Why does split service on the (A) work but won't on other lines?

[Italianstallion]

5 minutes ago, BM5 via Woodhaven said:

There are two. 11:02 to 11:32, and then 12:02 (at the top of the schedule).

Also, you're only looking at the weekday schedule. Take a closer look at the Sunday schedule as well. After 10 PM, the headways are half-hourly until 12:02 AM Monday morning. So I'm not wrong in saying that.

You're right. And there's actually a 32-minute interval on Sunday.

[Caelestor]

The solution is to start the Lefferts shuttle early so that all the trains go to Far Rockaway, ensuring sub-20 minute headways at all times of the day.

That said, the  train is really empty after Howard Beach, so there's really no impetus to push for better service when the rest of the system is struggling during the daytime hours.

[checkmatechamp13]

On 5/3/2018 at 11:16 PM, BM5 via Woodhaven said:

Frequency plays a part in influencing ridership patterns out there too.  Not a lot of people will be willing to wait 20-30 minutes for a train when they can hop on the bus to Jamaica, Elmhurst, of Brooklyn College, and get a faster ride into Manhattan, all with more frequent service. Furthermore, no one in Manhattan (and parts of Brooklyn) wants to play the guessing game to see if they just missed an  to Far Rockaway.

1

Or for that matter take the bus to Ozone Park (Rockaway/Liberty) so you have the option of both branches.

 

[itmaybeokay]

On 5/4/2018 at 2:23 PM, Art Vandelay said:

 Nitpick: Increasing headways is decreasing service frequency. 
Otherwise, I agree. 

you're right, i misspoke

 

[Porter]

to Lefferts, final answer. They can bloody live with it for three stops, heavens...

At most, make the to Lefferts a "rush hour line extension" like the has.

[Lawrence St]

But the already has a part time terminus, which is Rockaway Park-B 116th St. The to Lefferts is the only good idea to solve this problem. I can honestly care less about people along liberty avenue "losing their one seat express ride." It's 4 more stops, it ain't the end of the world. They do the same thing during nights when the Lefferts Shuttle is running.

Back before we started installing countdown clocks on the B divison, it would always be a guessing game as to what train was coming, and the constant sign freezes and bad PA systems on the R46's didn't help at all. The only time a split service like this would actually work is when a line supplements another line (i.e to Neried). I honestly don't know why MTA hasn't done anything to resolve this issue because the frequency is the Rockaways is terrible.

[CenSin]

3 hours ago, Lawrence St said:

I can honestly care less about people along liberty avenue "losing their one seat express ride."

Obligatory diagram about “couldn’t care less” versus “could care less”:

[Lance]

8 hours ago, Lawrence St said:

But the already has a part time terminus, which is Rockaway Park-B 116th St. The to Lefferts is the only good idea to solve this problem. I can honestly care less about people along liberty avenue "losing their one seat express ride." It's 4 more stops, it ain't the end of the world. They do the same thing during nights when the Lefferts Shuttle is running.

Back before we started installing countdown clocks on the B divison, it would always be a guessing game as to what train was coming, and the constant sign freezes and bad PA systems on the R46's didn't help at all. The only time a split service like this would actually work is when a line supplements another line (i.e to Neried). I honestly don't know why MTA hasn't done anything to resolve this issue because the frequency is the Rockaways is terrible.

Every time I see this issue brought up, it seems the only solution for the problem is to send the to Lefferts Blvd. Let's say we do that and give both primary branches of the better service. I can understand giving the Lefferts branch six trains per hour considering how relatively busy that branch is compared to the Rockaway branches. However, if you send all of the present trains, excluding the limited runs to Rockaway Park, to Far Rockaway, you're now give that branch on average, a train every eight minutes. With how low these stations rank in terms of ridership, even a boost in ridership brought in by the improved service levels will likely not be enough to justify that much of a frequency increase.

I believe I have a better solution to this problem. Has anyone considered the idea of increasing overall train service instead? Right now, present scheduled service between Manhattan and Rockaway Blvd is at 7.5 minute intervals during peak periods and 10 minute ones during the off-peak. If we boost those intervals to 5 and 7 respectively, you can easily get 6 trains per hour on the branches at the height of the rush and service approximately every 15 minutes at other times. I know that may not seem all that enticing, especially those off-peak intervals, but it must be considered that historically, the Rockaways have never gotten the levels of service enjoyed by other lines in the system and that's for one major reason: there simply isn't enough riders to justify standard service intervals there. However, if I'm wrong and this service increase prove to not be enough service for the far ends of the , then we should consider other options like extending the  beyond Euclid Av and rerouting all of the trains to the Rockaways, but not before.

[Deucey]

Why not send  to Rockaway, and  to Lefferts?

Or create  from 145th to Rockaway (local to 34th St) and  to Lefferts.  to replace  rush hour in the Bronx,  to 96th St/2nd?

[Lawrence St]

14 hours ago, Lance said:

Every time I see this issue brought up, it seems the only solution for the problem is to send the to Lefferts Blvd. Let's say we do that and give both primary branches of the better service. I can understand giving the Lefferts branch six trains per hour considering how relatively busy that branch is compared to the Rockaway branches. However, if you send all of the present trains, excluding the limited runs to Rockaway Park, to Far Rockaway, you're now give that branch on average, a train every eight minutes. With how low these stations rank in terms of ridership, even a boost in ridership brought in by the improved service levels will likely not be enough to justify that much of a frequency increase.

I believe I have a better solution to this problem. Has anyone considered the idea of increasing overall train service instead? Right now, present scheduled service between Manhattan and Rockaway Blvd is at 7.5 minute intervals during peak periods and 10 minute ones during the off-peak. If we boost those intervals to 5 and 7 respectively, you can easily get 6 trains per hour on the branches at the height of the rush and service approximately every 15 minutes at other times. I know that may not seem all that enticing, especially those off-peak intervals, but it must be considered that historically, the Rockaways have never gotten the levels of service enjoyed by other lines in the system and that's for one major reason: there simply isn't enough riders to justify standard service intervals there. However, if I'm wrong and this service increase prove to not be enough service for the far ends of the , then we should consider other options like extending the  beyond Euclid Av and rerouting all of the trains to the Rockaways, but not before.

But don't areas normally tend to get more ridership if there is more transit service in that area?

Like ridership on the Q52/Q53 has gone up since the debut of SBS on those lines.

[Lawrence St]

12 hours ago, Deucey said:

Why not send  to Rockaway, and  to Lefferts?

Or create  from 145th to Rockaway (local to 34th St) and  to Lefferts.  to replace  rush hour in the Bronx,  to 96th St/2nd?

Because then you lose express service to JFK for those riders wanting to get to the airport.

[Lance]

14 hours ago, Deucey said:

Why not send  to Rockaway, and  to Lefferts?

Or create  from 145th to Rockaway (local to 34th St) and  to Lefferts.  to replace  rush hour in the Bronx,  to 96th St/2nd?

The to the Rockaways was a thing from '76 to '92 when the route only ran during the rush hours. As a full-local, I highly doubt that route was all that popular and was only tolerated back then because normal Fulton St service was just as crap, what with rush-hour only express service on the line. In fact, that's part of the reason why the JFK Express stuck around as long as it did, despite never becoming the airport connector it was advertised as.

As for your  revival and reroute of service to 2nd Avenue, how is that really any different from the present service plan? Sure, this will be the Concourse/Central Park West Local, but beyond that, it's a carbon copy of the current Rockaways . Also, removing the from Central Park West means there will only be one 6th Avenue service, as opposed to the three 8th Avenue services under your proposal. I don't believe the solution to fixing the problems in the Rockaways should be solved by inconveniencing riders on the other end of the line.

[biGC323232]

3 hours ago, Lawrence St said:

But don't areas normally tend to get more ridership if there is more transit service in that area?

Like ridership on the Q52/Q53 has gone up since the debut of SBS on those lines.

 

17 hours ago, Lance said:

Every time I see this issue brought up, it seems the only solution for the problem is to send the to Lefferts Blvd. Let's say we do that and give both primary branches of the better service. I can understand giving the Lefferts branch six trains per hour considering how relatively busy that branch is compared to the Rockaway branches. However, if you send all of the present trains, excluding the limited runs to Rockaway Park, to Far Rockaway, you're now give that branch on average, a train every eight minutes. With how low these stations rank in terms of ridership, even a boost in ridership brought in by the improved service levels will likely not be enough to justify that much of a frequency increase.

I believe I have a better solution to this problem. Has anyone considered the idea of increasing overall train service instead? Right now, present scheduled service between Manhattan and Rockaway Blvd is at 7.5 minute intervals during peak periods and 10 minute ones during the off-peak. If we boost those intervals to 5 and 7 respectively, you can easily get 6 trains per hour on the branches at the height of the rush and service approximately every 15 minutes at other times. I know that may not seem all that enticing, especially those off-peak intervals, but it must be considered that historically, the Rockaways have never gotten the levels of service enjoyed by other lines in the system and that's for one major reason: there simply isn't enough riders to justify standard service intervals there. However, if I'm wrong and this service increase prove to not be enough service for the far ends of the , then we should consider other options like extending the  beyond Euclid Av and rerouting all of the trains to the Rockaways, but not before.

Me personally ill send the  to lefferts and all  trains to the rockaways... trains that went to lefferts could end at JFK or make it a one seat ride to Rockway PK making the Rockwy pk shuttle late nights only...that will somewhat eliminate the confusing of boarding a wrong  from mahatttan..I know ridership doesnt justify it in the rockways now but just think how it will make service better thru out the line....Who knows maybe ridership will increase on those branches if the  change they service patterns....There's really only a few  lines anywhere in the system where as trains are packed 3-4 stations after its terminal...And before anybody start with the ppl along liberty dont want they express service taking away...I use the  everyday from Van Siclen and travel 6 lcl stations before express service is even considered....Just my opinion...Carry on

[RR503]

On 5/8/2018 at 5:15 PM, Lance said:

 I believe I have a better solution to this problem. Has anyone considered the idea of increasing overall train service instead? Right now, present scheduled service between Manhattan and Rockaway Blvd is at 7.5 minute intervals during peak periods and 10 minute ones during the off-peak. If we boost those intervals to 5 and 7 respectively, you can easily get 6 trains per hour on the branches at the height of the rush and service approximately every 15 minutes at other times. I know that may not seem all that enticing, especially those off-peak intervals, but it must be considered that historically, the Rockaways have never gotten the levels of service enjoyed by other lines in the system and that's for one major reason: there simply isn't enough riders to justify standard service intervals there. However, if I'm wrong and this service increase prove to not be enough service for the far ends of the , then we should consider other options like extending the  beyond Euclid Av and rerouting all of the trains to the Rockaways, but not before.

A small quibble: the  runs 16ish tph during the rushes to/from Fulton and the Rockaways. You can't really increase that more than 2-3 tph before capacity restrictions on Cranberry and CPW kick in. See: http://boerumhillscott.com/transit/index.php

As for off peak, I'm totally with you -- and those increases would succor much more than just the Rockaway Peninsula. 'Tis the longest line in the system, after all. 

If I were god, I'd just send the  to Lefferts during off peak hours, and leave the 's current service pattern during the peak. That allows headway maintenance throughout the day. 

[Lawrence St]

Why not have to Lefferts, to Rockaway Park, and to Far Rockaway?

[RR503]

14 minutes ago, Lawrence St said:

Why not have to Lefferts, to Rockaway Park, and to Far Rockaway?

Because there does not exist enough capacity in Cranberry to do that. 

Also, the  is among the top 3 most important B div routes both in terms of interactions and ridership. Doubling its length and adding merges to it will make it orders of magnitude less reliable, something it simply cannot be if the system is to function. 

[biGC323232]

14 minutes ago, Lawrence St said:

Why not have to Lefferts, to Rockaway Park, and to Far Rockaway?

 did try to  send  trains to rockway pk years ago before the  got sent to bklyn but didnt work cause the  became too long of a line.....I will send  trains there 

[Deucey]

If switches were good and fast, you could run a  or  from MetroTech to Lefferts and  to Rockaway, and possibly  to World Trade OR Coney Island, but then you'd have  capacity lowered and delays at crossing over at MetroTech.

That's why flying junctions aren't completely bad, IMO - they give some options without extra delays.

[RR503]

38 minutes ago, Deucey said:

If switches were good and fast, you could run a  or  from MetroTech to Lefferts and  to Rockaway, and possibly  to World Trade OR Coney Island, but then you'd have  capacity lowered and delays at crossing over at MetroTech.

That's why flying junctions aren't completely bad, IMO - they give some options without extra delays.

And again, this raises the same issue as the  extension where such a change doesn't add any capacity. You'd simply be replacing  and  runs with these switched-in  and s. Not productive IMO, especially given that Culver is relatively high ridership.

Again, what I'd advocate for doing is the following:

During rush hours,  runs as they do today. The current service pattern provides 7.5ish tph to Lefferts, 6 to FRock, and 2.5ish to RPK. 

During the off peak/weekend, the  gets extended to Lefferts, running at current frequency. That gives Lefferts 7ish tph weekdays, 6tph weekends, and FRock 7.5 tph all off-peak times -- or more than adequate service for both branches.

In these periods, s would be scheduled to arrive at Rock Boulevard just before s going n/b, and would be set to arrive at Euclid just after s going s/b, facilitating transfers to/from the express. That should reduce the pain of having the local at Lefferts. 

[bobtehpanda]

On 5/9/2018 at 2:52 PM, RR503 said:

A small quibble: the  runs 16ish tph during the rushes to/from Fulton and the Rockaways. You can't really increase that more than 2-3 tph before capacity restrictions on Cranberry and CPW kick in. See: http://boerumhillscott.com/transit/index.php

As for off peak, I'm totally with you -- and those increases would succor much more than just the Rockaway Peninsula. 'Tis the longest line in the system, after all. 

If I were god, I'd just send the  to Lefferts during off peak hours, and leave the 's current service pattern during the peak. That allows headway maintenance throughout the day. 

If you were to de-interline CPW with CPW express -> 8 Av express, though, you'd get rid of more than a few merges

two merges on either end of CPW, replaced with one at 145th as 168 local merges into express

merge at 42 between and

merge at Canal between all three services

merge at Hoyt

I feel like getting rid of the situation at Canal would get you what you need to boost Fulton services.

[bobtehpanda]

On 5/11/2018 at 7:39 AM, Deucey said:

If switches were good and fast, you could run a  or  from MetroTech to Lefferts and  to Rockaway, and possibly  to World Trade OR Coney Island, but then you'd have  capacity lowered and delays at crossing over at MetroTech.

That's why flying junctions aren't completely bad, IMO - they give some options without extra delays.

Honestly, the illusion of flexibility is dangerous; it would be much better to terminate services early (like what was done with the when Montague was rebuilt) and then just keep services frequent and unaffected on the other lines. IIRC the Montague closure was much more reliable than the full-length version.

[Deucey]

48 minutes ago, bobtehpanda said:

Honestly, the illusion of flexibility is dangerous; it would be much better to terminate services early (like what was done with the when Montague was rebuilt) and then just keep services frequent and unaffected on the other lines. IIRC the Montague closure was much more reliable than the full-length version.

If they built the system so trains could terminate and reverse in Midtown I'd be all for eliminating three-borough routes. Ex:  207th to WTC,  168th to West 4th,  to Rockaway Express,  to Lefferts Local - just because long routes have more delays.

It's why I'm not big on LA's Regional Connector since now the Blue Line will be ~40 miles from Long Beach to Azusa and delay-prone because of switching with Expo/Gold Lines twice and the Pasadena slow zone.

But NYCBOT/  didn't build the option to do that here. Since it wasn't, and straphangers want minimal transfers, I'd rather  made the system work and install flexibility wherever it can with speed being higher in importance than present.

So more flying junctions to interline - especially with SAS. Like building ramps to connect to Culver so  can have a second service to LIC in case stuff happens at the West 4th choke point (like the track fire in Jan/Feb 2015 that shut down the entire IND).

 

[RR503]

1 hour ago, bobtehpanda said:

If you were to de-interline CPW with CPW express -> 8 Av express, though, you'd get rid of more than a few merges

two merges on either end of CPW, replaced with one at 145th as 168 local merges into express

merge at 42 between and

merge at Canal between all three services

merge at Hoyt

I feel like getting rid of the situation at Canal would get you what you need to boost Fulton services.

Sadly, this isn’t the case. 

From 8-9 AM we run 24tph into Hoyt Schermerhorn. We can probably add another 3 tph to that with little issue, but no more.

From my understanding, the limit that kicks in then isn’t in fact the merges, but the signal system. Between Hoyt and Jay, and again between Jay and Fulton, there are a number of timers that seem to limit service more than the interlocking use at either end of that stretch, thus rendering merge coordination/speed irrelevant. 

[Daniel The Cool]

On 5/11/2018 at 7:40 AM, biGC323232 said:

 did try to  send  trains to rockway pk years ago before the  got sent to bklyn but didnt work cause the  became too long of a line.....I will send  trains there 

To be fair though, the  from Bedford Park Blvd to Rockaway Park was longer than the  From Jamaica-179th Street to the Rockaways.

[Union Tpke]

15 hours ago, bobtehpanda said:

If you were to de-interline CPW with CPW express -> 8 Av express, though, you'd get rid of more than a few merges

two merges on either end of CPW, replaced with one at 145th as 168 local merges into express

merge at 42 between and

merge at Canal between all three services

merge at Hoyt

I feel like getting rid of the situation at Canal would get you what you need to boost Fulton services.

The merge at Canal is the main problem.