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.
Sign in to follow this  
'89 Liberty MCI

Some basic service change ideas, based on what the MTA kinda sorta currently has to work with

Recommended Posts

I understand many of the complications associated with OPTO and that it may take a while to implement, so let us not get into that. Ignoring the complications of the current OPTO and the other OPTO ideas that have been tossed around thus far, suppose that OPTO became a reality system-wide and that in order to avoid layoffs all conductors re-trained as bus operators and train operators. I know that sounds a little weird, but try to work with me here. This is all just hypothetical.

 

Now the MTA has this surplus labor to work with (additional B/Os and T/Os), so it can use the surplus labor to make more service. Perhaps there should be a fare hike as well, since they have to pay for both the labor and the electricity/fuel/maintenance of the additional vehicles used to make service. Again this is all hypothetical.

 

Assuming all of this, how much sense would the following changes make, with respect to passenger demand?

 

-Extend the (G) to Continental during weekends (at least) and perhaps middays.

 

-Extend the (5) to Flatbush 7 days a week, maybe expand the service span as well. Last train to Brooklyn at 21:00 or 22:00 perhaps, rather than 20:00. Or, just operate all of the non-Dyre shuttles to Flatbush, so I guess service to Brooklyn would end around the same time the (3) stops serving Brooklyn. In order to do this, the (2)(3)(5) weekend headways would probably have to be improved from 12 minutes to 8 minutes like the (4).

 

This way it might be easier to synchronize the routes with each other. If there is enough demand for the routes to operate at these headways, then that makes it even better. The (5) would have to operate every 8 minutes to keep an even (4)(5) headway, since the (5) would be sharing tracks with the (4) for a greater distance. Then the (2) would also have to go every 8 minutes since the (2) and (5) would now share tracks in Brooklyn as well as the Bronx. Then the (3) would have to go every 8 minutes so the (2) and (3) can be easier to sync with each other.

 

-Operate the (B) from Bedford Park to Brighton Beach at all times (except overnight when it does not operate). Not sure if it is needed in the Bronx middays as well, but definitely weekends and weeknights as I have witnessed the dreadful crowding of the (D) firsthand at these times.

 

-Extend the (M) to Chambers or Continental on the weekends. Probably Chambers since having the (G)(M)(R) terminate at Continental may be problematic. I do not know how it was before the (G) was cut. But sending the (M) to Chambers on the weekend seems like the way to go since it would be (J)(M) serving LES and (G)(R) serving Queens Blvd, instead of one line serving LES and three serving Queens Blvd.

 

-Would also be nice if they could do something about the fact that people living south/east of Rockaway Blvd only get (A) service like every 12-20 minutes outside of rush hour. Not sure how to do this though (say a train out of Far Rock or Lefferts every 8 minutes for a combined 4 minute headway west of Rockaway Blvd seven days a week), since the (A) shares tracks with the (C) and (D). Seems like synchronization would be an issue here. The (2)(3)(4)(5) idea seems easier due to the logistics of those routes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

-Extend the (5) to Flatbush 7 days a week, maybe expand the service span as well. Last train to Brooklyn at 21:00 or 22:00 perhaps, rather than 20:00. Or, just operate all of the non-Dyre shuttles to Flatbush, so I guess service to Brooklyn would end around the same time the (3) stops serving Brooklyn. In order to do this, the (2)(3)(5) weekend headways would probably have to be improved from 12 minutes to 8 minutes like the (4).

 

This way it might be easier to synchronize the routes with each other. If there is enough demand for the routes to operate at these headways, then that makes it even better. The (5) would have to operate every 8 minutes to keep an even (4)(5) headway, since the (5) would be sharing tracks with the (4) for a greater distance. Then the (2) would also have to go every 8 minutes since the (2) and (5) would now share tracks in Brooklyn as well as the Bronx. Then the (3) would have to go every 8 minutes so the (2) and (3) can be easier to sync with each other.

 

 

Might as well also extend late night (5) service to 149 St GC. It will be like the (3) to Times Sq 42 St.

 

-Operate the (:) from Bedford Park to Brighton Beach at all times (except overnight when it does not operate). Not sure if it is needed in the Bronx middays as well, but definitely weekends and weeknights as I have witnessed the dreadful crowding of the (D) firsthand at these times.

 

 

The Astoria line as the (Q) middays, if they can run double service on that line all day weekdays, it wouldn't hurt to run double service on Concourse all day as well. In this case the (D) would run express all day.

Edited by GreatOne2k

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kamen Rider:

 

To try to get people that currently do not use the system, to use the system. I am looking at sustainability. The more people use public transportation, the better. Better for the environment, better for businesses and the economy.

 

The current demand is met by the current service levels, but if OPTO were implemented and the MTA were cornered such that they could not just lay off the displaced conductors outright (I hope such an action would be a LAST resort), then why not re-train them as B/Os and T/Os and use the surplus labor to make more service?

 

They could do that on the weekends. Right now a decent number of people avoid the system if they can because they do not want to, say, spend 12 minutes waiting for a (2) or (5) train in the Bronx or Brooklyn, to go to Manhattan or wherever. Or spend 12 minutes waiting for a (J) train. Then there is the (G) train, which really got messed up as far as connectivity goes since it no longer serves Queens Blvd. Some of these trains get so crowded at times that they have no help from other lines, that you can barely fit on the train.

 

The (D) train is the poster child for that, and I have heard that the (Q) is pretty crowded on the weekends, so running the (:) seven days a week would definitely be helpful there. I avoid the (D) train at all costs because of my bad experiences on that piece of garbage sardine can. Funny how ridership at IND Concourse stations has dropped over the past year while Bx1/2 ridership has increased.

 

As for operating the (G) to Continental, funny how ridership at IND Queens Blvd stations has also dropped over the past year.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The current demand is met by the current service levels, but if OPTO were implemented and the MTA were cornered such that they could not just lay off the displaced conductors outright (I hope such an action would be a LAST resort), then why not re-train them as B/Os and T/Os and use the surplus labor to make more service?

Because it would still cost more money. Staffing the trains aren't the only cost of running them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Other than the (G) to 71st on weekends [because the (R) just sucks so much and QB should have a 2nd local line], I don't see the point of those other ideas.

 

Ok granted, it is a pita to transfer from the (D) at Pacific to the (Q) at Atlantic as well as the 34th-HS transfer, but I don't see the need for the (B) unless you are reducing (D) and (Q) service, which will piss some people off.

 

It's not perfect, but the MTA doesn't have the money to maintain every 'wish list' item. I think what's running now is fair. Any service increase will just give them a reason to jack up the fare sooner.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Replies in red based on ridership trends.

 

I understand many of the complications associated with OPTO and that it may take a while to implement, so let us not get into that. Ignoring the complications of the current OPTO and the other OPTO ideas that have been tossed around thus far, suppose that OPTO became a reality system-wide and that in order to avoid layoffs all conductors re-trained as bus operators and train operators. I know that sounds a little weird, but try to work with me here. This is all just hypothetical.

 

Now the MTA has this surplus labor to work with (additional B/Os and T/Os), so it can use the surplus labor to make more service. Perhaps there should be a fare hike as well, since they have to pay for both the labor and the electricity/fuel/maintenance of the additional vehicles used to make service. Again this is all hypothetical.

 

Assuming all of this, how much sense would the following changes make, with respect to passenger demand?

 

-Extend the (G) to Continental during weekends (at least) and perhaps middays.

It would be great to restore (G) weekend/overnight QB local service. However barring go's it may never run on that coordior again..

 

-Extend the (5) to Flatbush 7 days a week, maybe expand the service span as well. Last train to Brooklyn at 21:00 or 22:00 perhaps, rather than 20:00. Or, just operate all of the non-Dyre shuttles to Flatbush, so I guess service to Brooklyn would end around the same time the (3) stops serving Brooklyn. In order to do this, the (2)(3)(5) weekend headways would probably have to be improved from 12 minutes to 8 minutes like the (4).

 

Why? I agree with extending Brooklyn weekday evening (5) service to 10-11pm. Have you been on the "4" in Brooklyn on weekends. Most trips (other than delays)on weekend Brooklyn "4" service only has a few standees.

 

This way it might be easier to synchronize the routes with each other. If there is enough demand for the routes to operate at these headways, then that makes it even better. The (5) would have to operate every 8 minutes to keep an even (4)(5) headway, since the (5) would be sharing tracks with the (4) for a greater distance. Then the (2) would also have to go every 8 minutes since the (2) and (5) would now share tracks in Brooklyn as well as the Bronx. Then the (3) would have to go every 8 minutes so the (2) and (3) can be easier to sync with each other.

 

If anything as i have long proposed it would be beter to spend $$$ on running the "5" overnights to either 149th/GC or even 42nd-Grand Central.

 

-Operate the "B" from Bedford Park to Brighton Beach at all times (except overnight when it does not operate). Not sure if it is needed in the Bronx middays as well, but definitely weekends and weeknights as I have witnessed the dreadful crowding of the (D) firsthand at these times.

 

On weekdays yes the B" should run more to/from Bedford Park in the Bronx until 11pm. On weekends the "D" just needs more service/better headways. Riding occasionally on the "D" weekends to connect with the Bee Line #4 or #20 to go to/from Westchester, that line is only SRO during the spring/summer for Yankee games between 161 and Mid Manhattan.

 

-Extend the (M) to Chambers or Continental on the weekends. Probably Chambers since having the (G)(M)(R) terminate at Continental may be problematic. I do not know how it was before the "G" was cut. But sending the (M) to Chambers on the weekend seems like the way to go since it would be (J)(M) serving LES and (G)(R) serving Queens Blvd, instead of one line serving LES and three serving Queens Blvd.

 

As i stated before the "M" is fine as it is weekends/overnights as shuttle connection to the "L" and "J" lines. Down the road, if needed the "M" should only be extended to Essex off hours and call it a day. The "J" like the "D" just needs more service on weekends.

 

-Would also be nice if they could do something about the fact that people living south/east of Rockaway Blvd only get "A" service like every 12-20 minutes outside of rush hour. Not sure how to do this though (say a train out of Far Rock or Lefferts every 8 minutes for a combined 4 minute headway west of Rockaway Blvd seven days a week), since the (A" shares tracks with the "C" and "D". Seems like synchronization would be "n issue here. The "2" "3""4""5" idea seems easier due to the logistics of those routes.

 

 

The "A" only needs 4-5 minute *combined headways* between Rockaway Blvd and 207th St. during weekdays. Weekends since its a very long route, due to riders holding doors, go's etc. it going to slow down. With that said, the "A" on weekends most trips is not SRO like the "1" "2" "4" "6" "7" and "E" lines for instance. Maybe as high as every 6 minutes at height of weekend service i.e saturdays 12 Noon-8pm and Sundays 3pm-8pm would solve the problem IMO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Might as well also extend late night (5) service to 149 St GC. It will be like the (3) to Times Sq 42 St.

 

Too difficult to coordinate as it requires wrong railing trains at Mott (149th) with through service operating (the (2)).

 

One of the oversights of the original IRT system design was not making Mott lower a 3 track 2 island platform with switches at both ends. That would allow for what you're suggesting during the overnights, and also give work trains a place to go to get out of the way on that corridor instead of having to go to Jackson Ave on M (middle) track or 135th middle.

 

It would also have allowed for across the platform transfer when they run split service G/O's out of Mott, which happens fairly often.

 

But built the way it is, operationally it would be difficult to coordinate a (5) shuttle from Dyre to Mott while still running (2) service through the station. It would also be difficult to appropriately sign the platforms and explain to customers which trains are going in which directions, and which platforms to catch them at.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Too difficult to coordinate as it requires wrong railing trains at Mott (149th) with through service operating (the (2)).

 

One of the oversights of the original IRT system design was not making Mott lower a 3 track 2 island platform with switches at both ends. That would allow for what you're suggesting during the overnights, and also give work trains a place to go to get out of the way on that corridor instead of having to go to Jackson Ave on M (middle) track or 135th middle.

 

It would also have allowed for across the platform transfer when they run split service G/O's out of Mott, which happens fairly often.

 

But built the way it is, operationally it would be difficult to coordinate a (5) shuttle from Dyre to Mott while still running (2) service through the station. It would also be difficult to appropriately sign the platforms and explain to customers which trains are going in which directions, and which platforms to catch them at.

I think the idea he had was to have it relay at 138 middle, but now that's tying up the interlocking (effectively disabling 149 middle). Sometimes people forget that revenue service isn't the only thing going through the interlocking at night, because they see that's the case during the day.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Too difficult to coordinate as it requires wrong railing trains at Mott (149th) with through service operating (the (2)).

 

One of the oversights of the original IRT system design was not making Mott lower a 3 track 2 island platform with switches at both ends. That would allow for what you're suggesting during the overnights, and also give work trains a place to go to get out of the way on that corridor instead of having to go to Jackson Ave on M (middle) track or 135th middle.

 

It would also have allowed for across the platform transfer when they run split service G/O's out of Mott, which happens fairly often.

 

But built the way it is, operationally it would be difficult to coordinate a (5) shuttle from Dyre to Mott while still running (2) service through the station. It would also be difficult to appropriately sign the platforms and explain to customers which trains are going in which directions, and which platforms to catch them at.

 

The (5) can also turn around at 138 middle, so no need to wrong rail.

 

The (5) already terminates at 149 St sometimes during the late night, including cold weather plans.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think the idea he had was to have it relay at 138 middle, but now that's tying up the interlocking (effectively disabling 149 middle). Sometimes people forget that revenue service isn't the only thing going through the interlocking at night, because they see that's the case during the day.

 

That's the idea, MTA does this sometimes with cold weather plans and other GOs (E 180 St construction) late night.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The (5) can also turn around at 138 middle, so no need to wrong rail.

 

The (5) already terminates at 149 St sometimes during the late night, including cold weather plans.

 

My plan has the (5) actually going local with the (6) to Brooklyn Bridge late nights, allowing the (4) to go express in both directions then. At the very least, I would do that late on Friday and Saturday nights when you have more people riding at those hours.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
My plan has the (5) actually going local with the (6) to Brooklyn Bridge late nights, allowing the (4) to go express in both directions then. At the very least, I would do that late on Friday and Saturday nights when you have more people riding at those hours.

 

For signage reasons it would be better to have the (5) run express late nights whenever it runs below 125 St

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The (5) can also turn around at 138 middle, so no need to wrong rail.

 

The (5) already terminates at 149 St sometimes during the late night, including cold weather plans.

 

And what about the work trains that need to use that track to get out of the way of customer service?

 

There's more to planning service than meets the eye.

 

Late at night is also the most difficult time to clean out trains as you've got homeless and drunks sleeping all over the place and now you've got to do that on every trip.

 

Doesn't make sense, not enough of a benefit to it, nor does it make operational sense given the infrastructure that exists now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I understand many of the complications associated with OPTO and that it may take a while to implement, so let us not get into that. Ignoring the complications of the current OPTO and the other OPTO ideas that have been tossed around thus far, suppose that OPTO became a reality system-wide and that in order to avoid layoffs all conductors re-trained as bus operators and train operators. I know that sounds a little weird, but try to work with me here. This is all just hypothetical.

 

Now the MTA has this surplus labor to work with (additional B/Os and T/Os), so it can use the surplus labor to make more service. Perhaps there should be a fare hike as well, since they have to pay for both the labor and the electricity/fuel/maintenance of the additional vehicles used to make service. Again this is all hypothetical.

 

Assuming all of this, how much sense would the following changes make, with respect to passenger demand?

 

Yeah, I dont think the Unions would allow ALL the Conductors to become T/O or B/O, because they are doing more than one job. but I do like you idea!

 

-Extend the (G) to Continental during weekends (at least) and perhaps middays.

 

Yes, but on weekdays it wouldn't work. There are already two line there & I dont think it would be able to hold a third.

 

-Extend the (5) to Flatbush 7 days a week, maybe expand the service span as well. Last train to Brooklyn at 21:00 or 22:00 perhaps, rather than 20:00. Or, just operate all of the non-Dyre shuttles to Flatbush, so I guess service to Brooklyn would end around the same time the (3) stops serving Brooklyn. In order to do this, the (2)(3)(5) weekend headways would probably have to be improved from 12 minutes to 8 minutes like the (4).

 

This way it might be easier to synchronize the routes with each other. If there is enough demand for the routes to operate at these headways, then that makes it even better. The 5 would have to operate every 8 minutes to keep an even 4, 5 headway, since the 5 would be sharing tracks with the 4 for a greater distance. Then the 2 would also have to go every 8 minutes since the 2 and 5 would now share tracks in Brooklyn as well as the Bronx. Then the 3 would have to go every 8 minutes so the 2 and 3 can be easier to sync with each other.

 

Yes, (2) service is excruciating & packed, on weekends! I would brake to have (5) service to Brooklyn on weekends, with 8 minute headways on all those lines!

 

-Operate the (B) from Bedford Park to Brighton Beach at all times (except overnight when it does not operate). Not sure if it is needed in the Bronx middays as well, but definitely weekends and weeknights as I have witnessed the dreadful crowding of the (D) firsthand at these times.

 

I'm not sure about nights at all, but weekends, Concourse could definitely use (B) service, not only to help crowding, but to fill in headways for not only the (D), but also the (Q).

 

-Extend the (M) to Chambers or Continental on the weekends. Probably Chambers since having the (G)(M)(R) terminate at Continental may be problematic. I do not know how it was before the G was cut. But sending the M to Chambers on the weekend seems like the way to go since it would be (J)(M) serving LES and G, R serving Queens Blvd, instead of one line serving LES and three serving Queens Blvd.

 

It would probably make more sense to send it to Forest Hills. Service isnt as frequent on weekends, so it would probably work. & have the (G) run all the way till 179 St so it doesnt have to terminate at the same station, where there are already two lines terminating there, rather have it terminate at a station, where you can terminate like 20 trains!

 

-Would also be nice if they could do something about the fact that people living south/east of Rockaway Blvd only get (A) service like every 12-20 minutes outside of rush hour. Not sure how to do this though (say a train out of Far Rock or Lefferts every 8 minutes for a combined 4 minute headway west of Rockaway Blvd seven days a week), since the (A) shares tracks with the (C) and (D). Seems like synchronization would be an issue here.

 

I dont understand, why the MTA cant just extend the (C) to Lefferts Blvd? :confused:

 

During late nights, the C would run from Lefferts till Euclid, instead of having to bring in special cars for shuttles.

 

Dont forget, the Rockaway line is the least busiest line, in the system. So, that's probably why they have long headways.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yeah, I dont think the Unions would allow ALL the Conductors to become T/O or B/O, because they are doing more than one job. but I do like you idea!

 

 

 

Yes, but on weekdays it wouldn't work. There are already two line there & I dont think it would be able to hold a third.

 

 

 

Yes, (2) service is excruciating & packed, on weekends! I would brake to have (5) service to Brooklyn on weekends, with 8 minute headways on all those lines!

 

Disagree. I sometimes visit a friend in Brooklyn on weekends who lives in East Flatbush and I get off the Newark station. Yes there sometimes a few standees but not SRO crowded unless the (2) is really late. The (2) just needs better headways and not be late. If anything the (5) is better to run later on weekdays until around 11pm.

 

 

 

I'm not sure about nights at all, but weekends, Concourse could definitely use (B) service, not only to help crowding, but to fill in headways for not only the (D), but also the (Q).

 

Ditto for the (D) just needs better headways. Other than Yankee games during the season, I don't see crushloaded (D) in the Bronx that often on weekends.

 

 

It would probably make more sense to send it to Forest Hills. Service isnt as frequent on weekends, so it would probably work. & have the (G) run all the way till 179 St so it doesnt have to terminate at the same station, where there are already two lines terminating there, rather have it terminate at a station, where you can terminate like 20 trains!

 

 

Sound like you asking alot Triboro and MCI. The (R) just needs better headways on the weekend along QB. And on occasion if the (R) is late just have a select (E)(F) re-routed to the local tracks. Do you want to pay a $2.75 bus/subway fare? I sure don't..

 

 

I dont understand, why the MTA cant just extend the (C) to Lefferts Blvd? :confused:

 

During late nights, the C would run from Lefferts till Euclid, instead of having to bring in special cars for shuttles.

 

Dont forget, the Rockaway line is the least busiest line, in the system. So, that's probably why they have long headways.

 

 

Replies in red.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I dont understand, why the MTA cant just extend the (C) to Lefferts Blvd? :confused:

 

During late nights, the C would run from Lefferts till Euclid, instead of having to bring in special cars for shuttles.

 

Don't forget, the Rockaway line is the least busiest line, in the system. So, that's probably why they have long headways.

 

Lefferts and Ozone Park residents don't want (C) trains, because it's a local line. The idea has been tried to death and failed multiple times, because these people want fast subway service to Manhattan.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I personally think that $2.25 is pocket change, especially given the fact that you can use that money to get all the way from one end of the city to the other. But that is not important for this thread.

 

I still believe the (G) should be extended past Court Square, just because the lack of connectivity is so bad in my opinion. I mean, the train could physically just take those tracks to the QB line to take people to the Queens Center Mall (big trip generator) and a bunch of other places, but instead people have to take a circuitous route involving a transfer to the (E)(M) (weekends, only the (E)) and then a third transfer to the (R) for QB local stations like the QCM (again, weekends only since weekdays they just go to the (M)).

 

Part of it is that I have the future B44 SBS in mind since it transfers directly to the (G) train. Extending the (G) past Court Square would make Brooklyn-Queens travel a lot easier and thus would make the B44 SBS more popular for people that live in southern Brooklyn (latent demand much?).

 

An alternative is to just increase the service frequency on the (G)(R). This way transfers take less time even though you still take some circuitous routes as I described above.

 

If the (5) should not go to Brooklyn on weekends with the (2)(3)(4), fine. The (2)(3) headway should be improved from 12 minutes to 8 minutes though. Or at least just the (2). Ridership at practically all of the (2) stations in the Bronx and Brooklyn has been increasing. Not surprising on the Brooklyn side since the Nostrand Avenue corridor is live, especially with Brooklyn College at the end. Not sure about the Livonia Avenue corridor and the (3) train.

 

And yeah, the (D) is a lousy piece of garbage that needs to have its service beefed up if the (B) should not run on weekends. I will give you that.

 

TriboroughBridge, I meant they would give up the job/title of conductor altogether in exchange for bus operator or train operator. The conductor's job would be completely gone for OPTO lines. The train operator would make the announcements. This would only work for NTTs with automated announcements by they way. No pre-R142s can have OPTO (I think) with the idea I have in mind.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I still believe the (G) should be extended past Court Square, just because the lack of connectivity is so bad in my opinion. I mean, the train could physically just take those tracks to the QB line to take people to the Queens Center Mall (big trip generator) and a bunch of other places, but instead people have to take a circuitous route involving a transfer to the (E)(M) (weekends, only the (E)) and then a third transfer to the (R) for QB local stations like the QCM (again, weekends only since weekdays they just go to the (M)).

 

Part of it is that I have the future B44 SBS in mind since it transfers directly to the (G) train. Extending the (G) past Court Square would make Brooklyn-Queens travel a lot easier and thus would make the B44 SBS more popular for people that live in southern Brooklyn (latent demand much?).

 

An alternative is to just increase the service frequency on the (G)(R). This way transfers take less time even though you still take some circuitous routes as I described above.

 

 

Most IND Queens Boulevard Line residents don't want (G) service. They also want direct service mostly to Manhattan and wouldn't really use the (G) unless if they needed a fast way to get to Brooklyn. An example is the 63rd Street Tunnel which is recent infrastructure. It was built to bring the (F) to the IND Queens Boulevard Line in another way while allowing the (V) now the (M) to use the Queens Boulevard Line without congesting the tracks. This is an example.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lefferts and Ozone Park residents don't want (C) trains, because it's a local line. The idea has been tried to death and failed multiple times, because these people want fast subway service to Manhattan.

 

I suspect with the Casino now fully open at Aqueduct, that is going to change.

 

If I ran the Casino at Aqueduct, I would be willing to pay so that ALL (A) service ran to the Rockaways (obviously stopping at Aqueduct and the Casino as well as JFK) with the exception of a handful of peak direction rush hour (A) trains to/from Lefferts, with the (C) likely then replacing the (A) full time to Lefferts (eliminating the overnight (S) on the Lefferts branch). Having it so Casino patrons know that outside of a handful of PM rush hour trains, the (A)'s would all stop at Aqueduct (with enough (A)'s to Rockaway Park to replace the Broad Channel (S) full-time) to me is something I would consider important enough if I ran the casino to pay to make happen.

 

Residents along the Lefferts branch could howl all they like, but if the Casino operator were willing to pay to make the changes on the (A) happen so all (A) trains would service the Casino, then I don't think the residents would have a leg to stand on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I suspect with the Casino now fully open at Aqueduct, that is going to change.

 

If I ran the Casino at Aqueduct, I would be willing to pay so that ALL (A) service ran to the Rockaways (obviously stopping at Aqueduct and the Casino as well as JFK) with the exception of a handful of peak direction rush hour (A) trains to/from Lefferts, with the (C) likely then replacing the (A) full time to Lefferts (eliminating the overnight (S) on the Lefferts branch). Having it so Casino patrons know that outside of a handful of PM rush hour trains, the (A)'s would all stop at Aqueduct (with enough (A)'s to Rockaway Park to replace the Broad Channel (S) full-time) to me is something I would consider important enough if I ran the casino to pay to make happen.

 

Residents along the Lefferts branch could howl all they like, but if the Casino operator were willing to pay to make the changes on the (A) happen so all (A) trains would service the Casino, then I don't think the residents would have a leg to stand on.

 

 

Wally even if the casino became as busy as Yonkers/Empire City, other than the summer there no need to run full time 7 day a week service to Rockaway Park and Manhattan.

 

If the casino did get really popular, IMO the only change needed is on weekends only. Then the (C) extended to Lefferts and have all (A) to Far Rockaway with short trips ending at Howard Beach-JFK.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
An alternative is to just increase the service frequency on the (G)(R). This way transfers take less time even though you still take some circuitous routes as I described above.

 

If the (5) should not go to Brooklyn on weekends with the (2)(3)(4), fine. The (2)(3) headway should be improved from 12 minutes to 8 minutes though. Or at least just the (2). Ridership at practically all of the (2) stations in the Bronx and Brooklyn has been increasing. Not surprising on the Brooklyn side since the Nostrand Avenue corridor is live, especially with Brooklyn College at the end. Not sure about the Livonia Avenue corridor and the (3) train.

 

And yeah, the (D) is a lousy piece of garbage that needs to have its service beefed up if the (;) should not run on weekends. I will give you that.

 

TriboroughBridge, I meant they would give up the job/title of conductor altogether in exchange for bus operator or train operator. The conductor's job would be completely gone for OPTO lines. The train operator would make the announcements. This would only work for NTTs with automated announcements by they way. No pre-R142s can have OPTO (I think) with the idea I have in mind.

 

 

Now that much better and a great idea young man:tup:. Increase (2) headways to every 6-8 minutes which is "NEAR RUSH HOUR" Levels at peak hours of weekends i.e Saturdays 10am-9pm and Sundays 12 Noon-8pm. That should do the trick.

I would even have the following plans. Have 10-minute (3)weekend headways(I know it's a slight cut) and also extend selected

(4)to/from New Lots about every 20-30 minutes to help out the Liviona station riders as well.

 

If it's still SRO after 6-8 minutes headways, then you have the argument for expanded weekend (5) service MCI and Triborough.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think a better idea would be to extend the (C) to Rockaway Park Beach 116th Street at least to remove the (S), and to provide some direct service to Manhattan for the western section of the Rockaways.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think a better idea would be to extend the (C) to Rockaway Park Beach 116th Street at least to remove the (S), and to provide some direct service to Manhattan for the western section of the Rockaways.

 

 

Roadcrusier IMO a bad idea. Maybe for midday weekday and a few weekend trips over the summer you can have 'direct service' to/from Manhattan running every 30 minutes on the current (A) Far Rockaway branch and that it. The (C) used to run to Rockaway Park weekdays over 20-plus years ago and it was a diaster since it was a long trip from Bedford Park in the Bronx. Even starting at 168th, still a bad idea.

 

The Rockaway Park coordior between Beach 116th and the main (A) line currently at Broad Channel is lowest riders usage in entire system. Late at Night the Rockaway Park shuttle often has *zero*(not a mistype)riders.

Leave the current weekend/overnight (S) alone. And Yes I been on the Rock Park (S) before most recent this summer (2011).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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