Rockaway Beach Branch

[bobtehpanda]

17 hours 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.

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.

It's not a very good crosstown. It doesn't really get people closer to much of anywhere other than Queens Center Mall or the beach. (JFK is so far from Howard Beach station that I wouldn't count it as a valid destination - people don't really use the Q52/53 to get to JFK.) There are no major job, commercial, or residential nodes on the Rockaway Beach line, and it doesn't connect any major transit hubs; even in the very limited use case for a north-south Queens route, it's very indirect to get from Flushing to RBB. And on top of that RBB stations don't line up with any major stations on intersecting routes; QBL's stop is a local, the closest stop is a local, and it doesn't go anywhere near an stop. 

Edited March 27, 2018 by bobtehpanda

[checkmatechamp13]

On 3/25/2018 at 3:10 PM, Trainmaster5 said:

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.

Hopefully they can't claim adverse possession: https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/adverse_possession

19 hours ago, LGA Link N train said:

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

1

The train ridership would have to be a combination of bus ridership and ridership generated from development spurred along the line. Of course, not all the bus ridership will be taken away, as there are still going to be people who don't want to climb the stairs, or other find the bus more convenient, but there will be some shift of ridership from bus->rail that will allow for reduced frequencies on the bus.

And density is one of the key determinants of transit ridership. Sure, a trip may be long and difficult to make by bus, but that doesn't automatically mean that we should build a train in that area or along that corridor. You need to have enough people making that trip to fill the trains to a decent level, and the way you generally estimate that is through population density (sure, many people in that area won't take that line because it doesn't suit their needs, and some people will be taking buses from other areas, but in general, ridership correlates with density along the line).

In terms of capital cost, the SAS is projected to cost a total of $17 billion and serve $560,000 daily riders, for a capital cost per rider of around $30,000. You would need to see how capital costs of the RBB compare, and also, operating costs per passenger.

18 hours ago, officiallyliam said:

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.

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.

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.

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.

According to this report (page 5) 45 activity units (jobs + residents) per acre are considered the threshold for high-capacity transit. So all of those areas would warrant rail service by that guideline, it's just that Utica Avenue & Third Avenue/Webster Avenue would warrant it more. 50 people per acre is around 32,000 people per square mile, which isn't exactly low-density (to give you an idea, the entire city of San Francisco has a density of around 17,000 people per square mile). In the U.S. the only cities denser than that are places like Union City and some of the other smaller cities in Hudson County (I think Guttenberg & Fairview as well, and those are basically the size of neighborhoods in NYC). 

Here's another interesting report that also mentions the 45 residents per acre threshold: https://www.accessmagazine.org/spring-2012/transit-d-word/

Edited March 27, 2018 by checkmatechamp13

[officiallyliam]

7 hours ago, bobtehpanda said:

It's not a very good crosstown. It doesn't really get people closer to much of anywhere other than Queens Center Mall or the beach. (JFK is so far from Howard Beach station that I wouldn't count it as a valid destination - people don't really use the Q52/53 to get to JFK.) There are no major job, commercial, or residential nodes on the Rockaway Beach line, and it doesn't connect any major transit hubs; even in the very limited use case for a north-south Queens route, it's very indirect to get from Flushing to RBB. And on top of that RBB stations don't line up with any major stations on intersecting routes; QBL's stop is a local, the closest stop is a local, and it doesn't go anywhere near an stop. 

Exactly. It suffers, in reverse, from the same problems that make the a poor crosstown, and that is proximity to the core. The line is to close to Manhattan to have a large ridership base of its own, especially considering that north-south lines in Manhattan have better transfers. The RBB, on the other hand, is too far from the CBD to be an effective crosstown, and would have the same problem with missing or annoying transfers that plagues the . I've never understood why the RBB seems to get so much more attention in transit circles than the Triboro RX, which is essentially the same concept (crosstown rapid transit service on underused ROW) but would be orders of magnitude more effective at both connecting radial lines and connecting residential and job centers.

If we are so desperate to build a branch off the Queens Blvd line, why aren't we talking about Jewel Avenue or Union Turnpike? The RBB is a waste of precious capacity that would do little for either the region or the city.

[BreeddekalbL]

20 minutes ago, officiallyliam said:

Exactly. It suffers, in reverse, from the same problems that make the a poor crosstown, and that is proximity to the core. The line is to close to Manhattan to have a large ridership base of its own, especially considering that north-south lines in Manhattan have better transfers. The RBB, on the other hand, is too far from the CBD to be an effective crosstown, and would have the same problem with missing or annoying transfers that plagues the . I've never understood why the RBB seems to get so much more attention in transit circles than the Triboro RX, which is essentially the same concept (crosstown rapid transit service on underused ROW) but would be orders of magnitude more effective at both connecting radial lines and connecting residential and job centers.

If we are so desperate to build a branch off the Queens Blvd line, why aren't we talking about Jewel Avenue or Union Turnpike? The RBB is a waste of precious capacity that would do little for either the region or the city.

The rbb can connect those who want to transfer going east to jamaica it can also help operationally freeing up forest hills 71st

[officiallyliam]

The transfer for anyone coming from Woodhaven Boulevard to Jamaica will be nearly identical, the only exception being the extra required walk from Woodhaven to the RBB line. Those in Richmond Hill have the for Jamaica; those south have various buses which will get you to Jamaica as fast or faster than a circuitous route via Rego Park. Reopening the LIRR station at Woodhaven Blvd will do more for people in that area trying to get to Jamaica quickly than the RBB ever could.

As for the operations side, there are operational reasons to give the Queens Blvd local a better terminal, either by extension or through diverting one of the lines. But we have to ask ourselves if the RBB is the best use of Queens Blvd local capacity, or, more likely, if another corridor in the area is a better choice. Is making terminal procedures at Forest Hills better really worth running half the trains to a line that won't carry many people?

[Coney Island Av]

If the RBB was really low-density, and quite circuitous, then it wouldn't go as far as to being published as a study, and wouldn't even be on the table in the first place.

Think about it, all extensions either in the works have to be studied. Aside from SAS, Utica, Nostrand, and the RBB, as mentioned earlier, either are in the works, or have a study coming out soon. 

[RR503]

1 hour ago, Coney Island Av said:

If the RBB was really low-density, and quite circuitous, then it wouldn't go as far as to being published as a study, and wouldn't even be on the table in the first place.

Ever heard of politics? 

The RBB lies in one of the last truly swingy areas of NYC. Remember that just last November, a Democrat was unseated by an upstart Republican (who had run as a dem previously, granted) in the area. It’s a competitive set of districts with relatively high voter participation, thus NYC/NYS will trip over their own toes trying to satisfy their wants and needs. That’s why the RBB is still in play, not because it’s a good idea. 

And FWIW, in general, a project being studied should never ever ever be used as a metric for its quality. I’ve seen some pretty doltish horseshit analyzed in depth — for example, 14 car subway trains. 

[bobtehpanda]

4 hours ago, BreeddekalbL said:

The rbb can connect those who want to transfer going east to jamaica it can also help operationally freeing up forest hills 71st

??? How does that make any sense? The Queens Blvd line goes to Jamaica. The goes to Jamaica. Every single bus line that intersects with Woodhaven Blvd goes to Jamaica. The RBB would be really out-of-the-way for anyone trying to go to Jamaica.

4 hours ago, Coney Island Av said:

If the RBB was really low-density, and quite circuitous, then it wouldn't go as far as to being published as a study, and wouldn't even be on the table in the first place.

Think about it, all extensions either in the works have to be studied. Aside from SAS, Utica, Nostrand, and the RBB, as mentioned earlier, either are in the works, or have a study coming out soon. 

The RBB is being studied because once upon a time, it existed. It doesn't exist in anywhere near a usable state today. The bridges are shit, the stations are crumbling and not accessible, and there are trees rooted deep into all of it.

Quite frankly, if the LIRR RBB never existed, we wouldn't even consider a Woodhaven or Rockaways subway line, not even when the IND was being built.

[Lance]

Also, the reactivation study exists to counteract the study to turn the ROW into the proposed Queensway Park.

City planners have been looking into converting RBB into subway use for decades, as far back as the original IND construction phase. However, for one reason or another, and despite being a shovel-ready project since the city bought the entire line from the LIRR in the '50s, there has always been something preventing conversion of the northern half. The line is not profitable and really never has been. Otherwise the LIRR wouldn't have offloaded it at the first opportunity.

[Lawrence St]

But if a subway were to get built there, it would bring in loads of new people, like how 34th St-Hudson has slowly been getting better in terms of ridership.

[MysteriousBtrain]

Just now, Lawrence St said:

But if a subway were to get built there, it would bring in loads of new people, like how 34th St-Hudson has slowly been getting better in terms of ridership.

Not the same thing. Tell me one thing Hudson has that the RBB dosen't.

[RR503]

1 minute ago, Lawrence St said:

But if a subway were to get built there, it would bring in loads of new people, like how 34th St-Hudson has slowly been getting better in terms of ridership.

Yes. If you built a line to Fresh Kills, it too would bring loads of new people...relative to present. 

All the corridors thrown around here as alternatives would do better at bringing in new riders than a RBB. So for the love of all things holy, please give up this foamer fantasy. Your neuron calories are better spent advocating for Utica and 3rd. 

[Deucey]

26 minutes ago, MysteriousBtrain said:

Not the same thing. Tell me one thing Hudson has that the RBB dosen't.

Preferential zoning; views of Hoboken; location in the middle of high traffic and heavily utilized areas; areas with high density surrounding it; Goldman Sachs & JP Morgan financings...

I could post more.

[officiallyliam]

10 minutes ago, Lawrence St said:

But if a subway were to get built there, it would bring in loads of new people, like how 34th St-Hudson has slowly been getting better in terms of ridership.

It would only bring in the limited number of people within the walkshed of the line; it's not like there's much room in the corridor for new or additional housing, unless you're planning on paving over Forest Park or building artificial islands in Jamaica Bay. Hudson Yards was designed around a new planned neighborhood and major office district that the RBB would never have.

10 minutes ago, MysteriousBtrain said:

Not the same thing. Tell me one thing Hudson has that the RBB dosen't.

A planned high-density residential and commercial district built around the station, a convention center around the corner, and a growing neighborhood immediately to the south are just some of the things that differentiate Hudson Yards from the Rockaway Beach Branch.

21 minutes ago, RR503 said:

All the corridors thrown around here as alternatives would do better at bringing in new riders than a RBB. So for the love of all things holy, please give up this foamer fantasy. Your neuron calories are better spent advocating for Utica and 3rd. 

If we took just some of the energy that people put in to talking about how much we need the Rockaway Beach Branch, and put it into fighting  for the Triboro RX, we could actually end up with a transit service that acts as an effective crosstown and will genuinely help people in Brooklyn and Queens. And that's before we even get started on subway projects that should be done long before the RBB is touched: SAS, 125th Street, Third Avenue, Utica Avenue, Nostrand Avenue, Hillside Avenue, Jewel Avenue, or southeast Queens on the Atlantic Branch. Pick any of these projects to talk about and let's build an actually useful transit service that will finally patch up true transit deserts.

But something needs to be done with the RBB, right?

[Deucey]

5 minutes ago, officiallyliam said:

But something needs to be done with the RBB, right?

ABSOLUTELY!!! 

Which is why I say tear it down and build high rise affordable apartments.

[officiallyliam]

3 minutes ago, Deucey said:

ABSOLUTELY!!! 

Which is why I say tear it down and build high rise affordable apartments.

Would the ROW have enough room to build a sort of "linear city" idea with housing on either side and a mini-boulevard (a shared street) down the middle? It would get us more affordable housing, and would also get the Queensway supporters a pedestrian and cycle boulevard on the corridor, and a full path through Forest Park where we couldn't build houses.

[Deucey]

7 minutes ago, officiallyliam said:

Would the ROW have enough room to build a sort of "linear city" idea with housing on either side and a mini-boulevard (a shared street) down the middle? It would get us more affordable housing, and would also get the Queensway supporters a pedestrian and cycle boulevard on the corridor, and a full path through Forest Park where we couldn't build houses.

Dunno, but the Flatiron Building happened; and that one in TSQ with the billboards.

And lest we forget, the best spite house in Boston...

So it can be done.

[bobtehpanda]

3 hours ago, officiallyliam said:

Would the ROW have enough room to build a sort of "linear city" idea with housing on either side and a mini-boulevard (a shared street) down the middle? It would get us more affordable housing, and would also get the Queensway supporters a pedestrian and cycle boulevard on the corridor, and a full path through Forest Park where we couldn't build houses.

The ROW is two tracks wide and literally presses up against backyards. Good luck fighting that fight.

 

3 hours ago, Lawrence St said:

But if a subway were to get built there, it would bring in loads of new people, like how 34th St-Hudson has slowly been getting better in terms of ridership.

Hudson Yards also had a massive skyscraper complex built around it that took several hundred million in tax breaks to fill up. You probably couldn't pay companies to move to Woodhaven.

The lack of subway is not what is killing RBB, because most of the people on RBB already live next to a subway. Jamaica, Liberty, and Queens Blvd wave hello (and are never more than a ten minute bus ride away!)

Edited March 29, 2018 by bobtehpanda

[Coney Island Av]

2 minutes ago, bobtehpanda said:

The ROW is two tracks wide and literally presses up against backyards. Good luck fighting that fight.

 

Hudson Yards also had a massive skyscraper complex built around it that took several hundred million in tax breaks to fill up. You probably couldn't pay companies to move to Woodhaven.

The lack of subway is not what is killing RBB, because most of the people on RBB already live next to a subway. Jamaica, Liberty, and Queens Blvd wave hello (and are never more than a ten minute bus ride away!)

Nah, while the ROW does parallel backyards, people ILLEGALLY squatted onto the ROW. That's why they are opposed to it, but are hiding the fact that THEY THEMSELVES did illicit behavior. 

Where is Hudson Yards you might ask? In the middle of high-rise Midtown in a modernized development. But where's the RBB? In Central Queens in the suburbs. Of course the area isn't dense like Hudson Yards, because it's suburban. The suburbs cannot compare to the city, because who would wanna tour the former? 

Also, if you build high-rise apartments/demolish the RBB, the area will suddenly become more dense, and you'll have Goldfeder facepalming. 

[bobtehpanda]

6 minutes ago, Coney Island Av said:

Nah, while the ROW does parallel backyards, people ILLEGALLY squatted onto the ROW. That's why they are opposed to it, but are hiding the fact that THEY THEMSELVES did illicit behavior. 

Where is Hudson Yards you might ask? In the middle of high-rise Midtown in a modernized development. But where's the RBB? In Central Queens in the suburbs. Of course the area isn't dense like Hudson Yards, because it's suburban. The suburbs cannot compare to the city, because who would wanna tour the former? 

Also, if you build high-rise apartments/demolish the RBB, the area will suddenly become more dense, and you'll have Goldfeder facepalming. 

You're making my point. It's already got subway connections. It is not nearly anywhere dense enough to all of a sudden need multiple subway connections. Who cares if RBB will densify? There are dense neighborhoods that do not have subway connections today, and RBB can get to the back of the line.

[LGA Link N Train]

Queensway............................................................................................................ 

[officiallyliam]

37 minutes ago, bobtehpanda said:

The ROW is two tracks wide and literally presses up against backyards. Good luck fighting that fight.

Yeah, I don't have much desire to do build housing over the RBB anyway.

18 minutes ago, LGA Link N train said:

Queensway............................................................................................................ 

Was this supposed to mean something?

[NoHacksJustKhaks]

 

18 minutes ago, LGA Link N train said:

Queensway............................................................................................................ 

Um what?

[Trainmaster5]

Maybe it was called the Rockaway Beach Branch and not the Woodhaven Branch for a reason . Once the city took over the southern portion and connected it to the IND the northern section had no reason to continue. I'm surprised it lasted as long as it did. The major station on the line was the Ozone Park one. That's the remnant that's visible from the Lefferts at Liberty Junction. The two Woodhaven stations located north of the Ozone Park stations, RBB and Atl branch, were probably the only remaining stations that could have possibly had some sort of ridership base but that area, and the LIRR had no use for any type of rail service. If you can read some of the newspaper accounts of the branch's closing. There was no clamor from the surrounding neighborhoods even though the LIRR was broke. I've explored the neighborhood surrounding the Ozone Park and both Woodhaven stations more than I've traveled the local streets in the northern end but looking at the existing housing stock and character of the northern end I fail to see a potential ridership base either today or in the future. There's no Spring Creek/Starrett on the horizon out there. Just my opinion. Carry on.

[NoHacksJustKhaks]

Im surprised some people still believe in this fantasy, cant believe there's 27 pages of argument here... Why exactly? Maybe im not getting something here.

The idea of it is that we can take old structures and use them again, but if the Rockaway Beach Branch is built, it'll have to be from the ground up, but those previous structures definitley cant last. Plus the MTA will have to update everything, create a new design for stations and who knows, they might pointlessly overspend on the project that doesn't hold much significance anyways. If they don't do all of this, then why would it be built at all? It's either you leave it the way it'll crumble or fix it up. But as I said before, it wont be fixed up since the area and stations aren't dense anyways, and doesn't have nearby influence of Manhattan, I mean, it's central-southern Queens. Little people would ride it and it'll only be none/little better than just taking nearby buses. This leads to major problems like trying to convince people to move to the area, upgrading old signals, etc...

I summed up most of the problems with this foamer eyecandy. And really want to ask why is this still a debated topic? I know it's my opinion, but undoubtedly a common one at that. 

 

Edited March 29, 2018 by NoHacksJustKhaks