Rockaway Beach Branch

[Wallyhorse]

5 hours ago, Lance said:

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.

Actually since 1962, but your point is well taken.  A LOT of work would need to be done to get this up to snuff.

I would have to connect somewhere for this to work.

[N6 Limited]

On 1/26/2018 at 8:06 PM, 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.

 

 

 

Which path would the Bypass take to get under 71st Ave and how would they support the station during construction?

The Northern Blvd Station would be where the East Side Access portal currently is is? They might as well build the station shell now to save on costs.

[Wallyhorse]

7 minutes ago, N6 Limited said:

Which path would the Bypass take to get under 71st Ave and how would they support the station during construction?

The Northern Blvd Station would be where the East Side Access portal currently is is? They might as well build the station shell now to save on costs.

What if you could figure out a way to have the RBB run via a bypass that could run to the never-used upper level of Roosevelt Avenue and from there go to Manhattan, perhaps with a stop that can include a free transfer to the Astoria Line?   Such would probably have to come into Manhattan via a new tunnel via 72nd or 79th Street,  

[bobtehpanda]

42 minutes ago, N6 Limited said:

Which path would the Bypass take to get under 71st Ave and how would they support the station during construction?

The Northern Blvd Station would be where the East Side Access portal currently is is? They might as well build the station shell now to save on costs.

We don't have any more detailed plans than these, but the only street that is diagonal and close to where the six-track width ends in Rego Park is Yellowstone Blvd

[N6 Limited]

15 hours ago, bobtehpanda said:

We don't have any more detailed plans than these, but the only street that is diagonal and close to where the six-track width ends in Rego Park is Yellowstone Blvd

That makes total sense after looking at the map.

[Caelestor]

4 hours ago, N6 Limited said:

That makes total sense after looking at the map.

To extrapolate, the QBL bypass would run under Yellowstone Blvd to a new island platform below the existing Forest Hills station. The bypass would then connect to the outermost tracks of the 6-track section east of Forest Hills and take over the  local service to 179 St, though it is possible that the  is rerouted away from QBL to the bypass full-time.

On the western end, it is highly unlikely that the Northern Blvd stop is ever built, as its main purpose would be to offer a transfer to the existing Queens Plaza station. Instead, riders could always transfer to the at Woodside, and the funds be redirected to less expensive and more meaningful stops at Woodhaven Blvd and 51st Ave.

[RR503]

5 hours ago, Caelestor said:

To extrapolate, the QBL bypass would run under Yellowstone Blvd to a new island platform below the existing Forest Hills station. The bypass would then connect to the outermost tracks of the 6-track section east of Forest Hills and take over the  local service to 179 St, though it is possible that the  is rerouted away from QBL to the bypass full-time.

On the western end, it is highly unlikely that the Northern Blvd stop is ever built, as its main purpose would be to offer a transfer to the existing Queens Plaza station. Instead, riders could always transfer to the at Woodside, and the funds be redirected to less expensive and more meaningful stops at Woodhaven Blvd and 51st Ave.

I actually don’t even think that the Northern Boulevard station can be built now. ESA preserved space for the tunnels to go under Sunnyside yards, but if I remember correctly, the concrete bathtub used as a TBM launch area for ESA precludes any station at that location. The Queens Bypass tracks would first go through, and then hug the outsides of that tub, following non-parallel paths under Yard A and Harold, and rejoining somewhere tangent to Barnett Avenue under the south side of the yard, making station construction all but impossible. 

Edited February 1, 2018 by RR503

[T to Dyre Avenue]

On 1/30/2018 at 12:23 PM, bobtehpanda said:

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.

 

On 1/30/2018 at 2:14 PM, Lance said:

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.

Fair enough. I feel like between the NIMBYism, the decades of neglect, the population density of the surrounding areas and the inability to directly run an express service without messing with existing service on the QB line, there really seem to be a lot of strikes against putting this r-o-w back in service, at least as a Manhattan-bound service. It’s too bad because I’ve long held the opinion that the   Woodhaven Blvd corridor could use better transit options and that Q52/53 SBS service should be the first step, not the only step, in that direction. Maybe then, a better focus for the RBB would be intra-Queens riders.

But I do think an express Woodhaven  Blvd, on its own, should be an easy sell.  It would cut out one transfer for the many bus riders transferring to the subway there. They would no longer have to pack onto the  at Woodhaven, then flock like geese across the platform at Roosevelt to overcrowd the , which would reduce platform crowding at Roosevelt and reduce dwell times on   and  trains there.

On 1/31/2018 at 6:06 PM, Caelestor said:

To extrapolate, the QBL bypass would run under Yellowstone Blvd to a new island platform below the existing Forest Hills station. The bypass would then connect to the outermost tracks of the 6-track section east of Forest Hills and take over the  local service to 179 St, though it is possible that the  is rerouted away from QBL to the bypass full-time.

On the western end, it is highly unlikely that the Northern Blvd stop is ever built, as its main purpose would be to offer a transfer to the existing Queens Plaza station. Instead, riders could always transfer to the at Woodside, and the funds be redirected to less expensive and more meaningful stops at Woodhaven Blvd and 51st Ave.

This is kind of what I envisioned for how to connect the bypass tracks at the eastern end. But maybe do the 51st Ave stop at Grand Ave, so it can connect to the Q58, Queens’ busiest bus route. I guess that would make a stronger case to put the 2nd Ave Subway V on the bypass and keep the  on the main QB line. It would also eliminate the merge between the  and  at 75th Ave.

Edited February 2, 2018 by T to Dyre Avenue

[N6 Limited]

With the way the Woodhaven LIRR station is set up, where would the bypass fit?

[RR503]

There never was a Woodhaven LIRR station on the Main Line... We're talking about one that'd be along the Bypass where the LIRR ML crosses Woodhaven Boulevard. That area of the line has provisions for 6 tracks, so it'd just be a function of adding a platform. 

https://www.google.com/maps/@40.7293152,-73.8711947,231m/data=!3m1!1e3

 

[Caelestor]

3 minutes ago, T to Dyre Avenue said:

This is kind of what I envisioned for how to connect the bypass tracks at the eastern end. But maybe do the 51st Ave stop at Grand Ave, so it can connect to the Q58, Queens’ busiest bus route. 

That is a reasonable proposal. My original intention for the stop at 51st Ave was a future connection to Triboro RX, but the Q58 already exists and so a transfer should be established.

1 hour ago, N6 Limited said:

With the way the Woodhaven LIRR station is set up, where would the bypass fit?

I assume you mean the former Rego Park LIRR stop. The 1970s proposal had no stops between Woodside and Forest Hills, and the subway tracks would be laid along the empty trackbeds north and south of the existing 4-track LIRR mainline (formerly for the Rockaway Branch). Since two new stations are needed, either the ROW needs to be widened or an elevated solution needs to be deployed. In either case, the non-underground stations would be significantly cheaper compared to say SAS.

Woodside is the problematic station, since the LIRR has 6 tracks, and so an underground stop is probably needed there, given that ESA is on the way and train traffic is expected to increase dramatically.

 

[N6 Limited]

On 2/1/2018 at 8:45 PM, RR503 said:

There never was a Woodhaven LIRR station on the Main Line... We're talking about one that'd be along the Bypass where the LIRR ML crosses Woodhaven Boulevard. That area of the line has provisions for 6 tracks, so it'd just be a function of adding a platform. 

https://www.google.com/maps/@40.7293152,-73.8711947,231m/data=!3m1!1e3

 

 

On 2/1/2018 at 9:06 PM, Caelestor said:

That is a reasonable proposal. My original intention for the stop at 51st Ave was a future connection to Triboro RX, but the Q58 already exists and so a transfer should be established.

I assume you mean the former Rego Park LIRR stop. The 1970s proposal had no stops between Woodside and Forest Hills, and the subway tracks would be laid along the empty trackbeds north and south of the existing 4-track LIRR mainline (formerly for the Rockaway Branch). Since two new stations are needed, either the ROW needs to be widened or an elevated solution needs to be deployed. In either case, the non-underground stations would be significantly cheaper compared to say SAS.

Woodside is the problematic station, since the LIRR has 6 tracks, and so an underground stop is probably needed there, given that ESA is on the way and train traffic is expected to increase dramatically.

 

Thanks, I meant Woodside

On 2/1/2018 at 7:04 PM, N6 Limited said:

With the way the Woodhaven LIRR station is set up, where would the bypass fit?

 

[Lawrence St]

Ok, so what I'm thinking based on the hike I did on the RBB on Saturday is this:

Parkside no longer exists, except for a few rails.

Woodhaven Junction has been completely violated by that school bus parking lot, so either we have to completely redesign that station or create a bypass around it.

 

Ozone Park is still intact thank god.

 

The section between Forest Park and the Apartment complex/baseball field has been completely taken over by a new parking lot, so that's another major issue on how to get around that.

Also not to mention that some residents have extended their backyards onto the RBB ROW, so that's another problem.

[Lance]

That's what happens when your potential train line is left abandoned for 50 or so years. Technically, the MTA can claim ownership and force the "squatters" off their property, but that won't endear the residents to the cause in the slightest.

[Lawrence St]

I still never understood why they didn't take advantage of the rest of the RBB north of Aqueduct. I mean they bought the whole line yet only used 90% of it. The conversion of the Q52/Q53 to SBS will not solve this problem, I am telling you that right now.

[LGA Link N Train]

1 hour ago, Lawrence St said:

I still never understood why they didn't take advantage of the rest of the RBB north of Aqueduct. I mean they bought the whole line yet only used 90% of it. The conversion of the Q52/Q53 to SBS will not solve this problem, I am telling you that right now.

So what you're telling me is that the  owns BOTH the North and south halves of the Rockaway Beach Branch, but has done nothing with the northern section of it.

 That's rather disappointing. 

[RR503]

2 hours ago, Lawrence St said:

I still never understood why they didn't take advantage of the rest of the RBB north of Aqueduct. I mean they bought the whole line yet only used 90% of it. The conversion of the Q52/Q53 to SBS will not solve this problem, I am telling you that right now.

Read the rest of this thread to find out why. The  was a simple extension off of a line that was below capacity. 

2 hours ago, Lance said:

That's what happens when your potential train line is left abandoned for 50 or so years. Technically, the MTA can claim ownership and force the "squatters" off their property, but that won't endear the residents to the cause in the slightest.

I’ve also heard that there are also structural issues with the viaduct portion/many of the line’s bridges. Not an easy rehab. 

[Deucey]

3 hours ago, Lawrence St said:

I still never understood why they didn't take advantage of the rest of the RBB north of Aqueduct. I mean they bought the whole line yet only used 90% of it. The conversion of the Q52/Q53 to SBS will not solve this problem, I am telling you that right now.

If it wasn’t a semi-useless line, wouldn’t the LIRR have spent the money to rebuild the bridge that burned to keep it open?

And I think NYCTA bought it because:

 • The southern half was next to Idlewild Airport, so it could produce revenue for people looking to fly by getting them on the IND instead of cabs

• Additional revenue to come because NYCTA would have a route for beach goers to go to the Rockaways for 5¢ vs whatever Penn set LIRR fares to the Rockaways at; and

• It was a potentially lucrative revenue stream that “irrigated” a transit desert in the City.

I still don’t see how the rest of the line does that based on current proposals. Now, if there structurally was a way to connect IND Crosstown line to IND Fulton St Line, and you built a third ramp to go north on RBB from Fulton, you might have a useful route from Coney Island to Jamaica or Flushing via Culver, Crosstown, Fulton and RBB that could take bus riders and drivers off roads - depending on how many actually bus or drive from Fulton St to Queens daily.

[Lawrence St]

The rest of the line is basically a crosstown route, connecting Jamaica, Nassau and QBL. Woodhaven Blvd is a complete nightmare when it comes to traffic, and converting it with SBS Bus lanes did not help the situation at all. If the line were to be reactivated, your commute time via bus would be cut in half, cars would be taken off the streets because of a new traffic alternative. We shouldn't overlook the rest of the line because look at Fordham Road, it has the Bx12 SBS but even that isn't enough to satisfy the ridership, and that route is filled to the max with people, and I get crushed everytime I ride it. While the Q52/Q53 SBS may be a temporary solution, the problem will only get worse in the future. Besides, if we are going to waste millions of dollars on SAS, why not do the same for RBB? Heck most of the line is outdoors, a simple rebuild would not cost the same amount as SAS.

[Lance]

@DeuceyTo answer that first question, when the TA purchased the line from the LIRR, there were originally two branches of service to/from the Rockaways. One service would connect to Fulton St, which was completed in '56, while the other would run alongside the LIRR and connect to the proposed 2nd Avenue line using an East River tunnel along 76th Street. Plans were later revised to also include a direct connection to Queens Blvd using the 63rd Drive bellmouths. It's possible that service between the Rockaways and Queens Blvd may have been served by the  and not the  had that connection been built with the Fulton St one. The portion connecting to 2nd Avenue would've likely been to siphon riders off the heavily crowded Queens Blvd line by providing another Manhattan-bound service.

Of course, plans for 2nd Avenue fell through in favor or more pressing issues like the Culver connection or the 11th Street cut. That latter connection would allow for Manhattan-bound local service from Queens Blvd without the massive expense of building a new cross-river tunnel. When it opened in '55, the amount of transferring at Queens Plaza and Roosevelt Av would decrease significantly as there was now a direct Manhattan-bound service and not just the Crosstown . A Queens Blvd-only connection was obviously not enough of a draw for the project, which is why it was indefinitely shelved.

1 hour ago, RR503 said:

I’ve also heard that there are also structural issues with the viaduct portion/many of the line’s bridges. Not an easy rehab. 

Decades of disuse + harsh New York climate = severe degradation of the structure. It's only a shovel-ready project in that the ROW is already there. Beyond that, yeah, this isn't a simple structure rehab project like Myrtle Ave. What's there will have to be replaced almost entirely. That's why even if the Queensway proponents have it their way, they'd still have to build up the park from the ground up for their version of the High Line.

3 minutes ago, Lawrence St said:

The rest of the line is basically a crosstown route, connecting Jamaica, Nassau and QBL. Woodhaven Blvd is a complete nightmare when it comes to traffic, and converting it with SBS Bus lanes did not help the situation at all. If the line were to be reactivated, your commute time via bus would be cut in half, cars would be taken off the streets because of a new traffic alternative. We shouldn't overlook the rest of the line because look at Fordham Road, it has the Bx12 SBS but even that isn't enough to satisfy the ridership, and that route is filled to the max with people, and I get crushed everytime I ride it. While the Q52/Q53 SBS may be a temporary solution, the problem will only get worse in the future. Besides, if we are going to waste millions of dollars on SAS, why not do the same for RBB? Heck most of the line is outdoors, a simple rebuild would not cost the same amount as SAS.

Just as I tell Wallyhorse every time he posts one of his wild ideas, it's a matter of cost vs. benefit. 2nd Avenue needs to be built to offload some of the hundreds of thousands of riders using the Lexington Ave line daily. That's hardly a waste, even if the costs of construction are ridiculous compared to other locales. I'm not denying your plight along Woodhaven Blvd, but I cannot see Rockaway Beach pulling in nearly that amount of ridership even if every rider on the Q52/53 were to switch over. That's why 2nd Avenue always comes first. As for costs for rebuilding Rockaway Beach, see above.

[Lawrence St]

It's actually quite reverse that, I asked people the day the Q52/53 SBS went online if they would rather take a train to reach either QBL Nassau or Liberty, and 75% of them said yes. While your right, SAS does take tremendous stress off the Lexingtion Avenue line, the benefit for RBB would greatly help the residents of Woodhaven.

Heck, even extending the shuttle up there and providing a free in system transfer between Parkside and 63rd Drive would see a lot of ridership. It may not happen at once, but I guaantee you the results will show up before the end of the year.

[RR503]

39 minutes ago, Lawrence St said:

It's actually quite reverse that, I asked people the day the Q52/53 SBS went online if they would rather take a train to reach either QBL Nassau or Liberty, and 75% of them said yes. While your right, SAS does take tremendous stress off the Lexingtion Avenue line, the benefit for RBB would greatly help the residents of Woodhaven.

This is the thing. As has been documented ad nauseum  in previous pages, the ridership base along the RBB -- especially when compared to other needy corridors in NYC -- is simply not big enough to justify the necessary investment -- again, especially when there are other places to spend the $$$.

I really recommend you read back through this discussion. All of your arguments have been addressed before. 

[R68OnBroadway]

Could you maybe convert the ROW to a highway-speed busway? This could take traffic off Woodhaven as a fast Q52/Q53 would attract more people, and a busway will cost much less and will be easier to reroute over current obstructions.

[officiallyliam]

3 hours ago, R68OnBroadway said:

Could you maybe convert the ROW to a highway-speed busway? This could take traffic off Woodhaven as a fast Q52/Q53 would attract more people, and a busway will cost much less and will be easier to reroute over current obstructions.

Possibly? I've thought about that, but also think that the value of buses is their direct, street-level service on important corridors. Remember that the RBB is always a couple of blocks away from Woodhaven - even farther through Rego Park -, where the businesses, etc. are. I think the value of the bus would be lessened as a result of it not being on Woodhaven Blvd, but being several blocks away. The RBB in my mind is really far better for subway service, where the quick ride to Manhattan can be justified by the extra walking. Also, the RBB's ends are difficult for buses: on the north and south ends you have to find a way to get buses back on to the road, as one end is the LIRR tracks and the other end the tracks.

I'm not wholly opposed to a real BRT service on the Rockaway ROW, but when the subway option is there, I don't think it's necessarily the best idea.

Edited February 6, 2018 by officiallyliam

[bobtehpanda]

4 hours ago, R68OnBroadway said:

Could you maybe convert the ROW to a highway-speed busway? This could take traffic off Woodhaven as a fast Q52/Q53 would attract more people, and a busway will cost much less and will be easier to reroute over current obstructions.

Not really; there's no place to connect the busway on either end, because on one side is active subway tracks, and the other side is the Long Island Railroad. Plus that doesn't actually cost less, since you'd still have to rebuild all the bridges and embankment and whatever.