Rockaway Beach Branch

[Art Vandelay]

46 minutes ago, LGA Link N train said:

@bobtehpanda if RBB is "not worth their money" then what is it worth?

 

As transit? 0. 
If it were somehow suddenly ready to be used, it would just be abandoned again. 

[LGA Link N Train]

1 hour ago, Art Vandelay said:

As transit? 0. 
If it were somehow suddenly ready to be used, it would just be abandoned again. 

Now I'm conflicted

[RR503]

36 minutes ago, LGA Link N train said:

Now I'm conflicted

Resolve your opinion, then get back to us. Stop trying to bump your post count.

On the last page, I count seven alternative projects for you to chew on. Why don’t you go do that? Or if you want to support the RBB, give us some reason beyond “it exists and could be used for rail.” I want stats, and cogency. 

Edited January 23, 2018 by RR503

[LGA Link N Train]

2 hours ago, RR503 said:

On the last page, I count seven alternative projects for you to chew on. 

There is the LaGuardia Extension that i could "chew on". But I don't feel like making a thread on that.

SAS-3 Av I could talk about in the Second Avenue Subway Discussion

RX. I'm not sure whether it'll be a good investment or not

QBL Bypass feels needed yet unlikely, I'd rather talk about that here.

Utica extension seems like a good subject 

Nostrand expansion feels unlikely but admittedly I'm saying that Flatbush is an inefficient terminal

And what was the 7th project that I could "chew on"?

[RR503]

1 hour ago, LGA Link N train said:

There is the LaGuardia Extension that i could "chew on". But I don't feel like making a thread on that.

That's why we have the proposals/ideas thread.

1 hour ago, LGA Link N train said:

SAS-3 Av I could talk about in the Second Avenue Subway Discussion

Go. I never said you had to post here. I was merely suggesting that you think or read about non-RBB subway extensions. 

1 hour ago, LGA Link N train said:

RX. I'm not sure whether it'll be a good investment or not

Those are words I shouldn't have to read. Just RX would have been enough if you were making a list.  

My point here is that you have the tendancy to post about things incessantly/without developing ideas. I want a dynamic forum, not morass of vascillation. I'm interested in what you have to say, but only when you have something to say. I don't want to hear your undeveloped musings -- this isn't your blog -- I want to hear things you've thought about. You understand what I mean?

1 hour ago, LGA Link N train said:

And what was the 7th project that I could "chew on"?

Fare unification. 

[T to Dyre Avenue]

On 1/22/2018 at 8:20 PM, RR503 said:

...which means they’ll build the highest impact projects, not scenic lines via parkland to nowhere. 

A decent list of subway expansion priorities:

1. SAS

2. Queens Bypass

3. Third avenue

4. Utica/nostrand

5 RX

Note project not on that list — the RBB.

Would you like if I quoted all of my analysis past of why this is a frankly idiotic waste of money so you can read more inconvenient truths? 

I’ve been reading much of your posts about why they shouldn’t restore the RBB. And they certainly are fair points. And it’s true that it wouldn’t be cheap to restore the branch for any kind of rail service, after being abandoned for 55+ years. One article I read pegs restoration at $1 billion to start. And yes, all of the corridors you listed certainly would serve far more people, more effectively, than RBB would. So let’s say the powers that be do give MTA an extra $1 billion to spend on an extension. Which of the above five projects would it be best to spend the money on and how much could be built for said $1billion?

Edited January 26, 2018 by T to Dyre Avenue

[Deucey]

1 hour ago, T to Dyre Avenue said:

I’ve been reading much of your posts about why they shouldn’t restore the RBB. And they certainly are fair points. And it’s true that it wouldn’t be cheap to restore the branch for any kind of rail service, after being abandoned for 55+ years. One article I read pegs restoration at $1 billion to start. And yes, all of the corridors you listed certainly would serve far more people, more effectively, than RBB would. So let’s say the powers that be do give MTA an extra $1 billion to spend on an extension. Which of the above five projects would it be best to spend the money on and how much could be built for said $1billion?

Probably QB since that could use the Montauk Branch - so just a retrofit and grade separation.

[RR503]

1 hour ago, T to Dyre Avenue said:

I’ve been reading much of your posts about why they shouldn’t restore the RBB. And they certainly are fair points. And it’s true that it wouldn’t be cheap to restore the branch for any kind of rail service, after being abandoned for 55+ years. One article I read pegs restoration at $1 billion to start. And yes, all of the corridors you listed certainly would serve far more people, more effectively, than RBB would. So let’s say the powers that be do give MTA an extra $1 billion to spend on an extension. Which of the above five projects would it be best to spend the money on and how much could be built for said $1billion?

Well if this money can't be saved for future use, I'd spend it on the RX. I'd do the Bypass, but I think the technical complexity of burrowing under the heart of Harold (despite their having designated space for Bypass tunnels as a no-dig zone), burrowing under the LIRR (no space for tracks at grade in Woodside), and connecting with Queens Boulevard proper around 75th ave would cost more than that $1 billion could provide. 

You almost certainly could not do all of the RX for $1 bil. That said, you could easily furnish a MOS with (if you're gonna be really cheap) Nippon-Sharyo DMUs (yes, they exist in FRA-compliant form) between 62nd Street  and New Lots on the  for under a billion. All that would be needed are some platforms, signals, and track upgrades. I'd suggest stops at 62nd , Avenue I , Avenue H , Flatbush (connection to the ), Kings Highway, Remsen Avenue, and New Lots avenue (connection to the ). Yes, we aren't getting to Broadway Junction, but given that the RX passes through the Junction directly over the IND platforms in a separate tunnel, building platforms for connections would be no small feat.

[Caelestor]

3 hours ago, T to Dyre Avenue said:

I’ve been reading much of your posts about why they shouldn’t restore the RBB. And they certainly are fair points. And it’s true that it wouldn’t be cheap to restore the branch for any kind of rail service, after being abandoned for 55+ years. One article I read pegs restoration at $1 billion to start. And yes, all of the corridors you listed certainly would serve far more people, more effectively, than RBB would. So let’s say the powers that be do give MTA an extra $1 billion to spend on an extension. Which of the above five projects would it be best to spend the money on and how much could be built for said $1billion?

Based on the past 75 years, the MTA will never have the funding or will to build a completely new line from scratch. All future projects will be extensions of existing lines, albeit there's a lot of extensions that need to be built. The two big ones are SAS and QBL Bypass, which will probably take a generation to complete at current pace.

[RailRunRob]

14 hours ago, RR503 said:

Well if this money can't be saved for future use, I'd spend it on the RX. I'd do the Bypass, but I think the technical complexity of burrowing under the heart of Harold (despite their having designated space for Bypass tunnels as a no-dig zone), burrowing under the LIRR (no space for tracks at grade in Woodside), and connecting with Queens Boulevard proper around 75th ave would cost more than that $1 billion could provide. 

You almost certainly could not do all of the RX for $1 bil. That said, you could easily furnish a MOS with (if you're gonna be really cheap) Nippon-Sharyo DMUs (yes, they exist in FRA-compliant form) between 62nd Street  and New Lots on the  for under a billion. All that would be needed are some platforms, signals, and track upgrades. I'd suggest stops at 62nd , Avenue I , Avenue H , Flatbush (connection to the ), Kings Highway, Remsen Avenue, and New Lots avenue (connection to the ). Yes, we aren't getting to Broadway Junction, but given that the RX passes through the Junction directly over the IND platforms in a separate tunnel, building platforms for connections would be no small feat.

Agreed the RX would be my pick as well. Most bang for that buck.

12 hours ago, Caelestor said:

Based on the past 75 years, the MTA will never have the funding or will to build a completely new line from scratch. All future projects will be extensions of existing lines, albeit there's a lot of extensions that need to be built. The two big ones are SAS and QBL Bypass, which will probably take a generation to complete at current pace.

How far would the MTA be able to take extensions with most line's being at or near bandwidth capacity? CBTC would help but even that has limits.

[bobtehpanda]

2 hours ago, RailRunRob said:

Agreed the RX would be my pick as well. Most bang for that buck.

How far would the MTA be able to take extensions with most line's being at or near bandwidth capacity? CBTC would help but even that has limits.

Second Avenue Subway should help quite a lot - room for one expansion in the Bronx, one in Queens, and two in Brooklyn. Plus the relief that will bring will give us room to expand services outward.

[T to Dyre Avenue]

15 hours ago, Caelestor said:

Based on the past 75 years, the MTA will never have the funding or will to build a completely new line from scratch. All future projects will be extensions of existing lines, albeit there's a lot of extensions that need to be built. The two big ones are SAS and QBL Bypass, which will probably take a generation to complete at current pace.

And except for Triboro RX, the projects RR503 mentioned are extensions. From a realistic point of view, they’d have to be. RX would be a completely separate line, but that’s due to its proposed use of existing (and mostly outdoors) right of way. 

16 hours ago, RR503 said:

Well if this money can't be saved for future use, I'd spend it on the RX. I'd do the Bypass, but I think the technical complexity of burrowing under the heart of Harold (despite their having designated space for Bypass tunnels as a no-dig zone), burrowing under the LIRR (no space for tracks at grade in Woodside), and connecting with Queens Boulevard proper around 75th ave would cost more than that $1 billion could provide. 

You almost certainly could not do all of the RX for $1 bil. That said, you could easily furnish a MOS with (if you're gonna be really cheap) Nippon-Sharyo DMUs (yes, they exist in FRA-compliant form) between 62nd Street  and New Lots on the  for under a billion. All that would be needed are some platforms, signals, and track upgrades. I'd suggest stops at 62nd , Avenue I , Avenue H , Flatbush (connection to the ), Kings Highway, Remsen Avenue, and New Lots avenue (connection to the ). Yes, we aren't getting to Broadway Junction, but given that the RX passes through the Junction directly over the IND platforms in a separate tunnel, building platforms for connections would be no small feat.

I feel like you really can get the most bang for your buck by doing RX. I prefer doing the QB bypass, because then you’d be able to add capacity to the QBL, without actually having to put it on the QBL. But just the 75th Ave connection alone seems like it would be a budget buster, to say nothing about tunneling under LIRR from LIC to Woodside. 

17 hours ago, Deucey said:

Probably QB since that could use the Montauk Branch - so just a retrofit and grade separation.

Well, if I’m not mistaken, it was proposed as a bypass some time after the original LIRR Main Line bypass proposal. I read it was met with intense NIMBY resistance in Middle Village and Maspeth, not to mention the MTA’s larger focus on getting the existing system back up to a state of good repair. But even if those weren’t factors, the Montauk Branch is quite a way off from Queens Blvd, so a connection to the QBL would be much longer and a connection to the 63rd St tunnel would be tricky given the location of the branch in LIC, the layout of the streets and all the tunnel it would have to dodge there. And of course, there’s the issue how to cooperate with the NY & A freight trains. And like RBB, Montauk runs mostly through low-density areas and Forest Park.

[Art Vandelay]

23 minutes ago, T to Dyre Avenue said:

And except for Triboro RX, the projects RR503 mentioned are extensions. From a realistic point of view, they’d have to be. RX would be a completely separate line, but that’s due to its proposed use of existing (and mostly outdoors) right of way. 

I feel like you really can get the most bang for your buck by doing RX. I prefer doing the QB bypass, because then you’d be able to add capacity to the QBL, without actually having to put it on the QBL. But just the 75th Ave connection alone seems like it would be a budget buster, to say nothing about tunneling under LIRR from LIC to Woodside. 

Well, if I’m not mistaken, it was proposed as a bypass some time after the original LIRR Main Line bypass proposal. I read it was met with intense NIMBY resistance in Middle Village and Maspeth, not to mention the MTA’s larger focus on getting the existing system back up to a state of good repair. But even if those weren’t factors, the Montauk Branch is quite a way off from Queens Blvd, so a connection to the QBL would be much longer and a connection to the 63rd St tunnel would be tricky given the location of the branch in LIC, the layout of the streets and all the tunnel it would have to dodge there. And of course, there’s the issue how to cooperate with the NY & A freight trains. And like RBB, Montauk runs mostly through low-density areas and Forest Park.

The Montauk does run through low density areas, but those are areas that could more easily be built up, and there is the giant destination of Jamaica at the end of it. Even if it makes no stops along the way, The service to Jamaica alone guarantees high ridership from day one. 

[bobtehpanda]

14 minutes ago, Art Vandelay said:

The Montauk does run through low density areas, but those are areas that could more easily be built up, and there is the giant destination of Jamaica at the end of it. Even if it makes no stops along the way, The service to Jamaica alone guarantees high ridership from day one. 

Parks and graveyards aren't exactly developable. And the line would basically get wrecked in any storm surge event, even a minor one.

[RR503]

1 hour ago, T to Dyre Avenue said:

And except for Triboro RX, the projects RR503 mentioned are extensions. From a realistic point of view, they’d have to be. RX would be a completely separate line, but that’s due to its proposed use of existing (and mostly outdoors) right of way. 

17 hours ago, RR503 said:

Yeah. I tried to make sure that the extensions are off of new cap. (SAS) or add to overcrowded existing lines (QB Bypass), but alas not always feasible (Nostrand, Utica). I'd actually say the strongest argument against the RBB is that it'd add to QB overcrowding -- not even the lack of demand, etc. 

27 minutes ago, bobtehpanda said:

Parks and graveyards aren't exactly developable. And the line would basically get wrecked in any storm surge event, even a minor one.

We've been through this before, I'll do it again. Yes, there are parks along the line. Yes, there are cemeteries along the line. There is, however, a crapton of underdeveloped land along it too.

You need to think in terms of land along the line multiplied by development potential. Given that 90% of the Lower Montauk (outside of the forever-industrial Maspeth (vacancy rates there are like .5% or some crazy sh*t like that, so no residential penetration anytime soon)) runs through extremely low density housing, that second term vastly outweighs the effect of parks/cemeteries in the first term. 

As for the storm surge claim, you're just wrong. The NY&A was back up and running their entire network (yes, including all of the LMB) two days after Sandy. And for the next couple months, they delivered record amounts of building supplies to help rebuild New York and the Island -- all of which had to touch the LMB at some point -- contradicting this 'wrecking' in storm surge.

Finally IIRC (and feel free to check me on this), the only part of the branch that lies entirely in a 1st order flood zone is the area around Wheelspur -- so just a smidgen of the route's entire length. Indeed, because so much of the Branch's potential catchment in Queens lies on such high ground, the Lower Montauk would do worlds for encouraging sustainable development -- enough of these waterfront towers. 

I studied this line for a part of the MTA back a few years ago -- I wish I could post my documentation, but alas, rules...

One more note: LMB couldn't be part of any Queens Bypass proposal because of the freight issue. It'd have to be a regional rail route. QB should go via LIRR main.

Edited January 26, 2018 by RR503

[T to Dyre Avenue]

5 hours ago, Art Vandelay said:

The Montauk does run through low density areas, but those are areas that could more easily be built up, and there is the giant destination of Jamaica at the end of it. Even if it makes no stops along the way, The service to Jamaica alone guarantees high ridership from day one. 

Hmmm...that is an interesting point about the Lower Montauk service originating in Jamaica. Along with a stop in Long Island City, it should be able to get solid ridership. But, as a subway service, it would function as a relief line for the , not so much for the , though relieving just the  would certainly be a big relief for many East and Southeast Queens riders.

4 hours ago, RR503 said:

Yeah. I tried to make sure that the extensions are off of new cap. (SAS) or add to overcrowded existing lines (QB Bypass), but alas not always feasible (Nostrand, Utica). I'd actually say the strongest argument against the RBB is that it'd add to QB overcrowding -- not even the lack of demand, etc. 

We've been through this before, I'll do it again. Yes, there are parks along the line. Yes, there are cemeteries along the line. There is, however, a crapton of underdeveloped land along it too.

You need to think in terms of land along the line multiplied by development potential. Given that 90% of the Lower Montauk (outside of the forever-industrial Maspeth (vacancy rates there are like .5% or some crazy sh*t like that, so no residential penetration anytime soon)) runs through extremely low density housing, that second term vastly outweighs the effect of parks/cemeteries in the first term. 

As for the storm surge claim, you're just wrong. The NY&A was back up and running their entire network (yes, including all of the LMB) two days after Sandy. And for the next couple months, they delivered record amounts of building supplies to help rebuild New York and the Island -- all of which had to touch the LMB at some point -- contradicting this 'wrecking' in storm surge.

Finally IIRC (and feel free to check me on this), the only part of the branch that lies entirely in a 1st order flood zone is the area around Wheelspur -- so just a smidgen of the route's entire length. Indeed, because so much of the Branch's potential catchment in Queens lies on such high ground, the Lower Montauk would do worlds for encouraging sustainable development -- enough of these waterfront towers. 

I studied this line for a part of the MTA back a few years ago -- I wish I could post my documentation, but alas, rules...

One more note: LMB couldn't be part of any Queens Bypass proposal because of the freight issue. It'd have to be a regional rail route. QB should go via LIRR main.

These are good to know. I know I wasn’t aware of how much undeveloped land exists along the Lower Montauk. So the freight trains are really the big issue here. If only the freight wasn’t an issue, because then you’d have the potential to relieve the , which often leaves Parsons-Archer SRO.  

Whenever I envision what a QB bypass via the LIRR Main Line would look like, I always see it as two subway tracks on the north side of the r-o-w. But then I think about what to do about Woodside, where the Port Washington branch trains stop on a separate platform before turning off. Either subway trains would have to be underground until past Woodside or the PW/Main Line junction would have to be reconfigured so QB bypass trains can stop on the former PW platforms while PW trains stop on the main line platforms with the other LIRR trains (which I would prefer as that would facilitate transferring to/from the ).

Edited January 27, 2018 by T to Dyre Avenue

[Caelestor]

31 minutes ago, T to Dyre Avenue said:

Hmmm...that is an interesting point about the Lower Montauk service originating in Jamaica. Along with a stop in Long Island City, it should be able to get solid ridership. But, as a subway service, it would function as a relief line for the , not so much for the , though relieving just the  would certainly be a big relief for many East and Southeast Queens riders.

These are good to know. I know I wasn’t aware of how much undeveloped land exists along the Lower Montauk. So the freight trains are really the big issue here. If only the freight wasn’t an issue, because then you’d have the potential to relieve the , which often leaves Parsons-Archer SRO.  

Whenever I envision what a QB bypass via the LIRR Main Line would look like, I always see it as two subway tracks on the north side of the r-o-w. But then I think about what to do about Woodside, where the Port Washington branch trains stop on a separate platform before turning off. Either subway trains would have to be underground until past Woodside or the PW/Main Line junction would have to be reconfigured so QB bypass trains can stop on the former PW platforms while PW trains stop on the main line platforms with the other LIRR trains (which I would prefer as that would facilitate transferring to/from the ).

 

I could see the Lower Montauk functioning similar to the Rockaway Line, except with higher ridership because of the influx of passengers at Jamaica. Stops at Flushing Ave (optional), Fresh Pond (Metropolitan Ave), Glendale (Cooper Ave), Ridgewood (Woodhaven Blvd), and Richmond Hiill (Lefferts Blvd). The issue is how to connect it to a line in Manhattan, since 63 St is too far away from LIC. More recent proposals have used the Lower Mantauk as part of a new NJ - Manhattan - LI line through Union City.

 

As for the QBL bypass, I believe the intention was to build the tracks south of the ROW using part of the space that was originally occupied by the southbound Rockaway Branch. The line would go underground at Sunnyside Yards.

 

 

 

[CenSin]

28 minutes ago, Caelestor said:

 

I could see the Lower Montauk functioning similar to the Rockaway Line, except with higher ridership because of the influx of passengers at Jamaica. Stops at Flushing Ave (optional), Fresh Pond (Metropolitan Ave), Glendale (Cooper Ave), Ridgewood (Woodhaven Blvd), and Richmond Hiill (Lefferts Blvd). The issue is how to connect it to a line in Manhattan, since 63 St is too far away from LIC. More recent proposals have used the Lower Mantauk as part of a new NJ - Manhattan - LI line through Union City.

 

As for the QBL bypass, I believe the intention was to build the tracks south of the ROW using part of the space that was originally occupied by the southbound Rockaway Branch. The line would go underground at Sunnyside Yards.

 

 

 

The 71 Street–Continental Avenue station doesn’t look like that though. The yard leads are absent from the diagram.

[LGA Link N Train]

 

More RBB discussion on Twitter 

Edited January 29, 2018 by LGA Link N train
Delete this, the link I put out earlier didn't work

[T to Dyre Avenue]

On ‎1‎/‎26‎/‎2018 at 1:05 PM, bobtehpanda said:

Second Avenue Subway should help quite a lot - room for one expansion in the Bronx, one in Queens, and two in Brooklyn. Plus the relief that will bring will give us room to expand services outward.

Yes, definitely. But how much SAS can you get for what it would likely cost to rehab the RBB, given how much it cost to build Phase 1 and how much they've estimated to build Phase 2?

Edited January 29, 2018 by T to Dyre Avenue

[bobtehpanda]

5 hours ago, T to Dyre Avenue said:

Yes, definitely. But how much SAS can you get for what it would likely cost to rehab the RBB, given how much it cost to build Phase 1 and how much they've estimated to build Phase 2?

The SAS is meant to relieve a subway line that is busier than the rest of the subway systems in the United States by itself.

RBB would actually increase congestion on an overcrowded subway line.

Spending money on RBB because it's cheaper is penny wise and pound foolish.

[T to Dyre Avenue]

10 hours ago, bobtehpanda said:

The SAS is meant to relieve a subway line that is busier than the rest of the subway systems in the United States by itself.

RBB would actually increase congestion on an overcrowded subway line.

Spending money on RBB because it's cheaper is penny wise and pound foolish.

I don’t disagree. That wasn’t the question I was asking. What I want to know is how much more SAS (on top of what we’ve already got) can we get for the same amount of money it would likely take to rebuild RBB?

I’m not at all suggesting choosing RBB over SAS because it’s cheaper. Although nothing short of building the entire SAS in Manhattan along with extensions into the Bronx and Queens, is going to offer true relief for the Lex. The current four-phase MTA plan won’t go far enough. And it will cost billions upon billions of dollars just to build that. Not to mention how long it will take. And it will be forced to run well below capacity below 63rd St because they have no plans Queens-SAS service via the 63rd St tunnel.

Edited January 30, 2018 by T to Dyre Avenue

[bobtehpanda]

4 hours ago, T to Dyre Avenue said:

I don’t disagree. That wasn’t the question I was asking. What I want to know is how much more SAS (on top of what we’ve already got) can we get for the same amount of money it would likely take to rebuild RBB?

I’m not at all suggesting choosing RBB over SAS because it’s cheaper. Although nothing short of building the entire SAS in Manhattan along with extensions into the Bronx and Queens, is going to offer true relief for the Lex. The current four-phase MTA plan won’t go far enough. And it will cost billions upon billions of dollars just to build that. Not to mention how long it will take. And it will be forced to run well below capacity below 63rd St because they have no plans Queens-SAS service via the 63rd St tunnel.

Costs that are likely to be incurred with RBB
 

• RBB without an express Woodhaven Blvd is a hard sell.
• The entire segment is overgrown. There's substantial reconstruction work that needs to happen within the constraints of the right-of-way.
• I've heard conflicting reports on how far the tunnels that would be used for the connection actually go.

It's probably still cheaper, but I don't know if it's actually that cheap, particularly if you were to compare it on the metric of, say, cost per rider.

[Lance]

Considering the entire ROW has been abandoned since the '50s, the entire thing would have to be rebuilt from the ground up. Elevated or not, this will not be a cheap project, which is why it needs to go somewhere in order to be useful. A glorified shuttle to the Rockaways is not going to be a draw, no matter what service you throw on the branch.

[Lawrence St]

If you guys want, I can create a PDF of the entire remains of the line that also include pictures and thoughts on what needs to be fixed and changed.