Rockaway Beach Branch

[Wallyhorse]

On 12/17/2017 at 1:32 PM, LGA Link N train said:

Well, time can't wait for them besides it's likely that MORE people would want a Train as opposed to the park. Also @D to 96 St I fully agree with you. I want to urge the to do this. I don't have much to say but rebuild the line and get this done and over with

Agreed, but there are those who still think of the subways in their absolute worst in the 1970's and early '80s (as I dealt with growing up) and assume they are still crime-ridden and graffiti-strewed as they were then.

On 12/17/2017 at 10:17 PM, BreeddekalbL said:

@D to 96 St is right how can 1 politician by the name of Karen koslowitz be the one to in essence lie down in front of thr train to stop the project, she also cries about when the lirr comes through 

She probably has certain constituents who were victims of crime in the 1970's and '80s (or are children of such) and sees those as ways for those "not of her constituents' kind" to suddenly invade that area in droves and create unintended consequences.

[BreeddekalbL]

12 hours ago, BreeddekalbL said:

Our gavone mayor says if the study supports using it as a transit asset he will support it.

Plus i think he is setting up a trap 

[LGA Link N Train]

2 hours ago, BreeddekalbL said:

Plus i think he is setting up a trap 

If he is then (if only I could) I DEFINITELY TAKE CONTROL AND SAY, SCREW IT WE'RE REACTIVATING THIS CRAP AND CONVERTING IT TO SUBWAY, NO IF'S, AND'S OR BUT'S. ANYONE WHO OPPOSES TO THIS CAN DEAL WITH IT OR LEAVE AND I DON'T CARE IF YOURE A VICTIM OF THE 70S, CAUSE TIME'S CHANGE AND SO DOES THE SUBWAY!!!!!!!

[BreeddekalbL]

1 minute ago, LGA Link N train said:

If he is then (if only I could) I DEFINITELY TAKE CONTROL AND SAY, SCREW IT WE'RE REACTIVATING THIS CRAP AND CONVERTING IT TO SUBWAY, NO IF'S, AND'S OR BUT'S. ANYONE WHO OPPOSES TO THIS CAN DEAL WITH IT OR LEAVE AND I DON'T CARE IF YOURE A VICTIM OF THE 70S, CAUSE TIME'S CHANGE AND SO DOES THE SUBWAY!!!!!!!

one of the guys in the group regarding the RBB Said that deblasio said in a townhall 

Quote

The town hall in Glendale tonight provided some insight into the city's stance on QueensRail activation and how it might look. When discussing the proposed Montauk light rail (a separate but related issue) the mayor said light rail projects were more realistic than new subway lines and worth considering. Someone then advocated for the QueensWay park project, and the mayor responded that he didn't mean to rain on her parade but if the MTA study indicated the asset should be used for transportation, our side would prevail.

 

[LGA Link N Train]

http://lab.rpa.org/fourth-plan-queensway/

MORE QUUENSWAY/QUEENSRAIL NEWS 

 

Edited December 26, 2017 by LGA Link N train

[P3F]

2 hours ago, LGA Link N train said:

http://lab.rpa.org/fourth-plan-queensway/

MORE QUUENSWAY/QUEENSRAIL NEWS 

 

As per usual, the RPA's advice is mostly worthless.

[LGA Link N Train]

10 minutes ago, P3F said:

As per usual, the RPA's advice is mostly worthless.

That's true. Only some of their proposals are actually worth it 

Edited December 26, 2017 by LGA Link N train

[NY1635]

3 hours ago, LGA Link N train said:

http://lab.rpa.org/fourth-plan-queensway/

MORE QUUENSWAY/QUEENSRAIL NEWS 

 

The AirTrain to Jamaica and connection to the LIRR can already get people to Midtown and Downtown Brooklyn in 30 minutes. Even the MTA admits that the subways take roughly 50-60 minutes to reach those areas from JFK Airport. I don't see how a new subway line to the Airport via RBB will get people to their destinations faster than the or the .

[LGA Link N Train]

33 minutes ago, NY1635 said:

The AirTrain to Jamaica and connection to the LIRR can already get people to Midtown and Downtown Brooklyn in 30 minutes. Even the MTA admits that the subways take roughly 50-60 minutes to reach those areas from JFK Airport. I don't see how a new subway line to the Airport via RBB will get people to their destinations faster than the or the .

Well this could be a footstep into relieving congestion from the and lines

[BreeddekalbL]

4 hours ago, LGA Link N train said:

http://lab.rpa.org/fourth-plan-queensway/

MORE QUUENSWAY/QUEENSRAIL NEWS 

 

The rpa can go to hell, the rpa has an agenda to please the politicians and overlords

Edited December 26, 2017 by BreeddekalbL

[RR503]

6 minutes ago, LGA Link N train said:

Well this could be a footstep into relieving congestion from the and lines

The  sure, but that isn’t congested. Now explain to me how adding a service that feeds the Queens Boulevard—  —corridor  will help matters on the . Or don’t. Because it won’t. RBB riders will dump whatever QB local service they’re on ASAP for an express. That’s just how it works. 

[Art Vandelay]

The RPA idea is stupid, but it is at least possible, unlike most of the other plans to use the RBL for train service. 

[R68OnBroadway]

5 hours ago, NY1635 said:

The AirTrain to Jamaica and connection to the LIRR can already get people to Midtown and Downtown Brooklyn in 30 minutes. Even the MTA admits that the subways take roughly 50-60 minutes to reach those areas from JFK Airport. I don't see how a new subway line to the Airport via RBB will get people to their destinations faster than the or the .

The  takes maybe around 35-45 mins, the  is MUCH slower

[Art Vandelay]

17 minutes ago, R68OnBroadway said:

The  takes maybe around 35-45 mins, the  is MUCH slower

The A really isn't that much slower. ~45 minutes Howard Beach to 42nd. What kills it is the frequency, but that is going to be an issue for anything from Howard Beach. 

[R68OnBroadway]

5 minutes ago, Art Vandelay said:

The A really isn't that much slower. ~45 minutes Howard Beach to 42nd. What kills it is the frequency, but that is going to be an issue for anything from Howard Beach. 

45 mins seems unrealistic. I once flew into JFK around 1 pm on a weekend and I decided to try the  rather than the  or /. I ended up waiting 20 minutes and it took another 20 to get to Broadway Junction. I then gave up and went to the  . Generally the  is the best option outside of rush hours, during rush hours you can probably just take the / . It may be slower, but at least you aren't in a human crush.

[Art Vandelay]

24 minutes ago, R68OnBroadway said:

45 mins seems unrealistic. I once flew into JFK around 1 pm on a weekend and I decided to try the  rather than the  or /. I ended up waiting 20 minutes and it took another 20 to get to Broadway Junction. I then gave up and went to the  . Generally the  is the best option outside of rush hours, during rush hours you can probably just take the / . It may be slower, but at least you aren't in a human crush.

The E is generally the best choice for Midtown, (unless you want to pay for LIRR.) but the A really isn't slow. The problem is the frequency- you likely will have a long wait for the train. 

I take redeye flights into JFK about every other month, and head straight into work. Unless I plan on taking LIRR, I find that taking whichever Airtrain comes first ends up working pretty well for me. I'm a little south of midtown, but end up getting in at about the same time whichever train I take. 

Edited December 27, 2017 by Art Vandelay

[T to Dyre Avenue]

On 12/26/2017 at 5:21 PM, RR503 said:

The  sure, but that isn’t congested. Now explain to me how adding a service that feeds the Queens Boulevard—  —corridor  will help matters on the . Or don’t. Because it won’t. RBB riders will dump whatever QB local service they’re on ASAP for an express. That’s just how it works. 

Wouldn’t that go for Q52/Q53 SBS service too? Wouldn’t the additional riders on the Q52 and 53 routes transfer to the  or  at Woodhaven Blvd, then dump either of them for the  or  at Roosevelt Ave. Unless they convert Woodhaven to an express stop, in which case that would cut out the transfer to QB local trains. Cutting out that one extra transfer would probably speed up riders’ commutes, but it probably won’t do much to help the . 

Honestly I’m not sure there’s a lot that can be done to relieve the ’s crammed trains short of building another Queens line that completely parallels the ; one that also connects to the same bus routes that connect with the . Preferably before they get to the . But building the parallel Queens Bypass line, as proposed half a century ago, will take time, real effort and billions of dollars. They’re already unable to turn 15 tph at Parsons-Archer because the crossover switches are too far away from the platform. 

The only short-term (and cheap and easy) option I can think of is to run the  to 179th and the  to Parsons-Archer and return to the pre-2002 (pre- ) split of 18/12. Only this time it would be in favor of the  because 179th can turn far more than just 12 tph. By running 18 ’s per hour, there would be a few more QB expresses in the busier 53rd St Corridor, so possibly less crowding due to the more frequent service. But would the other  terminal, World Trade Center, be able to turn 18 tph? And would the , now running at 12 tph and serving the Archer Ave corridor, just become the new , overcrowded trains and all?

[RR503]

3 hours ago, T to Dyre Avenue said:

Wouldn’t that go for Q52/Q53 SBS service too? Wouldn’t the additional riders on the Q52 and 53 routes transfer to the  or  at Woodhaven Blvd, then dump either of them for the  or  at Roosevelt Ave. Unless they convert Woodhaven to an express stop, in which case that would cut out the transfer to QB local trains. Cutting out that one extra transfer would probably speed up riders’ commutes, but it probably won’t do much to help the . 

Honestly I’m not sure there’s a lot that can be done to relieve the ’s crammed trains short of building another Queens line that completely parallels the ; one that also connects to the same bus routes that connect with the . Preferably before they get to the . But building the parallel Queens Bypass line, as proposed half a century ago, will take time, real effort and billions of dollars. They’re already unable to turn 15 tph at Parsons-Archer because the crossover switches are too far away from the platform. 

The only short-term (and cheap and easy) option I can think of is to run the  to 179th and the  to Parsons-Archer and return to the pre-2002 (pre- ) split of 18/12. Only this time it would be in favor of the  because 179th can turn far more than just 12 tph. By running 18 ’s per hour, there would be a few more QB expresses in the busier 53rd St Corridor, so possibly less crowding due to the more frequent service. But would the other  terminal, World Trade Center, be able to turn 18 tph? And would the , now running at 12 tph and serving the Archer Ave corridor, just become the new , overcrowded trains and all?

Think law of induced demand. Many, many more people will be poured into overcrowded QB express trains by a subway than by a bus. That’s just the nature of subway service. 

As for the , I honestly don’t know. The  is hemmed in by WTC and the , and the  by Stilwell and the . I like your swap idea, but with the mixed frequencies I’m worried that a few times per rush hour, you’ll have express riders having to pass up 2 trains to get the one they want, adding to the already obscene crowding at stations like Roosevelt. 

Now I have a question: I know most subway lines in the system have he design capabilities to handle more than the proverbial 30tph — I’ve seen articles stating that that close spacing near stations, and the signal timers allow the theoretical operation of trains every 90 seconds or so, and old capacity maps showing 34-36 tph as the design load of many lines in the system. In this day and age, those extra tph would be useful. Ignoring terminal issues and the need for operational margin of error, could service be increased? If not, what has changed? 

[bobtehpanda]

11 hours ago, RR503 said:

Think law of induced demand. Many, many more people will be poured into overcrowded QB express trains by a subway than by a bus. That’s just the nature of subway service. 

As for the , I honestly don’t know. The  is hemmed in by WTC and the , and the  by Stilwell and the . I like your swap idea, but with the mixed frequencies I’m worried that a few times per rush hour, you’ll have express riders having to pass up 2 trains to get the one they want, adding to the already obscene crowding at stations like Roosevelt. 

Now I have a question: I know most subway lines in the system have he design capabilities to handle more than the proverbial 30tph — I’ve seen articles stating that that close spacing near stations, and the signal timers allow the theoretical operation of trains every 90 seconds or so, and old capacity maps showing 34-36 tph as the design load of many lines in the system. In this day and age, those extra tph would be useful. Ignoring terminal issues and the need for operational margin of error, could service be increased? If not, what has changed? 

Platform congestion holds up trains when dwell times take longer. For this reason, the Lex express was not able to operate at 30TPH (though I don't know how much has changed with the opening of SAS).

We are hitting peak ridership levels not seen since the '50s on a system that is much smaller than it was in 1950. So congestion is definitely worse, coupled with longer trains (longer trains = more places to board = more likely to have someone holding up a door)

[T to Dyre Avenue]

On 12/29/2017 at 1:09 AM, RR503 said:

Think law of induced demand. Many, many more people will be poured into overcrowded QB express trains by a subway than by a bus. That’s just the nature of subway service. 

As for the , I honestly don’t know. The  is hemmed in by WTC and the , and the  by Stilwell and the . I like your swap idea, but with the mixed frequencies I’m worried that a few times per rush hour, you’ll have express riders having to pass up 2 trains to get the one they want, adding to the already obscene crowding at stations like Roosevelt. 

Now I have a question: I know most subway lines in the system have he design capabilities to handle more than the proverbial 30tph — I’ve seen articles stating that that close spacing near stations, and the signal timers allow the theoretical operation of trains every 90 seconds or so, and old capacity maps showing 34-36 tph as the design load of many lines in the system. In this day and age, those extra tph would be useful. Ignoring terminal issues and the need for operational margin of error, could service be increased? If not, what has changed? 

The  may well be hemmed in by WTC. With the current 15 tph, there usually is a wait to get in and out of there, so 18 tph certainly wouldn’t be any better, unless they can get the trains out faster. The  runs only 6 tph per hour, so it shouldn’t really be a factor. If nothing else, you’re getting more frequent 8th Ave local service out of it. 

Likewise, with the  running 12 tph, Stillwell, the  and the  become less of a factor because there are now fewer  trains for those two lines to contend with. And you wouldn’t have to have as many  trains short-turn at Kings Highway. 

The possibility of having to pass up two express trains before getting the one you want is the biggest issue here. Back when the  ran 12 tph and the  18, it wasn’t quite as much of an issue because all the expresses went to the 53rd St Corridor. That won’t be the case this time, but I feel as though service would be tailored better for the two East River crossings according to their ridership. Under an 18  / 12  split, the busier 53rd St Corridor would be getting the more frequent , while less busy 63rd St Corridor would be getting the less frequent .  

[LGA Link N Train]

14 hours ago, T to Dyre Avenue said:

The  may well be hemmed in by WTC. With the current 15 tph, there usually is a wait to get in and out of there, so 18 tph certainly wouldn’t be any better, unless they can get the trains out faster. The  runs only 6 tph per hour, so it shouldn’t really be a factor. If nothing else, you’re getting more frequent 8th Ave local service out of it. 

part of me wants to say, SWAP THE AND HAVINF THE TERMINATE AT WTC AND THE TERMINATE AT EUCLID, but in reality, I don't see that happening anytime soon

Likewise, with the  running 12 tph, Stillwell, the  and the  become less of a factor because there are now fewer  trains for those two lines to contend with. And you wouldn’t have to have as many  trains short-turn at Kings Highway.

huh, I'm confused here, care to explain? 

The possibility of having to pass up two express trains before getting the one you want is the biggest issue here. Back when the  ran 12 tph and the  18, it wasn’t quite as much of an issue because all the expresses went to the 53rd St Corridor. That won’t be the case this time, but I feel as though service would be tailored better for the two East River crossings according to their ridership. Under an 18  / 12  split, the busier 53rd St Corridor would be getting the more frequent , while less busy 63rd St Corridor would be getting the less frequent .  

Why not swap both the and in the 63Rd and 53rd Street Tunnels.

All replies are in bold except the last one

Now let's get back to The Rockaway Beach Branch

[R68OnBroadway]

6 minutes ago, LGA Link N train said:

Why not swap both the and in the 63Rd and 53rd Street Tunnels.

All replies are in bold except the last one

Now let's get back to The Rockaway Beach Branch

Swapping the  and  isn't a good idea as one-borough local lines generally don't get high ridership, like the  . Plus QBL is getting CBTC and 8th will probably be the first Manhattan line to get it, so keeping the  at WTC will allow it to operate extra trains sooner.

[T to Dyre Avenue]

1 hour ago, LGA Link N train said:

All replies are in bold except the last one

Now let's get back to The Rockaway Beach Branch 

My reply in bold:

Yes. But let me just clear up my response. The  currently can’t turn 15 tph at Stillwell Ave due to the crossover switch being located some distance from the platform (similar to the  at Parsons-Archer), so about one third of  trains have to short-turn at Kings Highway. But if the  runs at 12 tph, while the  is increased to 18 (which may be possible if the  runs out of 179th), then there would be fewer  trains needing to turn at KH. Possibly none at all.

As for switching the  and  between Manhattan and Queens, I would not, because then the 53rd St Corridor would have the same overcrowding problem it had prior to the connection of the 63rd St Tunnel to the QB line. When the  and  both ran via 53rd St, those stations were insanely crowded. By splitting them up, they sent a fair amount of QB express riders away from 53rd St. I’d prefer to leave that be. But that doesn’t mean we can’t fit just a few more express  trains via 53rd to address the crowding there and on the 8th Ave Local above Penn Station. It’s really a band-aid solution. Hopefully CBTC can be a more permanent one. Even then, I’m not so sure.

Edited December 31, 2017 by T to Dyre Avenue

[LGA Link N Train]

6 minutes ago, T to Dyre Avenue said:

 

 

6 minutes ago, T to Dyre Avenue said:

The  currently can’t turn 15 tph at Stillwell Ave, so some F’s have to short-turn at Kings Highway.

That explains why I keep seeing Kings Highway bound trains in Queens. thanks!

[T to Dyre Avenue]

Right. Prior to 2002, there were even more  trains short turning at KH because it ran 18 tph back then. When they implemented the  service, they added three more rush hour  trains (because 53rd is busier) and took away three rush hour ’s. They have to run 30 under current Operations rules. But it doesn’t have to be equally split.