SUBWAY - Random Thoughts Topic

[NoHacksJustKhaks]

10 minutes ago, LaGuardia Link N Tra said:

Never experienced that myself. though the bathrooms there stink like hell! I wish someone would do something about that.

That's the case with a majority of the subway bathrooms in this city anyways (at least the ones that aren't chained!). I don't think anyone's gonna change that anytime soon since this issue has extended itself for decades. So it's a common bit to knowledge to just go before you leave honestly.

Edited November 19, 2018 by NoHacksJustKhaks

[trainfan22]

1 hour ago, NoHacksJustKhaks said:

That's the case with a majority of the subway bathrooms in this city anyways (at least the ones that aren't chained!). I don't think anyone's gonna change that anytime soon since this issue has extended itself for decades. So it's a common bit to knowledge to just go before you leave honestly.

Or go between the cars or on the pillars in underground stations.

[EphraimB]

Why can't they just alternate between Far Rockaway and Lefferts Blvd?

[LGA Link N Train]

7 hours ago, EphraimB said:

Why can't they just alternate between Far Rockaway and Lefferts Blvd

Ridership demand. 

[EphraimB]

2 minutes ago, LaGuardia Link N Tra said:

Ridership demand. 

There's more  trains that go to Lefferts Blvd than Far Rockaway?

[LGA Link N Train]

5 minutes ago, EphraimB said:

There's more  trains that go to Lefferts Blvd than Far Rockaway?

Well, when you think of it, there's more demand for service to Lefferts. You see the has this ..... "Corrupt". Culture of:

Less ridership > cut service > even less ridership > repeat cycle

[EphraimB]

1 minute ago, LaGuardia Link N Tra said:

Well, when you think of it, there's more demand for service to Lefferts. You see the has this ..... "Corrupt". Culture of:

Less ridership > cut service > even less ridership > repeat cycle

I remember a couple of incidents that there was 3 Lefferts Blvd  trains one after another and that the next Far Rockaway bound  train was in around 45 minutes. Is there any way to disable the switch at Rockaway Blvd to only allow  trains to go to Far Rockaway? It's only a 20 minute walk from Rockaway Blvd to Lefferts Blvd.

[LGA Link N Train]

3 minutes ago, EphraimB said:

I remember a couple of incidents that there was 3 Lefferts Blvd  trains one after another and that the next Far Rockaway bound  train was in around 45 minutes. Is there any way to disable the switch at Rockaway Blvd to only allow  trains to go to Far Rockaway? It's only a 20 minute walk from Rockaway Blvd to Lefferts Blvd.

Well, people will riot if you get rid of Lefferts service. So one idea that I've been seeing recently from these forums is to send some trains to Rockaway Park. Therefore, thisll grant the Rockaways more service while meeting Ridership Demands. 

[EphraimB]

5 minutes ago, LaGuardia Link N Tra said:

Well, people will riot if you get rid of Lefferts service. So one idea that I've been seeing recently from these forums is to send some trains to Rockaway Park. Therefore, thisll grant the Rockaways more service while meeting Ridership Demands. 

Is it possible to tamper with the switch by Rockaway Blvd to temporarily make  trains go only to Far Rockaway?

[LGA Link N Train]

1 minute ago, EphraimB said:

Is it possible to tamper with the switch by Rockaway Blvd to temporarily make  trains go only to Far Rockaway?

No need to do that. It's all in terms of how the trains are scheduled

[EphraimB]

1 minute ago, LaGuardia Link N Tra said:

No need to do that. It's all in terms of how the trains are scheduled

I'm talking about if there's a Lefferts Blvd train once after another and the next Far Rockaway bound train is in 30-45 minutes. 

[NoHacksJustKhaks]

20 minutes ago, EphraimB said:

It's only a 20 minute walk from Rockaway Blvd to Lefferts Blvd.

The Lefferts Blvd section of the  has more ridership than both Rockaway Branches combined. Can you imagine that many people clogging the streets on a daily basis? Even with buses, traffic will be a nightmare and accessibility for those impaired will be greatly reduced... 

Nobody wants to walk 20 min to their nearest stop, consider that’s the reason you were so passionate about the Reeds Lane proposal!

Edited November 19, 2018 by NoHacksJustKhaks

[EphraimB]

51 minutes ago, NoHacksJustKhaks said:

The Lefferts Blvd section of the  has more ridership than both Rockaway Branches combined. Can you imagine that many people clogging the streets on a daily basis? Even with buses, traffic will be a nightmare and accessibility for those impaired will be greatly reduced... 

Nobody wants to walk 20 min to their nearest stop, consider that’s the reason you were so passionate about the Reeds Lane proposal!

My 20-minute walk is still doable. A 3 hour and 11 minute walk isn't.

[P3F]

1 hour ago, NoHacksJustKhaks said:

The Lefferts Blvd section of the  has more ridership than both Rockaway Branches combined. Can you imagine that many people clogging the streets on a daily basis? Even with buses, traffic will be a nightmare and accessibility for those impaired will be greatly reduced... 

Nobody wants to walk 20 min to their nearest stop, consider that’s the reason you were so passionate about the Reeds Lane proposal!

That is false. I did the math last year. The stations south of Rockaway Boulevard have almost 10,000 more average weekday riders than the stations east of Rockaway Boulevard.

 

[RR503]

4 minutes ago, P3F said:

That is false. I did the math last year. The stations south of Rockaway Boulevard have almost 10,000 more average weekday riders than the stations east of Rockaway Boulevard.



More importantly, that's nearly double Lefferts ridership.

@EphraimB has a point.  dispatching/service patterns are shit. Once again, I'll make a plug for my proposal: leave the rush-hour configuration of service the same, but extend the  to Lefferts in the off-peak, giving it >3tph service. 

[Lawrence St]

Why would you want to know if you could disable the switch?

[NoHacksJustKhaks]

28 minutes ago, P3F said:

That is false. I did the math last year. The stations south of Rockaway Boulevard have almost 10,000 more average weekday riders than the stations east of Rockaway Boulevard.

You're correct...I never did the math at all and simply wen't off something I heard, which must've been inaccurate now that I've checked it myself. I still think it's important to keep the Lefferts branch instead diverting all trains to the Rockaways since the region along Lefferts is relatively dense, and mismanaging the traffic flow by forcing more people and cars on the streets and road, would cause disaster and slower commutes in general.

41 minutes ago, EphraimB said:

A 3 hour and 11 minute walk isn't.

I never called for no service to the Rockaway's, I agree it's a bit of a disaster at the moment (sidenote: I once waited for 4 Lefferts bound trains before a Rockaway one showed up), but I don't feel cutting off Lefferts service is what's needed to do so.

22 minutes ago, RR503 said:

extend the  to Lefferts in the off-peak, giving it >3tph service. 

Interesting, this would be via the Fulton local, correct? I know some of your proposals saw permanent service to Lefferts with the Fulton express (with  taking over the local).

Edited November 19, 2018 by NoHacksJustKhaks

[NoHacksJustKhaks]

7 minutes ago, Lawrence St said:

Why would you want to know if you could disable the switch?

To divert all  trains to Far Rockaway, or Rockaway Park as the southern terminus.

Edited November 19, 2018 by NoHacksJustKhaks

[transitfan111]

Other than ridership demands, I think the reason why the MTA sends more A's to Lefferts is that it is quicker to get those trains going back into Manhattan. The Rockaway line is quite longer. If you extend the C to Lefferts, then you'll have to increase wait time as it now has to travel a longer route with the same number of train cars.

[NoHacksJustKhaks]

4 minutes ago, transitfan111 said:

If you extend the C to Lefferts, then you'll have to increase wait time as it now has to travel a longer route with the same number of train cars.

I don't think it'll take that much longer for the  to traverse to Lefferts Blvd, the elevated branch isn't that long to begin with. Also, under @RR503's proposal, this'll only occur during off peak; rush hour should be unaffected, so I highly doubt it'll affect everyone severely. 

Edited November 19, 2018 by NoHacksJustKhaks

[Jemorie]

3 hours ago, NoHacksJustKhaks said:

The Lefferts Blvd section of the  has more ridership than both Rockaway Branches combined. Can you imagine that many people clogging the streets on a daily basis? Even with buses, traffic will be a nightmare and accessibility for those impaired will be greatly reduced... 

Nobody wants to walk 20 min to their nearest stop, consider that’s the reason you were so passionate about the Reeds Lane proposal!

I have to disagree with this. You gotta think critically. The Lefferts Blvd branch has only 3 stations and yes, the number of stations/stops do in fact make a big difference. Trains always have more passengers coming to/from the Rockaways than Lefferts Blvd. Trains coming from Lefferts will only get more passengers as equally as trains from the Rockaways further up the mainline beginning from a west of Rockaway Blvd and onwards.

[Jemorie]

1 hour ago, transitfan111 said:

Other than ridership demands, I think the reason why the MTA sends more A's to Lefferts is that it is quicker to get those trains going back into Manhattan. The Rockaway line is quite longer. If you extend the C to Lefferts, then you'll have to increase wait time as it now has to travel a longer route with the same number of train cars.

Look at the official printed  line schedule or the official Trip Planner. They certainly do not send more trains to and from Lefferts Blvd. Through much of the day, the headways for trains going to and from Lefferts Blvd & Far Rockaway is equal. Your statement is totally false. And if anything, neglecting Far Rockaway isn’t fair at all whatsoever especially since riders who commute to and from that stretch have  some of the longest commutes in the city.

Edited November 20, 2018 by Jemorie

[transitfan111]

2 minutes ago, Jemorie said:

Look at the official printed  line schedule. They certainly do not send more trains to and from Lefferts Blvd. Your statement is totally false.

I was going off the assumption of @EphraimB who posted the picture of the subway time. 

[Jemorie]

21 minutes ago, transitfan111 said:

I was going off the assumption of @EphraimB who posted the picture of the subway time. 

Oh. I don’t think he means it like that though. He was just showing reality. Officially, though, it’s not suppose to be like that. It’s actually LGA making false statements out of nowhere to him. I’m just saying that even though the  makes a lot of “decisions” here and there, they would not go as far as to neglect the Far Rockaway  riders in favor of Lefferts Blvd. As I said, it’s extremely important to keep the headways on both branches of the  line as equally as possible all day long and all evening long so everyone gets fair treatment. This is public transportation we’re talking about after all. So even the excuse of “getting trains back to Manhattan faster because the Lefferts Blvd branch is shorter” is bull.

Edited November 20, 2018 by Jemorie

[Lawrence St]

2 hours ago, Jemorie said:

Oh. I don’t think he means it like that though. He was just showing reality. Officially, though, it’s not suppose to be like that. It’s actually LGA making false statements out of nowhere to him. I’m just saying that even though the  makes a lot of “decisions” here and there, they would not go as far as to neglect the Far Rockaway  riders in favor of Lefferts Blvd. As I said, it’s extremely important to keep the headways on both branches of the  line as equally as possible all day long and all evening long so everyone gets fair treatment. This is public transportation we’re talking about after all. So even the excuse of “getting trains back to Manhattan faster because the Lefferts Blvd branch is shorter” is bull.

In all honesty, the split  is really confusing for no reason. Having the traverse to Lefferts does solve this problem.