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  
train fanatic 12

Why was the C train cut back to Euclid Ave from Rockaway Park in 1992?

Recommended Posts

Ahem, R188's go to the Rockaways for testing if you forgot about that...

 

No they don't. They go to Broad Channel. The problem was/is on the Rockaway Peninsula.

 

Broad Channel is still Queens, and still ConEd territory.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You all going into the discussion about R188 and R160 in the Rockaway's while this main topic is about C train cut back from Rockaway Park. If you want to talk about R188 and R160 in Rockaway's go on a old topic and talk about that crap.

Side conversations in threads that have some common element (in this one its the Rockaways) are perfectly fine and happen every day on here.I don't see an issue with that...

 

 

 If you want to talk about R188 and R160 in Rockaway's go on a old topic and talk about that crap.

I do see a problem with this.That kind of attitude is not excepted here and will get you banned like this *snaps fingers*

 

Watch out...

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello All. Ive been lurking on the forums for a while, and seeing this dude trainfanatic, hes surefire going to get banned, but i believe that the C was cut back due to Euclid due to the Rockaways wanting Express service, correct me if im wrong tho, but that's what i think.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The thing I don't understand is why don't they extend the (C) out to Rockaway Park-Beach 116th from Memorial Day Weekend Till Labor Day on the weekends?  It would create a one seat ride for beach travelers as well as cutting out the need for the (S) on Weekends.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The thing I don't understand is why don't they extend the (C) out to Rockaway Park-Beach 116th from Memorial Day Weekend Till Labor Day on the weekends?  It would create a one seat ride for beach travelers as well as cutting out the need for the (S) on Weekends.  

 

Explain why do you think that's necessary...

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Explain why do you think that's necessary...

Always so hostile. And he actually did explain...

 

The thing I don't understand is why don't they extend the (C) out to Rockaway Park-Beach 116th from Memorial Day Weekend Till Labor Day on the weekends? It would create a one seat ride for beach travelers as well as cutting out the need for the (S) on Weekends.

All you would do is just make the (C) longer and more delay-prone for regular (C) riders. Not to mention the amount of extra trains needed that we don't have.

 

They run full-length shuttle trains on weekends, that's more than enough on that branch.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just extend the (C) to Ozone Park.

 

Even though the (C) to Lefferts eliminates the need to wait/transfer for the next (A) to the Rockaways or Lefferts, riders on the Lefferts Blvd branch want express service. Even if that means that they have to wait 15-20 minutes for one to show up.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Even though the (C) to Lefferts eliminates the need to wait/transfer for the next (A) to the Rockaways or Lefferts, riders on the Lefferts Blvd branch want express service. Even if that means that they have to wait 15-20 minutes for one to show up.

why do they deserve express service?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just extend the (C) to Ozone Park.

It's been explained countless times why that wouldn't work. As for why Lefferts residents want express service, politics comes into play. Edited by S78 via Hylan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just connect with the (A) right behind it, its the same number of stops to Euclid. What's the worst they can do but complain; if it increases capacity on the (C) then so be it; the Hoyt portion is only at capacity for one hour and is well below otherwise. The balance of the A trains can be put ins at Howard Beach, Pitkin and Rock Park.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

why do they deserve express service?

why not just rename one of the A branches to another letter instead of sticking riders with a service they don't want? What about the F to 179th? Why do they deserve a one seat express when they could have extended the R to run local and the F express? Just because you can run the local to lefferts to provide more service, it doesn't mean people will want it. They will just get off at rockaway blvd for the A and cram onto those trains leaving the C empty all the way to euclid. And sure while you will run more trains total, i would think the A would lose some trains so the C can be extended to lefferts, so you might have fewer A trains overall.

The thing I don't understand is why don't they extend the (C) out to Rockaway Park-Beach 116th from Memorial Day Weekend Till Labor Day on the weekends? It would create a one seat ride for beach travelers as well as cutting out the need for the (S) on Weekends.

 

according to a poster here, there was talks about extending the S to at least rockaway blvd, so there would be no point in extending the C there. You would actually want a shuttle because it is isolated in one area than to deal with the mess further up on the C line in manhattan and brooklyn. Plus in the summer on the weekends, the S is a full 600' train unlike the C at 480' all the time. So the S at that time actually runs longer trains than the C. Edited by Grand Concourse
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Speaking of the C being cut from Rockaway Park to Euclid Ave, I wonder why the H Train suddenly disappeared??? Especially during late nights, the H Train was the Howard Beach-Rockaways Shuttle. The A Train primary terminal was Lefferts Blvd, and the secondary terminal was Mott Ave-Far Rockaway whiie the C Train ran directly into B 116 St-Rockaway Park. I'm not sure if the H Train was strictly late night service, but it seemed to do some good for the Rockaways during off-peak hours. If I was running the MTA, I'd probably consider bringing back the H Train as a nighttime shuttle serving the Rockaways and into Euclid Ave again during off peak hours and into the weekends.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

why do they deserve express service?

 

They don't they have a measly 3 stations definitely not enough points of interest to warrant the (A) . The (A)  only serves that area as a way to kiss ass at the expense of airport and casino riders much like why our congress sucks. They should take the (C) and deal with it they don't deserve the (A) .

why not just rename one of the A branches to another letter instead of sticking riders with a service they don't want? What about the F to 179th? Why do they deserve a one seat express when they could have extended the R to run local and the F express? Just because you can run the local to lefferts to provide more service, it doesn't mean people will want it. They will just get off at rockaway blvd for the A and cram onto those trains leaving the C empty all the way to euclid. And sure while you will run more trains total, i would think the A would lose some trains so the C can be extended to lefferts, so you might have fewer A trains overall.according to a poster here, there was talks about extending the S to at least rockaway blvd, so there would be no point in extending the C there. You would actually want a shuttle because it is isolated in one area than to deal with the mess further up on the C line in manhattan and brooklyn. Plus in the summer on the weekends, the S is a full 600' train unlike the C at 480' all the time. So the S at that time actually runs longer trains than the C.

Unlike the (C) the (R) is very long and delay prone and the stations on the (F) skipped are so few that there is little to no benefit. The (C) to lefferts eliminates the confusion among (A) riders especially tourists and access to the casino becomes much easier as those long waits for rockaway (A) s disappear and getting to JFK becomes significantly more convenient the lefferts stations are 3 measly stations they are stiffing too many riders with their selfishness. If that was an issue how does cranberry do it (A) shares with the (C) and (D) and does just fine. (A) trains to lefferts can be diverted to rockaway park eliminating the broad channel shuttle at least during the day.

Edited by Lordsaitamaboss

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Speaking of the C being cut from Rockaway Park to Euclid Ave, I wonder why the H Train suddenly disappeared??? Especially during late nights, the H Train was the Howard Beach-Rockaways Shuttle. The A Train primary terminal was Lefferts Blvd, and the secondary terminal was Mott Ave-Far Rockaway whiie the C Train ran directly into B 116 St-Rockaway Park. I'm not sure if the H Train was strictly late night service, but it seemed to do some good for the Rockaways during off-peak hours. If I was running the MTA, I'd probably consider bringing back the H Train as a nighttime shuttle serving the Rockaways and into Euclid Ave again during off peak hours and into the weekends.

 

The Rock Park Shuttle is officially the (H) and has always been.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They don't they have a measly 3 stations definitely not enough points of interest to warrant the (A) . The (A)  only serves that area as a way to kiss ass at the expense of airport and casino riders much like why our congress sucks. They should take the (C) and deal with it they don't deserve the (A) .

Unlike the (C) the (R) is very long and delay prone and the stations on the (F) skipped are so few that there is little to no benefit. The (C) to lefferts eliminates the confusion among (A) riders especially tourists and access to the casino becomes much easier as those long waits for rockaway (A) s disappear and getting to JFK becomes significantly more convenient the lefferts stations are 3 measly stations they are stiffing too many riders with their selfishness. If that was an issue how does cranberry do it (A) shares with the (C) and (D) and does just fine. (A) trains to lefferts can be diverted to rockaway park eliminating the broad channel shuttle at least during the day.

 

The 3 stops on the Lefferts branch have almost as much ridership as the entire Rockaway branch.  Just because it's longer doesn't mean it has more ridership.

 

Second of all, it would actually require more trainsets to extend the (C) there. You need to keep the same frequency of (A) service for the Brooklyn and Manhattan riders, so you would have to divert those Lefferts (A)s to Howard Beach if you want to remain within the budget (you couldn't extend them down to the Rockaways). On top of that, you need the extra trainsets to extend the (C) to Lefferts. And of course, the cost of staffing those extra trainsets.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The 3 stops on the Lefferts branch have almost as much ridership as the entire Rockaway branch.  Just because it's longer doesn't mean it has more ridership.

 

Second of all, it would actually require more trainsets to extend the (C) there. You need to keep the same frequency of (A) service for the Brooklyn and Manhattan riders, so you would have to divert those Lefferts (A)s to Howard Beach if you want to remain within the budget (you couldn't extend them down to the Rockaways). On top of that, you need the extra trainsets to extend the (C) to Lefferts. And of course, the cost of staffing those extra trainsets.

 

I'm pretty sure when ridership goes up on the Rockaway branch years later, they're not gonna like waiting 15-20+ minutes for the (A). Might as well extend the (C) local to Lefferts (if there's enough cars) so all Lefferts (A) 's can finally go straight down to Far Rockaway or at least Howard Beach while keeping the Rock Park shuttle. The 3 stops on the Lefferts branch may not like taking the (C) local and then transfering to the (A) express at Euclid, but at least they're gonna more frequent service with 5 or 10 minute headways rather than 15 or 20 minute headways all day and evening long.

 

The only way they could possibly get the (C) to Lefferts (if there's enough cars) is if the line runs express in Brooklyn so Lefferts riders are happy. But then we would need to put another line in Brooklyn to serve the Fulton Local stops. Yeah, I know that's impossible right now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm pretty sure when ridership goes up on the Rockaway branch years later, they're not gonna like waiting 15-20+ minutes for the (A). Might as well extend the (C) local to Lefferts (if there's enough cars) so all Lefferts (A) 's can finally go straight down to Far Rockaway or at least Howard Beach while keeping the Rock Park shuttle. The 3 stops on the Lefferts branch may not like taking the (C) local and then transfering to the (A) express at Euclid, but at least they're gonna more frequent service with 5 or 10 minute headways rather than 15 or 20 minute headways all day and evening long.

 

The only way they could possibly get the (C) to Lefferts (if there's enough cars) is if the line runs express in Brooklyn so Lefferts riders are happy. But then we would need to put another line in Brooklyn to serve the Fulton Local stops. Yeah, I know that's impossible right now.

 

First of all, nobody likes waiting 15-20 minutes for a subway train, so that's a moot point. What matters is that ridership is never going to be that high on the Rockaways branch, due to the geography of the area. Even if you built more apartment buildings, the fact of the matter is that the Rockaways is a half mile-wide peninsula, and the only thing that brings in a little extra ridership are a few feeder buses going to Far Rockaway and Rockaway Park. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First of all, nobody likes waiting 15-20 minutes for a subway train, so that's a moot point. What matters is that ridership is never going to be that high on the Rockaways branch, due to the geography of the area. Even if you built more apartment buildings, the fact of the matter is that the Rockaways is a half mile-wide peninsula, and the only thing that brings in a little extra ridership are a few feeder buses going to Far Rockaway and Rockaway Park. 

That's debatable.  Residents of the Rockaways have argued that more people would come down there (not residents but visitors) if transportation were available, making it a destination.  Currently that isn't the case.  I'm not sure what the "first of all" is all about?

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The 3 stops on the Lefferts branch have almost as much ridership as the entire Rockaway branch.  Just because it's longer doesn't mean it has more ridership.

 

Second of all, it would actually require more trainsets to extend the (C) there. You need to keep the same frequency of (A) service for the Brooklyn and Manhattan riders, so you would have to divert those Lefferts (A)s to Howard Beach if you want to remain within the budget (you couldn't extend them down to the Rockaways). On top of that, you need the extra trainsets to extend the (C) to Lefferts. And of course, the cost of staffing those extra trainsets.

Nonsense (C) offers better service levels for those riders thus giving em better service. Having all (A) trains to JFK and the casino will eliminate confusion about what train to take slashing 20 minutes from people's trips to the airport and the casino. If the rockaways don't have the ridership then those lefferts (A) trains can replace the rockaway shuttle (H) eliminating the absurd service at the airport and giving people better overall service. Extra trains for the (C) will so be worth it no big deal with the shuttle gone. With this the service frequency for brooklyn and manhattan will stay the same since (A) trains will simply be rerouted to serve rockaway park rather than lefferts.

 

I'm pretty sure when ridership goes up on the Rockaway branch years later, they're not gonna like waiting 15-20+ minutes for the (A). Might as well extend the (C) local to Lefferts (if there's enough cars) so all Lefferts (A) 's can finally go straight down to Far Rockaway or at least Howard Beach while keeping the Rock Park shuttle. The 3 stops on the Lefferts branch may not like taking the (C) local and then transfering to the (A) express at Euclid, but at least they're gonna more frequent service with 5 or 10 minute headways rather than 15 or 20 minute headways all day and evening long.

 

The only way they could possibly get the (C) to Lefferts (if there's enough cars) is if the line runs express in Brooklyn so Lefferts riders are happy. But then we would need to put another line in Brooklyn to serve the Fulton Local stops. Yeah, I know that's impossible right now.

A transfer will kill no one too bad (C) doesn't need to express anywhere the (A) is enough plus ridership at Far rockaway itself isn't as high as say JFK and the casino so replacing the (H) with rerouted (A) service would serve the casino and airport better without over serving Far Rockaway . If ridership increases again well pretty sure additional changes can happen till then (A) to Rockaway park and (A) to Far rockaway will reduce the confusion for airport passengers and for the time being be helpful for the most riders. Not enough space for (A) to share and sharing with the (C) would be a disaster anyway there are enough bottlenecks.

That's debatable.  Residents of the Rockaways have argued that more people would come down there (not residents but visitors) if transportation were available, making it a destination.  Currently that isn't the case.  I'm not sure what the "first of all" is all about?

Interesting point you present well the reactivation of the rockaway beach line can be considered if ridership gets out of control.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nonsense (C) offers better service levels for those riders thus giving em better service. Having all (A) trains to JFK and the casino will eliminate confusion about what train to take slashing 20 minutes from people's trips to the airport and the casino. If the rockaways don't have the ridership then those lefferts (A) trains can replace the rockaway shuttle (H) eliminating the absurd service at the airport and giving people better overall service. Extra trains for the (C) will so be worth it no big deal with the shuttle gone. With this the service frequency for brooklyn and manhattan will stay the same since (A) trains will simply be rerouted to serve rockaway park rather than lefferts.

 

A transfer will kill no one too bad (C) doesn't need to express anywhere the (A) is enough plus ridership at Far rockaway itself isn't as high as say JFK and the casino so replacing the (H) with rerouted (A) service would serve the casino and airport better without over serving Far Rockaway . If ridership increases again well pretty sure additional changes can happen till then (A) to Rockaway park and (A) to Far rockaway will reduce the confusion for airport passengers and for the time being be helpful for the most riders. Not enough space for (A) to share and sharing with the (C) would be a disaster anyway there are enough bottlenecks.

 

Interesting point you present well the reactivation of the rockaway beach line can be considered if ridership gets out of control.

I have to attend transportation meetings for work from time to time, and there were several of them last year pertaining to ferry service for the Rockaways and other parts of the city where residents brought up the fact that restoring ferry service, and making it more frequent would attract huge summer crowds and more frequent visitors outside of the summer.  Right now they argued that the transportation down there is such that it makes it more difficult for visitors to access the area, so I suppose that if any sort of transportation options facilitated travel down there that it would mean more folks visiting and thus you could see either increased subway service, increased ferry service, or both.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's debatable.  Residents of the Rockaways have argued that more people would come down there (not residents but visitors) if transportation were available, making it a destination.  Currently that isn't the case.  I'm not sure what the "first of all" is all about?

 

The "first of all" was in reference to people not wanting to wait 15-20 minutes for a subway train, as if it's some kind of grand revelation. The current riders don't like waiting 15-20 minutes, and any future riders wouldn't like it either. The MTA does plenty of things that riders don't "like". The (rhetorical) question is, when is it justifiable?

 

As for visitors, the Rockaways is known to be far and isolated, which in some ways is part of its appeal (as opposed to say, Coney Island which has better subway service, but is dirtier and more crowded). Even if you had 10 minute headways out there, it would still be considered far and inconvenient to access.

 

Nonsense (C) offers better service levels for those riders thus giving em better service. Having all (A) trains to JFK and the casino will eliminate confusion about what train to take slashing 20 minutes from people's trips to the airport and the casino. If the rockaways don't have the ridership then those lefferts (A) trains can replace the rockaway shuttle (H) eliminating the absurd service at the airport and giving people better overall service. Extra trains for the (C) will so be worth it no big deal with the shuttle gone. With this the service frequency for brooklyn and manhattan will stay the same since (A) trains will simply be rerouted to serve rockaway park rather than lefferts.

 

A transfer will kill no one too bad (C) doesn't need to express anywhere the (A) is enough plus ridership at Far rockaway itself isn't as high as say JFK and the casino so replacing the (H) with rerouted (A) service would serve the casino and airport better without over serving Far Rockaway . If ridership increases again well pretty sure additional changes can happen till then (A) to Rockaway park and (A) to Far rockaway will reduce the confusion for airport passengers and for the time being be helpful for the most riders. Not enough space for (A) to share and sharing with the (C) would be a disaster anyway there are enough bottlenecks.

 

Interesting point you present well the reactivation of the rockaway beach line can be considered if ridership gets out of control.

 

My point is solely about the extra trainsets required. Not about Lefferts riders needing express service. I agree, the service pattern would be helpful overall, but like I said, it costs more money. Is it worth the money? Well, that's debatable.

 

And Far Rockaway gets more ridership than Howard Beach. The AirTrain is a ripoff (and most people are using the Jamaica branch) and Howard Beach is a little residential area. The Racino is by the two Aqueduct stations.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The "first of all" was in reference to people not wanting to wait 15-20 minutes for a subway train, as if it's some kind of grand revelation. The current riders don't like waiting 15-20 minutes, and any future riders wouldn't like it either. The MTA does plenty of things that riders don't "like". The (rhetorical) question is, when is it justifiable?

 

As for visitors, the Rockaways is known to be far and isolated, which in some ways is part of its appeal (as opposed to say, Coney Island which has better subway service, but is dirtier and more crowded). Even if you had 10 minute headways out there, it would still be considered far and inconvenient to access.

Well the frequencies combined with a faster commute would certainly help.  

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm pretty sure when ridership goes up on the Rockaway branch years later, they're not gonna like waiting 15-20+ minutes for the (A). Might as well extend the (C) local to Lefferts (if there's enough cars) so all Lefferts (A) 's can finally go straight down to Far Rockaway or at least Howard Beach while keeping the Rock Park shuttle. The 3 stops on the Lefferts branch may not like taking the (C) local and then transfering to the (A) express at Euclid, but at least they're gonna more frequent service with 5 or 10 minute headways rather than 15 or 20 minute headways all day and evening long.

 

The only way they could possibly get the (C) to Lefferts (if there's enough cars) is if the line runs express in Brooklyn so Lefferts riders are happy. But then we would need to put another line in Brooklyn to serve the Fulton Local stops. Yeah, I know that's impossible right now.

 

It would require a significant boost in ridership. All the Rockaway stations have extremely low usage rates compared to the rest of the stations in the system.

 

That's debatable.  Residents of the Rockaways have argued that more people would come down there (not residents but visitors) if transportation were available, making it a destination.  Currently that isn't the case.  I'm not sure what the "first of all" is all about?

 

Not if insurance companies have anything to say about it. I'd love to see flood insurance rates for the Rockaways in the post-Sandy era.

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.