Wallyhorse Posted December 11, 2014 Share #76 Posted December 11, 2014 If the M went to Rockaway Park, it would most definitely be too long. The run time right now is about an hour from MET to CTL. If it extended from somewhere on Queens Blvd. towards the Rockaways (it wouldn't be able to do so directly from Continental due to physical configuration), I can say with absolute certainty that the run time would be too long. 1:00 MET to Queens Blvd. branch off point. From Rockaway Blvd. on the A to Rockaway Park is at minimum 20 minutes, and you've still got to cover the distance between Rockaway Blvd. and whereever you're completing the line. So you're probably looking at 1:45 scheduled with no delays, which easily can get over 2 hours. It's also a gigantic circle for one point in the run, which is inefficient, at minimum. There are better methods of using the Rockaway Beach Branch tracks than just extending the M. Which is why I proposed doing it with EITHER a revived train (running from 2nd Avenue) OR a new train (operating from Whitehall Street), with the new my original option though that would require a host of other changes noted upthread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quill Depot Posted December 11, 2014 Share #77 Posted December 11, 2014 Why not make a line from Rockaway Park to Woodhaven Blvd (can be converted to express station if needed). It can run under QBL and ramps can be made after Woodhaven for trains to merge onto express or local tracks (switch goes thru middle). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kamen Rider Posted December 11, 2014 Share #78 Posted December 11, 2014 If we smash a few of these plans together, we come up with something that might work. Idealy, this line could avoid the QB corridor all together. Shift the LIRR tracks past whitepot over one slot. The subway would get the current LIRR eastbound "local" track and the Ex-rockaway bound trackway. If local stations are constructed on this line, it may actually help the overcrowding on Queens blvd. The two tracks on the side can be raised or lowered as needed. Once it gets to Winfield the Row is now to narrow so we have some options to explore. Go under or Above the LIRR (finding a way around the 7 at woodside), or follow Queens Blvd on the section with no Subway service, ideally underground. At Sunnyside, the line would cross under the yard and merge into the 63rd street tunnel, avoiding the ESA tunnels. Using the excess capacity of the both 63rd st tunnel and Phase 3 and 4 of the SAS, you've got a route that can serve Manhattan directly without man handling the Queens Blvd Line (quite the opposite, taking off some of the load) and without a transfer. In the words of every's new favorite subway riding toad puppet (who I've been following at lot longer than any of you)... http://youtu.be/UJCwkBpqNLk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T to Dyre Avenue Posted December 11, 2014 Share #79 Posted December 11, 2014 If the M went to Rockaway Park, it would most definitely be too long. The run time right now is about an hour from MET to CTL. If it extended from somewhere on Queens Blvd. towards the Rockaways (it wouldn't be able to do so directly from Continental due to physical configuration), I can say with absolute certainty that the run time would be too long. 1:00 MET to Queens Blvd. branch off point. From Rockaway Blvd. on the A to Rockaway Park is at minimum 20 minutes, and you've still got to cover the distance between Rockaway Blvd. and whereever you're completing the line. So you're probably looking at 1:45 scheduled with no delays, which easily can get over 2 hours. It's also a gigantic circle for one point in the run, which is inefficient, at minimum. There are better methods of using the Rockaway Beach Branch tracks than just extending the M. Then what would be a better method of using the RBB than extending the ? Extending the (as some blogs have proposed), presents the same issue of the route being too long, maybe even more so because the R is already a longer route than the M. And Wallyhorse's and proposals either result in overloading the 6th Ave Local tracks or call for completely rearranging service in south Brooklyn to accommodate the W. And just extending the to Woodhaven Blvd or Roosevelt Ave to transfer to the E/F/M/R has its own disadvantages as well. As for the branch going back to the LIRR, well, they seem to be uninterested in providing service in Brooklyn and Queens, given their intention to turn Brooklyn-Jamaica service into a shuttle. Why would they want the RBB back? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Union Tpke Posted December 12, 2014 Share #80 Posted December 12, 2014 The only other thing I would do with that, is if they connected Chrystie to SAS (as originally planned), then move the M to SAS , and run the from Rockaways to Church Ave. (I just can't get into the weird shape of the route if it ran via the Rockaways). Though SAS is still Midtown; it's still not as central as 6th Ave. so I don't know if the people used to the new midtown service will accept being moved over like that (though it would get us around all the service problems on the current IND). Also, that's if they cut into the current Chrystie connector, but I don't know if the deep Chrystie build will preclude that (like it eliminates possibility of Grand St. connection). Precisely my plan I thought of independently. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Woodside7878 Posted December 12, 2014 Share #81 Posted December 12, 2014 when i check at Google maps, the school bus company is occupying the row at Atlantic ave and I don't think they want to move from there. The city might evict them for the rebuilding of the Rockaway spur, but they will go to court. I wonder if the section of viaduct in Ozone Park will be rehabilitate since there shops underneath pose a problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kamen Rider Posted December 12, 2014 Share #82 Posted December 12, 2014 City owns the entire row. If they were smart, then any agreements would have included a right to evict with notice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grand Concourse Posted December 12, 2014 Share #83 Posted December 12, 2014 Then what would be a better method of using the RBB than extending the ? Extending the (as some blogs have proposed), presents the same issue of the route being too long, maybe even more so because the R is already a longer route than the M. And Wallyhorse's and proposals either result in overloading the 6th Ave Local tracks or call for completely rearranging service in south Brooklyn to accommodate the W. And just extending the to Woodhaven Blvd or Roosevelt Ave to transfer to the E/F/M/R has its own disadvantages as well. As for the branch going back to the LIRR, well, they seem to be uninterested in providing service in Brooklyn and Queens, given their intention to turn Brooklyn-Jamaica service into a shuttle. Why would they want the RBB back? An with transfer to the at Woodhaven blvd is probably the 'simplest' plan to do and does not impact the existing QB lines. The whole point of the Rockaway row reactivation should be to help ease the burden on the Q52/53 lines with riders likely going to Woodhaven on QB for the subway or at Jamaica for the J or Liberty av for the A. QB as is can't be expected to take on more service. What Queens really needs is a brand new trunk line parallel to QB and connected to 63rd st tunnel, ie: Queens super express that should've been built decades ago. From there if phase 3 is ready the line would run down 2nd av. Riders wanting midtown service would have already transfered for the F somewhere by the time it gets to Roosevelt Is or the R at Woodhaven and later the E. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lance Posted December 12, 2014 Share #84 Posted December 12, 2014 KR's idea is probably the best around since it actually solves three of the main problems with the RB line. There would be direct Manhattan-Rockaway Beach service, a service that would be sped up because it wouldn't be a local and it also doesn't affect any of the other lines on Queens Blvd, thus no excessive lengthening of the already long local lines. However, if that isn't an option, there's another alternative. Allow me to put on my Wallyhorse cap if you will. The M is pretty much a non-starter as far as RB is concerned. It isn't going back to Nassau St and it really can't be extended from Queens Blvd without becoming obscenely long. Same thing with the current R. But what if the R was shortened? To Whitehall perhaps? Now something would have to replace the lost 4th Ave local service. Since the likelihood of any of this happening before the first phase of 2nd Ave opening is non-existent, I'm including the potential W Astoria-Broadway service as part of the possible ideas. Now that could be extended into Brooklyn, but that would run into the same problems the pre-'87 R had with its indirect access to a yard. There's also the J, an option that has tossed about as either an addition or replacement of current R service. Though, while that would solve the merging problems the R deals with since the J only merges with the M, this would create a few more problems. The J would add another half-hour to its trips, which has the potential of making the line less reliable, and riders would lose their direct service between 4th Ave and Midtown. Like I said before, there are no easy ways to incorporate RB into the subway, especially into Queens Blvd. I do think KR's idea is the best one to go about this, but that would involve a lot of construction on top of the rebuild of the RB line, because let's face it, the only thing usable there is the ROW. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T to Dyre Avenue Posted December 12, 2014 Share #85 Posted December 12, 2014 Hmmm...I guess you could just shorten the at Whitehall St and extend a revived to Bay Ridge. Is it possible to use 39th St Yard to store W trains, so that an extended W doesn't run into the same issues the pre-87 R had? I'm not sure just how much space there is there, but it does like it could function as a "satellite yard" for CI, in the same way Fresh Pond and Canarsie yards do for ENY. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RollOver Posted December 12, 2014 Share #86 Posted December 12, 2014 Hmmm...I guess you could just shorten the at Whitehall St and extend a revived to Bay Ridge. Is it possible to use 39th St Yard to store W trains, so that an extended W doesn't run into the same issues the pre-87 R had? I'm not sure just how much space there is there, but it does like it could function as a "satellite yard" for CI, in the same way Fresh Pond and Canarsie yards do for ENY. No, because then the would need some of Jamaica's maintained/inspected equipment - R46 and R160. It all boils down to operational reasons. Coney Island's equipment is needed on the , , , and . Plus, the would have to run at all times except nights. Does Astoria need two services on weekends? The entire subway system (believe it or not) is plauged with track/signal maintainers during weekends (as well as nights). For any two-track and/or four-track corridor, it has to be 6 tph, 12 tph, 15 tph and/or 18 tph for that particular reason. It can't be any higher than that. Until I see otherwise, I'm going to have to correct you and remind you on this one. So for now, you're just going to have to put up with the scrapping the walls on Queens Blvd, Broadway and 4th Ave, while the weekday-only turns at Whitehall (Sea Beach Line at either Kings Hwy or 86 St whenever it ends/starts service after/before Whitehall), running 10 trainsets from Coney Island. As always, it's been that way even before the 2010 cuts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T to Dyre Avenue Posted December 13, 2014 Share #87 Posted December 13, 2014 No, because then the would need some of Jamaica's maintained/inspected equipment - R46 and R160. It all boils down to operational reasons. Coney Island's equipment is needed on the , , , and . Plus, the would have to run at all times except nights. Does Astoria need two services on weekends? The entire subway system (believe it or not) is plauged with track/signal maintainers during weekends (as well as nights). For any two-track and/or four-track corridor, it has to be 6 tph, 12 tph, 15 tph and/or 18 tph for that particular reason. It can't be any higher than that. Until I see otherwise, I'm going to have to correct you and remind you on this one. So for now, you're just going to have to put up with the scrapping the walls on Queens Blvd, Broadway and 4th Ave, while the weekday-only turns at Whitehall (Sea Beach Line at either Kings Hwy or 86 St whenever it ends/starts service after/before Whitehall), running 10 trainsets from Coney Island. As always, it's been that way even before the 2010 cuts. Hey RollOver, did you even bother to read what this thread is about? Or even just the last few pages of it? First, I don't need you to "correct" or "remind" me of anything about the NYC Subway! I've been riding these trains for probably longer than you've been alive and I probably know a lot more than you seem to think I do about how the system works. Second, no one (at least I hope no one) seems to think there will magically be a rehabbed Rockaway Beach Branch from Rego Park to Ozone Park with rebuilt stations, signals and third rail ready for service tomorrow. It will take (at the very least) many years to get it ready for service. If they ever decide to, of course. So what do current R46 and R160 car assignments at Jamaica Yard have to do with service on the Rockaway Branch? Or current car assignments on the B, D, G, N and Q lines for that matter - especially the D? Isn't the D based out of Concourse Yard up in the Bronx anyway? The R46s will be gone from service by any realistic time frame of getting the branch rehabbed and ready for service. Who cares about "for now"? We are not discussing "for now" in this thread, other than to address the current traffic and commuting issues on Woodhaven Blvd, which parallels the old Rockaway Branch. There is one part of your post where you have a point. I highlighted those sentences in bold. The rest is you disagreeing just for the sake of disagreeing. Just read this well-written post by Lance to get an idea of what the whole thread is about, before you start getting all condescending on people. And please pay extra attention to the parts highlighted in bold. Because that's what I was responding to! KR's idea is probably the best around since it actually solves three of the main problems with the RB line. There would be direct Manhattan-Rockaway Beach service, a service that would be sped up because it wouldn't be a local and it also doesn't affect any of the other lines on Queens Blvd, thus no excessive lengthening of the already long local lines. However, if that isn't an option, there's another alternative. Allow me to put on my Wallyhorse cap if you will. The M is pretty much a non-starter as far as RB is concerned. It isn't going back to Nassau St and it really can't be extended from Queens Blvd without becoming obscenely long. Same thing with the current R. But what if the R was shortened? To Whitehall perhaps? Now something would have to replace the lost 4th Ave local service. Since the likelihood of any of this happening before the first phase of 2nd Ave opening is non-existent, I'm including the potential W Astoria-Broadway service as part of the possible ideas. Now that could be extended into Brooklyn, but that would run into the same problems the pre-'87 R had with its indirect access to a yard. There's also the J, an option that has tossed about as either an addition or replacement of current R service. Though, while that would solve the merging problems the R deals with since the J only merges with the M, this would create a few more problems. The J would add another half-hour to its trips, which has the potential of making the line less reliable, and riders would lose their direct service between 4th Ave and Midtown. Like I said before, there are no easy ways to incorporate RB into the subway, especially into Queens Blvd. I do think KR's idea is the best one to go about this, but that would involve a lot of construction on top of the rebuild of the RB line, because let's face it, the only thing usable there is the ROW. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RollOver Posted December 13, 2014 Share #88 Posted December 13, 2014 Going through the above post (December 12, 2014), so I'll write this out so I'm not lost or confused: * 71 Av to Whitehall St (daytime hours only, no night-time service at all) Positives...less prone to delays, train bunching and headway adjustments, seats available for Queens-bound customers in Manhattan (AM rush) and reverse the other way around in the PM Rush, giving that it terminates in the Manhattan CBD and not a residential area. Negatives...any signal problems on Queens Blvd or Broadway (referring to weekend service when the only short turns at Essex St) would result in the being turn into a Queens-only line or a Manhattan-only line. * Astoria to Bay Ridge (daytime hours only) 36 St to Bay Ridge (nights only) Positives...it gives Astoria 50% of service (12 trains per hour or so) on weekends just like on weekdays, but as I asked before, does the weekend service warrant it (unless the was suspended south of Queensboro Plaza)? Negatives...it becomes just as a long local route compared to the current (hell, even Lance said so himself), with more delays and irregularity. It won't have a direct yard (better yet - shop) access unless you send it down to the West End or Sea Beach lines. If so, then the would have to be brought to Brooklyn as well and either the or the would have to serve the West End (or Sea Beach) or Bay Ridge once either of those two routes are past south of 36 St. * Jamaica Center to Bay Ridge (daytime hours only) Jamaica Center to Broad St (nights only) A special shuttle runs between 36 St and Bay Ridge (nights only) Positives...train crews would no longer have to use the relay south of Broad St to reverse trains (daytime hours only that is...). Negatives...as said before, a longer local route compared to the (regardless of the fact that it shares track with just the ), adding additional running time to the line and also meaning less reliability. And worst of all, there's no actual through service between Whitehall St and Court St (and also below), but rather between Broad St and Court St (and also below). The had obviously been pretty clear of why they choose to eliminate the old Bay Parkway and why the Nassau St. Connection via the Montague Tube is no longer used regularly. All of the negatives that I wrote down are the reasons as to why I disagreed with you on the suggestion (or whatever it is) that I've read on both yours and Lance's posts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T to Dyre Avenue Posted December 16, 2014 Share #89 Posted December 16, 2014 Not good news at all... http://nydailynews.com/new-york/queens/state-money-queensway-project-article-1.2042300#bmb=1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lance Posted December 16, 2014 Share #90 Posted December 16, 2014 Admittedly, we knew how this was going to turn out. It's unfortunate, but really, it's exactly what we should have expected. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobtehpanda Posted December 16, 2014 Share #91 Posted December 16, 2014 Design money only gets you so far. How many times have we seen design competitions for a new Penn Station, exactly? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wallyhorse Posted December 17, 2014 Share #92 Posted December 17, 2014 Design money only gets you so far. How many times have we seen design competitions for a new Penn Station, exactly? Exactly. Plus, there are elected officials who are pushing for a re-activation of the line. Cuomo right now might be looking ahead to a potential Presidential bid in 2020 (if the Dems do not retain the White House in 2016) or 2024 (if they do retain in 2016) and might not want to PO potential donors who are NOT fans of transit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T to Dyre Avenue Posted December 18, 2014 Share #93 Posted December 18, 2014 Yes, but not very many. And then you have elected officials like Councilwoman Karen Koslowitz who are actively opposed to bringing back train service on that line and taking the tired old attitudes of how it will bring crime and noise to Rego Park/Forest Hills and ruin property values for people along the line. As for Cuomo seeking donor money for a potential 2016 Presidential campaign, very few (if any) donors who are actively opposed to mass transit will give money to his campaign. Unless maybe he runs as a Republican. And I say maybe because between the new gun legislation, the legalization of gay marriage in New York and his recent signing of anti-gas fracking laws into effect, almost no wealthy, transit-hating Republican will go anywhere near Cuomo now. So he wouldn't have much to lose if he decided to direct the MTA toward restoring rail on the Rockaway branch. Maybe he'd have PO'ed the NIMBYS who live next to the branch. But really, how many of them are wealthy enough to fund his potential Presidential campaign? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobtehpanda Posted December 18, 2014 Share #94 Posted December 18, 2014 For what it's worth, there's also a big segment of the NIMBYs opposed to any use of the ROW. It was estimated that a Queensway would require private investment three times that of the High Line, which is quite frankly ridiculous and a waste of money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Union Tpke Posted December 22, 2014 Share #95 Posted December 22, 2014 Yes, but not very many. And then you have elected officials like Councilwoman Karen Koslowitz who are actively opposed to bringing back train service on that line and taking the tired old attitudes of how it will bring crime and noise to Rego Park/Forest Hills and ruin property values for people along the line. As for Cuomo seeking donor money for a potential 2016 Presidential campaign, very few (if any) donors who are actively opposed to mass transit will give money to his campaign. Unless maybe he runs as a Republican. And I say maybe because between the new gun legislation, the legalization of gay marriage in New York and his recent signing of anti-gas fracking laws into effect, almost no wealthy, transit-hating Republican will go anywhere near Cuomo now. So he wouldn't have much to lose if he decided to direct the MTA toward restoring rail on the Rockaway branch. Maybe he'd have PO'ed the NIMBYS who live next to the branch. But really, how many of them are wealthy enough to fund his potential Presidential campaign? also there will be people looking into people's houses, which will bring values down. There will be crime, possible rape, drug dealing, etc. You would need a substantial amount of police officers, for an area that doesn't need it. If phase 1 of the Queensway goes through, and there isn't any more funding to fund the rest, then it is just a useless stub park. In the Goldfederer study it talks about how only 30% support rail service via the ROW. They don't care for a rail line as they already have train service, the A. The purpose of rail would be to serve South Ozone Park, Ozone Park, Glendale, Richmond Hill, Woodhaven, Rego Park and Forest Hills. Don't let the name of the original purpose of the line fool you. Also, there is ONE big question I want supporters of the Queensway to answer. What means of transportation do you want instead. If they respond with Select Bus Service... I WILL RESPOND WITH A PLAN FOR A SUBWAY UNDER WOODHAVEN!!!! THE REAL PROBLEM IS NOT HAVING COMPETENT PEOPLE IN GOV'T. WE NEED REAL PEOPLE IN GOVERNMENT! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MTA Dude Posted December 22, 2014 Share #96 Posted December 22, 2014 I'm sorry, what's a ROW? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fresh Pond Posted December 22, 2014 Share #97 Posted December 22, 2014 Right of way Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MTA Dude Posted December 22, 2014 Share #98 Posted December 22, 2014 Right of way Um, I still don't get it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P3F Posted December 22, 2014 Share #99 Posted December 22, 2014 Um, I still don't get it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_of_way Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wallyhorse Posted December 28, 2014 Share #100 Posted December 28, 2014 A very elitist view from The New York Times on wanting this to be QueensWay:http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/27/opinion/a-green-line-through-queens.html?ref=opinion&_r=1 To me, it's obvious the people behind this as well as the elitists are selfish and only care about themselves, Most likely, a lot of these people either think that negative types use the subways or some of them (or their parents) remember the 1970's and early '80s when the subways were strewn with graffiti and crime and don't realize how different it is today. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.