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  
R32 3838

MTA board member wants (A) to serve Rockaways only...

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

An MTA board member wants A trains to serve both the East & West ends of the Rockaways at all times, saying that would be a boon to beachgoers & residents.


A trains now serve only the east end, except for a few during rush hours, forcing passengers to change to a shuttle at Broad Channel.

Andrew Albert wants half the A trains to go to the east end; the others to the west.

Service to Lefferts Boulevard would be provided by extending the C line from Euclid Avenue.

The change would benefit beachgoers and area residents, said Albert, adding he’s trying to convince his fellow board members.

 

Read more: Source

Edited by +Young+
Modified for home page...
  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I feel there are not enough trains to meet this proposal. If the Rockaway (S) is replaced by the (A), then we definitely need a lot more cars.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

-____________-

 

Looks like someone has been reading this forum, or some of the facebook group posts.

 

LEAVE THE (A) AT LEFFERTS!

Or at the very least, eliminate the shuttle, rename the Lefferts Blvd branch as the (K) and have the (A) serve The Rockaways at all times.

Keep the damn (C) where it's at, all those (A) trains that come from The Rockaways get crowded at Rockaway Blvd as it is, could you imagine what would happen when people have to TRANSFER!?

If anything, this could inadvertently increase express bus ridership!

 

 

I feel there are not enough trains to meet this proposal. If the Rockaway  (S) is replaced by the  (A), then we definitely need a lot more cars.

 
If they do some swaps, in theory, they could have enough. The extra trains from the shuttle would add to the fold.
Edited by Cait Sith
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is what should've been done back in 1993; Lefferts one-seaters need to put a sock in it.  Completely ridiculous for one line to have three different southern branches.  Alternatively, maybe they should just reactivate the upper part of the Rockaway Beach branch and tie it in to the Queens Blvd subway- that way (A) trains could avoid the Rockaways altogether.

  • Upvote 10

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ideally, I would love an (A) Far Rockaway and an (A) Rockaway Park Branch (replacing the shuttle,) with the (C) going to Lefferts solely for the fact that it would result in a consistent 10 minute headway to Aqueduct and Howard Beach-JFK (Lefferts too, but that train would be making local stops, which is why this proposal always gets shot down whenever the (MTA) proposes it.)

 

Can we swap the <A> RPK service to serve Lefferts instead to placate them?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The question comes down to which community has the political clout and that will be how the final decision will be made.

MTA Board members can suggest but the final decision will be a political decision or in other words, leave it the way it is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The question comes down to which community has the political clout and that will be how the final decision will be made.

MTA Board members can suggest but the final decision will be a political decision or in other words, leave it the way it is.

Chances are, Lefferts Boulevard riders will end up stuck with a local-only train if the (C) ever gets extended there, which leads to yet another problem: massive congestion at Rockaway Boulevard, already the most overcrowded station in Ozone Park. In other words, (C) riders will cause unnecessary overcrowding on the Brooklyn-bound platform just to transfer to the express (A), and if that train is already packed with Rockaway riders, then there's a big issue here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

-____________-

 

Keep the damn (C) where it's at, all those (A) trains that come from The Rockaways get crowded at Rockaway Blvd as it is, could you imagine what would happen when people have to TRANSFER!?

The only Lefferts riders who HAVE to transfer are the ones going past 168, which I bet is nil. There's no law that riders HAVE to switch to an express at the first available opportunity, and in many cases it will actually waste more time waiting for the A than staying on the C.

 

The C to Lefferts means consistent 10 minute service. Right now only getting half of the A means at best 15 min headways and up to 30! What's the point of waiting 25 minutes for a train that knocks 5 minutes off the Fulton St run?

 

Ozone Park riders need to be educated on how the local isn't the end of the world, similar to how Queens Blvd riders were taught to ride the V when that was introduced.....

  • Upvote 10

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only Lefferts riders who HAVE to transfer are the ones going past 168, which I bet is nil. There's no law that riders HAVE to switch to an express at the first available opportunity, and in many cases it will actually waste more time waiting for the A than staying on the C.

 

The C to Lefferts means consistent 10 minute service. Right now only getting half of the A means at best 15 min headways and up to 30! What's the point of waiting 25 minutes for a train that knocks 5 minutes off the Fulton St run?

 

Ozone Park riders need to be educated on how the local isn't the end of the world, similar to how Queens Blvd riders were taught to ride the V when that was introduced.....

Telling folks to take a local over an express is generally a hard selling point no matter where it's happening, that's a fact. When the N went local in Manhattan when the W was first axed, people didn't like that at all, even though it was only 4-5 extra stops.

 

Realistically, folks will end up transferring at Rockaway Blvd for the A, which will end up causing issues in the long run such as congestion and crowding issues at Rockaway Blvd, Broadway Junction and at Euclid Avenue especially with the consistency(or the inconsistency) of those headways. And 9 out of of 10 times, that A will likely pass the C along the way. It's the AM rush I'm more concerned with, the PM rush, people will continue to do what they do now.

 

10 minute headways is a nice bump up, but to tell folks to take a local over an express is a tough sell for anyone.

 

Sent from my HTC 10 using Tapatalk

Edited by Cait Sith

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think under this plan, the (A) intervals that operate from Dyckman and 168 to Rockaway Park in the PM and from Rockaway Park in the AM should operate to Lefferts instead.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I could only imagine what would happen if the draw bridge needs to be raised under this proposal. (A) service would pretty much be done for for the rest of the day.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I could only imagine what would happen if the draw bridge needs to be raised under this proposal. (A) service would pretty much be done for for the rest of the day.

 

You could always turn them at Howard Beach if that happens...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I could only imagine what would happen if the draw bridge needs to be raised under this proposal. (A) service would pretty much be done for for the rest of the day.

They'd end up sending some to Lefferts. The few times I've been around the A when the bridge was up, they ended up sending some to Lefferts Blvd. Some also terminated at Howard Beach.

 

Sent from my HTC 10 using Tapatalk

Edited by Cait Sith

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

If anything, this could inadvertently increase express bus ridership!

 

Given that the MTA doesn't add more service on the QM18, isn't that a good thing? It makes it more efficient to operate.

 

So under this proposal, the (C) would also become 24/7 (replacing the designation of the Lefferts Shuttle), right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Given that the MTA doesn't add more service on the QM18, isn't that a good thing? It makes it more efficient to operate.

 

So under this proposal, the (C) would also become 24/7 (replacing the designation of the Lefferts Shuttle), right?

Never said it was a bad thing.

 

Sent from my HTC 10 using Tapatalk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ideally, I would love an (A) Far Rockaway and an (A) Rockaway Park Branch (replacing the shuttle,) with the (C) going to Lefferts solely for the fact that it would result in a consistent 10 minute headway to Aqueduct and Howard Beach-JFK (Lefferts too, but that train would be making local stops, which is why this proposal always gets shot down whenever the (MTA) proposes it.)

 

Can we swap the <A> RPK service to serve Lefferts instead to placate them?

You could probably placate those on Lefferts by having a handful of <A> express trains to Lefferts during rush hours (since Rockaway Park doesn't need the level of service Far Rockaway does, most likely a 4/3 split between Far Rockaway and Rockaway Park would suffice), plus have the (C) be 24/7 from Lefferts, eliminating the current late-night shuttle on that part of the line.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only Lefferts riders who HAVE to transfer are the ones going past 168, which I bet is nil. There's no law that riders HAVE to switch to an express at the first available opportunity, and in many cases it will actually waste more time waiting for the A than staying on the C.

 

The C to Lefferts means consistent 10 minute service. Right now only getting half of the A means at best 15 min headways and up to 30! What's the point of waiting 25 minutes for a train that knocks 5 minutes off the Fulton St run?

 

Ozone Park riders need to be educated on how the local isn't the end of the world, similar to how Queens Blvd riders were taught to ride the V when that was introduced.....

 

Well, right away if they're just going to Broadway Junction to catch the (J)(Z)(L) then it's likely better to just stay on the (C), so that's some of the crowds off the (A) right there.

 

During rush hours, you have some periods of 10 minute headways or less out on Lefferts Blvd, but yeah, in general it would be a headway boost for the Lefferts branch.

 

The only thing with this whole proposal is that it costs more money. All the Lefferts trains would be extended to Rockaway Park, and all the ©s would be extended to Lefferts and in exchange, you only save the costs of eliminating the Rockaway Park shuttle. 

 

You could probably placate those on Lefferts by having a handful of <A> express trains to Lefferts during rush hours (since Rockaway Park doesn't need the level of service Far Rockaway does, most likely a 4/3 split between Far Rockaway and Rockaway Park would suffice), plus have the (C) be 24/7 from Lefferts, eliminating the current late-night shuttle on that part of the line.

 

They're not going to spend the extra money to make the (C) run local all the way to 168th, just because it's extended to Lefferts during the day, I can guarantee you that. You're saying the Fulton local stations warrant 10 minute headways overnight, but busier lines like the Brighton Line, Pelham Line, etc should remain with 20 minute headways?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They're not going to spend the extra money to make the (C) run local all the way to 168th, just because it's extended to Lefferts during the day, I can guarantee you that. You're saying the Fulton local stations warrant 10 minute headways overnight, but busier lines like the Brighton Line, Pelham Line, etc should remain with 20 minute headways?

I think he means the late nights Lefferts shuttle would now be the (C).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This (C) to Lefferts in kinda like sending the (M) or (R) to 179 

Not quite.  Doing that in this case allows the (A) to exclusively serve the Rockaways, and more importantly the Casino at Aqueduct and Howard Beach and those going to JFK.  

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not quite.  Doing that in this case allows the (A) to exclusively serve the Rockaways, and more importantly the Casino at Aqueduct and Howard Beach and those going to JFK.  

 

I agree, it eliminates the confusion with the (A) to Lefferts Blvd if you want to go to the casino or the airport

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

*reads thread title*

*ready to read the selfish agenda said board member has.... and then rip him/her for it*

*sees the phrase (C) to Lefferts*

 

Y'all have a good night.

 

leaving-now-grandpa-simpsons.gif

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

*reads thread title*

*ready to read the selfish agenda said board member has.... and then rip him/her for it*

*sees the phrase (C) to Lefferts*

 

Y'all have a good night.

 

leaving-now-grandpa-simpsons.gif

Again with these funny ass memes...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does this mean that the (C) would run over night hours? The (A) doesn't really need to serve Rockaway Park. With the low ridership those stations have out there you might as well reduce the (S) to two cars.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

×

Important Information

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