Subway service to Aqueduct may get a boost, may even get Airtrain stop

[TwoTimer]

Looks like Genting wants essentially a revival of the as part of building the convention center at Aqueduct, which I'm thinking is actually more likely to be built on the opposite side of the existing subway tracks at Aqueduct-North Conduit as it probably would be cheaper to acquire that land for the new convention center AND connect it to both the subway station and racetrack/casino, with Aqueduct staying a racetrack. Though saying that, I do think the third floor of Aqueduct would become additional convention space as I believe was already planned for that and they could build a planned hotel there in an area between the end of the clubhouse and the mile chute at Aqueduct.

 

The total of this would likely be far cheaper than the current plans to use the existing racetrack facility since Genting in that scenario would also likely have to pay to have Belmont Park fully winterized and/or build a new facility to replace Aqueduct.

 

As for how this could affect trains, the only way I could see it work, with Genting getting what they want is this:

 

ALL trains are switched to the Rockaways and only stop in Brooklyn at High Street, Jay Street and Hoyt-Schermerhorn, then running express all the way to Aqueduct before continuing to the Rockaways, with if possible after Euclid the finding a way to access the middle express track on the Liberty El until going to Aqueduct/The Rockaways and from Aqueduct as an express-on-Local until reaching Euclid.

 

The current train is split in two:

 

The itself would either going back to terminating at Chambers (as it did as the old 70(AA)) OR as I would do it, having it join the via the Culver Line as a new Culver Express to Coney Island and the remaining a local, but shortened to Church Avenue (except overnights, when the would run as it does now). This does create the potential bottleneck problems at Broadway-Lafayette since the also stops there, but that could also be a minimal issue since it's only one stop and I believe the total of all three lines combined is 30tph or less.

 

The Brooklyn portion of the becomes a new line, running local from Hoyt-Schemerhorn to Lefferts, replacing the on that branch save for perhaps a very limited number of super expresses from Lefferts during rush hours in each direction that would go non-stop between Hoyt-Schermerhorn and Euclid Avenue. This could involve having to move the Transit Museum so Court Street could be re-activated as a terminal for a new line, but that could be done with the stipulation that Genting also has to build a new transit museum with the convention center and include connecting tracks from the Rockaway Branch of the to a new transit museum at the Convention Center that includes four tracks inside such a new transit museum so it can double as a short-turn terminal when needed on the Rockaway line.

 

That to me may be the only way that Genting gets what they want in this case.

 

Why are you screwing around with 8th Avenue/Fulton St? You know how long it's taken to get the and line service we have now? 14 long years of getting the from a rush-hour only route to what it is today. Today, we have 19/7 service on the from 168 St to Euclid and the runs express during that time.

 

Now, here you are advocating the splitting of the , which would force riders to hop onto the already cramped trains, then transfer to this new (which only runs local) in order to get somewhere that's not the Rockaways, High, Jay or Hoyt Sts. Just to be able to fit your pseudo- Express on the express tracks. That'll fly like a lead balloon. I don't care how much money Genting's throwing into this thing. He wants dedicated express service to Aqueduct? He needs to be able to do so within the limits of the current service patterns, not at the expense of the and line riders. This is still mass-transit, not just a shuttle to the casino and convention center.

 

Wally really went off the deep end with the foam this time. Anyone else drown in it :cool: I'm surprised he didn't include a reactivation of the LIRR ROW to have a direct shuttle from Jamaica connected at Woodhaven or 63rd Dr to existing services lol.

[CenSin]

Don't kill the messenger, I was doing two things:

 

1. Reporting what Genting (the casino operator for Aqueduct) wants

 

…

 

2. Posting my view on how I feel it could be done

Let's keep the current theme of the idiom you decided to use....

 

What you said in bold here, is what allows us to have free reign to strike down & assassinate the messenger....

 

Which, from the ideas you've been infesting the subway section here with, is 100% justified.....

On here talkin about all A trains to the Rockaways & splitting the C train in two....

To elaborate on B35 via Church's post, if the messenger were just delivering messages from others, logically, we'd have no reason to attack the messenger. However, posting your own views qualifies you to be praised or attacked as the audience sees fit. After all, it wasn't Genting's idea to screw around with the , , , and (which was the designation of the local from Washington Heights to World Trade Center/Chambers Street), or build a museum/active terminal hybrid.

 

And this is what provokes an attack:

That to me may be the only way that Genting gets what they want in this case.

You make an incredible and dogmatic assertion that suggests authoritative knowledge after multiple paragraphs of elaboration on your fantasy while chucking any clues that something might be wrong with your ideas out the window (example: 30 t.p.h. makes it okay to squeeze the , , and through Broadway–Lafayette.).

[T to Dyre Avenue]

This article was on Page 38 of today's Daily News.

 

Long Island Rail Road should reactivate the northern section of its old Rockaway branch: advocates * - NY Daily News

 

It may very well cost more and there will be the issue of dealing with NIMBYs along the Rockaway Branch, but to me that's a lot better than creating scheduling conflicts by reincarnating the service and messing with and service. If the Resorts World casino is a success and the convention center does get built, I do believe that it will need more than just the Far Rockaway (which is essentially just half a subway service). However, to minimize FRA issues, they should make it a subway connection from the Queens Blvd subway, an extension of the or .

[VinnyBrooklyn]

Imagine the amount of people getting off the H train at Hoyt in the morning waiting to get on a packed A train.

 

I appreciate a good plan but that one was just far fetched. I would love to reinstate the Rockaway Beach line.

 

Maybe they could run A trains and turn them at Howard beach. They do have the 6 or 8 of them that sit in 207 yard all day waiting to run to Rock park. As for anything else the MTA doesn't have the rolling stock now to do much more than that.

[checkmatechamp13]

However, to minimize FRA issues, they should make it a subway connection from the Queens Blvd subway, an extension of the or .

 

The problem is that both lines are already very long and this could make them unreliable (not to mention the (M)'s routing would look very stupid on a map, but if it works, who cares how it looks?)

 

The best you could realistically hope for it just a shuttle connecting to Woodhaven Blvd. Maybe when/if the SAS opens, you could route it through there (it wouldn't be too long because the line would terminate in Manhattan rather than continuing to Brooklyn like the & ), but even then the Queens Blvd local tracks might not be able to handle the extra trains.

[Wallyhorse]

What I see as a compromise:

 

If the connection from the QB to the Rockaway line is built and the LIRR Rockaway branch is re-activated, revive the as 24/7 line EXCEPT during rush hours (but would run then on holidays where a modified rush hour is in effect) from Whitehall Street-Rockaway Park (which would also replace the Rockaway ). Rush hours (excluding holiday-modified ones when the would be running), select trains would be extended to Rockaway Park.

 

It might not be the revival Genting wants, but unless they are willing to if necessary fund a super express tunnel in Queens that can also connect to the old LIRR branch, that to me may be the best solution, especially if it avoids messing up the Fulton Street line as has been clearly shown here.

[Guest lance25]

Dude, really? An idea is tossed around and here you are already designating route letters and creating service patterns like everything's written in stone. Take a powder break and let's see where these ideas go first, hm?

[GreatOne2k]

How about for now Genting just pay MTA to run the all night so the can run express 24/7. Genting should be happy to have the service express all times.

 

Service would remain the same in this case except the would go to Lefferts late nights replacing the shuttle, and the would run express.

[CenSin]

Dude, really? An idea is tossed around and here you are already designating route letters and creating service patterns like everything's written in stone. Take a powder break and let's see where these ideas go first, hm?

:\ It wouldn't hurt to think a few steps ahead. I, myself, am curious what could be done if the Rockaway Branch is used for a subway connection. According to the Regional Planning Association (?), a Rockway connection along the old right-of-way would allow residents from the Rockaways to reach Midtown Manhattan in only 30 minutes (if express along Queens Boulevard).

 

1. Either the or could go to the Rockaways, but one is very long and the other would make a pretty odd route; neither would go to the Pennsylvania Station. Short-turning trains (whether it's called a or some other letter) has its own problems. Either way, such a connection would keep the out of Queens Boulevard permanently with no hope of return.

2. They could decide to connect the line to the express tracks (if physically feasible). I don't know where the tunnels connect to the Queens Boulevard line east of 63 Drive. This would divert one express to the Rockaways meaning either Hillside Avenue or the Jamaica Center branch would have to have local service only. If Jamaica Center gets the local service, the express tracks east of Forest Hills goes out of service.

3. Optimally, they should use the momentum of reactivating the Rockaway right-of-way to get at least half of the Queens bypass built. If significant ridership is expected from such a connection, it'd be bad to cram more trains along a corridor that's already crowded. There's the added benefit of eventually building the other half connecting to Union Turnpike to add capacity to the Queens Boulevard line. (After all, how much of the bypass's capacity do they really need for the Rockaways anyway?)

4. Or they could simply connect it back to the LIRR. It would create a fast connection between Grand Central or Pennsylvania Station and Aqueduct, but do nothing for mass transportation.

 

[T to Dyre Avenue]

The tunnels are just past the east end of the station. They connect directly to the local tracks, so extending the or onto the Rockaway Branch would be way easier than connecting the branch to the express tracks, and potentially ticking off or riders who would stand to lose their express service. A new junction would have to be built to accommodate a connection to the express tracks.

 

Why would short-turning some trains at Whitehall cause problems?

 

I agree that some sort of turnouts should be included to allow Rockaway trains to access a future Queens Blvd bypass line, which should have been built decades ago.

[Roadcruiser1]

The tunnels are just past the east end of the station. They connect directly to the local tracks, so extending the or onto the Rockaway Branch would be way easier than connecting the branch to the express tracks, and potentially ticking off or riders who would stand to lose their express service. A new junction would have to be built to accommodate a connection to the express tracks.

 

Why would short-turning some trains at Whitehall cause problems?

 

I agree that some sort of turnouts should be included to allow Rockaway trains to access a future Queens Blvd bypass line, which should have been built decades ago.

 

You could reroute the so it would bypass the IND Queens Boulevard Line and run on to the Rockaway Beach Branch, but that would require all new infrastructure construction.

[Guest lance25]

@RC1: If the were connected to the Rockaway spur, not only would there be no Manhattan service to this shindig, you'd be in the same situation with space constraints as you'd be if you sent the or there.

 

@CenSin, T to Dyre Avenue: You two bring up an interesting point here. Without the Queens Blvd bypass as part of the subway option, we lose a significant amount of subway service on Queens Blvd, either with the extension of the already long or lines or express service to 179 St or Jamaica-Parsons if the or were sent there. I guess my point is that if they aren't going to build the bypass, just connect the re-activated line to the LIRR and call it a day. No, it would help attract more subway riders, but it wouldn't hurt the ones we already have.

[Roadcruiser1]

@RC1: If the were connected to the Rockaway spur, not only would there be no Manhattan service to this shindig, you'd be in the same situation with space constraints as you'd be if you sent the or there.

 

@CenSin, T to Dyre Avenue: You two bring up an interesting point here. Without the Queens Blvd bypass as part of the subway option, we lose a significant amount of subway service on Queens Blvd, either with the extension of the already long or lines or express service to 179 St or Jamaica-Parsons if the or were sent there. I guess my point is that if they aren't going to build the bypass, just connect the re-activated line to the LIRR and call it a day. No, it would help attract more subway riders, but it wouldn't hurt the ones we already have.

 

There has to be a solution somewhere. The 1939 map shows the line branch off the IND Queens Boulevard Line, but I read that the proposal in 1939 was to send the not a Manhattan bound service down to the Rockaways. I think these planners were thinking that people would use the if they wanted Manhattan. They expected people to transfer.

 

[Wallyhorse]

How about for now Genting just pay MTA to run the all night so the can run express 24/7. Genting should be happy to have the service express all times.

 

Service would remain the same in this case except the would go to Lefferts late nights replacing the shuttle, and the would run express.

 

Works for me!

 

That would really be my first choice to begin with.

[TwoTimer]

Although the easiest service expansion (not necessarially to the Rockaways but generally and overall) is to just swap the for the in Brooklyn.

[CenSin]

Why would short-turning some trains at Whitehall cause problems?

Short-turning still means that many will run a very long route. You could short-turn at the other end as well by sending trains to Forest Hills, but that would essentially create two routes; you might as well call one an and the other a . Which brings up the next point…

 

Assuming the will be sent to 2 Avenue by the time the Rockaway line gets built, the is likely to return per Astoria's demands, but not necessarily as an Astoria service. If (as Wallyhorse suggests) we sent the from Whitehall Street to the Rockaways (which would keep it at a tolerable length), the could possibly return to Astoria as a local and the as an express. The Astoria riders get their express and local service, the gets to fill in its new role, and we have a line serving the Rockaways that's not too long. All of the yellow letters have been allocated with 2 expresses and 2 locals.

 

One unknown is the demand for service between the Rockaways and Manhattan, and tampering with the and services make the assumption that there will be demand to warrant such a change. In the event that the whole project turns out to be a flop (sort of like the 2010 Olympics in New York City and the extension), something different should probably be done.

[Grand Concourse]

Although the easiest service expansion (not necessarially to the Rockaways but generally and overall) is to just swap the for the in Brooklyn.

 

While true, there is the issue about how many trains you can fit in the tunnel and how a longer will make the delayed prone.

Now if they were to build a new river tunnel b/w WTC to what is now the current TM, you could allow for extra capacity to the Fulton line and possibly send the to Lefferts and all (A)s to Far Rockaway.

=

As for the idea to extend the via QB, you'd need to build another pair of tracks under the line so it can handle more than lines. So the 'QB super express' would handle the and possibly the could run express. would be locals and the could go down that spur towards the rockaways. Somewhere around Woodhaven Blvd, the could switch to the local with the and continue the rest of the way to 179th as it does now.

[T to Dyre Avenue]

As a long-term solution to Queens Blvd's crowding and capacity shortcomings, an extra pair of express tracks (under or parallel to the existing tracks) is the optimal solution. And that would allow casino, convention, airport and Rockaway-bound riders to be served by a train other than already long or routes.

 

But I think extending the down the Rockaway branch as far as Howard Beach is good as a short-term solution. Yes, the current is all-local and goes a long way from start to finish, but we've already got longer routes (the , , and weekday come to mind).

[lilbluefoxie]

We are assuming here there's even demand for such a service in the first place. The is never that crowded out there, and this thing hasn't even been built yet.

[Wallyhorse]

We are assuming here there's even demand for such a service in the first place. The is never that crowded out there, and this thing hasn't even been built yet.

 

Yes, but even without the convention center, I would have been looking myself to getting the LIRR Rockaway branch re-activated as a way for potential casino customers from Flushing and other heavily Asian parts of Queens via mainly the to whatever line to the Rockaways would stop at Roosevelt Avenue once a subway connection to that former branch was built as opposed to the current setup of having to take the to the at Court Square (when that station is open or the at Roosevelt to the ) and going through Brooklyn to get the OR taking the or at Roosevelt to the going through Manhattan and Brooklyn.

 

As for the Super Express, if Genting really wants that, it could be made clear to them they would have to pay to have a Super Express tunnel built to connect to either the 53rd, 60th or 63rd Street tunnels (or two or even all three) with a stop at Roosevelt Avenue either using a new lower level platform OR connecting the super express to the never-used upper level station before heading to Aqueduct, JFK and most likely Rockaway Park.

 

Otherwise, the from Whitehall Street to Rockaway Park (as noted, trying to keep that from being too long of a route) that I noted above looks like the best solution if the (former LIRR) Rockaway connection gets built since as noted above if by then the is operating via 2nd Avenue, the can be switched to Astoria to join the with the replacing the along Queens Boulevard and at least outside of rush hours, the being able to return to running to 71-Continental or even possibly to 179 with the .

[lilbluefoxie]

and ridership is that bad on the Q11 and Q37 that we need another crosstown route to run half length cars and look desolate most of the time?

[Grand Concourse]

As a long-term solution to Queens Blvd's crowding and capacity shortcomings, an extra pair of express tracks (under or parallel to the existing tracks) is the optimal solution. And that would allow casino, convention, airport and Rockaway-bound riders to be served by a train other than already long or routes.

 

But I think extending the down the Rockaway branch as far as Howard Beach is good as a short-term solution. Yes, the current is all-local and goes a long way from start to finish, but we've already got longer routes (the , , and weekday come to mind).

 

In my idea the only line that should be altered is the . I dunno what the Q53, etc lines are like in terms of a large demand for a subway line for that area, but the (G)'s route is short enough where an extension won't impact it much unlike for the . With a pair of tracks under Queens Blvd, I'm thinking the would run under that but make a stop at Woodhaven (think Dekalb av layout) and just past the station is the Rockaway spur for the . would run local with the to 71st and continue on as it does now. would not need to switch and runs express in place of the * which allows the to return - local.

 

*The reason to leave the on 53rd is because there's more service, so it has to remain split off from the .

 

This is all if there's THAT much of a need for extra service to that future convention center. There's no room on the Fulton branch unless they were to relocate the TM and reactivate that station for service and connect it with a new river tunnel to probably the WTC station.

[TwoTimer]

Just to let you know, one can't run a local service with an express service on the same track on QBL and terminate the local at 71st and get away with it.

[Grand Concourse]

If you mean fumigation issues, then they would probably need an extra person on the platform to help clear out the because the R46 needs a car by car check as opposed to the R160s where the crews can just look thru the windows to see thru each cars.

 

But yeah, given how frequent and service are, I guess my plan would be flawed. I guess the might have to just go thru 53rd with select trains via 63rd (with the ) to prevent 53rd from being clogged up.

[Roadcruiser1]

This is what should have had been built in the first place.