Jump to content

Rockaway Beach Branch


Recommended Posts

22 hours ago, R68OnBroadway said:

The (M) is a part-time line on QBL, and extending it will increase costs. Before you say this is pointless, the MTA is a agency of mismanagement, so service cuts would go there fast. The (R) is too long. The reason why QPTC is going on this is because with Queensway potentially on the horizon, they need to act now if they want RBB service.  

That’s not a reason not to do subway extensions. If it were, then we’d never have any. I’m not trying to be flippant, but doesn’t the extension of any subway line bring up the cost of operating the system as a whole? 

21 hours ago, Art Vandelay said:

I get the impression that the Queens Public Transit Committee is nothing more than a small group of drivers who don't want the Q52/Q53 bus lanes to exist. 

It may very well be. They may indeed be under the impression that bus lanes are taking away their precious driving lanes. Or they may be under the impression that the City and/or the Governor have already made up their minds in favor of a High Line-style park. 

In all honesty, I really don’t see why we can’t have both. If it’s going to be so expensive to make the Rockaway Beach line ready for rail service again, then why not dig a cut-and-cover tunnel for the (M) or (R) train, then have the line come to the surface just south of Forest Park? Then cover the subway with a linear park. Does it really have to be a choice between the two? Or do some people (cough*career politicians and NIMBYS*cough) just want it to be that way?

17 hours ago, Deucey said:

I get that the (M) always ran to Middle Village and 10 people outside the (MTA) felt a way about it possibly being renamed (V), but given your express setup, wouldn’t it be easier to do that if (M) ran to Jamaica during peak so it or (J) can do directional express, and send (Z) to Middle Village during the same period?

Well, no the (M) would go back to its regular route. The only reason the (M) is going to Broadway Junction is because it currently can’t go to Middle Village from Myrtle. This would be after the work on the Myrtle-Broadway viaduct is completed (and probably also after the (L) tunnel work is done). It would be rather confusing to Myrtle line riders to have the (Z) during peak hours and the (M) other times. 

5 hours ago, RR503 said:

I'm of two hearts on this plan. On one hand, the (E) needs relief, and Jamaica better subway service. On the other, you're furthering the underservice of communities between Jamaica and Myrtle, unless you add some express stops in between -- no small undertaking given the lack of provisions for any. If you don't add express stations, the williamsburg bridge's capacity constraints disallows any further addition of service much beyond those 12 tph, all but locking in the current 6 tph service. 

If you're suggesting running (J) local from Bway to Marcy, and the (Z) express, I would agree in a perfect world. That said, I was thinking about this since it was brought up earlier, and it occurred to me that train spacing would get weird. It takes 8 mins to go from Bway to Myrtle via local, and about 4.5 via express. If trains are running their current 5 minute headways during rush, your express is now only 1.5 mins behind your local. Problem is, that's about the time saving express gains you from Myrtle to Marcy, so one of those trains is gonna be delayed at that interlocking while the other makes its way through/into Marcy. Then, you'll have 2 trains spaced close together over the bridge, down Centre street, and into Broad, where fumigation time is bound to delay the trailing train even more.

Thoughts? 

So if we did a (Z) express between Broadway Junction and Marcy, it wouldn’t really save much time. There probably isn’t much else that could be done short of building a third track, preferably straight down Jamaica Avenue from Cypress Hills to Broadway Junction, that would bypass all the stops in between, including Cypress Hills itself, given how close that station is to the sharp curve the el takes when it turns off Jamaica and onto Crescent St. And running an express a couple minutes ahead of the local on the two-track section of the el is probably not happening, not with the way today’s MTA runs things.

Edited by T to Dyre Avenue
Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Replies 1.1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply
5 hours ago, bobtehpanda said:

I can see where you're coming from. On the other hand, the full-stop (J) is unbearably slow, mostly because the stations are so close together. I would not support the ending of skip-stop without at least some stop rationalization (knock two down, get one ADA-accessible stop in the middle to replace it)

Where would you suggest having these rationalized stops?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How did this thread get so much posts while I was gone for a day? Welp, this ain't my last post in the thread. 

The only reason why I agreed to locking this thread was because of this endless arguing and sort-of repetitive posts. Also, I said this earlier:

I never said they HAVE to lock this thread, I only said I am WILLING to lock the thread. 

But I wasn't saying they HAVE to agree with ME.  I'm only saying there should be something we can ALL agree on. They don't have to agree with my opinion solely. 

2 hours ago, Union Tpke said:

Where would you suggest having these rationalized stops?

If you would have this, reroute the line down Jamaica Av from Cypress Hills to Bway Jct. This way, it will allow triple-tracking without severe congestion, besides the Myrtle bottleneck. This also won't require the demolition of buildings. 

Only stops at Highland Blvd and Arlington Av, compared to 5 closely-spaced stops. The stops east of Crescent are more spread apart. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, D to 96 St said:

How did this thread get so much posts while I was gone for a day? Welp, this ain't my last post in the thread. 

The only reason why I agreed to locking this thread was because of this endless arguing and sort-of repetitive posts. Also, I said this earlier:

I never said they HAVE to lock this thread, I only said I am WILLING to lock the thread. 

But I wasn't saying they HAVE to agree with ME.  I'm only saying there should be something we can ALL agree on. They don't have to agree with my opinion solely. 

If you would have this, reroute the line down Jamaica Av from Cypress Hills to Bway Jct. This way, it will allow triple-tracking without severe congestion, besides the Myrtle bottleneck. This also won't require the demolition of buildings. 

Only stops at Highland Blvd and Arlington Av, compared to 5 closely-spaced stops. The stops east of Crescent are more spread apart. 

 

 

I'd support this proposal if it weren't for the fact that I must get off at Norwood Avenue to go to school. but, hey I have Euclid and the Q24 At least, other than that I still support this. : ) 

Edited by LGA Link N train
Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, D to 96 St said:

How did this thread get so much posts while I was gone for a day? Welp, this ain't my last post in the thread. 

The only reason why I agreed to locking this thread was because of this endless arguing and sort-of repetitive posts. Also, I said this earlier:

I never said they HAVE to lock this thread, I only said I am WILLING to lock the thread. 

As you seem to have realized, people have the right to their own opinion. Mine is that you're not a mod here, and therefore that you are wasting calories in my eye/brain. 

44 minutes ago, D to 96 St said:

If you would have this, reroute the line down Jamaica Av from Cypress Hills to Bway Jct. This way, it will allow triple-tracking without severe congestion, besides the Myrtle bottleneck. This also won't require the demolition of buildings. 

Only stops at Highland Blvd and Arlington Av, compared to 5 closely-spaced stops. The stops east of Crescent are more spread apart. 

Why spend all this money before the actual bottleneck is ameliorated -- the Williamsburg Bridge. Its inablility to handle more than 25 tph limits (J)(M)(Z) service moreso than anything else -- Myrtle included. If you want more anything, you'll have to remove the timers from that span. 

That aside, I'm apathetic about a Jamaica avenue bypass. It's more direct, and would facilitate triple tracking, but half of your catchement zone will be parkland. I just think that there are many better, cheaper, more effectual things we can do with the Jamaica line -- bobtehpanda's aforementioned station consolidation, elimination of skip stop, detiming of the WillyB, renovation of Broadway Jct complex, etc, etc. All of those would cost less than a new line. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Someone did not bother to check the subway map or for that matter the Brooklyn Bus Map!

Warwick does not replace Norwood as Norwood is at least 7-8 blocks further east of Warwick Street.

Warwick would replace Van Siclen Avenue and Cleveland Street  Stations as Cleveland Street Station is two blocks east of Warwick Street.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, RR503 said:

As you seem to have realized, people have the right to their own opinion. Mine is that you're not a mod here, and therefore that you are wasting calories in my eye/brain. 

Why spend all this money before the actual bottleneck is ameliorated -- the Williamsburg Bridge. Its inablility to handle more than 25 tph limits (J)(M)(Z) service moreso than anything else -- Myrtle included. If you want more anything, you'll have to remove the timers from that span. 

That aside, I'm apathetic about a Jamaica avenue bypass. It's more direct, and would facilitate triple tracking, but half of your catchement zone will be parkland. I just think that there are many better, cheaper, more effectual things we can do with the Jamaica line -- bobtehpanda's aforementioned station consolidation, elimination of skip stop, detiming of the WillyB, renovation of Broadway Jct complex, etc, etc. All of those would cost less than a new line. 

The current Jamaica line structure on Fulton and Crescent would be replaced with the rerouting of the line down Jamaica Av. This will eliminate the sharp curve at Cypress Hills that could pose serious congestion and slow trains down. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, D to 96 St said:

The current Jamaica line structure on Fulton and Crescent would be replaced with the rerouting of the line down Jamaica Av. This will eliminate the sharp curve at Cypress Hills that could pose serious congestion and slow trains down. 

I got that, and I see your point about the curve at cypress hills. My question is whether any of this is worth it when it’s impossible to run enough TPH to actually see the effects of the bottleneck. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, RR503 said:

I got that, and I see your point about the curve at cypress hills. My question is whether any of this is worth it when it’s impossible to run enough TPH to actually see the effects of the bottleneck. 

I see the effects of the bottleneck EVERY DAY (except weekends and days where are no school).

and the answer to your question would be that it depends. As long you're not replacing one sharp curve with another

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Interested Rider said:

Someone did not bother to check the subway map or for that matter the Brooklyn Bus Map!

Warwick does not replace Norwood as Norwood is at least 7-8 blocks further east of Warwick Street.

Warwick would replace Van Siclen Avenue and Cleveland Street  Stations as Cleveland Street Station is two blocks east of Warwick Street.

 

A late night, so apologies for the error. But really, ideal stop spacing on the (J) looks probably something like this:

b8-east_ny_2015-1.png

In this scenario, with entrances at the end of stations no station is more than 10-12 minutes apart by walking.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, RR503 said:

I got that, and I see your point about the curve at cypress hills. My question is whether any of this is worth it when it’s impossible to run enough TPH to actually see the effects of the bottleneck. 

The problem is that the alternative, easing the curves, is quite difficult. The northern curve is the easier one, but that would probably require rebuilding the station and track to be over the cemetery to get more room for the curve. The southern curve goes up against a lot of businesses including a Key Food. Imagine the headlines if the MTA were to eminent domain a cemetery and a supermarket in a food desert.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rather than spend extra money on new stations, I would just close Crescent, Alabama, and Cleveland. If I were to also rebuild the 5-minute long curve I would have it run diagonally between 75th and the former site of Crescent. (Cypress would be closed.) I would make sure though to have the line run in a way in which as little houses are demolished as possible, and I would also reimburse anyone whose house was demolished. 

Edited by R68OnBroadway
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, bobtehpanda said:

The problem is that the alternative, easing the curves, is quite difficult. The northern curve is the easier one, but that would probably require rebuilding the station and track to be over the cemetery to get more room for the curve. The southern curve goes up against a lot of businesses including a Key Food. Imagine the headlines if the MTA were to eminent domain a cemetery and a supermarket in a food desert.

I was agreeing with you, just for different reasons. (WillyB will never send enough trains down Jamaica for the curve to ever be a bottleneck)

12 minutes ago, R68OnBroadway said:

Rather than spend extra money on new stations, I would just close Crescent, Alabama, and Cleveland. If I were to also rebuild the 5-minute long curve I would have it run diagonally between 75th and the former site of Crescent. (Cypress would be closed.) I would make sure though to have the line run in a way in which as little houses are demolished as possible, and I would also reimburse anyone whose house was demolished. 

They tried redoing that curve in the 50s or 60s -- community shot it down. I doubt that'd be any easier today. 

FYI eminent domain already reimburses property owners -- that isn't the issue. The issue is they don't want their property taken at all. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, RR503 said:

 

They tried redoing that curve in the 50s or 60s -- community shot it down. I doubt that'd be any easier today. 

In that case the curve will remain. I still though thinking closing existing  stations and replacing them with current ones is better than demolishing all of them. My plan: 

Alabama Av will be closed due to proximity to Bway Junction.

Van Siclen Avenue remains. Skip-stop eliminated at this station. 

Cleveland St closes, as well as Crescent. Both are replaced by Norwood, where skip-stop is eliminated.

Cypress Hills may also be closed due to proximity to 75th.

Edited by R68OnBroadway
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What is being proposed here is similar to how the 8th Avenue Subway replaced the Pitkin Avenue (Fulton Street) elevated line in the mid 1950's.

Liberty Avenue (Replaced Hinsdale Street and Pennsylvania Avenue)

Van Siclen Avenue (same  on both lines)

Shepherd Avenue (replaced Linwood Street and Montauk Avenue)

Euclid Avenue (replaced Chestnut Street and Crescent Street- Liberty Avenue)

Both of the elevated structures were built at about the same time in the 1880's and therefore the station spacing is about the same. The difference is that while the Pitkin Avenue elevated structure was replaced by the 8th Avenue Subway, the  proposal to replace the Jamaica Avenue elevated never really got off the ground. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Lawrence St said:

I still never understood why they torn down the rest of the Myrtle Av Elevated, it would have been so much better for transit options south of Myrtle-Broadway.

In the context of that time period, the MTA had no money, and of all the el structures the Third Av El and Myrtle Av El needed strengthening to hold modern subway cars. That was never going to happen, so they tore it down.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/2/2017 at 1:23 AM, bobtehpanda said:

In the context of that time period, the MTA had no money, and of all the el structures the Third Av El and Myrtle Av El needed strengthening to hold modern subway cars. That was never going to happen, so they tore it down.

Actually, as was well noted, the R-39 car order (which was supposed to be a lighter version of the R-32/R-38 cars) would have been able to keep the Myrtle EL going for many years until there was money to do the necessary work of a rebuild.  If that had been done, the line probably would have undergone a rebuild similar to the Broadway-Brooklyn Line during the 1990's and 2000's that would have brought the full Myrtle EL up to modern standards (and perhaps including lengthening all of the stations so 10-car trains could use that line), very possibly as I have noted before in my ideas for rebuilding that stretch and originally proposed in the 1920's connecting the Myrtle EL to the Montague Street Line after Navy Street either south or north of what is now Jay Street-Metrotech (what used to be Lawrence Street on the (R) ) with that line today possibly the (W) running from Metropolitan to Astoria at all times except late nights where it would likely run to Whitehall to terminate. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Wallyhorse said:

Actually, as was well noted, the R-39 car order (which was supposed to be a lighter version of the R-32/R-38 cars) would have been able to keep the Myrtle EL going for many years until there was money to do the necessary work of a rebuild.  If that had been done, the line probably would have undergone a rebuild similar to the Broadway-Brooklyn Line during the 1990's and 2000's that would have brought the full Myrtle EL up to modern standards (and perhaps including lengthening all of the stations so 10-car trains could use that line), very possibly as I have noted before in my ideas for rebuilding that stretch and originally proposed in the 1920's connecting the Myrtle EL to the Montague Street Line after Navy Street either south or north of what is now Jay Street-Metrotech (what used to be Lawrence Street on the (R) ) with that line today possibly the (W) running from Metropolitan to Astoria at all times except late nights where it would likely run to Whitehall to terminate. 

A small, specialized car fleet would've been way too expensive and restrictive to run, which is why they never did it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, bobtehpanda said:

A small, specialized car fleet would've been way too expensive and restrictive to run, which is why they never did it.

I believe that fleet could also have been used on the IRT and could have easily been additional cars for those trains unless those were to be built with four sets of doors rather than three per side (I believe it was three per side because these were also supposed to be for the 3rd Avenue EL, which would have been IRT).  

Point is, the R39s could have served as a stop-gap until at least the 1980's when a rebuild of that line would have been more financially possible and those cars could have after a rebuild lived on in the IRT for many years after (in a rebuild made heavier to handle AC and so forth).  

Getting this back on topic, I still think any revival of the RBB is going to require getting Genting (which runs the Casino at Aqueduct) on board, as that casino stands to benefit greatly from a revived RBB.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How? Without a bypass, any RBB service will be a full-local, which is not going to entice any new Casino-bound riders. Nobody's going to take the slow (M) or (R) when faster options are available. Besides, I think you're greatly overstating the growth potential here as most gamblers primarily drive to Aqueduct if I'm not mistaken.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Lance said:

How? Without a bypass, any RBB service will be a full-local, which is not going to entice any new Casino-bound riders. Nobody's going to take the slow (M) or (R) when faster options are available. Besides, I think you're greatly overstating the growth potential here as most gamblers primarily drive to Aqueduct if I'm not mistaken.

Some drive, but the Belt Parkway can be a nightmare getting to and from there.  Getting those especially from Flushing who can take the (7) to the RBB at Roosevelt Avenue there for instance I think could be a considerable number.   That to me would be key and I think it would be a substantial number, especially on weekends when you don't have as big of a bottleneck on the subways (when there are no G.O.'s). 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.