Jump to content

Subway service to Aqueduct may get a boost, may even get Airtrain stop


GreatOne2k

Recommended Posts

Quite honestly, out of what I seen here so far, I just adhered to Cait's & GC's replies....

 

I swear to god any discussion I stumble across on here about A or C service is met with the tired old send the C to Lefferts bit...... I'm seeing snippets about sending shuttles to far rockaway... and a bunch of for instances.... and staying on buses longer to eventually catch the same train.... and of course, the C to lefferts....

 

I'm not gonna beat that dead horse.... CS can continue sonning ppl. @ the rate he's going....

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Replies 178
  • Created
  • Last Reply
Ahem, read my responses.....

:sigh: my points totally missed. That's what happens when people assumes based on what they see on the map as opposed to station usage lists.

 

Of course I probably wouldn't care about Lefferts if they had the ridership of the in=between stations south of Howard Beach, but those stations have very high usage. People here would just change things because it suits what they want. And now I'm really understanding Mike's usual posts about why things are as they are and not runned by foamers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The (A) to lefferts gets more ridership at NIGHT than the (A) to Far Rock, i just hate that shuttle, its annoying, as for the (C) to lefferts thing, they tried to bring back the plan, IT GOT SHOT down, they wanted to eliminate the Euclid tower Job and send the (C) to lefferts (this was in 2010) but it got shot down, and they will not mention it again, but i rather the (C) go to rock park instead, lefferts is a very good chunk of ridership on the (A) and the most quiet and civilized passengers that i ride with, but if they want to increase service just use the rock park (A) trains as specials (similar to the yankee specials) for increased ridership and terminate them at 168 or 145th and deadhead them back to the yard or whatever the (MTA) wants to do

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On the other side of the coin, I don't think ©s to Rock Park would be the answer either. It may suit that area well with shorter trains, but people will still just get off at Broad channel to take the (A) making them empty the whole distance. Plus being a local already, I don't think crews would be happy to have additional stations to deal with (on a regular basis)*.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On the other side of the coin, I don't think ©s to Rock Park would be the answer either. It may suit that area well with shorter trains, but people will still just get off at Broad channel to take the (A) making them empty the whole distance. Plus being a local already, I don't think crews would be happy to have additional stations to deal with (on a regular basis)*.

 

yeah true, i just wish the MTA would send the (C) back to the Bronx, The (;) it helps the (D) but to me its stupid, when the (C) ran up there people use to ride it more, the (C) is just bland when it goes to 168

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree, the (C) is basically a local (A). Even now the (;) for the most part doesn't need to run with the (D) as it uses trains from CIY and the (C) is almost entirely R32s. So the yards reason no longer applies. They could switch the (;)(C) lines back and offer the Bronx a choice of service.

 

exactly, The (C) would be great for the bronx since Bronx riders would have a one seat ride from 8th ave to the bronx, they have enough R32's the (C) would just have less spares

Link to comment
Share on other sites

yeah true, i just wish the MTA would send the (C) back to the Bronx, The (;) it helps the (D) but to me its stupid, when the (C) ran up there people use to ride it more, the (C) is just bland when it goes to 168

So you propose giving the (C) two northern terminals again?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

exactly, The (C) would be great for the bronx since Bronx riders would have a one seat ride from 8th ave to the bronx, they have enough R32's the (C) would just have less spares

 

Don't many Concourse local riders just switch to the (D) or (A) as quickly as possible for express service? Some people would rather get the (A) at 125 to skip stops. Also the (C) would be a drop in capacity on the Concourse (10 cars to 8 cars). (C) to the Bronx would be better if it were 10 cars.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kind of funny to raze the Javits Center, when that is the main attraction for the (7) extension and basically the anchor of the whole West Side development. Though, he says it would be replaced with "a mix of commercial, residential and culture space on the model of Battery Park City".

plus they built the extension to Jacob Javits too on 41st .

 

they fell short big time for the funding then got it and if they tear it down a waste of funds.

 

I miss the old Coliseum even though Moses help build it.

 

S/F,

CEYA!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

exactly, The (C) would be great for the bronx since Bronx riders would have a one seat ride from 8th ave to the bronx, they have enough R32's the (C) would just have less spares

 

 

We had that already then they took the C from the Bronx.

 

D and C went to Bedford Park. Taking the C toward Beach Channel was a nice ride.

 

A and B went to 168th st.

 

S/F,

CEYA!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Looks like Genting wants essentially a revival of the (JFK) as part of building the convention center at Aqueduct, which I'm thinking is actually more likely to be built on the opposite side of the existing subway tracks at Aqueduct-North Conduit as it probably would be cheaper to acquire that land for the new convention center AND connect it to both the subway station and racetrack/casino, with Aqueduct staying a racetrack. Though saying that, I do think the third floor of Aqueduct would become additional convention space as I believe was already planned for that and they could build a planned hotel there in an area between the end of the clubhouse and the mile chute at Aqueduct.

 

The total of this would likely be far cheaper than the current plans to use the existing racetrack facility since Genting in that scenario would also likely have to pay to have Belmont Park fully winterized and/or build a new facility to replace Aqueduct.

 

As for how this could affect trains, the only way I could see it work, with Genting getting what they want is this:

 

ALL (A) trains are switched to the Rockaways and only stop in Brooklyn at High Street, Jay Street and Hoyt-Schermerhorn, then running express all the way to Aqueduct before continuing to the Rockaways, with if possible after Euclid the (A) finding a way to access the middle express track on the Liberty El until going to Aqueduct/The Rockaways and from Aqueduct as an express-on-Local until reaching Euclid.

 

The current (C) train is split in two:

 

The (C) itself would either going back to terminating at Chambers (as it did as the old 70(AA)) OR as I would do it, having it join the (F) via the Culver Line as a new Culver Express to Coney Island and the (F) remaining a local, but shortened to Church Avenue (except overnights, when the (F) would run as it does now). This does create the potential bottleneck problems at Broadway-Lafayette since the (M) also stops there, but that could also be a minimal issue since it's only one stop and I believe the total of all three lines combined is 30tph or less.

 

The Brooklyn portion of the (C) becomes a new (H) line, running local from Hoyt-Schemerhorn to Lefferts, replacing the (A) on that branch save for perhaps a very limited number of (A) super expresses from Lefferts during rush hours in each direction that would go non-stop between Hoyt-Schermerhorn and Euclid Avenue. This could involve having to move the Transit Museum so Court Street could be re-activated as a terminal for a new (H) line, but that could be done with the stipulation that Genting also has to build a new transit museum with the convention center and include connecting tracks from the Rockaway Branch of the (A) to a new transit museum at the Convention Center that includes four tracks inside such a new transit museum so it can double as a short-turn terminal when needed on the Rockaway line.

 

That to me may be the only way that Genting gets what they want in this case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest lance25

Why are you screwing around with 8th Avenue/Fulton St? You know how long it's taken to get the (A) and (C) line service we have now? 14 long years of getting the (C) from a rush-hour only route to what it is today. Today, we have 19/7 service on the (C) from 168 St to Euclid and the (A) runs express during that time.

 

Now, here you are advocating the splitting of the (C), which would force riders to hop onto the already cramped (A) trains, then transfer to this new (H) (which only runs local) in order to get somewhere that's not the Rockaways, High, Jay or Hoyt Sts. Just to be able to fit your pseudo-(JFK) Express on the express tracks. That'll fly like a lead balloon. I don't care how much money Genting's throwing into this thing. He wants dedicated express service to Aqueduct? He needs to be able to do so within the limits of the current service patterns, not at the expense of the (A) and (C) line riders. This is still mass-transit, not just a shuttle to the casino and convention center.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Agreed, I need an asprin every time I read his posts. I can understand them trying to revive a "JFK express", on the weekends, but people should raise hell if this guy tries to take away regular (A) express service in Brooklyn for a few hundred people especially at the height of rush hour. He can charge 5 times the fare and it still won't justify the use for such an exclusive line. If people really want to get there so bad, maybe he would be better off providing his own bus service.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Agreed, I need an asprin every time I read his posts. I can understand them trying to revive a "JFK express", on the weekends, but people should raise hell if this guy tries to take away regular (A) express service in Brooklyn for a few hundred people especially at the height of rush hour. He can charge 5 times the fare and it still won't justify the use for such an exclusive line. If people really want to get there so bad, maybe he would be better off providing his own bus service.

He should get his own f**king tracks for his ambitious plan.

 

 

Looks like Genting wants essentially a revival of the (JFK) as part of building the convention center at Aqueduct, which I'm thinking is actually more likely to be built on the opposite side of the existing subway tracks at Aqueduct-North Conduit as it probably would be cheaper to acquire that land for the new convention center AND connect it to both the subway station and racetrack/casino, with Aqueduct staying a racetrack. Though saying that, I do think the third floor of Aqueduct would become additional convention space as I believe was already planned for that and they could build a planned hotel there in an area between the end of the clubhouse and the mile chute at Aqueduct.

 

The total of this would likely be far cheaper than the current plans to use the existing racetrack facility since Genting in that scenario would also likely have to pay to have Belmont Park fully winterized and/or build a new facility to replace Aqueduct.

 

As for how this could affect trains, the only way I could see it work, with Genting getting what they want is this:

 

ALL (A) trains are switched to the Rockaways and only stop in Brooklyn at High Street, Jay Street and Hoyt-Schermerhorn, then running express all the way to Aqueduct before continuing to the Rockaways, with if possible after Euclid the (A) finding a way to access the middle express track on the Liberty El until going to Aqueduct/The Rockaways and from Aqueduct as an express-on-Local until reaching Euclid.

 

The current (C) train is split in two:

 

The (C) itself would either going back to terminating at Chambers (as it did as the old 70(AA)) OR as I would do it, having it join the (F) via the Culver Line as a new Culver Express to Coney Island and the (F) remaining a local, but shortened to Church Avenue (except overnights, when the (F) would run as it does now). This does create the potential bottleneck problems at Broadway-Lafayette since the (M) also stops there, but that could also be a minimal issue since it's only one stop and I believe the total of all three lines combined is 30tph or less.

 

The Brooklyn portion of the (C) becomes a new (H) line, running local from Hoyt-Schemerhorn to Lefferts, replacing the (A) on that branch save for perhaps a very limited number of (A) super expresses from Lefferts during rush hours in each direction that would go non-stop between Hoyt-Schermerhorn and Euclid Avenue. This could involve having to move the Transit Museum so Court Street could be re-activated as a terminal for a new (H) line, but that could be done with the stipulation that Genting also has to build a new transit museum with the convention center and include connecting tracks from the Rockaway Branch of the (A) to a new transit museum at the Convention Center that includes four tracks inside such a new transit museum so it can double as a short-turn terminal when needed on the Rockaway line.

 

That to me may be the only way that Genting gets what they want in this case.

You should really look into some sort of internal quality review for your ideas before you lay them down like a brick for us to read. Have you ever thought about stating the reason for doing anything you suggested?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't kill the messenger, I was doing two things:

 

1. Reporting what Genting (the casino operator for Aqueduct) wants in return for building the convention center, and that is essentially a revival of the (JFK) as a full-time, non-stop train from lower Manhattan to Aqueduct.

 

2. Posting my view on how I feel it could be done, especially since if Genting is going to spend probably around $5-6 BILLION to build the convention center, including paying potentially hundreds of millions if not even hitting low 10-figures for subway service changes, the (MTA) may not have a choice but to give Genting what they want and having to work around that for local patrons.

 

I don't like this at all since I know how long it took to make the (C) a 17/7 line to Euclid, something that had been long needed. Saying that, this again is where the casino operator/convention center builder may be holding all the cards and would be paying for these changes, NOT the (MTA).

 

Now, perhaps as a compromise, Genting also gets the rest of the Rockaway branch of the LIRR rebuilt for subway use and connected to the Queens Boulevard line.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He should get his own f**king tracks for his ambitious plan.

 

You should really look into some sort of internal quality review for your ideas before you lay them down like a brick for us to read. Have you ever thought about stating the reason for doing anything you suggested?

 

Genting is a corporation based in Malaysia, not a person. The actual name of the casino is Resorts World.

 

Anyway, if I'm at the (MTA), I would demand that if Genting really wants that, they also have to pay for subway improvements that would include rehabbing the former LIRR Rockaway branch for subway service, including building a new super express connecting to the 53rd and/or 60th and/or 63rd street tunnels that would stop on EITHER a new lower level of Roosevelt Avenue OR use the never-previously-used upper level of Roosevelt Avenue and run express from there to Aqueduct and then the Rockaways, most likely getting as close to the non-stop service they want that way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest lance25

Here's an idea: let's see how much ridership this shindig actually gets before throwing all this damn money and resources behind it. You're acting like the increased ridership is a guarantee, like this new convention center and casino complex is the new Times Square.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lance:

 

I know as well as anyone it isn't (especially given I used to use the (A) to go to Aqueduct a lot), but at the same time, if the Convention Center happens, Genting likely will be in a position to have Carte Blanche on what they want with the (A) train. Remember, they are based in Malaysia and are likely not as familiar with the subway lines as we are.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest lance25

I don't care if they're from Buttf***istan. Riders won't allow it, politicians won't allow it and the city of New York won't allow it. You want to build your convention center in buttf*** nowhere, you get buttf*** nowhere service.

 

And by the way, ignorance isn't an excuse for idiotic ideas. It's called research. Don't know something? Look it up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't kill the messenger, I was doing two things:

 

1. Reporting what Genting (the casino operator for Aqueduct) wants in return for building the convention center, and that is essentially a revival of the as a full-time, non-stop train from lower Manhattan to Aqueduct.

 

2. Posting my view on how I feel it could be done...

Let's keep the current theme of the idiom you decided to use....

 

What you said in bold here, is what allows us to have free reign to strike down & assassinate the messenger....

 

Which, from the ideas you've been infesting the subway section here with, is 100% justified.....

On here talkin about all A trains to the Rockaways & splitting the C train in two....

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.