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

[YankeesPwnMets]

Personally, I'm not that against a to Lefferts, especially as a traveler who frequents JFK over EWR and LGA. I think a big point is that the benefits to the airport and casino are way overstated. I travel a LOT (emphasis on lot) in and out of JFK and based off of my own personal observation, airport travelers are nicely distributed between private transit, and trains along with LIRR/bus. I don't really think there is a huge need to increase transit to JFK. I think in this case, you'd really need to determine whether or not there is a need for Rockaways riders to see an increase in service in order to justify the change. At the end of the day, the needs to determine whether there is a net benefit by increasing service to the Rockaways in exchange for taking away express service from Ozone.

 

@Skipper: You would be surprised at the number of average Joes who take cabs to/from the airport. Mass transit is not "reasonable" if you're:

 

A. Traveling with a family, especially small children

B. Traveling at ungodly hours of the morning or night. Seriously, who wants to take a train home after a five hour flight from SFO that lands at 5:30 AM?

C. Traveling with large amounts of luggage

D. A tourist. 

E. In a rush

 

As for your luggage question, I implore you to go to Terminals 1, 4 and 7 (which mostly house international flights) and see the obscenely sized luggage that people bring, especially when they're going to visit relatives.   

[Porter]

A. Traveling with a family, especially small children

B. Traveling at ungodly hours of the morning or night. Seriously, who wants to take a train home after a five hour flight from SFO that lands at 5:30 AM?

C. Traveling with large amounts of luggage

D. A tourist. 

E. In a rush

 

A. I grew up in San Francisco, so yeah, my dad would foot the bill for the family to get to SFO from the avenues.

B. Ungodly hours of the morning or night from SFO to JFK? You just perfectly described me (see above), pretty much twice a year at least! I just suck it up and take the anyway, and it was totally fine and comfortable. What wasn't totally fine was suffering through a Lefferts train passing by instead. You see, coming from Fulton Street, there have been (seemingly) more trains coming from Brooklyn than going to Brooklyn, adding to the frustration.

C. Usually not me, but I have been through hell carrying several very heavy bags of audio equipment to the airport via the subway. It was, admittedly, a pain in the ass, but I did it.

D. Fortunately not me.

E. In a rush, the last thing I want is a taxicab to JFK. The (once you find one bound for Far Rockaway) is so much faster considering the rush hour traffic (which is when I tend to travel).

[YankeesPwnMets]

Because it works for you doesn't mean it works for all families. It costs a family of five $39 to take mass transit compared to $52 for a yellow cab. If you know the right car service companies, you can easily get a ride for $45. Also, just because you did it doesn't mean everyone wants to take the subway at ridiculous hours with luggage. I am a PM at a tech company and I hop back and forth between East and West on a monthly basis. The commute gets old quick. I like to get in a car and relax for the next 40 minutes rather lug stuff to the AirTrain, then get on the , transfer to the and then walk home. Especially in crap weather. 

 

I stand by my previous point: I don't think the TA should be doing this just for increased service to JFK. I don't think the demand warrants extra supply. The TA needs to figure out whether or not it is worth cutting express from Ozone for the benefit of Rockaways. If the MTA eventually decides it makes sense to bring the to Lefferts and the full time to the Rockaways, they'll do it. IMHO, it makes zero sense to do it just because JFK travelers want to leave home 10 minutes later than they currently do. 

 

We give shit to the for raising fares and yada yada yada, but when you look at our map, our service makes sense. There isn't a single line today that doesn't make sense the way it's currently implemented. The is a reason why lines like the brown (which some of you have a bizarre obsession over), the QJ, the , and countless other lines no longer exist is because they made no sense. Love or hate the MTA, over time, they know what to get rid of, what to keep and what to change. And once again, I defer to the (MTA)'s judgement regarding this proposal. Considering the fact that this proposal has come up many, many times in the past without any action, my assumption is that the MTA doesn't believe this proposal makes sense either. 

[bobtehpanda]

 

• To/From JFK and any location in Manhattan:
  • Onscreen rate is ‘Rate #02 – JFK Airport.’
  • This is a flat fare of $52 plus tolls, the 50-cent MTA State Surcharge, the 30-cent Improvement Surcharge, and $4.50 rush hour surcharge (4 PM to 8 PM weekdays, excluding legal holidays).
  • Passenger is responsible for paying all tolls.
  • Please tip your driver for safety and good service.

A taxicab is completely out of the question unless you're on the company's dime or you're wealthy (or don't mind squandering your money). Mass transit is the only affordable yet reasonable option. How many suitcases do people carry, anyway? This isn't even to mention the insane traffic that will make the taxicab (or any other vehicle) slower than rails (frustratingly so, in my experience).

 

to Far Rockaway, to Lefferts. It just makes damn sense.

 

 

The weight limit for a checked bag is usually somewhere around 31kg. Given the state of ADA accessibility in the subway today, lugging that around, particularly if you are traveling during rush and need to transfer from somewhere else, is a massive PITA. A cab fare is a small pittance compared to the hospital bill of injuring yourself hoisting up luggage.

 

The LIRR is better, but the LIRR is also $14 to the airport with the AirTrain (actually low compared to other metropolises with airport service), so if you're traveling in a group of 3 or more you may as well take the cab.

[checkmatechamp13]

Okay, sure, fine, as long as it only serves the Cross Bay corridor and not Liberty Avenue. If northern Jamaica can live with the and Bay Ridge with the , Ozone Park will be just fine with the .

 

The thing is it's not just about Ozone Park: It's also about the extra cost. Right now, I see plenty of riders take the Rockaway to Rockaway Blvd and then wait for the Lefferts , so it's not like there's something special about Ozone Park residents that they're obsessed with one-seat rides.

 

The question is: Is it worth the extra cost? Remember, you're extending all the Lefferts (A)s to the Rockaways and all the trains to Lefferts, and in exchange, the only cost savings you can achieve are from removing the Rockaway Park shuttle. So there's a net cost attached to this proposal.

 

Do I personally think it's worth it? Yes because I do think those areas warrant more than 20 minute off-peak headways. I mean the covers the northern part of Woodhaven/Richmond Hill and has 10 minute headways during off-peak hours. The Rockaways have lower ridership, but at the same time, that long run over Jamaica Bay is no different from say, the express run towards the Northeast Bronx (which is also relatively low-ridership and low-density).

 

BTW, JFK riders can take the Lefferts to the Q10 bus instead of waiting for a Rockaway . It's cheaper, and time-wise it's probably about the same.

[bobtehpanda]

To add onto it, the net cost is more than just the cost of expanding service hours; aren't we kinda short on cars for the foreseeable future?

[GojiMet86]

From Astoria, I've done $35 on the Ecua livery cars.

 

Last week I saw crowds form at Lefferts Blvd for the Rockaway train, but that happened because they had back-to-back Lefferts trains.

[checkmatechamp13]

From Astoria, I've done $35 on the Ecua livery cars.

 

Last week I saw crowds form at Lefferts Blvd for the Rockaway train, but that happened because they had back-to-back Lefferts trains.

 

You mean Rockaway Blvd?

[GojiMet86]

You mean Rockaway Blvd?

 

Yeah.

[UTC Bus Roster]

Is that why the R10s and R30s on the (A)/© used to have the split-color (grey/brown) stickers under the number plates?

 

For reference:

http://www.nycsubway.org/perl/show?70052

http://www.nycsubway.org/perl/show?24352

The split stickers were actually white & orange. (white for Pitkin & orange for 207 St.) The R-38 equipment had a solid orange sticker because they were solely maintained at 207 St. The R-44 cars were maintained at Pitkin. Currently, the R-32 is maintained at 207 St. Before the retirement of the R-38 cars, the R-32 was maintained at Pitkin.

It's a 50-50 split between trains

It's  50-50 split during non-rush hours only. During rush hours, it's a 2 to 1, and as much as a 3 to 1 split favoring Lefferts. I know this, as I've worked the A & C lines for many year.

[UTC Bus Roster]

They really need to bring the A/C service configuration back that we had before they cut all C trains to Euclid in 1992. Alternate C trains operated to Rockaway Park all day M-F. This way people from Rockaway Park got through service, and were able to transfer to the A express at Broad Channel. This would greatly increase the service frequency to the airport & Aqueduct. If you wanted, you could even turn the Euclid C trains (every other C train) at Howard Beach, giving the airport even more service. This could be done with a much lesser cost, as you're not adding as many trains as the other proposals, and you're not pissing off the Lefferts clientele. 

I operated C trains to Rockaway Park M-F, and this arrangement worked much better than the current service arrangement does.

Currently, the Rockaway Park branch has only 5 A express trains leaving there in the AM rush at 20 minute intervals, and the same 5 A express arriving there in the PM rush. This would be totally unacceptable for me if I lived on that branch.

[Wallyhorse]

They really need to bring the A/C service configuration back that we had before they cut all C trains to Euclid in 1992. Alternate C trains operated to Rockaway Park all day M-F. This way people from Rockaway Park got through service, and were able to transfer to the A express at Broad Channel. This would greatly increase the service frequency to the airport & Aqueduct. If you wanted, you could even turn the Euclid C trains (every other C train) at Howard Beach, giving the airport even more service. This could be done with a much lesser cost, as you're not adding as many trains as the other proposals, and you're not pissing off the Lefferts clientele. 

I operated C trains to Rockaway Park M-F, and this arrangement worked much better than the current service arrangement does.

Currently, the Rockaway Park branch has only 5 A express trains leaving there in the AM rush at 20 minute intervals, and the same 5 A express arriving there in the PM rush. This would be totally unacceptable for me if I lived on that branch.

That might very well be a compromise if those along Leffers refuse to give up their precious one-seat express ride, though if you did have the to Lefferts and the solely to The Rockaways, those riders could simply transfer to the on the same platform anywhere between Rockaway Parkway and Grant Avenue and across the platform at Euclid.   Part of such a compromise could be where the becomes a 24/7 line (replacing the late-night Lefferts shuttle) and you have a limited number of peak-direction trains run to Lefferts (10-12 total in the peak direction during rush hours, continuing to 207 in the morning and beginning there in the afternoon).  

 

In this scenario, so that each half of The Rockaways has service every 30 minutes, the would be the only line to have 4 TPH total of late-night service (2 TPH each to Far Rockaway and Rockaway Park).

[bstar1]

They should make some ©'s go to Lefferts Blvd.

[Around the Horn]

They really need to bring the A/C service configuration back that we had before they cut all C trains to Euclid in 1992. Alternate C trains operated to Rockaway Park all day M-F. This way people from Rockaway Park got through service, and were able to transfer to the A express at Broad Channel. This would greatly increase the service frequency to the airport & Aqueduct. If you wanted, you could even turn the Euclid C trains (every other C train) at Howard Beach, giving the airport even more service. This could be done with a much lesser cost, as you're not adding as many trains as the other proposals, and you're not pissing off the Lefferts clientele. 

I operated C trains to Rockaway Park M-F, and this arrangement worked much better than the current service arrangement does.

Currently, the Rockaway Park branch has only 5 A express trains leaving there in the AM rush at 20 minute intervals, and the same 5 A express arriving there in the PM rush. This would be totally unacceptable for me if I lived on that branch.

 

No thanks... That route was waaaaay too long and we don't have the cars for it at the moment...

[collagedchen300]

They should make some ©'s go to Lefferts Blvd.

I strongly agree with you. Also could run express in order to meet your proposal, so the should be extended to Euclid Avenue to serve local service via IRT Fulton line.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[checkmatechamp13]

That might very well be a compromise if those along Leffers refuse to give up their precious one-seat express ride, though if you did have the to Lefferts and the solely to The Rockaways, those riders could simply transfer to the on the same platform anywhere between Rockaway Parkway and Grant Avenue and across the platform at Euclid.   Part of such a compromise could be where the becomes a 24/7 line (replacing the late-night Lefferts shuttle) and you have a limited number of peak-direction trains run to Lefferts (10-12 total in the peak direction during rush hours, continuing to 207 in the morning and beginning there in the afternoon).  

 

In this scenario, so that each half of The Rockaways has service every 30 minutes, the would be the only line to have 4 TPH total of late-night service (2 TPH each to Far Rockaway and Rockaway Park).

 

I want to know who these mythical Lefferts riders are who would complain (or have complained) about any proposal to send the to Lefferts. For example, there were speakers on the record who complained about the elimination of the JFK Express for their own selfish/racist reasons. Can you find anything comparable where the MTA proposed extending the to Lefferts? Speaker records from a public hearing, community board meeting minutes, records at a policians' office, anything? 

 

I hear all these comments "Oh, if we make such and such a transit change, the residents of a certain community will complain". Where's the proof? I see plenty of people take the Rockaway to Rockaway Blvd and then either wait for the Lefferts or go downstairs for the Q112 to their final destination. Ozone Park is a working-class immigrant community nowadays. The people there have better things to do than complain about a change that would result in shorter wait times overall.

 

I wouldn't be surprised if it was MTA reps starting these rumors about NIMBYs as an excuse to save those extra few trainsets and crews that would be required for the extension (like I said, the only way that would end up being cost-neutral is if the equivalent amount of (A)s were cut back from Lefferts to Euclid. Sending those trains to the Rockaways would provide more service, and would be a good use of money, but it would cost money nonetheless)

 

I've heard the most ridiculous nonsense about NIMBYs from MTA reps' mouths (some of which was repeated like a parrot by some members on here). I'm like "You're telling me about NIMBYs in my own neighborhood and meanwhile I presented this proposal to numerous community boards, civic associations (i.e. Places where NIMBYs come to organize and make their noise), and the proposal has received overwhelming support and numerous signatures on a petition, etc.

 

I strongly agree with you. Also could run express in order to meet your proposal, so the should be extended to Euclid Avenue to serve local service via IRT Fulton line.

 

You mean the IND Fulton Line.

 

And having all 3 8th Avenue services run to Brooklyn is a recipe for disaster. One signal problem by say, Jay Street or even further out around Euclid, and everybody is screwed.

[BreeddekalbL]

I don't agree with running the into Brooklyn cause like checkmate says 1 signal problem and it will bring the whole 8th ave line to it's knees 

 

also this article suggests with the trains going half to far rock and the other half going to 116  instead why not half go out to far rock and half to short turn at Howard beach JFK

a while back i asked about the math regarding the trains and someone said it could be done in current conditions with extending service and modifying service as suggested and debated

[Caelestor]

During the rush, and trains run about 4 minutes apart. There is not enough capacity in the Cranberry Tunnel to run both services into Brooklyn. Though I think trains should terminate at Euclid, there is an argument that the Lefferts Blvd branch could benefit from having twice as much service. Other subway lines have priority for those subway cars, however.

 

If the Rockaways wants more service, the best solution is to reactivate the old LIRR branch. Then the Rockaway Park shuttle trains can run into Queens at all times, doubling service at Howard Beach. Some trains would be rerouted to Lefferts Blvd for more reasonable headways as well.

[Wallyhorse]

I want to know who these mythical Lefferts riders are who would complain (or have complained) about any proposal to send the to Lefferts. For example, there were speakers on the record who complained about the elimination of the JFK Express for their own selfish/racist reasons. Can you find anything comparable where the MTA proposed extending the to Lefferts? Speaker records from a public hearing, community board meeting minutes, records at a policians' office, anything? 

 

I hear all these comments "Oh, if we make such and such a transit change, the residents of a certain community will complain". Where's the proof? I see plenty of people take the Rockaway to Rockaway Blvd and then either wait for the Lefferts or go downstairs for the Q112 to their final destination. Ozone Park is a working-class immigrant community nowadays. The people there have better things to do than complain about a change that would result in shorter wait times overall.

 

I wouldn't be surprised if it was MTA reps starting these rumors about NIMBYs as an excuse to save those extra few trainsets and crews that would be required for the extension (like I said, the only way that would end up being cost-neutral is if the equivalent amount of (A)s were cut back from Lefferts to Euclid. Sending those trains to the Rockaways would provide more service, and would be a good use of money, but it would cost money nonetheless)

 

I've heard the most ridiculous nonsense about NIMBYs from MTA reps' mouths (some of which was repeated like a parrot by some members on here). I'm like "You're telling me about NIMBYs in my own neighborhood and meanwhile I presented this proposal to numerous community boards, civic associations (i.e. Places where NIMBYs come to organize and make their noise), and the proposal has received overwhelming support and numerous signatures on a petition, etc.

 

 

You mean the IND Fulton Line.

 

And having all 3 8th Avenue services run to Brooklyn is a recipe for disaster. One signal problem by say, Jay Street or even further out around Euclid, and everybody is screwed.

The part about the to Lefferts and those who would protest that are well-known to many of us here.  It's been brought up many times that those on Lefferts don't want to give up their precious one-seat express ride to Manhattan (and the pols have as I remember made that clear before as well), which is why there is the split east of Rockaway Boulevard.  Those along Lefferts would howl if they either had to take the local or switch to a "crowded" train at Rockaway Boulevard or anywhere else before Euclid Avenue (even though you would have twice as many trains coming from the Rockaways).  

 

And you can't have three lines through Cranberry,  If you want three lines in Brooklyn, close the Transit Museum, reopen it as a subway station at Court Street and have a Fulton Local run between Court and Euclid (extended to Lefferts late nights to replace the shuttle).  That is something I have mentioned before I would actually do with the SAS via a new Schermerhorn Street Tunnel where the would come in via the current Transit Museum (that would be moved elsewhere) at Court Street and then stop on the as-present unused platform at Hoyt-Schermerhorn before becoming the Fulton Street local.

[collagedchen300]

During the rush, and trains run about 4 minutes apart. There is not enough capacity in the Cranberry Tunnel to run both services into Brooklyn. Though I think trains should terminate at Euclid, there is an argument that the Lefferts Blvd branch could benefit from having twice as much service. Other subway lines have priority for those subway cars, however.

 

If the Rockaways wants more service, the best solution is to reactivate the old LIRR branch. Then the Rockaway Park shuttle trains can run into Queens at all times, doubling service at Howard Beach. Some trains would be rerouted to Lefferts Blvd for more reasonable headways as well.

Extension via the abandoned Rockaway LIRR branch is Union Tpke's good idea. Then, we need the extended there from Queens Blvd line, then let take care the rest of the stops.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Wallyhorse]

Extension via the abandoned Rockaway LIRR branch is Union Tpke's good idea. Then, we need the extended there from Queens Blvd line, then let take care the rest of the stops.

I have myself many times brought up the idea of the Rockaway Beach Branch as a second line, mainly because it would also provide a second subway line for both the Racino at Aqueduct and Howard Beach-JFK Airport in addition to obviously The Rockaways.  How I would do that I posted in the Proposals/Ideas thread.

 

[checkmatechamp13]

The part about the to Lefferts and those who would protest that are well-known to many of us here.  It's been brought up many times that those on Lefferts don't want to give up their precious one-seat express ride to Manhattan (and the pols have as I remember made that clear before as well), which is why there is the split east of Rockaway Boulevard.  Those along Lefferts would howl if they either had to take the local or switch to a "crowded" train at Rockaway Boulevard or anywhere else before Euclid Avenue (even though you would have twice as many trains coming from the Rockaways).  

 

And you can't have three lines through Cranberry,  If you want three lines in Brooklyn, close the Transit Museum, reopen it as a subway station at Court Street and have a Fulton Local run between Court and Euclid (extended to Lefferts late nights to replace the shuttle).  That is something I have mentioned before I would actually do with the SAS via a new Schermerhorn Street Tunnel where the would come in via the current Transit Museum (that would be moved elsewhere) at Court Street and then stop on the as-present unused platform at Hoyt-Schermerhorn before becoming the Fulton Street local.

 

Where? You have any news articles about those politicians? YouTube videos? Anything?

 

And also, how long ago did these politicians make these statements? I really don't care about what a politician has to say who left office before I was born, and for all I know, probably moved to a new neighborhood. 

[Lance]

Since this idea has come up again, I figured I might as well give my opinion on the matter. Shifting from my previous stance on the subject, I now believe it would be in everyone's best interest if the the was extended to Lefferts Blvd in lieu of the , which would be shifted entirely to the Rockaways. Let's look at the pros and cons of the proposal and the current setup with the latter first (apologies if this is repeated from elsewhere):

 

Split service between Lefferts Blvd/Rockaways

Pros:

 - direct 19/7 express service between Lefferts Blvd and Brooklyn/Manhattan

Cons:

 - very infrequent service for Rockaways/Lefferts riders

 - missed connections between , Rockaway Park shuttle

 

to Lefferts Blvd/(A) to Rockaways

Pros:

 - expanded service to both primary branches of current with reduced wait times*

 - reduced confusion on terminus of line and trains

Cons:

 - loss of one-seat express service to/from Lefferts Blvd

 

While there will likely be some who'll transfer at the first opportunity for the express, I'm sure the majority will still welcome such an improvement over the current setup. Riders shouldn't be subjugated to 15+ minute scheduled headways, even on the eastern and southern fringes of the subway. That's why after giving the whole idea some thought, I tend to lean with Checkmatechamp on this. Politicians worth their salt will push for service improvements and not the status quo, especially when it's apparent the status quo is not working for said politicians' constituents.

 

*This assumes all overall intervals across both lines remain the same and cost-neutral approaches are not taken.

[biGC323232]

Since this idea has come up again, I figured I might as well give my opinion on the matter. Shifting from my previous stance on the subject, I now believe it would be in everyone's best interest if the the was extended to Lefferts Blvd in lieu of the , which would be shifted entirely to the Rockaways. Let's look at the pros and cons of the proposal and the current setup with the latter first (apologies if this is repeated from elsewhere):

 

Split service between Lefferts Blvd/Rockaways

Pros:

 - direct 19/7 express service between Lefferts Blvd and Brooklyn/Manhattan

Cons:

 - very infrequent service for Rockaways/Lefferts riders

 - missed connections between , Rockaway Park shuttle

 

to Lefferts Blvd/(A) to Rockaways

Pros:

 - expanded service to both primary branches of current with reduced wait times*

 - reduced confusion on terminus of line and trains

Cons:

 - loss of one-seat express service to/from Lefferts Blvd

 

While there will likely be some who'll transfer at the first opportunity for the express, I'm sure the majority will still welcome such an improvement over the current setup. Riders shouldn't be subjugated to 15+ minute scheduled headways, even on the eastern and southern fringes of the subway. That's why after giving the whole idea some thought, I tend to lean with Checkmatechamp on this. Politicians worth their salt will push for service improvements and not the status quo, especially when it's apparent the status quo is not working for said politicians' constituents.

 

*This assumes all overall intervals across both lines remain the same and cost-neutral approaches are not taken.

Good Break down lance and checkmate....I agree with all this about   trains going to lefferts...Its would be less confusing for riders leaving manhattan knowing all  (A)'s is for the rockaways and   's are for lefferts...I' ll Eliminate the rockaway shuttle have one seat express from that area as well as far rockaway...Late nights have a   shuttle to euclid a shuttle    to broad channel and a 24/7    207st and far rock lcl...Thats how ill do it...

[Wallyhorse]

Since this idea has come up again, I figured I might as well give my opinion on the matter. Shifting from my previous stance on the subject, I now believe it would be in everyone's best interest if the the was extended to Lefferts Blvd in lieu of the , which would be shifted entirely to the Rockaways. Let's look at the pros and cons of the proposal and the current setup with the latter first (apologies if this is repeated from elsewhere):

 

Split service between Lefferts Blvd/Rockaways

Pros:

 - direct 19/7 express service between Lefferts Blvd and Brooklyn/Manhattan

Cons:

 - very infrequent service for Rockaways/Lefferts riders

 - missed connections between , Rockaway Park shuttle

 

to Lefferts Blvd/(A) to Rockaways

Pros:

 - expanded service to both primary branches of current with reduced wait times*

 - reduced confusion on terminus of line and trains

Cons:

 - loss of one-seat express service to/from Lefferts Blvd

 

While there will likely be some who'll transfer at the first opportunity for the express, I'm sure the majority will still welcome such an improvement over the current setup. Riders shouldn't be subjugated to 15+ minute scheduled headways, even on the eastern and southern fringes of the subway. That's why after giving the whole idea some thought, I tend to lean with Checkmatechamp on this. Politicians worth their salt will push for service improvements and not the status quo, especially when it's apparent the status quo is not working for said politicians' constituents.

 

*This assumes all overall intervals across both lines remain the same and cost-neutral approaches are not taken.

This I agree with 100%.  Those who would be upset about losing their one-seat express ride from Lefferts can be placated to by having a handful of rush-hour peak-direction only trains from/to Lefferts.   That might be the compromise, especially if a second compromise is the becomes a 24/7 line and eliminates the late-night shuttle (while late nights, the becomes a combined 4 TPH line (split evenly between Far Rockaway and Rockaway Park) from the Rockaways).