend the past Eucild Avenue.

 

Exactly.

[NX Express]

You'll still have empty C trains. Riders will not be that much happier. It's best to leave things as is.

 

They'll empty out at Euclid. So? Now, they're empty at Euclid anyway.

[Kamen Rider]

Please, watch the Nazi Banksters Crimes Ripple Effect at http://jforjustice.co.uk/banksters

[Grand Concourse]

They'll empty out at Euclid. So? Now, they're empty at Euclid anyway.

 

And that's my point. Why send an empty train that no one wants just to shaft one segment of riders to boost service for another group?

[m7zanr160s]

Wouldn't taking the off of Lefferts provide the "extra" trains that the needs--for like eight added stops! I'm thinking maybe two more trains per hour. I don't see how people don't see simplification in this. Pretty much everyone's "fantasy" map has the to Lefferts, even. Split a bus route, not a train route. One train serving two destinations when there's two to serve each one... I don't think I'll ever agree with the current setup. Changed, you could probably ride the to Nostrand before the next catches up. Then just make a simple platform transfer. If it don't catch up by then, it matters very little because they merge to use the same track into the city shortly after that anyway. Some of ya'll fight this with er' thing you got. I ain't trippin. I don't ride the like that, but if I did, I wouldn't be completely happy. Even if I lived in Lefferts I'd want the . Ha! Consider the Rockaways, man. They have the longest between station ride in the system.

[Juggler24]

ok the lefferts is my home line and to be honest in the morning rush hours when i get on the train at 111 street stop there is hardly any seats and sometimes standing room. the point i am making is that for the to go local or as some of you say the to lefferts will only cause problems at Rockaway blvd when everybody tries to get on the express. I wouldnt mind the to Lefferts being renamed the but how about this........the runs express from Euclid to Rockaway Blvd and then on the other 3 stops to Lefferts.....that would be awesome..........

[cotb16]

Wouldn't taking the off of Lefferts provide the "extra" trains that the needs--for like eight added stops! I'm thinking maybe two more trains per hour. I don't see how people don't see simplification in this. Pretty much everyone's "fantasy" map has the to Lefferts, even. Split a bus route, not a train route. One train serving two destinations when there's two to serve each one... I don't think I'll ever agree with the current setup. Changed, you could probably ride the to Nostrand before the next catches up. Then just make a simple platform transfer. If it don't catch up by then, it matters very little because they merge to use the same track into the city shortly after that anyway. Some of ya'll fight this with er' thing you got. I ain't trippin. I don't ride the like that, but if I did, I wouldn't be completely happy. Even if I lived in Lefferts I'd want the . Ha! Consider the Rockaways, man. They have the longest between station ride in the system.

 

I actually agree with you on this one. As a matter of fact, when I used to transfer from the to the (A)/© at Jay Street, I mostly caught the line. Not only would Lefferts, Rockaway, or JFK riders would avoid confusion with this setup, but the would take a load off the delay-plagued from Euclid to Lefferts.

[VIP]

What I don't understand is, what or how many locals (people) are we talking about? If the ran to Lefferts there would only be a three stop change for the : 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 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 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.

 

to Far Rock

to Lefferts

to Rockaway Park

 

i would just have it this way to Mott Av, Far Rockaway to Lefferts to Rockaway park. the and express in Bk and local in manhattan as the remains express. have the local in bklyn. so my layout would be; EXPRESS, 207 St, Manhattan to Far Rockaway. EXPRESS/ 8 AV LOCAL, 168 St, Manhattan to Lefferts Blvd, Qns. LOCAL, Rockaway Park to 168 St, Manhattan. as for late nights, drop service and service and have the run local and a shuttle to Rockaway Park.

[NX Express]

i would just have it this way to Mott Av, Far Rockaway to Lefferts to Rockaway park. the and express in Bk and local in manhattan as the remains express. have the local in bklyn. so my layout would be; EXPRESS, 207 St, Manhattan to Far Rockaway. EXPRESS/ 8 AV LOCAL, 168 St, Manhattan to Lefferts Blvd, Qns. LOCAL, Rockaway Park to 168 St, Manhattan. as for late nights, drop service and service and have the run local and a shuttle to Rockaway Park.

 

Rock Park riders would just transfer for the at Broad Channel...so the (H)/(S) that is there now is fine.

[Grand Concourse]

Oh god.... it's like talking to a brick wall with some of you...

I'm sorry, but do you [in general] honestly think riders will accept a local train serving Lefferts over the current one-seat express? Put yourself in their position. Just a thought.

 

And Rockaway Park needs only 5 rush hour A trains, the shuttle is enough the rest of the time.

[NX Express]

Oh god.... it's like talking to a brick wall with some of you...

I'm sorry, but do you [in general] honestly think riders will accept a local train serving Lefferts over the current one-seat express? Put yourself in their position. Just a thought.

 

And Rockaway Park needs only 5 rush hour A trains, the shuttle is enough the rest of the time.

 

From what I heard, some Lefferts-ers are very strong it's-all-about-us-ists.

[Grand Concourse]

Meaning..?

Well from the station usage list from a few years ago, those 3 stops are very well used. If they were low use stations like Aqueduct N Conduit to B25th, then I can understand sending the C to lefferts instead.

But the Far Rock station is the most important stop on that line with a lot of stops in between to accumulate riders.

[m7zanr160s]

ok the lefferts is my home line and to be honest in the morning rush hours when i get on the train at 111 street stop there is hardly any seats and sometimes standing room. the point i am making is that for the to go local or as some of you say the to lefferts will only cause problems at Rockaway blvd when everybody tries to get on the express. I wouldnt mind the to Lefferts being renamed the but how about this........the runs express from Euclid to Rockaway Blvd and then on the other 3 stops to Lefferts.....that would be awesome..........

 

I don't think there's tracks for that.

[LRG]

Oh god.... it's like talking to a brick wall with some of you...

I'm sorry, but do you [in general] honestly think riders will accept a local train serving Lefferts over the current one-seat express? Put yourself in their position. Just a thought.

 

And Rockaway Park needs only 5 rush hour A trains, the shuttle is enough the rest of the time.

 

The way I see it, the is the only line that has two daytime southern terminals; no other line has that. The only time when it has more than one terminal at one end is during rush hours, such as when some trains run to Utica/New Lots rather than Flatbush. Sending the is not so much a bad idea, but I can only see that terminal for the working during non-rush hours. If the does end up extended to Lefferts, if such a thing does happen, I'd suggest keeping rush hour trains there at an interval of every ten minutes during rush hours so residents of that area don't lose their one-seat express ride when they really need it the most, which is during rush hours.

[m7zanr160s]

i would just have it this way to Mott Av, Far Rockaway to Lefferts to Rockaway park. the and express in Bk and local in manhattan as the remains express. have the local in bklyn. so my layout would be; EXPRESS, 207 St, Manhattan to Far Rockaway. EXPRESS/ 8 AV LOCAL, 168 St, Manhattan to Lefferts Blvd, Qns. LOCAL, Rockaway Park to 168 St, Manhattan. as for late nights, drop service and service and have the run local and a shuttle to Rockaway Park.

 

Sounds cool.

[Kamen Rider]

Please, watch the Nazi Banksters Crimes Ripple Effect at http://jforjustice.co.uk/banksters

[checkmatechamp13]

This plan has several pros and cons.

 

Pros:

Lefferts Boulevard gets more frequent service than the A currently provides.

Far Rockaway gets more frequent service because all trains are dedicated to the Rockaways.

Confusion is eliminated between which A goes where.

 

Cons:

Less A service on the mainline, causing more crowded trains.

 

This is all assuming no extra money is spent.

 

Basically, the mainline riders would be shafted for the branch riders, in the end causing a worse ride for A riders overall. If the MTA spent the extra money necessary to maintain frequencies over the whole line, then this would work, but there would be a lot of extra money spent.

First off, all trains that used to go to Lefferts would be diverted to the longer Rockaway route

Second, extra C trains would be needed to go to Lefferts Boulevard.

[NX Express]

This plan has several pros and cons.

 

Pros:

Lefferts Boulevard gets more frequent service than the A currently provides.

Far Rockaway gets more frequent service because all trains are dedicated to the Rockaways.

Confusion is eliminated between which A goes where.

 

Cons:

Less A service on the mainline, causing more crowded trains.

 

This is all assuming no extra money is spent.

 

Basically, the mainline riders would be shafted for the branch riders, in the end causing a worse ride for A riders overall. If the MTA spent the extra money necessary to maintain frequencies over the whole line, then this would work, but there would be a lot of extra money spent.

First off, all trains that used to go to Lefferts would be diverted to the longer Rockaway route

Second, extra C trains would be needed to go to Lefferts Boulevard.

With the ©'s pathetic headways, I think no more than one train would be needed. BTW, how is there less service on the mainline?

[Milan]

Best solution is to disentangle the Liberty Ave el from the Rockaway branches.

Wait till the next boom time comes and build a 2 track subway

(under Conduit ave//Belt pkway) between Euclid and Howard Beach with a lower level at Grant and a new station at Cross bay and turn some trains around at Howard beach//JFK(will need the four tracks at that station.)

[Grand Concourse]

What sense does that make? Why replace a perfectly good el for a pointless subway tunnel replacement?