Jump to content

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


R32 3838

Recommended Posts

Funny… it wasn’t until P3F’s comment that I thought sending (A) trains to the other Rockaway branch would have any merit. Certainly, there are other reasons to send some of those (A) trains turning at Howard Beach to Rockaway Beach instead: terminating trains would have to share a track with through trains, causing congestion.

I would think you would need to rebuild Howard Beach into a three-platform station so it can be a terminal station.  That might be doable if you did keep the Rockaway Park shuttle BUT extended it to Howard Beach to meet all other trains there (if some (A) trains terminated at Howard Beach).

 

Otherwise, the 5/3 split I noted probably would be best.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Replies 194
  • Created
  • Last Reply

And what about the (C)? Ok, you extend it to Lefferts, giving the branch a full service instead of the "half-service" it currently has. But then you have to have the (A) and (C) trains merge yet again at both Euclid and Rockaway Blvd - on top of the two existing mergers at Canal and Hoyt. Is that really such an improvement over the current A/C service patterns? Won't the two extra merges limit the number of trains per hour even more so than the current pattern?

 

Another possible idea, is that since rush hour service is generally adequate (in terms of frequency) on both branches, you could have the (C) terminate at Euclid during rush hours, so it wouldn't have that extra merge with the (A), and then off-peak you could run the (C) to Lefferts and the (A) to the Rockaways.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rockaway Boulevard should have been rebuilt to an express setup instead of being renovated as-is. This way, cross platform transfers could be scheduled, so that Lefferts customers on the (C) still get easy express access to Manhattan.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

By that logic, the entire Liberty Ave segment should have been either built with the third track on the el connecting to the express tracks east of Euclid instead of the yard leads north of Pitkin, or rebuilt to handle four tracks.  It could definitely have been done in the 1950s when they had the chance, but I doubt this is something that could easily or even willingly be done by the agency today.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

By that logic, the entire Liberty Ave segment should have been either built with the third track on the el connecting to the express tracks east of Euclid instead of the yard leads north of Pitkin, or rebuilt to handle four tracks.  It could definitely have been done in the 1950s when they had the chance, but I doubt this is something that could easily or even willingly be done by the agency today.

They certainly could have done it then, but not now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was thinking about the situation. Is it possible that people don't use the Rockaway Park branch simply because the service is poor? According to MTA's Trip Planner, the trip via the Q52 or Q53 to Rockaway Boulevard is actually about two minutes faster than taking the shuttle to Broad Channel and then transferring. Since those two buses stop by every station on the Rockaway Park branch, they directly compete with the shuttle. While the buses run every 5 minutes during the peak of rush hour, the best headway the Rockaway Park branch sees is 8 minutes (16 minutes between shuttles; (A) trains fill in the gaps). Since buses are also trackable on Bus Time, while the (A) and (S) are not on Subway Time, it's not hard to see why the shuttle stops get little ridership -- there are simply more convenient options available.

 

At the DOT Queens meeting in Ridgewood someone at my table who lived in the Rockaways they said that they drive to Broad Channel and take the A or they drive to Sheepshead Bay and take the B.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

At the DOT Queens meeting in Ridgewood someone at my table who lived in the Rockaways they said that they drive to Broad Channel and take the A or they drive to Sheepshead Bay and take the B.

Interesting.  This is another reason why I would do a 5/3 split with all (A) trains to the Rockaways as previously noted. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

By that logic, the entire Liberty Ave segment should have been either built with the third track on the el connecting to the express tracks east of Euclid instead of the yard leads north of Pitkin, or rebuilt to handle four tracks.  It could definitely have been done in the 1950s when they had the chance, but I doubt this is something that could easily or even willingly be done by the agency today.

I doubt there was much interest or desire to rebuild the Liberty Ave segment to accommodate four tracks. This is the same TA that believed there was little need for express service in Brooklyn outside of rush hours. The TA simply wanted to utilize the existing Liberty Ave segment from the Dual Contracts era and connect it to lower half of the recently acquired Rockaway Beach line. Anything else would've likely required much more effort.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I doubt there was much interest or desire to rebuild the Liberty Ave segment to accommodate four tracks. This is the same TA that believed there was little need for express service in Brooklyn outside of rush hours. The TA simply wanted to utilize the existing Liberty Ave segment from the Dual Contracts era and connect it to lower half of the recently acquired Rockaway Beach line. Anything else would've likely required much more effort.

That makes sense, as it was a completely different time and place.  People forget it was not until 1999 that the (A) operated express on weekends and the (C) went into Brooklyn!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another possible idea, is that since rush hour service is generally adequate (in terms of frequency) on both branches, you could have the (C) terminate at Euclid during rush hours, so it wouldn't have that extra merge with the (A), and then off-peak you could run the (C) to Lefferts and the (A) to the Rockaways.

Per the current schedules, the (C) does seem to run consistently at 6 tph throughout the day, while the (A) drops down to 6-8 tph midday, so running the (C) to Lefferts and the (A) exclusively to the Rockaways may work outside of rush hours as long as the current (A) and (C) frequencies aren't tightened. Otherwise, you risk the same merging delays at Euclid that would be had during rush hours. And then, what about rush hour service? Do we keep the current (A) service pattern with its three Queens terminals and very limited service to Rockaway Park? I presume the shuttle will almost certainly need to be kept to augment the Rockaway Park (A). I don't think anyone would want that service running only 3 tph at all times.

Interesting. This is another reason why I would do a 5/3 split with all (A) trains to the Rockaways as previously noted.

It's not a very good reason. Do we know if there are others like this man who risk Belt Parkway delays by driving all the way to Sheepshead Bay for the (B) train? That's not a short drive from the Rockaways. He may not even do it during rush hours...or even every day for that matter. We just don't know.

 

Also, to do your 5/3 split, the (A) would have to run no less than 8 tph. The current schedule has it running roughly 6-8 tph outside of rush hours. I know 5/3 is how you're portioning it out, but just think about how infrequently each branch would see a train if less than eight (A) trains per hour run to/from the Rockaways. The Rockaway Park (S) would almost certainly need to be retained to run any kind of acceptable service on the Rockaway Park branch. Unless the (C) were to be extended to Rockaway Park instead of Lefferts (like it was prior to 1993, albeit during rush hours only). Or if (a big IF, of course), the (M) or (R) train were to be extended down a rebuilt Rockaway Beach branch to Rock Park, which could then replace the (A) and/or Rock Park (S). But that's clearly not a short-term solution. And the (C) to Rock Park would require merging with the (A) at Euclid and Rockaway Blvd, just like if it were to be extended to Lefferts, so that could be problematic during rush hours.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Per the current schedules, the (C) does seem to run consistently at 6 tph throughout the day, while the (A) drops down to 6-8 tph midday, so running the (C) to Lefferts and the (A) exclusively to the Rockaways may work outside of rush hours as long as the current (A) and (C) frequencies aren't tightened. Otherwise, you risk the same merging delays at Euclid that would be had during rush hours. And then, what about rush hour service? Do we keep the current (A) service pattern with its three Queens terminals and very limited service to Rockaway Park? I presume the shuttle will almost certainly need to be kept to augment the Rockaway Park (A). I don't think anyone would want that service running only 3 tph at all times.

It's not a very good reason. Do we know if there are others like this man who risk Belt Parkway delays by driving all the way to Sheepshead Bay for the (B) train? That's not a short drive from the Rockaways. He may not even do it during rush hours...or even every day for that matter. We just don't know.

 

Also, to do your 5/3 split, the (A) would have to run no less than 8 tph. The current schedule has it running roughly 6-8 tph outside of rush hours. I know 5/3 is how you're portioning it out, but just think about how infrequently each branch would see a train if less than eight (A) trains per hour run to/from the Rockaways. The Rockaway Park (S) would almost certainly need to be retained to run any kind of acceptable service on the Rockaway Park branch. Unless the (C) were to be extended to Rockaway Park instead of Lefferts (like it was prior to 1993, albeit during rush hours only). Or if (a big IF, of course), the (M) or (R) train were to be extended down a rebuilt Rockaway Beach branch to Rock Park, which could then replace the (A) and/or Rock Park (S). But that's clearly not a short-term solution. And the (C) to Rock Park would require merging with the (A) at Euclid and Rockaway Blvd, just like if it were to be extended to Lefferts, so that could be problematic during rush hours.

If the (A) is at 7 TPH, then that split comes down to 4/3.  At no point other than overnights would it be less than 3 TPH on each branch as I would do it, meaning at least 6 TPH outside of late nights.

 

As for Lefferts, any defecit from the (C) would be covered by a limited number of peak-direction (A) trains that begin or end at Lefferts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the (A) is at 7 TPH, then that split comes down to 4/3.  At no point other than overnights would it be less than 3 TPH on each branch as I would do it, meaning at least 6 TPH outside of late nights.

 

As for Lefferts, any defecit from the (C) would be covered by a limited number of peak-direction (A) trains that begin or end at Lefferts.

You could reduce the cost by using the same TPH as now but with the Roackaway Beach shuttle at night. The Ozone Park branch would get a (C) shuttle at night to Euclid Avenue; I don’t see why the lower-ridership Rockaway Beach branch should have direct service at night.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You could reduce the cost by using the same TPH as now but with the Roackaway Beach shuttle at night. The Ozone Park branch would get a (C) shuttle at night to Euclid Avenue; I don’t see why the lower-ridership Rockaway Beach branch should have direct service at night.

Back then they had that whole "Rockaway Round Robin" shuttle spiel, and that was a total disaster. If you missed the train at some stations, you had to wait double the amount of time (40 minutes) for the next train to make its way to you.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You could reduce the cost by using the same TPH as now but with the Roackaway Beach shuttle at night. The Ozone Park branch would get a (C) shuttle at night to Euclid Avenue; I don’t see why the lower-ridership Rockaway Beach branch should have direct service at night.

 

(**cough**) or extend it to Broadway Junction via the express tracks to give residents the option of the (J) & (L).

 

Per the current schedules, the (C) does seem to run consistently at 6 tph throughout the day, while the (A) drops down to 6-8 tph midday, so running the (C) to Lefferts and the (A) exclusively to the Rockaways may work outside of rush hours as long as the current (A) and (C) frequencies aren't tightened. Otherwise, you risk the same merging delays at Euclid that would be had during rush hours. And then, what about rush hour service? Do we keep the current (A) service pattern with its three Queens terminals and very limited service to Rockaway Park? I presume the shuttle will almost certainly need to be kept to augment the Rockaway Park (A). I don't think anyone would want that service running only 3 tph at all times.

 

Hmm, that's a good point

 

The way I was thinking was something like this:

 

Middays/Evenings/Weekends: (A) branched to Far Rockaway/Rockaway Park, (C) to Lefferts, no Rockaway Park shuttle

 

Late Nights: Lefferts shuttle extended to Broadway Junction, Rockaway Park shuttle left as-is, (A) left as-is.

 

So now we come to the rush hour. The problem is that peak direction service is fairly frequent out of Lefferts, reverse-peak not so much. Ideally, I would send the reverse-peak ©s to Lefferts, and have them return as (A)s (and have fresh (C) trains from Pitkin Yard run the peak direction service. Obviously the pattern would be reversed in the PM). How well that would work in practice in terms of addressing passenger confusion, I'm not sure. I can picture passengers turning down (A) trains for (C) trains and vice versa.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the (A) is at 7 TPH, then that split comes down to 4/3. At no point other than overnights would it be less than 3 TPH on each branch as I would do it, meaning at least 6 TPH outside of late nights.

As for Lefferts, any defecit from the (C) would be covered by a limited number of peak-direction (A) trains that begin or end at Lefferts.

And that's why your plan won't work. With 6-7 tph, you're giving both Rockaway branches equal or near-equal service. But the Far Rockaway branch has significantly higher ridership than the Rockaway Park branch. It would possibly result in a service cut to Far Rockaway. Why would you want to do that? And you're providing only "a limited number" of peak-direction (A) trains to Lefferts (what about the other direction?) which would result in over-serving the Rockaway Park branch during peak hours and creating a new choke point at Euclid Ave. It's bad enough that the (A) and (C) have to merge and be delayed at Canal and Hoyt/Schermerhorn. Now you want to have merging delays at Euclid Ave and Rockaway Blvd too? During peak hours as well as off-peak hours. What do we have to gain by doing that?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

i disagree in your plan checkmate what would happen to the rush hour (A) to rockaway park? or would those go to lefferts?

 

I was about to say stays as-is (3 TPH with Rockaway Park Shuttles filling in the gaps), but then I realized that reverse-peak service out of the Rockaways isn't that frequent. That would be a weird service pattern, (A) trains go to Rockaway Park peak direction and midday/evening/weekend periods, but not peak direction rush hours. Hmm....I'll have to think this through again. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And that's why your plan won't work. With 6-7 tph, you're giving both Rockaway branches equal or near-equal service. But the Far Rockaway branch has significantly higher ridership than the Rockaway Park branch. It would possibly result in a service cut to Far Rockaway. Why would you want to do that? And you're providing only "a limited number" of peak-direction (A) trains to Lefferts (what about the other direction?) which would result in over-serving the Rockaway Park branch during peak hours and creating a new choke point at Euclid Ave. It's bad enough that the (A) and (C) have to merge and be delayed at Canal and Hoyt/Schermerhorn. Now you want to have merging delays at Euclid Ave and Rockaway Blvd too? During peak hours as well as off-peak hours. What do we have to gain by doing that?

As it is now, once it goes below 6 TPH Far Rockaway gets less than 3 TPH, so my version guarantees that other than overnights at all times (late nights, both branches would get 2 TPH for 4 TPH total).

 

If you want to keep Far Rockaway late nights at 3 TPH, you could keep the Rockaway Park shuttle late nights, BUT I would extend that to Euclid to eliminate the transfers at Broad Channel and allow for a two-seat ride on both branches at all times between Rockaway Park and Lefferts for example.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you want to keep Far Rockaway late nights at 3 TPH, you could keep the Rockaway Park shuttle late nights, BUT I would extend that to Euclid to eliminate the transfers at Broad Channel and allow for a two-seat ride on both branches at all times between Rockaway Park and Lefferts for example.  

 

Remind me who would want to do that in the middle of the night (who wouldn't be able to just take the Q53 to the Lefferts shuttle)

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.