The Time for Reactivation of the Rockaway Beach Line is Now

[Javier]

This is just wasting money, ether reroute the or just flatten the idea.

[T to Dyre Avenue]

This is just wasting money, ether reroute the or just flatten the idea.

No it's not! Letting the Rockaway branch continue to rot away or be turned into a High Line-wanna-be; now that is a waste. And the doesn't even serve Queens, so why would you reroute it onto the Rockaway branch?

[m7zanr160s]

...And maybe make a loop underneath the QBL after Woodhaven Blvd for trains to go back down the RBL. I'm also feeling that Junction Blvd to LGA line. It doesn't have to be either or, either. The line can split at Queens Blvd; some trains terminate at Woodhaven Blvd., others at LGA. This would be a true north-south, crosstown, Queens line.

[Woodside7878]

...And maybe make a loop underneath the QBL after Woodhaven Blvd for trains to go back down the RBL. I'm also feeling that Junction Blvd to LGA line. It doesn't have to be either or, either. The line can split at Queens Blvd; some trains terminate at Woodhaven Blvd., others at LGA. This would be a true north-south, crosstown, Queens line.

I don't think a turn around is a good option since Woodhaven blvd is by a shopping area and construction on the loop track will cause traffic on the Queens blvd and also where is the money to build that loop. If the MTA wants to build the line they can figure on the construction cost and the time it will take to finish the Rockaway spur for passenger service.

[m7zanr160s]

...Kinda like this, or, this is how I see it:

[bobtehpanda]

There's no point to a line to LGA that way. It wouldn't save very much time over Woodside or Jackson Heights to LGA using the Q70, and Junction Blvd doesn't have particularly high bus ridership even with connections to Queens Center and an express Flushing Line stop. It would be a lot of money for not very much at all.

[Lance]

The whole thing is an example of spending a lot with little in terms of returns. That's why it would be a better idea to somehow connect the Rockaway Beach line with some Manhattan service. Using this line only as a glorified shuttle between Queens Blvd and the Rockaways doesn't help anyone except those on the Woodhaven corridor.

[Wallyhorse]

The whole thing is an example of spending a lot with little in terms of returns. That's why it would be a better idea to somehow connect the Rockaway Beach line with some Manhattan service. Using this line only as a glorified shuttle between Queens Blvd and the Rockaways doesn't help anyone except those on the Woodhaven corridor.

Exactly.

 

From everything given, as I would do it a revived train from 2nd Avenue-Rockaway Park seems in my view to be the most viable option since that would cover Midtown with the and both extended at least during peak hours to 179th Street to avoid any conga lines along QB where a revived would turn off.  This way, no one loses existing service since a revived would be a third local along QB until it turns off.

[T to Dyre Avenue]

There is very little extra capacity on the 6th Ave Local tracks to handle the , and a Rockaway Park , unless you run that service on very infrequent headways. And QBL riders east of 71st Ave don't want local service. That's why the to/from 179th didn't last very long.

 

Better to extend the onto the Rockaway Branch and leave the and lines as they are now.

[Woodside7878]

Exactly.

 

From everything given, as I would do it a revived train from 2nd Avenue-Rockaway Park seems in my view to be the most viable option since that would cover Midtown with the and both extended at least during peak hours to 179th Street to avoid any conga lines along QB where a revived would turn off.  This way, no one loses existing service since a revived would be a third local along QB until it turns off.

It's not possible with the current signal system on the Queens Blvd line, there was that reason why they terminate the G train to Court square at weekdays back then and up to now both weekdays and weekends. CBTC might the solve the problem with the train capacity but some of the fleet are not compatible like the R68s, R46 are retired by the time the CBTC is fully operational.

 

The MTA might bring the H Line back if they wanted to on the Rockaway spur but given the knowledge that a connection to the Rockaway from the Queens blvd Line is not possible because building a tunnel is expensive than building a line on a existing structure. The MTA will build the line in phases like the Second ave line expect that phase 1 is tree and debris removal and phase 2 is track and equipment restoration and who knows what phase 3 will be once the line is completed and operational.

[Wallyhorse]

There is very little extra capacity on the 6th Ave Local tracks to handle the , and a Rockaway Park , unless you run that service on very infrequent headways. And QBL riders east of 71st Ave don't want local service. That's why the to/from 179th didn't last very long.

 

Better to extend the onto the Rockaway Branch and leave the and lines as they are now.

Yes on 179 with the , but that was in 1991-'92 when ridership was I believe less than half of what it is now.  We are living in a completely different time and place and 179 is one place as I understand that can more properly turn multiple lines. 

 

That is why I would have the and turning at 179 24/7 (allowing the and to be express over their full routes) so that a revived can also run as a third QB local.  Three lines on QB I think can work if two of them are going to 179 and the other is turning off to go to the Rockaways.   The additional lines going to 179 would allow those not in as much of a hurry and not caring if they are on a local to have a more comfortable ride while taking some riders off the and and making them a little less crowded.

[Union Tpke]

Yes on 179 with the , but that was in 1991-'92 when ridership was I believe less than half of what it is now.  We are living in a completely different time and place and 179 is one place as I understand that can more properly turn multiple lines. 

 

That is why I would have the and turning at 179 24/7 (allowing the and to be express over their full routes) so that a revived can also run as a third QB local.  Three lines on QB I think can work if two of them are going to 179 and the other is turning off to go to the Rockaways.   The additional lines going to 179 would allow those not in as much of a hurry and not caring if they are on a local to have a more comfortable ride while taking some riders off the and and making them a little less crowded.

I would definitely support the R extended to 179 St.

I am just curious how many more trains could be terminated at JC if the crossover is moved closer to the station. I would have the F also express. The thing is that I would have the F run local between Kew Gardens and 179 St however.

[T to Dyre Avenue]

Yes on 179 with the , but that was in 1991-'92 when ridership was I believe less than half of what it is now. We are living in a completely different time and place and 179 is one place as I understand that can more properly turn multiple lines.

That is why I would have the and turning at 179 24/7 (allowing the and to be express over their full routes) so that a revived can also run as a third QB local. Three lines on QB I think can work if two of them are going to 179 and the other is turning off to go to the Rockaways. The additional lines going to 179 would allow those not in as much of a hurry and not caring if they are on a local to have a more comfortable ride while taking some riders off the and and making them a little less crowded.

And you completely skipped over the first part of my post which is about track capacity on the 6th Ave local tracks. You can't fit your train along with the and trains without cutting service to those two lines or running the on infrequent headways. No one from the Rockaways or Howard Beach is going to ride this train if it doesn't run frequently (i.e., at least 8 tph).

 

But guess what! The runs 8-9 tph. So why not extend the onto the Rockaway Branch? With the M and R terminating at different stations you'd no longer have a conga line of trains waiting to get into 71st Ave.

[RollOver]

And you completely skipped over the first part of my post which is about track capacity on the 6th Ave local tracks. You can't fit your train along with the and trains without cutting service to those two lines or running the on infrequent headways. No one from the Rockaways or Howard Beach is going to ride this train if it doesn't run frequently (i.e., at least 8 tph).

 

But guess what! The runs 8-9 tph. So why not extend the onto the Rockaway Branch? With the M and R terminating at different stations you'd no longer have a conga line of trains waiting to get into 71st Ave.

 

That's only during the "peak of the peak". Other than that, the is nothing but 5-6 tph (10-12 minute intervals between trains).

 

And are you basically implying that the (which also serves the peninsula) is crowded because of its headway? I think not. Frequencies are based on passenger loads. Point blank. Passengers have no say on why should their lines run more frequently (if it means having the train much emptier enough to "get a seat"). Of course, during rush hours, the calls for more crowded trains than "sitting passengers".

[bobtehpanda]

I would definitely support the R extended to 179 St.

I am just curious how many more trains could be terminated at JC if the crossover is moved closer to the station. I would have the F also express. The thing is that I would have the F run local between Kew Gardens and 179 St however.

 

Moving the crossover is not feasible since it was constructed linking two bored tunnels. If it were built cut and cover like the old trunk lines were, it would probably have been fixed by now.

[Union Tpke]

Moving the crossover is not feasible since it was constructed linking two bored tunnels. If it were built cut and cover like the old trunk lines were, it would probably have been fixed by now.

ah ok now I understand the problem more in depth

"On the upper level, the tracks curve south to run under 160th Street and stop at about South Road, also ending at bumper blocks. The plan was for this line to use the LIRR Atlantic Branch ROW and run to Springfield Boulevard or Rosedale. Where the upper level tracks stub end, there is a provision for a portal to go outside if the line going to Southeastern Queens is ever built. The tail tracks on both levels are currently used for storage."

This is concerning the tail tracks. I am just wondering how much money would it cost to extend the E train one station and add a diamond crossover with possibly a three track terminal using these tracks. Also they can just extend it along the LIRR's ROW

 

PART of the '68 plan for action

 

• A new subway line would diverge from the IND Queens Blvd. Line at the Van Wyck stub at Hillside Ave. and run along the LIRR Atlantic Branch ROW to Springfield Blvd, serving southeast Queens. This line would be two tracks, and would include a new station adjacent to the LIRR Jamaica station that would serve as a transfer point between the LIRR, this subway line and JFK airport trains. The line would serve the large-scale housing development at Rochdale Village. (This line was actually built as far as Parsons Blvd. and Archer Ave., the terminal of today's E, J and Z trains, and opened in 1988).

[bobtehpanda]

 

ah ok now I understand the problem more in depth

"On the upper level, the tracks curve south to run under 160th Street and stop at about South Road, also ending at bumper blocks. The plan was for this line to use the LIRR Atlantic Branch ROW and run to Springfield Boulevard or Rosedale. Where the upper level tracks stub end, there is a provision for a portal to go outside if the line going to Southeastern Queens is ever built. The tail tracks on both levels are currently used for storage."

This is concerning the tail tracks. I am just wondering how much money would it cost to extend the E train one station and add a diamond crossover with possibly a three track terminal using these tracks. Also they can just extend it along the LIRR's ROW

 

PART of the '68 plan for action

 

• A new subway line would diverge from the IND Queens Blvd. Line at the Van Wyck stub at Hillside Ave. and run along the LIRR Atlantic Branch ROW to Springfield Blvd, serving southeast Queens. This line would be two tracks, and would include a new station adjacent to the LIRR Jamaica station that would serve as a transfer point between the LIRR, this subway line and JFK airport trains. The line would serve the large-scale housing development at Rochdale Village. (This line was actually built as far as Parsons Blvd. and Archer Ave., the terminal of today's E, J and Z trains, and opened in 1988).

 

 

A three-track terminal wouldn't really help things (and depending on how it's constructed, might actually lower capacity due to the conflict points involved).

 

There is no money to do that, and it would be really expensive, because the right-of-way for two new tracks does not really exist, and neither does the space for a new station anywhere close by. There isn't even enough money for an early MTA plan that would see tail tracks built one train length past Flatbush Av so the terminal by Brooklyn College can handle more trains.

[T to Dyre Avenue]

That's only during the "peak of the peak". Other than that, the is nothing but 5-6 tph (10-12 minute intervals between trains).

 

And are you basically implying that the (which also serves the peninsula) is crowded because of its headway? I think not. Frequencies are based on passenger loads. Point blank. Passengers have no say on why should their lines run more frequently (if it means having the train much emptier enough to "get a seat"). Of course, during rush hours, the calls for more crowded trains than "sitting passengers".

Nope. That is not what I'm implying. I didn't say anything about the train's frequency or ridership. Does the Far Rockaway branch run on 10- or 12 minute-headways during the peak? If so, then maybe that would factor into how often the trains run on the rebuilt Rockaway Beach branch. It would have to be determined if 5-6 tph at peak is all that's needed, not just for Rockaway Park/Broad Channel riders, but also for riders getting on in Howard Beach, Ozone Park and points north. If 5-6 tph is sufficient for peak-hour ridership on the branch, then Wallyhorse's suggestion to run a train from Rockaway Park to 2nd Ave via the branch, QB local and 6th Ave local may actually work. And that way, the 67th Ave station would still have both the and .

[Wallyhorse]

And you completely skipped over the first part of my post which is about track capacity on the 6th Ave local tracks. You can't fit your train along with the and trains without cutting service to those two lines or running the on infrequent headways. No one from the Rockaways or Howard Beach is going to ride this train if it doesn't run frequently (i.e., at least 8 tph).

 

But guess what! The runs 8-9 tph. So why not extend the onto the Rockaway Branch? With the M and R terminating at different stations you'd no longer have a conga line of trains waiting to get into 71st Ave.

At peak hours, you are talking about 30-32 TPH I believe.  As I understand it, the and on the Lex actually run 40 TPH at peak hours.  30-32 TPH can be done when things are running as they are supposed to as I understand it.

 

You can also in this setup (as I would do it) have the run with the via 63rd (with a second line being able to transfer to/from the at 63rd/Lex that would be open by the time this would be), with the joining the QB line at 36th Street while the goes with the on 53rd (I would do it this way since the original purpose of the going up 6th Avenue was to give Broadway-Brooklyn riders a midtown option).

 

Yes, you could do the line with the , but that costs current riders going to 71-Continental a local line.  That's why if possible I do it this way.

[bobtehpanda]

At peak hours, you are talking about 30-32 TPH I believe.  As I understand it, the and on the Lex actually run 40 TPH at peak hours.  30-32 TPH can be done when things are running as they are supposed to as I understand it.

 

You can also in this setup (as I would do it) have the run with the via 63rd (with a second line being able to transfer to/from the at 63rd/Lex that would be open by the time this would be), with the joining the QB line at 36th Street while the goes with the on 53rd (I would do it this way since the original purpose of the going up 6th Avenue was to give Broadway-Brooklyn riders a midtown option).

 

Yes, you could do the line with the , but that costs current riders going to 71-Continental a local line.  That's why if possible I do it this way.

 

That is way out of whack. The and can run 29 TPH maximum, and actually run less to that due to platform overcrowding. Where the hell did you get 40 TPH from? That's the design capacity of optimized, new-build CBTC systems.

 

You can divert the . 67 Av and Forest Hills do not currently see huge crowds boarding local trains.

[qjtransitmaster]

There's no point to a line to LGA that way. It wouldn't save very much time over Woodside or Jackson Heights to LGA using the Q70, and Junction Blvd doesn't have particularly high bus ridership even with connections to Queens Center and an express Flushing Line stop. It would be a lot of money for not very much at all.

dude neither does 31st street yet it has an EL the Astoria line. The Q72's ridership is a product of poor headways compounded by poor reliability.

[Wallyhorse]

That is way out of whack. The and can run 29 TPH maximum, and actually run less to that due to platform overcrowding. Where the hell did you get 40 TPH from? That's the design capacity of optimized, new-build CBTC systems.

 

You can divert the . 67 Av and Forest Hills do not currently see huge crowds boarding local trains.

I remembered reading 40 TPH on the Lex a while back.  And yes, platform overcrowding (especially on the Lex) makes that number very difficult (and I say that as one who remembers that from the '80s very well, and that was well before ridership was at the levels it is now).

 

I would think if people knew trains were coming in every 90 seconds at peak hours, people would not hold doors as much and there would be less overcrowding, especially if people on 6th Avenue got an knew they could get off for instance at 21st-Queensbridge (as I would have the on 63rd Street with the while the would be on 53rd with the at all times) and switched there (on the same platform) to an once people who take either line to Roosevelt Island got off and the would be not quite as crowded as it is in Manhattan.  Not everyone is in a big rush and those who are able to use the locals for a "more comfortable" ride, especially with TWO QB locals on 6th Avenue would likely be more inclined to do so.

 

That's why even with 33 TPH at "peak of the peak" hours, I can see where having the and can all run on 6th Avenue.

[T to Dyre Avenue]

You also have to take into account the junction at 36th St in Queens where the turns off into/from the 63rd St tunnel. Often the northbound F has to wait there for an to pass. Now you want to throw the the into that mix as well? The M will have to do the same thing, except wait for an or to pass. And you risk trains backing up in the 63rd St tunnel because you would now have two services that have to converge onto the Queens Blvd line.

 

I still think rerouting the onto the Rockaway branch without reviving the is the better plan.

[bobtehpanda]

I remembered reading 40 TPH on the Lex a while back.  And yes, platform overcrowding (especially on the Lex) makes that number very difficult (and I say that as one who remembers that from the '80s very well, and that was well before ridership was at the levels it is now).

 

I would think if people knew trains were coming in every 90 seconds at peak hours, people would not hold doors as much and there would be less overcrowding, especially if people on 6th Avenue got an knew they could get off for instance at 21st-Queensbridge (as I would have the on 63rd Street with the while the would be on 53rd with the at all times) and switched there (on the same platform) to an once people who take either line to Roosevelt Island got off and the would be not quite as crowded as it is in Manhattan.  Not everyone is in a big rush and those who are able to use the locals for a "more comfortable" ride, especially with TWO QB locals on 6th Avenue would likely be more inclined to do so.

 

That's why even with 33 TPH at "peak of the peak" hours, I can see where having the and can all run on 6th Avenue.

 

The current limit of IRT and IND/BMT signalling is 30 TPH. CBTC can boost it potentially to 40 TPH, but only if terminals allow. The most scheduled trains in the system are the QBL expresses, which hit the 30 TPH maximum.

 

You can't run the FMV at 33 TPH because the signalling is not meant to handle that kind of traffic.

[Union Tpke]

A three-track terminal wouldn't really help things (and depending on how it's constructed, might actually lower capacity due to the conflict points involved).

 

There is no money to do that, and it would be really expensive, because the right-of-way for two new tracks does not really exist, and neither does the space for a new station anywhere close by. There isn't even enough money for an early MTA plan that would see tail tracks built one train length past Flatbush Av so the terminal by Brooklyn College can handle more trains.

no, not two tracks, using the LIRR row to Rosedale.