Department of Subways - Proposals/Ideas

[MTA Researcher]

1 hour ago, Lex said:

In that case, you are beyond help.

So… my ideas are not as crazy anymore?

 

At least I try to make sure my proposals meet folk’s demands while I get my flavor.

 

I threw that [H] (I) Rockaway line proposal a week ago to see reactions. Apparently people don’t like it, so I listen and tweak around.

On 1/27/2023 at 10:17 AM, TMC said:

That'd why I'd just go with no-build or a dogbone past Forest Hills, extending both locals, and sending all s to Lefferts, while QBL locals go to each terminal on the peninsula, likely running 20 TPH total, 10 TPH per branch.

I actually like this idea under my proposal to have  go from Rockaway Park via QBL local - 6 Av/Brighton Express and  from Far Rockaway via QBL local - Broadway/4 Av Express.

Edited January 29, 2023 by MTA Researcher

[TMC]

9 hours ago, Lex said:

In that case, you are beyond help.

I still do not get the fixation on coverage…

We’re here worrying about a couple-thousand people on a tiny peninsula. 

[TMC]

17 hours ago, T to Dyre Avenue said:

I don’t really think it’s such a bad thing if one of the locals branches off Queens Blvd at 63rd Drive. Both locals really don’t need to go to the Rockaways. Only one local station loses service, 67th Ave. Although there would only be three services at 71st Ave, let’s be honest, the overwhelming majority of riders there want the express  and  trains…which they would still have. Relatively few riders at 71st are taking the  or , and that almost certainly wouldn’t change if  the  or  is the only local there.

This is true, although my proposal avoids reducing Forest Hills to a branch, which is the part I do not like about Queenslink (As well as the G).

[NoHacksJustKhaks]

How did I sleep on this discussion?

I've never heard such a hostile reaction to  buying out the LIRR trackage over Jamaica Bay, and running subway service to the Rockaway's. I mean, none of this is new to me, I've heard proposals where people wanted to tear apart the subway trackage and turn Rockaway service into LRT - but somehow TMC's take on this is, feels a lot more insulting to those who actually use the and  in the Rockaway's.

All I'm going to say is this, if you stopped running the  to Rockaway (cut it, and extend the Far Rockaway LIRR to Rockaway Park Beach 116th), you are going to have very negative impacts on current commuting patterns, which will adversely affect people without a car in this city. 

TMC is not wrong in that getting rid of the Rockaway  increases capacity for the main Fulton street corridor, but fails to consider how this greatly comes at a cost for those riders who already use the present  service. And no, it isn't like it's a "minute" amount... Airport riders, Rockaway/Howard Beach passengers and casino passengers all benefit from the current routing. Getting rid of it will demand some kind of replacement, so optimizing the lefferts branch should not come at the cost of tossing rockaway riders under the bus. 

 

[TMC]

7 minutes ago, NoHacksJustKhaks said:

How did I sleep on this discussion?

I've never heard such a hostile reaction to  buying out the LIRR trackage over Jamaica Bay, and running subway service to the Rockaway's. I mean, none of this is new to me, I've heard proposals where people wanted to tear apart the subway trackage and turn Rockaway service into LRT - but somehow TMC's take on this is, feels a lot more insulting to those who actually use the and  in the Rockaway's.

All I'm going to say is this, if you stopped running the  to Rockaway (cut it, and extend the Far Rockaway LIRR to Rockaway Park Beach 116th), you are going to have very negative impacts on current commuting patterns, which will adversely affect people without a car in this city. 

TMC is not wrong in that getting rid of the Rockaway  increases capacity for the main Fulton street corridor, but fails to consider how this greatly comes at a cost for those riders who already use the present  service. And no, it isn't like it's a "minute" amount... Airport riders, Rockaway/Howard Beach passengers and casino passengers all benefit from the current routing. Getting rid of it will demand some kind of replacement, so optimizing the lefferts branch should not come at the cost of tossing rockaway riders under the bus. 

 

You are 100% correct, I am insulting the customers of the Rockaways. 

 

Jokes aside…

 

I maintain my stance that the riders just don’t matter when it comes to making decisions about capacity. The contribution that tiny peninsula has on the core strength of the region is little to none, compared with the benefits to core strength that running better service on existing lines does. The coverage is nice, riders may like the service, but network coverage should never be a primary argument for keeping/adding/extending lines in my opinion. 
 

As for the JFK, I prefer extending the Lefferts Branch out to Jamaica. Casino passengers don’t contribute that much, looking at pre- and post-COVID statistics. It’s likely that most going to the casino drive because they aren’t locals to the area, maybe even the city. 
 

I’m sorry, but the Rockaways really do deserve the short end of the stick.

[NoHacksJustKhaks]

1 hour ago, TMC said:

The coverage is nice, riders may like the service, but network coverage should never be a primary argument for keeping/adding/extending lines in my opinion. 

As for the JFK, I prefer extending the Lefferts Branch out to Jamaica. Casino passengers don’t contribute that much, looking at pre- and post-COVID statistics. It’s likely that most going to the casino drive because they aren’t locals to the area, maybe even the city. 

I’m sorry, but the Rockaways really do deserve the short end of the stick.

And I guess you're right, coverage just for the sake of coverage isn't exactly a valid reason to keep around lines that aren't used. The Rockaway 's existence isn't just based on coverage though. Yeah ridership is relatively (and this is when comparing it to other lines in the city) small here but it is established and existent, this isn't like killing off a largely unused shuttle route that goes to nowhere...

Without sounding like wallyhorse (who downright defends the casino with his chest), you're right that a lot of casinogoers park, but having the train around though certainly doesn't hurt the area either...

I guess I flat out disagree with your view of how the Fulton line should be, and it doesn't seem like we're gonna change that. I think linking the subway to rockaway was the right idea, it is what it is 🤷 

[TMC]

6 minutes ago, NoHacksJustKhaks said:

And I guess you're right, coverage just for the sake of coverage isn't exactly a valid reason to keep around lines that aren't used. The Rockaway 's existence isn't just based on coverage though. Yeah ridership is relatively (and this is when comparing it to other lines in the city) small here but it is established and existent, this isn't like killing off a largely unused shuttle route that goes to nowhere...

Without sounding like wallyhorse (who downright defends the casino with his chest), you're right that a lot of casinogoers park, but having the train around though certainly doesn't hurt the area either...

I guess I flat out disagree with your view of how the Fulton line should be, and it doesn't seem like we're gonna change that. I think linking the subway to rockaway was the right idea, it is what it is 🤷 

Going off of data, the stations south of Rockaway Blvd towards and in the Rockaways are the least used in the entire system. I’m not saying the train is hurting the area, I’m saying it’s hurting capacity systemwide (combined with my views elsewhere on how service should be run). 
 

My pitch is re-establishing LIRR service along the peninsula, as an extension of the Far Rockaway Branch so that they get something at least, not stranding them entirely. It would be run like an S-Bahn type of service. And travel times would be comparable to the A into Midtown and major locations in Brooklyn. 

[Jemorie]

2 hours ago, TMC said:

I’m sorry, but the Rockaways really do deserve the short end of the stick.

Dude, give up and collect your L. At this point, you’re just spouting out a whole bunch of nothing and repeating yourself while trying to come up with so-called solutions as you go along to try and win. The  to and from the Rockaways is staying. Nobody is gonna take a roundabout BS of a route that you’re proposing when the  takes you straight into Brooklyn and Manhattan. And Far Rockaway is the busiest in the entire peninsula. Howard Beach-JFK is also another important station along the Rockaway Branch of the .

EDIT: And let’s also not forget that there are people during Beach Season that travel from Manhattan and Brooklyn into the Rockaways via the , with a transfer to/from the  at Rockaway Blvd.

@Trainmaster5 kept giving you an inch but you continue to ask for a mile. Anyways, back to my shell… 

Edited January 29, 2023 by Jemorie

[Vulturious]

Guess I might as well give my two cents on this seeing as everyone else is so here goes.

I don't think giving the Rockaways the boot is a good idea or even an idea that should be considered. We've already gone through this type of issue when the city or the MTA or whatever have gone ahead and demolished certain areas and lines because of low ridership or some other excuse. A lot of people here or on some other subforum have expressed about the lack of a subway service along the 3rd Av EL in the Bronx being a bit of an issue, advocating that it should return. Having the Rockaways lose direct subway access would have some rather bad consequences.

There's really nothing else I can say about what to do with the Rockaways other than talk about what I'm seeing with this chat. One thing I have to point out to everyone here is one person is being attacked, bombarded by attempting and sharing their idea in trying to bring in better service for the Fulton St line. Again, I'm not for the idea of getting rid of the Rockaways for the sake of bringing in better service to a bigger line and as bad of a statement that is to say, I'm openminded. At the end of the day, I see a person like TMC attempting to bring in a solution with everyone else sharing their oppositions and certain people blatantly attacking TMC in the process. Again, not for the idea, I'm just pointing out something that is happening in this chat that doesn't really set a good example really, dare I say what about bringing in other ideas to combat instead of attacking?

I'll go first, one dumb idea that has already been presented by Vanshnook himself was creating a new tunnel connection from Montague St tunnel to the old Court St station, the SAS is still way too far from anywhere it should be right now. Digging a new tunnel is going to be very costly which I completely understand isn't really cost effective, however it allows for a new kind of redundancy. Obviously, the  under this proposal would stick to being with the  in this scenario all the way into Queens while another service, say the  runs to Euclid Av as the replacement. There are a lot of pros here with obviously one big con being the issue with the NYTM and where to relocate it. However, there isn't really any other options outside of having to de-interline and move around some services, unfortunately Fulton St would still operate under the current service with  branching in Queens and the  to Euclid.

There really is no other solution to fixing the issue along Fulton and in Queens at the moment, we just have to wait until some grand opportunity presents itself or the MTA decides to take the inititive to bring in a better solution. 

[TMC]

1 hour ago, Jemorie said:

Nobody is gonna take a roundabout BS of a route that you’re proposing when the  takes you straight into Brooklyn and Manhattan.

You just proved my point, barely anyone uses the line right now, they are the least used stations in the system bar-none. Just like the 3rd Avenue El and other elevated lines, it deserves to go. It doesn’t serve an important area. I won’t repeat myself for how access to JFK should be handled, but I will say that airport access is not the most important thing in the world. Core-access and strength however, are, which is what my proposal aims to do. 

[TMC]

6 minutes ago, Vulturious said:

We've already gone through this type of issue when the city or the MTA or whatever have gone ahead and demolished certain areas and lines because of low ridership or some other excuse. A lot of people here or on some other subforum have expressed about the lack of a subway service along the 3rd Av EL in the Bronx being a bit of an issue, advocating that it should return. Having the Rockaways lose direct subway access would have some rather bad consequences.

It was a good thing all of those Els came down, especially 3rd Ave in the Bronx. Looking at those areas now, and Midtown Manhattan, there was too much core saturation, that barely any capacity was lost under a modern operating paradigm. Along 3rd Ave in the Bronx, the neighborhood can support a light rail line at most under its current built environment. A subway would be overkill, with a functioning regional rail system. In many places, the subway just isn’t a good use of existing capacity, such as the Rockaways.

 

The numbers can be run for the costs of running IND Rockaway versus the costs of running LIRR Far Rockaway plus the demolition of the properties needed for my solution to work, and I believe they come out positively in favor of me.

[ABCDEFGJLMNQRSSSWZ]

5 hours ago, TMC said:

You just proved my point, barely anyone uses the line right now, they are the least used stations in the system bar-none. Just like the 3rd Avenue El and other elevated lines, it deserves to go. It doesn’t serve an important area. I won’t repeat myself for how access to JFK should be handled, but I will say that airport access is not the most important thing in the world. Core-access and strength however, are, which is what my proposal aims to do. 

I agree and disagree.

Those are objectively the least used stations in the system, some with only like 100 daily passengers. I def see an argument for just not running night service out there. I also think it's unfortunate the disproportionate amount of discussion the Rockaway line has gotten just because of the abandoned LIRR route that exists. If it weren't for that, literally no one would be considering it as a needed to necessary project. Adding another trunk line in Queens is a lot more important imo as the 7/E/F are all having capacity issues.

At the same time though, Rockaway is geographically isolated and what little population there is has developed around the line. With the Ls that were taken down, there were always other subway lines in the region or at least busses that could directly replace them, but with Rockaway that's harder. It would also subtly make the city less desirable by making it harder to access the beaches.

As a transit nerd, I feel like the A train out in the Rockaways is such an iconic part of the subway map and it'd be sad to see it go, though practically ofc that doesn't matter.

https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/718993823753175186/1067940531344257024/SubwayMTAinfo_2021-09-16_510.pdf

Here's a ridership map I made a while back; Rockaways def stand out like a sore thumb lol.

[TMC]

1 hour ago, ABCDEFGJLMNQRSSSWZ said:

At the same time though, Rockaway is geographically isolated and what little population there is has developed around the line. With the Ls that were taken down, there were always other subway lines in the region or at least busses that could directly replace them, but with Rockaway that's harder. It would also subtly make the city less desirable by making it harder to access the beaches.

 

That's why they'd get LIRR service re-extended to Rockaway Park, the "roundabout route" is only 4 minutes longer under the current paradigm, with speedups and modern padding, it would likely be a great deal quicker, while making the rest of the system run better.

[ABCDEFGJLMNQRSSSWZ]

17 minutes ago, TMC said:

That's why they'd get LIRR service re-extended to Rockaway Park, the "roundabout route" is only 4 minutes longer under the current paradigm, with speedups and modern padding, it would likely be a great deal quicker, while making the rest of the system run better.

Good point. Ig the main question is is or does Rockaway long term have the potential to actually use a high-capacity subway line down the road? A breif Google Map search shows the area is already quite "filled in" and this last census growth wasn't anything special.

Would it be possible to reconnect it but still keep it so it's easy enough to switch back to the ?

[mrsman]

There is so much that was said about the Fulton and Rockaway services over the past few days, that I wanted to chime in a little.

I think there is definitely a capacity problem for the Fulton line.  But it isn't going to be solved until there is a dedicated connection between the Fulton local and Manhattan.  Right now, the full capacity of one line through the Cranberry tunnel is split between local and express service.

There are only two ways to increase the number of trains running on the Fulton line:

a) New tunnel connection from Fulton local to another line.  Most likely this means a connecion through Court Street to Lower Manhattan (to SAS or to Montague or to the 8Ave local to WTC), but it could potentially be to other lines .

b) Local service running in Brooklyn only.  RPA has made this suggestion.  Local trains serving as a Court (or Hoyt) to Euclid and all passengers will need to transfer to the express for service to Manhattan.  It means that both  and  will continue beyond Euclid, but at the cost of inconiencing all local passengers between Hoyt and Euclid and forcing them to make transfers to the express.

Barring either of those will mean that only a portion of the Cranberry trains will make it past Euclid* and unless a shuttle operation were created, that reduced train frequency will potentially be split in multiple ways.  I don't think either Lefferts passengers or Rockaway peninsula passengers would be happy with a shuttle and a forced transfer to  at Rockaway Blvd.

 

* This assumes that no reverse branching occurs at Euclid to put both  and  back on the elevated over Liberty Ave, or that new service branches off either the FUlton local or Fulton express to go to somewhere else beyond Euclid.  This likely means a long subway under Pitkin to continue to the casino or a short subway udner Pitkin to Conduit, with an elevated over Conduit to connect to the RBB, but closing down casino access permanently.

 

 

[T to Dyre Avenue]

20 hours ago, Vulturious said:

I'll go first, one dumb idea that has already been presented by Vanshnook himself was creating a new tunnel connection from Montague St tunnel to the old Court St station, the SAS is still way too far from anywhere it should be right now. Digging a new tunnel is going to be very costly which I completely understand isn't really cost effective, however it allows for a new kind of redundancy. Obviously, the  under this proposal would stick to being with the  in this scenario all the way into Queens while another service, say the  runs to Euclid Av as the replacement. There are a lot of pros here with obviously one big con being the issue with the NYTM and where to relocate it. However, there isn't really any other options outside of having to de-interline and move around some services, unfortunately Fulton St would still operate under the current service with  branching in Queens and the  to Euclid.

There really is no other solution to fixing the issue along Fulton and in Queens at the moment, we just have to wait until some grand opportunity presents itself or the MTA decides to take the inititive to bring in a better solution. 

To be fair, if the  did connect to the Fulton St local tracks somewhere near Hoyt-Schermerhorn, it would solve two problems. One is the issue of having a bifurcated  in Queens (and tri-furcated during peak direction rush). Because then the  can get the Rockaways and the  can get Lefferts (or vice versa; it doesn't really matter since both would be express). The other would be the lack of a storage/maintenance yard for Astoria trains. Because the  could then be stabled at Pitkin Yard (which I'm sure is large enough to stable more than just the ). I understand the MTA not wanting to build a yard, given that Montague has plenty of capacity to spare with only the  running there now. Maybe some sort of connection can be built between the DeKalb and Lafayette Ave stations. Can't see how it would cost more than a brand-new parallel Schermerhorn tunnel through Court St would (one that would also be running well below capacity).

22 hours ago, TMC said:

Going off of data, the stations south of Rockaway Blvd towards and in the Rockaways are the least used in the entire system. I’m not saying the train is hurting the area, I’m saying it’s hurting capacity systemwide (combined with my views elsewhere on how service should be run). 
 

My pitch is re-establishing LIRR service along the peninsula, as an extension of the Far Rockaway Branch so that they get something at least, not stranding them entirely. It would be run like an S-Bahn type of service. And travel times would be comparable to the A into Midtown and major locations in Brooklyn. 

Maybe so, but there is a not-small swath of area above Rockaway Blvd that hasn't had any train service in over 60 years. An area that could benefit from a faster link to North Queens than the Q21 and the Q52/53 SBS, all of which are at the mercy of the car and truck traffic on Woodhaven Blvd that's both heavy and insane. With connections to the  (at 104th St, which used to have a mezzanine at 102nd St) and the LIRR Atlantic Branch (reopened Woodhaven station), that could make for some new and faster connections within Queens and between Queens and Brooklyn that either don't currently exist or take long. 

[TMC]

8 hours ago, T to Dyre Avenue said:

Maybe so, but there is a not-small swath of area above Rockaway Blvd that hasn't had any train service in over 60 years. An area that could benefit from a faster link to North Queens than the Q21 and the Q52/53 SBS, all of which are at the mercy of the car and truck traffic on Woodhaven Blvd that's both heavy and insane. With connections to the  (at 104th St, which used to have a mezzanine at 102nd St) and the LIRR Atlantic Branch (reopened Woodhaven station), that could make for some new and faster connections within Queens and between Queens and Brooklyn that either don't currently exist or take long.

The issue then exists, what are you connecting? They aren't any secondary CBDs or activity centers in Eastern Queens except for Jamaica and Flushing. Any new line going on that RoW has to be judged by its speed into Midtown Manhattan, and the ridership it can pick up along the route, of which there isn't much. It's all SFH development, which shouldn't be changed any time soon, as there are areas closer in that should be redeveloped. 

[mrsman]

There is still a benefit in being able to run more trains along other busy sections of lines that could use more capacity, but are otherwise constrained.

THe most direct beneficiary of that would be the Queens Blvd line itself.  One of the constraints based on current operations is that Forest Hills can only turn back 20 TPH, not 30 TPH.  If 10 TPH diverts from QBL local onto Queenslink, and 20 TPH can still run to Forest Hills, you can run 30 TPH on the QBL local track west of Rego Park.

(Of course another constraint is the interlined nature of the QBL approaches to Manhattan.  So perhaps the extra service to run would be re-extending the  train back to Forest Hills and sending either  or  down Queenslink to Rockaway Park.)

I would also suggest that a growing secondary CBD that should be better served is Long Island City.  As that area grows, there certainly can be more of a need for intra-borough trips within Queens.  The Queenslink will certainly improve the trip time between Ozone Park and Long Island City and would also improve travel times to Jamaica (with a transfer to  ).  

[ABCDEFGJLMNQRSSSWZ]

On 1/30/2023 at 2:34 PM, T to Dyre Avenue said:

To be fair, if the  did connect to the Fulton St local tracks somewhere near Hoyt-Schermerhorn, it would solve two problems. One is the issue of having a bifurcated  in Queens (and tri-furcated during peak direction rush). Because then the  can get the Rockaways and the  can get Lefferts (or vice versa; it doesn't really matter since both would be express). The other would be the lack of a storage/maintenance yard for Astoria trains. Because the  could then be stabled at Pitkin Yard (which I'm sure is large enough to stable more than just the ). I understand the MTA not wanting to build a yard, given that Montague has plenty of capacity to spare with only the  running there now. Maybe some sort of connection can be built between the DeKalb and Lafayette Ave stations. Can't see how it would cost more than a brand-new parallel Schermerhorn tunnel through Court St would (one that would also be running well below capacity).

I honestly think the bifurcation of the  is fine given how low ridership is, infact, I think sending the C out to Lefferts would be "overserving" that community when you have a public system with limited resources. 

Fulton St overall maybe be along 4 track line, but it's not all that busy, so having just Cranberry (with Rutgers as an emergency backup) should be fine. It's also not like the communities it's serving are growing particularly fast, and even Cranberry isn't at capacity. In an ideal world, ig a connection to Montague could be nice but today there's not really a reason it's needed.

[TMC]

14 hours ago, mrsman said:

THe most direct beneficiary of that would be the Queens Blvd line itself.  One of the constraints based on current operations is that Forest Hills can only turn back 20 TPH, not 30 TPH.  If 10 TPH diverts from QBL local onto Queenslink, and 20 TPH can still run to Forest Hills, you can run 30 TPH on the QBL local track west of Rego Park.

(Of course another constraint is the interlined nature of the QBL approaches to Manhattan.  So perhaps the extra service to run would be re-extending the  train back to Forest Hills and sending either  or  down Queenslink to Rockaway Park.)

 

As far as I know, the capacity constraint at Forest Hills is due to the process of cleaning the train at the platforms, which seems rather optional. The general track layout doesn't necessarily limit capacity below 30 TPH. So, an easier solution is just... not cleaning the trains at Forest Hills, do that at Jamaica Yard, or the tail tracks under 75th Avenue.  

[TMC]

12 hours ago, ABCDEFGJLMNQRSSSWZ said:

Fulton St overall maybe be along 4 track line, but it's not all that busy, so having just Cranberry (with Rutgers as an emergency backup) should be fine. It's also not like the communities it's serving are growing particularly fast, and even Cranberry isn't at capacity. In an ideal world, ig a connection to Montague could be nice but today there's not really a reason it's needed.

Cranberry is at capacity under its current permutation, but of course, de-interlining solves that issue. You're right that Fulton doesn't have the demand for a full trunk level of service, but the bifurcation of the  has implications to the rest of the system as well. Any delay on the  can easily propagate in some magnitude to the rest of the B Division, save for the L.

[Lawrence St]

On 1/29/2023 at 11:17 AM, NoHacksJustKhaks said:

How did I sleep on this discussion?

I've never heard such a hostile reaction to  buying out the LIRR trackage over Jamaica Bay, and running subway service to the Rockaway's. I mean, none of this is new to me, I've heard proposals where people wanted to tear apart the subway trackage and turn Rockaway service into LRT - but somehow TMC's take on this is, feels a lot more insulting to those who actually use the and  in the Rockaway's.

All I'm going to say is this, if you stopped running the  to Rockaway (cut it, and extend the Far Rockaway LIRR to Rockaway Park Beach 116th), you are going to have very negative impacts on current commuting patterns, which will adversely affect people without a car in this city. 

TMC is not wrong in that getting rid of the Rockaway  increases capacity for the main Fulton street corridor, but fails to consider how this greatly comes at a cost for those riders who already use the present  service. And no, it isn't like it's a "minute" amount... Airport riders, Rockaway/Howard Beach passengers and casino passengers all benefit from the current routing. Getting rid of it will demand some kind of replacement, so optimizing the lefferts branch should not come at the cost of tossing rockaway riders under the bus. 

 

Now hold on a minute, restoring the Rockaway line back to the Rockaway Branch for LIRR is an even trade off in my opinion because the amount of times I’ve seen people get on to go south to the Rockaways and Aqueduct come from Midtown stations. Which is actually even more beneficial to the people of Queens and Cross Bay Blvd because they now have restored rail service to the entire corridor.

Perhaps a way to even thing out is to separate the ROW on both companies so the LIRR operates on the inner dual tracks while the    operates on the outer and end at Howard Beach.

[BreeddekalbL]

I saw someone propose extending the L train back to Canarsie pier in the brooklyn bus redesign thread, how could it be done?

Edited February 2, 2023 by BreeddekalbL

[Theli11]

14 hours ago, BreeddekalbL said:

I saw someone propose extending the L train back to Canarsie pier in the brooklyn bus redesign thread, how could it be done?

Not that I agree, but I'd say extending the over New Lots Avenue (i.e. extending the two tracks out and and just making a new elevated over E 105th and Rockaway Parkway and just turn it down to the pier.

[TMC]

On 2/1/2023 at 9:47 AM, Lawrence St said:

Now hold on a minute, restoring the Rockaway line back to the Rockaway Branch for LIRR is an even trade off in my opinion because the amount of times I’ve seen people get on to go south to the Rockaways and Aqueduct come from Midtown stations. Which is actually even more beneficial to the people of Queens and Cross Bay Blvd because they now have restored rail service to the entire corridor.

My suggestion wasn’t along the entire corridor. My take is that the northern portion of the RoW is extremely meh for any kind of rail service. The benefit of coverage on that route doesn’t pan out, it’s mostly missing-middle and SFH, with auto-oriented commercial zones. I just prefer abandoning the entire cut-off and reactivating LIRR service to Rockaway Park from its current Far Rockaway terminus, a route that is only 4 minutes slower to Midtown on current schedules, and could definitely be made faster.