Jump to content
Attention: In order to reply to messages, create topics, have access to other features of the community you must sign up for an account.
Sign in to follow this  
LaGuardia Link N Tra

Rockaway Beach Branch

Recommended Posts

I think some people don't realize the intra-borough travel the RBB would allow if connected to the QBL.  It would be very useful where Rockaway residents would have a connection for a quick connection to the rest of Queens as well as transfers to a potential LIRR connection at Atlantic Ave, Etc.

On 11/20/2017 at 2:06 PM, LGA Link N train said:

Can someone answer the following question. 

I have noticed that for quite some time, the Queensrail supporters are a 2 in 1 group. What I mean by that is one part of the group wants to see is as reactivated LIRR service while another group wants to see it converted for the subway system to use. Can someone please tell me why this is because I'm confused here

As someone mentioned before they just want some type of rail service.

1) As a subway there will be frequent service and "reasonable" fares.

2)As a LIRR line, outside of City Ticket it's going to be Steep with hourly off peak service. Would the Terminal be Howard Beach- JFK? They might try to make it zone 3 

  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I honestly don't see the RBB getting high usage unless the MTA can persuade people from Lawrence, Inwood, and Long Beach that the subway will get them into Manhattan faster than the hourly LIRR that runs thru those areas.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 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.

I'm not sure that many posters remember the back and forth we had when there were some people out there clamoring for increased (A) service to Aqueduct. Guess what. The (MTA) actually decreased bus service to the casino because it wasn't justified.  I predicted that way back then. Quite frankly the novelty wore off. Casino patronage is down across the board in the metro NY area as well as the Philly to AC crowd. The only uptick in the area is Jake's 58 located off the LIE in Hauppauge, Long Island. Aqueduct and Belmont Park are auto-centric locations by design, whether you consider them racetracks or possible casino locations. Move away from the transit focus for a minute and you'd see that the state is trying to close Aqueduct one way or another and focus on Belmont Park. Perhaps one could make a case for the reactivation of the RBB but, IMO, it would have to be in conjunction with a Queens Bypass project. Connecting it to the existing QBL trackage and claiming it as a quick way to Manhattan is pure folly. The people saying it's an intra borough improvement have a better case to be honest. Quite frankly if the (MTA) and not NYCT were to use the branch it would be a quicker way to midtown if it were connected to the LIRR mainline like it was years ago. I'd love to see the branch be resurrected for commuter use but let's be realistic with our proposals. Just my opinion though. I'm all ears. Carry on

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, Trainmaster5 said:

I'm not sure that many posters remember the back and forth we had when there were some people out there clamoring for increased (A) service to Aqueduct. Guess what. The (MTA) actually decreased bus service to the casino because it wasn't justified.  I predicted that way back then. Quite frankly the novelty wore off. Casino patronage is down across the board in the metro NY area as well as the Philly to AC crowd. The only uptick in the area is Jake's 58 located off the LIE in Hauppauge, Long Island. Aqueduct and Belmont Park are auto-centric locations by design, whether you consider them racetracks or possible casino locations. Move away from the transit focus for a minute and you'd see that the state is trying to close Aqueduct one way or another and focus on Belmont Park. Perhaps one could make a case for the reactivation of the RBB but, IMO, it would have to be in conjunction with a Queens Bypass project. Connecting it to the existing QBL trackage and claiming it as a quick way to Manhattan is pure folly. The people saying it's an intra borough improvement have a better case to be honest. Quite frankly if the (MTA) and not NYCT were to use the branch it would be a quicker way to midtown if it were connected to the LIRR mainline like it was years ago. I'd love to see the branch be resurrected for commuter use but let's be realistic with our proposals. Just my opinion though. I'm all ears. Carry on

I didn't know that the state was trying to close Aqueduct and focusing on Belmont Park. Does it concern horse races because I've been hearing plans to bring the Islanders, a soccer stadium, or have Amazon setup at the South Lot in Belmont.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since when does the presence of a casino justify a multi-billion dollar subway line?

That doesn't constitute within orders of magnitude of the demand one needs to sustain a subway service. The RBB, as I have said, suffers from three things. Firstly, its being chained to the QB Local tracks until a bypass is built, negating much of the route's directness with the multitude of stops. Secondly, its feeding the second busiest subway corridor in the city -- one that can't handle a ounce more of ridership, and one whose platforms would be further packed by rockawayers looking to take a shortcut to midtown. And thirdly, a lack of enough innate demand to justify its cost in the context of other transit-needy areas of our city. 

And  for those reasons, I believe we shouldn't build it. 

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, RR503 said:

Since when does the presence of a casino justify a multi-billion dollar subway line?

That doesn't constitute within orders of magnitude of the demand one needs to sustain a subway service. The RBB, as I have said, suffers from three things. Firstly, its being chained to the QB Local tracks until a bypass is built, negating much of the route's directness with the multitude of stops. Secondly, its feeding the second busiest subway corridor in the city -- one that can't handle a ounce more of ridership, and one whose platforms would be further packed by rockawayers looking to take a shortcut to midtown. And thirdly, a lack of enough innate demand to justify its cost in the context of other transit-needy areas of our city. 

And  for those reasons, I believe we shouldn't build it. 

Like I and other said on pages earlier: the only way RBB COULD BE VIABLE as a subway is via a NEW trunkline to Manhattan, and there are other parts of the city that have more urgent needs for subway service than the RBB corridor.

  • Upvote 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, NY1635 said:

I didn't know that the state was trying to close Aqueduct and focusing on Belmont Park. Does it concern horse races because I've been hearing plans to bring the Islanders, a soccer stadium, or have Amazon setup at the South Lot in Belmont.

The idea is to have one racetrack downstate at Belmont Park and one upstate at Saratoga. You could build a new soccer stadium,  a new home for the Islanders and an East coast Amazon headquarters at Belmont Park but it wouldn't be a railroad or subway accessible location without a massive influx of capital. It's an auto-centric location with direct rail service only on the Belmont stakes day. If you're an Islanders fan coming from the east you would have to travel to Jamaica and backtrack to reach Belmont Park. The area around Nassau Coliseum makes more sense even without direct rail service at the moment.  The Garden City Secondary LIRR trackage is already partially in place as well as the area around Hofstra and it's probably much less costly to improve and maintain than the amount of money that Belmont Park and the surrounding areas would need. Either way it's easier for an Islanders fan to get to MSG by rail than it is to reach the Coliseum,  Barclays or Belmont Park coming from the east. Heck, I'd propose mid-Nassau as a potential Amazon headquarters over the Belmont location. Seems like a railroad project and not a subway one. Carry on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Trainmaster5 said:

The idea is to have one racetrack downstate at Belmont Park and one upstate at Saratoga. You could build a new soccer stadium,  a new home for the Islanders and an East coast Amazon headquarters at Belmont Park but it wouldn't be a railroad or subway accessible location without a massive influx of capital. It's an auto-centric location with direct rail service only on the Belmont stakes day. If you're an Islanders fan coming from the east you would have to travel to Jamaica and backtrack to reach Belmont Park. The area around Nassau Coliseum makes more sense even without direct rail service at the moment.  The Garden City Secondary LIRR trackage is already partially in place as well as the area around Hofstra and it's probably much less costly to improve and maintain than the amount of money that Belmont Park and the surrounding areas would need. Either way it's easier for an Islanders fan to get to MSG by rail than it is to reach the Coliseum,  Barclays or Belmont Park coming from the east. Heck, I'd propose mid-Nassau as a potential Amazon headquarters over the Belmont location. Seems like a railroad project and not a subway one. Carry on.

Actually, they went back to direct rail service on all racing days at Belmont a few years ago.

The plan (though not official by any means) is as I understand to close Aqueduct in 4-5 years and move everything year-round to a rebuilt Belmont Park, either winterizing the current facility or building a new grandstand and clubhouse on the backstretch as was originally proposed when the old grandstand at Belmont was condemned in early 1963 (which was not done because they wanted to make the paddock from the old Belmont part of the new/current facility, which opened in 1968).   You probably would see a major rebuild of the LIRR area around Belmont if the new arena for the Islanders is built there anyway and any subway extension there could be part of that as well.

As for Aqueduct, even if Aqueduct does close the Casino will remain there.  The RBB I think long-term will be a big boon even if it's just local service for now without the bypass being built, though I would also explore the possibility of re-working the never-used upper level of Roosevelt Avenue if possible for an RBB as part of a new line that would also have it go through Astoria (with a transfer to the Broadway Line along the way) and a new tunnel to Manhattan via 79th Street (with a stop on 79th at York-1st Avenues) before coming in on a new lower level of 72nd Street and joining the (T) south of where the (Q) leaves at 63rd Street. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Wallyhorse said:

Actually, they went back to direct rail service on all racing days at Belmont a few years ago.

The plan (though not official by any means) is as I understand to close Aqueduct in 4-5 years and move everything year-round to a rebuilt Belmont Park, either winterizing the current facility or building a new grandstand and clubhouse on the backstretch as was originally proposed when the old grandstand at Belmont was condemned in early 1963 (which was not done because they wanted to make the paddock from the old Belmont part of the new/current facility, which opened in 1968).   You probably would see a major rebuild of the LIRR area around Belmont if the new arena for the Islanders is built there anyway and any subway extension there could be part of that as well.

As for Aqueduct, even if Aqueduct does close the Casino will remain there.  The RBB I think long-term will be a big boon even if it's just local service for now without the bypass being built, though I would also explore the possibility of re-working the never-used upper level of Roosevelt Avenue if possible for an RBB as part of a new line that would also have it go through Astoria (with a transfer to the Broadway Line along the way) and a new tunnel to Manhattan via 79th Street (with a stop on 79th at York-1st Avenues) before coming in on a new lower level of 72nd Street and joining the (T) south of where the (Q) leaves at 63rd Street. 

I give the Casino a few more years before it finally shuts down due to low patronage. I've seen plans to put a casino over at the Fortunoff in Westbury get shot down because residents don't want it in their neighborhood. There's currently nothing between QCM and JFK to generate high usage on the reactivated RBB subway. Folks on the Rockaway Park side aren't going to abandon the Q53 in droves for a one seat ride into Midtown via the QBL line and folks on the Far Rockaway side aren't going to abandon the Q113/114 to Jamaica for the (E) for the same reasons. The Rockaway (A) itself doesn't really get crowded until either Euclid Avenue, or Broadway Junction whenever it heads to Manhattan.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, NY1635 said:

I give the Casino a few more years before it finally shuts down due to low patronage. I've seen plans to put a casino over at the Fortunoff in Westbury get shot down because residents don't want it in their neighborhood. There's currently nothing between QCM and JFK to generate high usage on the reactivated RBB subway. Folks on the Rockaway Park side aren't going to abandon the Q53 in droves for a one seat ride into Midtown via the QBL line and folks on the Far Rockaway side aren't going to abandon the Q113/114 to Jamaica for the (E) for the same reasons. The Rockaway (A) itself doesn't really get crowded until either Euclid Avenue, or Broadway Junction whenever it heads to Manhattan.

 

It’s a shit casino anyway. The only saving grace for it over Empire is you can take the train to it, but it's so stingy in payouts it's not worth enduring the train ride and walk from Conduit to get there.

(I grew up in Sacramento, so I had Reno, Lake Tahoe and a shit-ton of Indian Casinos nearby, and Aqueduct doesn't come close to the crappiest bingo hall/casino I can think of, Colusa Casino.)

Plus NY is so expensive a place to live in that I don't see people giving away enough of their disposable income to make Aqueduct enough money to make it not shit.

Edited by Deucey
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Wallyhorse said:

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). 

But ya also have to consider the fact Aqueduct is underused...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

19 hours ago, RR503 said:

Since when does the presence of a casino justify a multi-billion dollar subway line?

That doesn't constitute within orders of magnitude of the demand one needs to sustain a subway service. The RBB, as I have said, suffers from three things. Firstly, its being chained to the QB Local tracks until a bypass is built, negating much of the route's directness with the multitude of stops. Secondly, its feeding the second busiest subway corridor in the city -- one that can't handle a ounce more of ridership, and one whose platforms would be further packed by rockawayers looking to take a shortcut to midtown. And thirdly, a lack of enough innate demand to justify its cost in the context of other transit-needy areas of our city. 

And  for those reasons, I believe we shouldn't build it. 

@RR503: Those "Rockawayers" are the SAME people who take the SBS Q52/53 and local routes to Woodhaven for the  train.... you literally mentioned "shortcut from the Rockaways" which is one of the main purposes of justifying the line's existence. And @T to Dyre Avenue mentioned earlier this would cost a fraction less than let's say, a Utica Avenue line, which wold have to be tunneled. 

Also, its 14 stops to 47-50 Sts... and takes only 27 mins from 63 Dr-Rego Park. Add a few more and you'll get 40 mins travel time from the RBB via the (M)

And the (A), according to Google Maps, takes 50 mins to get from Howard Beach to 42 St-Port Authority. 

So you'll end up with about the same travel time either way...according to the aforementioned source EXCLUDING things that could go wrong on both lines...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, D to 96 St said:

 

Also, its 14 stops to 47-50 Sts... and takes only 27 mins from 63 Dr-Rego Park. Add a few more and you'll get 40 mins travel time from the RBB via the (M)

And the (A), according to Google Maps, takes 50 mins to get from Howard Beach to 42 St-Port Authority. 

So you'll end up with about the same travel time either way...according to the aforementioned source EXCLUDING things that could go wrong on both lines...

Cut the 8th Av/Fulton timers to a reasonable level and you can cut down on time. You also have to remember that the (M) has constraints, and an extension is just going to worsen headways, and also, chances are most people will transfer for the (E) at Roosevelt, crush-loading that line with more riders. RBB riders will get fed up with that packing, and will resort to taking buses and/or the emptier (A) . RBB money should instead go to expanding bus service and installing CBTC on 8th and Fulton to alleviate the Hoyt bottleneck.

Edited by R68OnBroadway

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Trainmaster5 said:

I'm not sure that many posters remember the back and forth we had when there were some people out there clamoring for increased (A) service to Aqueduct. Guess what. The (MTA) actually decreased bus service to the casino because it wasn't justified.  I predicted that way back then. Quite frankly the novelty wore off. Casino patronage is down across the board in the metro NY area as well as the Philly to AC crowd. The only uptick in the area is Jake's 58 located off the LIE in Hauppauge, Long Island. Aqueduct and Belmont Park are auto-centric locations by design, whether you consider them racetracks or possible casino locations. Move away from the transit focus for a minute and you'd see that the state is trying to close Aqueduct one way or another and focus on Belmont Park. Perhaps one could make a case for the reactivation of the RBB but, IMO, it would have to be in conjunction with a Queens Bypass project. Connecting it to the existing QBL trackage and claiming it as a quick way to Manhattan is pure folly. The people saying it's an intra borough improvement have a better case to be honest. Quite frankly if the (MTA) and not NYCT were to use the branch it would be a quicker way to midtown if it were connected to the LIRR mainline like it was years ago. I'd love to see the branch be resurrected for commuter use but let's be realistic with our proposals. Just my opinion though. I'm all ears. Carry on

If Aqueduct is closed, NYC may rezone the area for dense development which will make use of the transit options, there are already tons of apts going up around downtown Jamaica.

18 hours ago, RR503 said:

Since when does the presence of a casino justify a multi-billion dollar subway line?

That doesn't constitute within orders of magnitude of the demand one needs to sustain a subway service. The RBB, as I have said, suffers from three things. Firstly, its being chained to the QB Local tracks until a bypass is built, negating much of the route's directness with the multitude of stops. Secondly, its feeding the second busiest subway corridor in the city -- one that can't handle a ounce more of ridership, and one whose platforms would be further packed by rockawayers looking to take a shortcut to midtown. And thirdly, a lack of enough innate demand to justify its cost in the context of other transit-needy areas of our city. 

And  for those reasons, I believe we shouldn't build it. 

I ride the QB line frequently, yes it's busy during rush hour, but to pretend that there is no room for more riders at all, especially during the other 21-22 hours of non peak-peak ridership is false.

The local lines have room during peak times and the (E) and (F) are most full west of Roosevelt Ave due to transfers to/from other lines ( (7)(M)(R) ) .If all the express trains are full to Manhattan, they're just going to have to stay on the local. A local train is faster than waiting for several express trains to go by, then getting stuck in "train traffic"  Lets not forget that the QBL is getting CBTC and sending one of the lines down the RBB is going to increase capacity due to the reduction of delays into 71st Ave.

  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ever heard of the law of induced demand? It says -- in this context -- that if we build this line, many more Rockawayers will go to QB to get to Manhattan than use the Q52/53 simply because their means of accessing QB is a subway not a bus.

And just because a route is geographically shorter than an alternative does not in any way mean it'll be faster. (M) from 47-50 to 63rd drive is 29 mins during the evening rush. It's 48 mins from 42-PABT to Aqueduct-N Conduit. For an (M) to beat the (A) 's time, it'd have to cover the entire RBB, and the merge with the (A) in 19 mins. Given that we can expect an average speed including stops from the (M) of 20 mph, and that 63rd to Aqueduct is about 4.7 miles via RBB, the (M) should take around 14 minutes. Congrats, you've saved riders a grand total of FIVE minutes! You want a way of doing the same thing, but for about 1/1,000,000 of the cost? Detime Fulton/Cranberry/8th ave. 

Now, let's talk people staying on local trains on QB. Have you ever taken a rush hour trip through Roosevelt? People there frequently pass up expresses because they're that crowded. But they still try to get the express. They trade actual time savings for percieved ones. Unless you have some way to rewire the human brain, you're gonna have to take that into account.

As for off peak capacity, that's 100% irrelevant. Do people in the Rockaways commute at different times of day? Are they vampires or something?

Now finally, about @D to 96 St's point re: Utica. Yes, it'd be more expensive, but it'd do so so much more. I'm sure that when you divide expense by good provided for the RBB and Utica, you'd certainly get a lower number for Utica. Again, these have to be the criteria by which we measure project, not sentiment. 

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, RR503 said:

Ever heard of the law of induced demand? It says -- in this context -- that if we build this line, many more Rockawayers will go to QB to get to Manhattan than use the Q52/53 simply because their means of accessing QB is a subway not a bus.

 

2

The City as we know it was built on that law try that!

GNuMwGk.jpg

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, R68OnBroadway said:

Cut the 8th Av/Fulton timers to a reasonable level and you can cut down on time. You also have to remember that the (M) has constraints, and an extension is just going to worsen headways, and also, chances are most people will transfer for the (E) at Roosevelt, crush-loading that line with more riders. RBB riders will get fed up with that packing, and will resort to taking buses and/or the emptier (A) . RBB money should instead go to expanding bus service and installing CBTC on 8th and Fulton to alleviate the Hoyt bottleneck.

These constraints for the (M) are:

Forest Hills Fumigation 

Myrtle Av bottleneck

Merging with the (E) at 36th??

You eliminate the Forest Hills bottleneck and now the (R) will be relieved of delays since the layups will now have capacity to spare. In fact, this will increase capacity more than decrease it. 

38 minutes ago, RR503 said:

Ever heard of the law of induced demand? It says -- in this context -- that if we build this line, many more Rockawayers will go to QB to get to Manhattan than use the Q52/53 simply because their means of accessing QB is a subway not a bus.

And just because a route is geographically shorter than an alternative does not in any way mean it'll be faster. (M) from 47-50 to 63rd drive is 29 mins during the evening rush. It's 48 mins from 42-PABT to Aqueduct-N Conduit. For an (M) to beat the (A) 's time, it'd have to cover the entire RBB, and the merge with the (A) in 19 mins. Given that we can expect an average speed including stops from the (M) of 20 mph, and that 63rd to Aqueduct is about 4.7 miles via RBB, the (M) should take around 14 minutes. Congrats, you've saved riders a grand total of FIVE minutes! You want a way of doing the same thing, but for about 1/1,000,000 of the cost? Detime Fulton/Cranberry/8th ave. 

Now, let's talk people staying on local trains on QB. Have you ever taken a rush hour trip through Roosevelt? People there frequently pass up expresses because they're that crowded. But they still try to get the express. They trade actual time savings for percieved ones. Unless you have some way to rewire the human brain, you're gonna have to take that into account.

As for off peak capacity, that's 100% irrelevant. Do people in the Rockaways commute at different times of day? Are they vampires or something?

Now finally, about @D to 96 St's point re: Utica. Yes, it'd be more expensive, but it'd do so so much more. I'm sure that when you divide expense by good provided for the RBB and Utica, you'd certainly get a lower number for Utica. Again, these have to be the criteria by which we measure project, not sentiment. 

Well, another purpose is to serve communities just like a Utica extension, and also create the shortcut I mentioned earlier, in other words a crosstown line. In fact, this shares a purpose with one of @Deucey 's proposals: a crosstown line from 125 St to JFK. 

Have you ever heard of converting Woodhaven? This will really take relief off of Roosevelt. 

But I wasn't saying that the (M) would necessarily be faster than the (A). I only said it because you were apparently saying this (M) would take a while, but 40 min is exactly the amount of time the people expect to get to Manhattan. 

Oh and also, the Q52/53 takes 29 min to get to Woodhaven from Rockaway Blvd as opposed to your 14 min claim for the (M)

But at least there's an EXISTING ROW for RBB! The only tunneling would be underpinning LIRR. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Constraints:

1. WillyB cannot hold more than 25TPH (or 30, if I am wrong someone please tell me).

2. Myrtle Av junction. This in my view puts the nail in the coffin for (M)  RBB service in the near future as if the MTA even tries to build a flying junction there, the community will go nuts. It will be easier and quicker to build a new line under Broadway (a total waste of time and money) than to rebuild that junction.

 

Edited by R68OnBroadway

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

2 hours ago, D to 96 St said:

These constraints for the (M) are:

Forest Hills Fumigation 

Myrtle Av bottleneck

Merging with the (E) at 36th??

You eliminate the Forest Hills bottleneck and now the (R) will be relieved of delays since the layups will now have capacity to spare. In fact, this will increase capacity more than decrease it. 

Capacity is an issue on the Queens Boulevard express trains. Not the local ones. No local ever reaches anything near maximum load. 

2 hours ago, D to 96 St said:

Well, another purpose is to serve communities just like a Utica extension, and also create the shortcut I mentioned earlier, in other words a crosstown line. In fact, this shares a purpose with one of @Deucey 's proposals: a crosstown line from 125 St to JFK. 

Have you ever heard of converting Woodhaven? This will really take relief off of Roosevelt. 

I both love crosstown service, and woodhaven conversion. However, I like crosstown service when it serves areas of economic/human density. While the Queens Boulevard corridor is one of those areas, the rest of the RBB service area is...not. On a ride from 63rd drive to the rockaways, IIRC about half of traversed area is parkland. 

Woodhaven conversion does not solve the issue of express train capacity. Unless these new express platforms will magically become an extra 10 tph on the express tracks, then they in no way facilitate RBB service. 

2 hours ago, D to 96 St said:

But I wasn't saying that the (M) would necessarily be faster than the (A). I only said it because you were apparently saying this (M) would take a while, but 40 min is exactly the amount of time the people expect to get to Manhattan. 

If your new service isn't delivering time savings, why build it? This isn't about the amount of time people 'expect' to get to Manhattan in. It's about whether or not the RBB would be significantly faster than the (A).

2 hours ago, D to 96 St said:

But at least there's an EXISTING ROW for RBB! The only tunneling would be underpinning LIRR. 

There's also an existing ROW for an (E) extension to Yaphank. Doesn't mean we have to build it. 

 

Edited by RR503

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, D to 96 St said:

But at least there's an EXISTING ROW for RBB! The only tunneling would be underpinning LIRR. 

Just because something's there doesn't mean you have to use it, or that using it would be a good thing.

 

1 hour ago, RR503 said:

I both love crosstown service, and woodhaven conversion. However, I like crosstown service when it serves areas of economic/human density. While the Queens Boulevard corridor is one of those areas, the rest of the RBB service area is...not. On a ride from 63rd drive to the rockaways, IIRC about half of traversed area is parkland. 

Indeed. RX is just much better as a crosstown route since it doesn't go horribly out of the way to serve anything.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, RR503 said:

Ever heard of the law of induced demand? It says -- in this context -- that if we build this line, many more Rockawayers will go to QB to get to Manhattan than use the Q52/53 simply because their means of accessing QB is a subway not a bus.

And just because a route is geographically shorter than an alternative does not in any way mean it'll be faster. (M) from 47-50 to 63rd drive is 29 mins during the evening rush. It's 48 mins from 42-PABT to Aqueduct-N Conduit. For an (M) to beat the (A) 's time, it'd have to cover the entire RBB, and the merge with the (A) in 19 mins. Given that we can expect an average speed including stops from the (M) of 20 mph, and that 63rd to Aqueduct is about 4.7 miles via RBB, the (M) should take around 14 minutes. Congrats, you've saved riders a grand total of FIVE minutes! You want a way of doing the same thing, but for about 1/1,000,000 of the cost? Detime Fulton/Cranberry/8th ave.

Now, let's talk people staying on local trains on QB. Have you ever taken a rush hour trip through Roosevelt? People there frequently pass up expresses because they're that crowded. But they still try to get the express. They trade actual time savings for percieved ones. Unless you have some way to rewire the human brain, you're gonna have to take that into account.

As for off peak capacity, that's 100% irrelevant. Do people in the Rockaways commute at different times of day? Are they vampires or something?

Now finally, about @D to 96 St's point re: Utica. Yes, it'd be more expensive, but it'd do so so much more. I'm sure that when you divide expense by good provided for the RBB and Utica, you'd certainly get a lower number for Utica. Again, these have to be the criteria by which we measure project, not sentiment.

Fair enough point about the time savings to Midtown on the (M) not being that much over the (A) . Is Transit going to seriously consider de-timing Fulton/Cranberry/8th Ave? I understand not wanting another Union Square wreck or Williamsburg Bridge crash, but going timer-crazy isn’t necessarily the solution. If they can chop five minutes off the trip from Rockaway to Midtown on the (A) by taking out the timers, then please do. But I feel like the (M) via the RBB might be more of an alternative for getting to East Midtown. And it would probably be better for Long Island City or for getting to other areas in Queens quicker like Jamaica or Flushing via transfers to other train lines. For a faster trip to Midtown as a whole, I will agree with Deucey that the RBB would have to be a new, separate trunk line. Maybe a V service that runs parallel to the LIRR Main Line from Rego Park to LIC with stops at 63rd Drive, Woodhaven Blvd, Grand Ave, Woodside and Northern Blvd then joining the (F) in the 63rd St Tunnel and turning south onto 2nd Ave to join the (T).

As for Utica, yes, that is a corridor that has a greater need for a subway than the RBB corridor. But branching off any of the existing routes such as Fulton St or Eastern Parkway will require reducing service to the rest of the line. And, please, nobody say relocate the Transit Museum and extend the (T) via a new tunnel to Brooklyn to Hoyt-Schermerhorn. Because in order to do that, we will first have to complete Phases 3 and 4 of the SAS in Manhattan. And how long will we have to wait just for that?

Edited by T to Dyre Avenue
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, T to Dyre Avenue said:

Fair enough point about the time savings to Midtown on the (M) not being that much over the (A) . Is Transit going to seriously consider de-timing Fulton/Cranberry/8th Ave? I understand not wanting another Union Square wreck or Williamsburg Bridge crash, but going timer-crazy isn’t necessarily the solution. If they can chop five minutes off the trip from Rockaway to Midtown on the (A) by taking out the timers, then please do. But I feel like the (M) via the RBB might be more of an alternative for getting to East Midtown. And it would probably be better for Long Island City or for getting to other areas in Queens quicker like Jamaica or Flushing via transfers to other train lines. For a faster trip to Midtown as a whole, I will agree with Deucey that the RBB would have to be a new, separate trunk line. Maybe a V service that runs parallel to the LIRR Main Line from Rego Park to LIC with stops at 63rd Drive, Woodhaven Blvd, Grand Ave, Woodside and Northern Blvd then joining the (F) in the 63rd St Tunnel and turning south onto 2nd Ave to join the (T).

As for Utica, yes, that is a corridor that has a greater need for a subway than the RBB corridor. But branching off any of the existing routes such as Fulton St or Eastern Parkway will require reducing service to the rest of the line. And, please, nobody say relocate the Transit Museum and extend the (T) via a new tunnel to Brooklyn to Hoyt-Schermerhorn. Because in order to do that, we will first have to complete Phases 3 and 4 of the SAS in Manhattan. And how long will we have to wait just for that?

Frankly, I wonder how much delays decrease, commutes speed up and capacity increases if TA got rid of signals before and in stations (excluding terminals) along with timers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/7/2017 at 3:27 PM, LGA Link N train said:

Hello @Deucey how ya doing?

Just switched back to regular real estate sales/rentals. How u doin?

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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