Rockaway Beach Branch

[MovingBlock]

14 hours ago, LGA Link N train said:

56 Years of Abandonment...now nature is taking over on the #RockawayBeachBranch! Listen to my pod for more info.

https://t.co/RdKPxePZDq https://t.co/V2eHY2EDc

More RBB on Twitter 

Thanks for having a listen? Your thoughts?

 

[MovingBlock]

I hope everyone here can at least try to walk the Rockaway Beach Branch right of way and see what you think should be done with it. It is easy to armchair quarterback from the internet, but I hope everyone can go out there and see the state of the right of way and think about what can be done here. Perhaps a park might be the best use of this rail line.

 

All constructive criticism welcome.

 

 

[RR503]

11 hours ago, Deucey said:

The tangent we're on is whether it'd make sense to run LRT on Fordham (and other East-West corridors) to replace buses or to build heavy rail and connect it to something.

The Blue Line comparison only comes up because you asserted:

I understand that. I'm saying using another city's LRT line to assert that the same would work in a NYC doesn't hold water. We have different densities and a different culture here. 

11 hours ago, Deucey said:

And my rebuttal to that statement is that 30k people aren't riding 22 miles from Long Beach to Downtown LA for work on Saturdays. Given that the Bx12 has 44k people per day riding the SBS and Local on buses that can hold 120 seated and standing, and that LA MetroRail's P2000 cars hold 100 per car (300 per train) comfortably - replacing three buses in 3 car sets and replacing at least 2 SBS trips per 8 minute interval with room to spare, LRT is a viable option.

And grade separated with CBTC - which is possible - if demand rose rapidly for it, LRT could run as many people per day as heavy rail - with longer train sets and/or with  train-like frequent service. VTA in San Jose can run with 175 people per car; Manila's Light Rail system carries 500,000 on Line 1 and 200,000 on line two daily (with 86 ft cars on Line 1 - 272 seated and 1116 standing); Monterey (Mexico) LRT carries 480,000 people per day over two lines. LRT carrying heavy rail loads is not without precedent.

I don't they are. I'm just saying that few -- if any -- NYC subway lines have the same average weekend ridership as the blue line, which at about 2.7k per stop per weekend is pretty low. I don't think any stop in Manhattan has such low ridership -- a comparable station would be Buhre Ave on the . 

I also think that bus ridership is a terrible predictor of subway ridership. No one in their right mind would say we shouldn't build SAS because the M15 is losing ridership because bus and subway lines attract different clienteles. People who would use this line probably already take the subway to Manhattan and just make do with wherever their trunk takes them by using transfers or walking. Those folks -- and others -- would now flock to this line to take advantage of the other, now readily accessible trunks that may be more convenient to their destination. Even folks going crosstown on other corridors or on other modes may use this -- subways induce demand. 

And FWIW, by the time you're grade separating and adding CBTC, you're just building a subway, so for the love of god, just integrate it into what we already have instead of creating yet another incompatible network. And sure, LRT can carry masses, but subways can do that better. A thousand standees in such tiny vehicles sounds like hell. We don't want hell. We want viable, non fatal transit. 

[CenSin]

7 hours ago, MovingBlock said:

I hope everyone here can at least try to walk the Rockaway Beach Branch right of way and see what you think should be done with it. It is easy to armchair quarterback from the internet, but I hope everyone can go out there and see the state of the right of way and think about what can be done here. Perhaps a park might be the best use of this rail line.

 

All constructive criticism welcome.

 

 

I’ve walked it. It will take a lot of work to fix up considering all the private property owners invading the space. I’ve seen all sorts of uses for the right-of-way, from parking lot to garbage dump.

[Italianstallion]

On 3/18/2018 at 7:02 PM, officiallyliam said:

In order for LRT really to be successful anywhere, it needs its own ROW. Physically, this would be possible on the whole route from Inwood to Pelham, but re-purposing the necessary road space on the western section of Fordham Road to allow this to happen may be controversial. But maybe there are enough Bx12 users, considering what a busy route it is, that a project to speed surface transit on that corridor (as well as for the other bus routes that use stretches of Fordham Road, as they'd be allowed in the LRT lanes) would be popular.

West of Third Ave,  if Fordham Road is deemed too crowded, the LRT could be routed up  Kingsbridge Road to Broadway and 225th St. This route has less traffic but still connects with all subways other than the A. But it would also connect with Metro-North at Marble Hill as a bonus. And it avoids congestion at the 207th St. Bridge.

[Trainmaster5]

Quick question about LRT systems. How are they in coping with bad weather conditions ? I know that at certain times the trolley systems in NYC had to shut down because of snow and blizzard conditions and I wondered if that was a valid comparison . Now back to the RBB discussion . If a person purchases property abutting a rail line, whether active or not, said person has no say , morally or legally IMO . If the city, state, or whomever decided to build or not build, rail, LRT, or parkland those people should have no recourse or standing to block anything. Just my opinion. Carry on.

[Lawrence St]

12 hours ago, MovingBlock said:

I hope everyone here can at least try to walk the Rockaway Beach Branch right of way and see what you think should be done with it. It is easy to armchair quarterback from the internet, but I hope everyone can go out there and see the state of the right of way and think about what can be done here. Perhaps a park might be the best use of this rail line.

 

All constructive criticism welcome.

 

 

I can't seem to find a way to get onto the platform at Woodhaven Junction, how did you get up there?

Also, Ozone Park is literally falling apart, I think the structure is going to collapse soon.

[LGA Link N Train]

15 hours ago, MovingBlock said:

Thanks for having a listen? Your thoughts?

 

I'd still say to integrate it into the subway. Whether it'd be a train or park. The entire corridor would have to be rebuilt. As a subway, you wouldn't fully replace Air Train JFK but rather provide an alternative. Also at the southern end you have the train. If you connect the subway from Queens Blvd via Rockaway Beach Branch then you'll fix a frequency issue on the line.

[MysteriousBtrain]

My opinion?

 

Do a sort of compromise. I explored the branch enough to see that north of Myrtle Ave, it can curve under Woodhaven as a subway connecting to QBL. North of Union Turnpike the remainder of the line should be converted into some form of greenway for pedestrians. 

[bobtehpanda]

This is, of course, assuming you believe that any money should be used at all towards this corridor that isn't even a subway desert. 

Edited March 26, 2018 by bobtehpanda

[LGA Link N Train]

4 hours ago, bobtehpanda said:

This is, of course, assuming you believe that any money should be used at all towards this corridor that isn't even a subway desert. 

That part doesn't matter anymore. Something needs to be done with it

[RR503]

1 hour ago, LGA Link N train said:

That part doesn't matter anymore. Something needs to be done with it

Wow. Just wow. Ignorance and foam exemplified. 

If we ignore neediness when planning, what’s stopping me from putting an 8 track subway under my street? Nothing. Because then we’re done planning. We’re just foaming. 

You know what I say about the RBB? Let it become a park. It’s simply neither a needy nor dense nor priority corridor. 

[Lawrence St]

4 hours ago, RR503 said:

Wow. Just wow. Ignorance and foam exemplified. 

If we ignore neediness when planning, what’s stopping me from putting an 8 track subway under my street? Nothing. Because then we’re done planning. We’re just foaming. 

You know what I say about the RBB? Let it become a park. It’s simply neither a needy nor dense nor priority corridor. 

Have you SEEN the Q52/53!?! Talking about it not being a dense corridor, you obviously have never ridden those lines during rush hours.

[bobtehpanda]

13 minutes ago, Lawrence St said:

Have you SEEN the Q52/53!?! Talking about it not being a dense corridor, you obviously have never ridden those lines during rush hours.

...which means absolutely nothing when it comes to density, or potential density.

If you think more density would accompany the RBB, what makes you think it wouldn't come with the  or the  ?

[LGA Link N Train]

8 hours ago, RR503 said:

Wow. Just wow. Ignorance and foam exemplified. 

Who said anything about foaming? I've said it once and I'll say it again. I'm not a foamer.

 

3 hours ago, Lawrence St said:

Have you SEEN the Q52/53!?! Talking about it not being a dense corridor, you obviously have never ridden those lines during rush hours.

Never ridden it but I can see that whenever I pass by those buses, they're Quite crowded at times. 

3 hours ago, bobtehpanda said:

potential density

You played yourself 

3 hours ago, bobtehpanda said:

If you think more density would accompany the RBB, what makes you think it wouldn't come with the  or the  ?

Perfect. Now we're making use of a corridor and we have a chance to provide connections (of course that requires new infrastructure being built). At this point, I don't care if it's a transit desert or not. Something needs to be done and something's GOING TO GET DONE. As people mentioned earlier,  the corridor and be used as a multi purpose corridor. Heck, even @vanshnookenraggen said in his website how this could be taken advantage of. 

[RR503]

5 minutes ago, LGA Link N train said:

Who said anything about foaming? I've said it once and I'll say it again. I'm not a foamer.

Saying that pretty much makes you into one. 

5 minutes ago, LGA Link N train said:

Perfect. Now we're making use of a corridor and we have a chance to provide connections (of course that requires new infrastructure being built). 

How do you plan to connect to lines when the RBB doesn’t go near their stations? The RBB intercepts both the  and  almost exactly halfway between stations. 

7 minutes ago, LGA Link N train said:

At this point, I don't care if it's a transit desert or not. Something needs to be done and something's GOING TO GET DONE. As people mentioned earlier,  the corridor and be used as a multi purpose corridor. Heck, even @vanshnookenraggen said in his website how this could be taken advantage of

I couldn’t give two sh*ts what you think needs to be done — unless you provide evidence. Your concession of a lack of significant demand and of it not being a transit desert just reinforces my argument that this is a wasteful project advocated solely by local constituencies and foamers who can’t wait to see more trains cross that thicc Jamaica Bay. If you can make a case that’s more than “ohmygodthisneedstobedonenow!!!” we can talk. Bring numbers and logic, and not empty calls for action. Until then, you’ve got nothing. 

And BTW, I think few here are fazed by you citing a blogger who agrees with you. Appeals to authority are by definition fallback measures for arguments that one is losing. Again, explain in your own words, or don’t post at all. 

[Coney Island Av]

15 minutes ago, LGA Link N train said:

Who said anything about foaming? I've said it once and I'll say it again. I'm not a foamer.

 

Never ridden it but I can see that whenever I pass by those buses, they're Quite crowded at times. 

You played yourself 

Perfect. Now we're making use of a corridor and we have a chance to provide connections (of course that requires new infrastructure being built). At this point, I don't care if it's a transit desert or not. Something needs to be done and something's GOING TO GET DONE. As people mentioned earlier,  the corridor and be used as a multi purpose corridor. Heck, even @vanshnookenraggen said in his website how this could be taken advantage of. 

I think that @RR503 doesn't necessarily mean your a foamer, but rather you're foaming. Foaming just means you're acting like a foamer, and he says this because the RBB proposal has nothing of value, and no reasons are given. 

RBB is viable, but the  are just too crowded to handle the passengers. 

However, as @LGA Link N train stated, @vanshnookenraggen came up with various solutions. He even stated that CBTC will increase train capacity by enough, so extra  service could be added to handle overcrowding. 

But I do agree with a statement @RR503 said earlier in the thread: "If you still believe that RBB should be built, give other reasons besides the fact that it's abandoned and is gonna be turned into a park if we don't build it." 

 

Edited March 26, 2018 by Coney Island Av

[CenSin]

1 hour ago, RR503 said:

And BTW, I think few here are fazed by you citing a blogger who agrees with you. Appeals to authority are by definition fallback measures for arguments that one is losing. Again, explain in your own words, or don’t post at all. 

Unless Vanshnookenraggen is secretly Cuomo, Lhota, or Byford, he’s not appealing to any authority. He’s merely saying that somebody else shares his idea.
Although it would seem that he thinks that blog holds any weight in the grand scheme.

 

[LGA Link N Train]

43,396 Rego Park
 83,728 Forest Hills
164,094 Richmond Hill and Woodhaven. 
 54,779 Ozone Park.

here are the populations of each major neighborhood that hit RBB. In total you'll have 345,547. OK, maybe not dense, but it's still a lot of people regardless of density. Now station placing is important if you want to get the most effectivness out of it. One logical station placement would be Metropolitan Avenue in Parkside. I say that because you have some convince stores a wendys. And other stores. But you also have Metropolitan High school. Since there are students that go there like a few of my personal friends, you already have a chunk of ridership added right there. 

Before I continue,  the Q52 and Q53 combined has a total ridership of 40,000 in November. I'm not sure if that number has risen but it seems like it did.

Let's manuver through Forest Park, in which north of Union Turnpike, the subway can run underground with a liner park on top and south of Myrtle Avenue, it could be elevated. Richmond Hill and Woodhaven. The population there is 164,094 which is not bad. Then you have the swinging past. The nearest station is 104 and building a transfer would be a pain. However, longer transfers between station's exist. 

Woodhaven and Ozone Park. For Station placement, you have 2 options. 

1) build 2 stations. One at Atlantic Avenue and One at Liberty Avenue. 

                                OR

2) Rebuild 101-103 Avenues with a Front and Back entrance. 

Considering that there are a bunch of crowded houses around that Area, if the rail service was added, people will ride it. Also, don't forget that there really are no documents stating that the Rockaway Beach Branch is abandoned at all. And @RR503 you said that RBB just misses the at Liberty Avenue. Well it connects with the south of Liberty Avenue, just add a platform at Aqueduct Racetrack (if feasible and add a new ADA accessible overpass at that station) from there, you'll have a frequency issue fixed on the line. 

Therefore, RBB is worth an investment despite density levels and those opposing are overlooking at what is achievable from it.

Sorry for the long post

[CenSin]

1 hour ago, LGA Link N train said:

43,396 Rego Park
 83,728 Forest Hills
164,094 Richmond Hill and Woodhaven. 
 54,779 Ozone Park.

here are the populations of each major neighborhood that hit RBB. In total you'll have 345,547. OK, maybe not dense, but it's still a lot of people regardless of density. Now station placing is important if you want to get the most effectivness out of it. One logical station placement would be Metropolitan Avenue in Parkside. I say that because you have some convince stores a wendys. And other stores. But you also have Metropolitan High school. Since there are students that go there like a few of my personal friends, you already have a chunk of ridership added right there. 

Before I continue,  the Q52 and Q53 combined has a total ridership of 40,000 in November. I'm not sure if that number has risen but it seems like it did.

Let's manuver through Forest Park, in which north of Union Turnpike, the subway can run underground with a liner park on top and south of Myrtle Avenue, it could be elevated. Richmond Hill and Woodhaven. The population there is 164,094 which is not bad. Then you have the swinging past. The nearest station is 104 and building a transfer would be a pain. However, longer transfers between station's exist. 

Woodhaven and Ozone Park. For Station placement, you have 2 options. 

1) build 2 stations. One at Atlantic Avenue and One at Liberty Avenue. 

                                OR

2) Rebuild 101-103 Avenues with a Front and Back entrance. 

Considering that there are a bunch of crowded houses around that Area, if the rail service was added, people will ride it. Also, don't forget that there really are no documents stating that the Rockaway Beach Branch is abandoned at all. And @RR503 you said that RBB just misses the at Liberty Avenue. Well it connects with the south of Liberty Avenue, just add a platform at Aqueduct Racetrack (if feasible and add a new ADA accessible overpass at that station) from there, you'll have a frequency issue fixed on the line. 

Therefore, RBB is worth an investment despite density levels and those opposing are overlooking at what is achievable from it.

Sorry for the long post

I think in the long run, it will come down to a matter of cost.

1. How much is the MTA spending on busing people along corridors under consideration?
2. How much does replacing bus service with a subway cost?
3. How long does the subway need to be run to “pay for itself” (from not running buses as a result of the subway picking up the slack)?

The only other time a subway will be built regardless of cost is when a nearby subway is overflowing with passengers (such as 2 Avenue).

Apply these questions to each corridor under consideration:

• 3 Avenue (Bronx)
• Utica Avenue (Brooklyn)
• Rockaway Beach Branch
• Fordham Road
• Northern Boulevard (east from Flushing, Queens)

Edited March 26, 2018 by CenSin

[LGA Link N Train]

2 minutes ago, CenSin said:

I think in the long run, it will come down to a matter of cost.

1. How much is the MTA spending on busing people along corridors under consideration?
2. How much does replacing bus service with a subway cost?
3. How long does the subway “pay for itself” with the amount of money saved from not running many buses as a result of the subway picking up the slack?

The only other time a subway will be built regardless of cost is when a nearby subway is overflowing with passengers (such as 2 Avenue).

Apply these questions to each corridor under consideration:

• 3 Avenue (Bronx)
• Utica Avenue (Brooklyn)
• Rockaway Beach Branch
• Fordham Road
• Northern Boulevard (east from Flushing, Queens)

Crap, how did I forget about cost, thanks for remind me...

1. Well, that depends and the term busing is somewhat confusing to me at the moment. So I can't answer that question right now.

2. I don't intend on replacing bus service but on average, I'm guessing somewhere in the millions

3. ?????????????????????

And I said it should be built regardless of Density, not cost

[R68OnBroadway]

I see the RBB as more of not irrigating a "transit desert"  but more as a way to improve crosstown service. Would making it part of RX to JFK be reasonable? You could have the line branch off from the Bay Ridge Branch around Roosevelt Av, and have it run parallel to the LIRR (maybe you could have a transfer to the LIRR at Forest Hills) to the RBB to JFK. You could even build a branch to LGA as well to provide a link between the two. This is really just a random thought, so don't go crazy if it sounds idiotic.

Overall though, I think that unless there is some transit merit to the RBB, it should be left as-is. Building a park now might be bad in the long run if the area grows, and building a subway seems impractical considering a bypass line will take at least 25 years from conception to completion.

[officiallyliam]

There are numerous problems with this analysis, which does little to show that the RBB is a needed subway extension, much less that it should move to the front of the line of other long-considered subway extensions.

1 hour ago, LGA Link N train said:

here are the populations of each major neighborhood that hit RBB. In total you'll have 345,547.

So yes, 300k+ people live in all the neighborhoods which the RBB passes through. But you can't seriously claim that all those people stand to be affected either positively or negatively by the building of a subway in this corridor. This is because you missed a key number, which is not the number of people living in these neighborhoods, but the population density. If the areas are very spread out, the line will have a smaller walkshed; not good for a route which already suffers from inconvenient walking connections. Here are the persons per acre figures for the neighborhoods you mentioned, as of the 2010 Census: Forest Hills 63.0, Rego Park 62.0, Woodhaven 66.4, Richmond Hill 53.8, and Ozone Park 37.1. The average density of the neighborhoods along the RBB, therefore, is 56.4 (and this assumes that all stand to benefit, which might be true if these areas were true transit deserts, and they're not). 

This means nothing, though, out of context. Let's take some other long-proposed and oft-discussed subway extensions and look at the density figures there. An IRT Utica Avenue extension would have stations in Crown Heights, East Flatbush and Flatlands; the average density here is 74.6. A line through the central Bronx (along Third Avenue, perhaps, or the MNRR right-of-way) would stop in Mott Haven, Melrose, Claremont, Belmont, Fordham, and Williamsbridge, and have an average density of 98.6 persons per acre. This is a density nearly twice that of the RBB, meaning that far more people will be served.

7 minutes ago, LGA Link N train said:

And I said it should be built regardless of Density, not cost

Why and how? Density is how, as you'll have seen above, you determine how many people stand to benefit from transit expansion of any kind; therefore, it is extremely linked with cost. Density, or the lack of it, is the reason there's no push to build rapid transit services through countryside: the cost remains the same as in the city, but much less of that cost is ever going to come back through revenue. And while that may be an exaggerated example, the point still stands. While the RBB might be cheaper than Third or Utica because the ROW is already there, that doesn't mean anything if the line isn't going to be carrying anyone.

1 hour ago, LGA Link N train said:

the Q52 and Q53 combined has a total ridership of 40,000 in November

And this brings me to my next and final point. This is often used as justification for the RBB extension; because the Q52/53 buses are often crowded, the subway line should naturally be built. The RBB corridor, and the Woodhaven Boulevard corridor that the Q52/53 buses serve, are not one and the same. At the respective corridors' northern ends in Rego Park, the RBB and Woodhaven are nowhere near each other, and while the RBB cuts through a relatively sparse residential area, the buses are serving a denser residential and commercial corridor, where more people are both getting on transit from their homes as well as getting off transit to go to jobs. Even where they are closest, the RBB and the Boulevard maintain a distance of several blocks away from one another, just enough to make walking a pain. Even if a transfer to the were built, it would be closer to 104th instead of the busier Woodhaven station - not to mention how much of a pain this transfer would be both to build and to use.

People take buses on Woodhaven Blvd for different reasons - but more importantly, for more reasons - then they would use a train on the RBB route. If the ROW in question was closer or directly next to the the denser and more commercial boulevard, this might be a different story. But the RBB is purely residential, and not dense residential either. As far as rapid transit expansions go in my mind, it's at the back of the line.

[RR503]

1 hour ago, R68OnBroadway said:

I see the RBB as more of not irrigating a "transit desert"  but more as a way to improve crosstown service. Would making it part of RX to JFK be reasonable? You could have the line branch off from the Bay Ridge Branch around Roosevelt Av, and have it run parallel to the LIRR (maybe you could have a transfer to the LIRR at Forest Hills) to the RBB to JFK. You could even build a branch to LGA as well to provide a link between the two. This is really just a random thought, so don't go crazy if it sounds idiotic.

Aside from the JFK connection (which would barely be faster than E/LIRR to to Airtrain) the RBB would be a useless crosstown. At its south end, it misses connections with other transit lines and then heads out to sea, and at its north, it ends up just to the left of nowhere. A RX spur would integrate it into a larger crosstown network, sure, but that space along the LIRR is much better used for a Bypass (no they can’t share tracks — RX needs to be FRA compliant), and realistically, few if any people are trying to get from Jackson Heights to Howard Beach by way of Rego Park — and those that are are better served by the RX connection at Bway Jct, which would bring more connectivity than this line would. 

[bobtehpanda]

4 hours ago, LGA Link N train said:

43,396 Rego Park
 83,728 Forest Hills
164,094 Richmond Hill and Woodhaven. 
 54,779 Ozone Park.

here are the populations of each major neighborhood that hit RBB. In total you'll have 345,547. OK, maybe not dense, but it's still a lot of people regardless of density. Now station placing is important if you want to get the most effectivness out of it. One logical station placement would be Metropolitan Avenue in Parkside. I say that because you have some convince stores a wendys. And other stores. But you also have Metropolitan High school. Since there are students that go there like a few of my personal friends, you already have a chunk of ridership added right there. 

Before I continue,  the Q52 and Q53 combined has a total ridership of 40,000 in November. I'm not sure if that number has risen but it seems like it did.

Let's manuver through Forest Park, in which north of Union Turnpike, the subway can run underground with a liner park on top and south of Myrtle Avenue, it could be elevated. Richmond Hill and Woodhaven. The population there is 164,094 which is not bad. Then you have the swinging past. The nearest station is 104 and building a transfer would be a pain. However, longer transfers between station's exist. 

Woodhaven and Ozone Park. For Station placement, you have 2 options. 

1) build 2 stations. One at Atlantic Avenue and One at Liberty Avenue. 

                                OR

2) Rebuild 101-103 Avenues with a Front and Back entrance. 

Considering that there are a bunch of crowded houses around that Area, if the rail service was added, people will ride it. Also, don't forget that there really are no documents stating that the Rockaway Beach Branch is abandoned at all. And @RR503 you said that RBB just misses the at Liberty Avenue. Well it connects with the south of Liberty Avenue, just add a platform at Aqueduct Racetrack (if feasible and add a new ADA accessible overpass at that station) from there, you'll have a frequency issue fixed on the line. 

Therefore, RBB is worth an investment despite density levels and those opposing are overlooking at what is achievable from it.

Sorry for the long post

Oh man. Some convenience stores, a Wendy's and a high school. Man, we might as well start building the to Reeds Lane and god knows what other crazy crap if that's the criteria for a subway line.

Twenty minutes from any point to the subway on Woodhaven. And the 40,000 figure is more like 20,000 according to the latest MTA data from 2016. And that doesn't even include length; here's all the buses that are busier than the Q52/53 in Queens alone after you adjust for length.

• Q6
• Q9
• Q10
• Q12
• Q17
• Q18
• Q20A/B
• Q23
• Q25
• Q27
• Q28
• Q33
• Q37
• Q40
• Q43
• Q44
• Q46
• Q49
• Q55
• Q64
• Q65
• Q66
• Q69
• Q72
• Q111/112/113/114

All of these folks deserve a subway line way before Woodhaven begins to deserve one, and that's just in Queens alone. Woodhaven is not that impressive of a corridor.

Edit: Figures from this spreadsheet derived from Comptroller's Report data courtesy of @checkmatechamp13

Edited March 27, 2018 by bobtehpanda