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

They going have to do so much work on the those abandoned tracks. Would that put all those auto shops out of business though?

Let’s say I went on vacation for 6 months. I come back to find some entrepreneurial squatter on my lawn selling crack from a mini-trailer house. Although my 3 month absence emboldened him to feel entitled to use of my land, I would have every right to kick that b**** out and sue him to collect rent and maintenance fees for using my property. The crack—that’s another issue altogether.

Edited by CenSin
  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But who knows deblasio might let it go to one his developer oligarch overlords for a precious High line park if that happens deblasio needs to be arrested for corruption

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow. I didn't notice people were using the property to expand their homes. I didn't even see that. And good illustration of what you are talking g about. I didn't also know that they were squatting either.

 

Sent from my STV100-1 using Tapatalk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow. I didn't notice people were using the property to expand their homes. I didn't even see that. And good illustration of what you are talking g about. I didn't also know that they were squatting either.

 

Sent from my STV100-1 using Tapatalk

Well, that's the reality of the Rockaway Beach Branch

 

Sent from my SM-G386T using Tapatalk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah here's how I'd do it.

Before 2 Av and the Bushwick-Queens line is built:

(G) returns to 71 Av to use up freed capacity and to placate community opposers that didn't want to the (G) to be cut back in 2001. This allows for more transfers along the QB line.

(M) diverts down the Rockaway Branch to Rockaway Park, replacing the shuttle.

(R) stays as-is, if the LGA extension for the (N) is built after Phase 3 of the SAS opens.

After 2 Av and the Bushwick-Queens line is built:

(G) same as above.

A new (H) train runs via 6 Av, with a spur to the Rockaway Branch at 63 Dr-Rego Park.

The (M) would be replaced by the (B) on Myrtle and (H) on Queens Blvd, which frees up capacity on the 6 Av local.

The (R) would return to the Astoria Line if the (N) gets extended to LGA as this allows for a new yard on ConEd land, allowing the (N) to take its place as the QB local to 71 Av via 63 St. This reduces congestion in the 60 St Tube and not making the (N)(Q) interact with the (R)(W), because they would only interact with themselves.

A new SAS (V) runs from Hanover Sq to 179 St via 63 St and a new bypass, making local stops east of Forest Hills. This allows the (F) to skip stops the whole length of QB, as well as the reduced need for the (E) to stop at 75 Av/Briarwood-Van Wyck outside of late nights.

Well thought out, but I'm trying to understand how the (H)(M) and (V) would all work at the same time

 

Sent from my SM-G386T using Tapatalk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They wouldn't work at the same time. I clearly stated "before and after 2 Av and the Bushwick-Queens line opens".

The (M) would be the initial service to the Rockaways, but would be replaced by the (B) and 6 Av (H) AFTER 2 Av and the Bushwick-Queens line opens. And the (V) would run on 2 Av, not 6 Av.

Similar to Vanshnookenraggen's 2 Av plan????

 

Sent from my SM-G386T using Tapatalk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also if the Queensway begins construction, I will be so MAD! These stupid hipsters just gotta deal with it, I mean many peeps live along elevated lines and yet they don't complain??? And they only have to underpin LIRR to connect it with the branch and after that they only have to renovate it by evicting people who encroached upon it, clearing out the trees and fixing stations and trackage, which itself would be simple because the MTA has renovated many stations in the past.

I agree with you 100% , sadly my dad and his cousin are in it for Queensway and I gave them a bunch of reasons towards why Queensrail is better. Wierdly despite the fact that they support the Queensway, they agree with all of my reasons

 

Sent from my SM-G386T using Tapatalk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah here's how I'd do it.

Before 2 Av and the Bushwick-Queens line is built:

(G) returns to 71 Av to use up freed capacity and to placate community opposers that didn't want to the (G) to be cut back in 2001. This allows for more transfers along the QB line.

(M) diverts down the Rockaway Branch to Rockaway Park, replacing the shuttle.

(R) stays as-is, if the LGA extension for the (N) is built after Phase 3 of the SAS opens.

After 2 Av and the Bushwick-Queens line is built:

(G) same as above.

A new (H) train runs via 6 Av, with a spur to the Rockaway Branch at 63 Dr-Rego Park.

The (M) would be replaced by the (B) on Myrtle and (H) on Queens Blvd, which frees up capacity on the 6 Av local.

The (R) would return to the Astoria Line if the (N) gets extended to LGA as this allows for a new yard on ConEd land, allowing the (N) to take its place as the QB local to 71 Av via 63 St. This reduces congestion in the 60 St Tube and not making the (N)(Q) interact with the (R)(W), because they would only interact with themselves.

A new SAS (V) runs from Hanover Sq to 179 St via 63 St and a new bypass, making local stops east of Forest Hills. This allows the (F) to skip stops the whole length of QB, as well as the reduced need for the (E) to stop at 75 Av/Briarwood-Van Wyck outside of late nights.

Wouldn't switching the (M) and (B) cause delays on 6th Av at either 34th or West 4th because of the switching? Edited by Deucey
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah here's how I'd do it.

Before 2 Av and the Bushwick-Queens line is built:

(G) returns to 71 Av to use up freed capacity and to placate community opposers that didn't want to the (G) to be cut back in 2001. This allows for more transfers along the QB line.   

(M) diverts down the Rockaway Branch to Rockaway Park, replacing the shuttle.

(R) stays as-is, if the LGA extension for the (N) is built after Phase 3 of the SAS opens.

After 2 Av and the Bushwick-Queens line is built:

(G) same as above.

A new (H) train runs via 6 Av, with a spur to the Rockaway Branch at 63 Dr-Rego Park.

The (M) would be replaced by the (B) on Myrtle and (H) on Queens Blvd, which frees up capacity on the 6 Av local.   

The (R) would return to the Astoria Line if the (N) gets extended to LGA as this allows for a new yard on ConEd land, allowing the (N) to take its place as the QB local to 71 Av via 63 St. This reduces congestion in the 60 St Tube and not making the (N)(Q) interact with the (R)(W), because they would only interact with themselves.

A new SAS (V) runs from Hanover Sq to 179 St via 63 St and a new bypass, making local stops east of Forest Hills. This allows the  (F) to skip stops the whole length of QB, as well as the reduced need for the (E) to stop at 75 Av/Briarwood-Van Wyck outside of late nights.   

While I agree with the (N)(Q)(R)(W) plan, the rest really won't work because of these reasons:

 

1. QBL is at capacity.

2. 75-footers cannot go on Myrtle. This would require sending all of the 68s from the B to the N/Q/W for 160s. This would create longer dwell times along the line because 75-footers have increased capacity with the same amount of doors.

3. Most people won't take the M because it runs as a QBL local.

 

If people really wanted a good connection from the Rockaways to Midtown and lower Manhattan, I would send a line from 96th street down to Prospect Av, running express on Broadway. After Prospect, it would run express to Church and then run down a new line under Flatbush Avenue to Rockaway Beach Blvd, where then it will run over that to 119th street. From there it will curve to Beach 116th St station. This however, would require relocating buildings and rebuilding the entrance/exit of Beach 116th St station. 

 

As for the Flatbush section, the line would be 3 tracks with a peak direction express service. Express stops would be located at Nostrand (transfer to the 2 and 5), Kings Highway, , and Utica Avenue. Local stops would be included at Clarendon Rd, Avenue J, and Avenue N. After passing Avenue V, the line would emerge and run alongside Flatbush Av, as well as merge into two tracks. A summer-only stop might be added at Floyd Bennet Field. From there, the line would travel on a new bridge to Jacob Riis Park, where another stop would be located. After that, the line would run along Rockaway Beach Blvd to 116th with stops at 142nd, 133rd, and 124th.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While I agree with the (N)(Q)(R)(W) plan, the rest really won't work because of these reasons:

 

1. QBL is at capacity.

2. 75-footers cannot go on Myrtle. This would require sending all of the 68s from the B to the N/Q/W for 160s. This would create longer dwell times along the line because 75-footers have increased capacity with the same amount of doors.

3. Most people won't take the M because it runs as a QBL local.

 

If people really wanted a good connection from the Rockaways to Midtown and lower Manhattan, I would send a line from 96th street down to Prospect Av, running express on Broadway. After Prospect, it would run express to Church and then run down a new line under Flatbush Avenue to Rockaway Beach Blvd, where then it will run over that to 119th street. From there it will curve to Beach 116th St station. This however, would require relocating buildings and rebuilding the entrance/exit of Beach 116th St station.

 

As for the Flatbush section, the line would be 3 tracks with a peak direction express service. Express stops would be located at Nostrand (transfer to the 2 and 5), Kings Highway, , and Utica Avenue. Local stops would be included at Clarendon Rd, Avenue J, and Avenue N. After passing Avenue V, the line would emerge and run alongside Flatbush Av, as well as merge into two tracks. A summer-only stop might be added at Floyd Bennet Field. From there, the line would travel on a new bridge to Jacob Riis Park, where another stop would be located. After that, the line would run along Rockaway Beach Blvd to 116th with stops at 142nd, 133rd, and 124th.

And.... I don't see the Rockaway Beach Branch line anywhere

 

Sent from my SM-G386T using Tapatalk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And.... I don't see the Rockaway Beach Branch line anywhere

 

Sent from my SM-G386T using Tapatalk

If you want fast service from the Rockaways, you need to build a new line via South Brooklyn. The RBB would only serve as a shuttle unless a bypass was built that connected to the 63rd street tunnel.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you want fast service from the Rockaways, you need to build a new line via South Brooklyn. The RBB would only serve as a shuttle unless a bypass was built that connected to the 63rd street tunnel.

Yea but what you're proposing isn't going to happen anytime soon

 

Sent from my SM-G386T using Tapatalk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Riders would riot if it was only a shuttle. Both 63 Dr-Rego Park and Roosevelt Av would become impossibly overcrowded with RBB residents. Again, there is no need to connect South Brooklyn with the Rockaways because there isn't any demand for it.

Thank you for understanding the reasoning of why this won't work

 

Sent from my SM-G386T using Tapatalk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Queensway also itself would run though a major park (Forest Park) that no one non-local goes to, so that should be enough proof in and of itself...

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Queensway also itself would run though a major park (Forest Park) that no one non-local goes to, so that should be enough proof in and of itself...

Warrant : Rockaway Beach Branch subway should be built

 

Sent from my SM-G386T using Tapatalk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also I'd like to mention that the Queensway is a waste of time and money. It's much wiser to spend a Few billion dollars in connecting RBB to QBL rather than a "park to nowhere". Now if the Queensway were built, not only would I be pissed off but the park would not have enough visitors to warrant for it to stay and ..... Forest Park. My opinion, let's get this done and over with and NIMBY'S guess what, "shut up and deal with it"

 

Sent from my SM-G386T using Tapatalk

  • Upvote 1

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.