Rockaway Beach Branch

[Coney Island Av]

To both @RR503 and @MrQuesada (really fascinated by your responses):

We've gone back and forth about this many times in the past, but I've mainly moved on from making proposals. I will however, share my thoughts on the overall matter at hand given I find this discussion interesting. 

I do agree the  is slow at times, but detiming 8 Av and Fulton will solve this issue. Yes, it does increase risk of derailments, but to play it safe, the useless timers should be disposed of, and the only ones that should be kept are the ones absolutely necessary. I also agree with sending the  to Lefferts, but I would divert the current RPK  trips to serve the latter instead so that both the Rockaways and the Lefferts branch will get a compromise.

As for the , it can be infrequent off-peak, and the skip-stop service ultimately doesn't save much time, nor does the express run between Myrtle-Marcy. The  also experiences bottlenecks at Cypress Hills, Myrtle Av, and finally the Williamsburg Bridge, which is already expressed to have limits on TPH. Having said that, I feel the best way to improve the  is obviously to somehow eliminate the bottleneck at Myrtle with the , and also to run peak express service (in this case ) to Broadway Junction and points beyond. I've mainly toyed with the idea of rerouting the line to Jamaica Av, but since that will likely cause NIMBY opposition, I've come up with an alternative. I would have the  run local from Jamaica to Manhattan, convert Crescent St and Alabama Av into express stops (by constructing the middle express track over the current island platform, then building another one on top the the latter), and then have that same express track mentioned earlier run all the way from Broadway Junction to 121 St (having Woodhaven as an express stop, as well as the latter two)

As for the RBB, it's not necessarily useful for traveling to Manhattan, but rather intra-borough travel. The Q52/Q53 have a lot of strain and overcrowding problems, and they can only go so far. While many try to argue that the subways and buses are different, I beg to differ because it was mentioned earlier that people from the Rockaways use both the buses and the , so they obviously have identical catchment areas. And just because the  and  are present there doesn't mean that they have adequate options. Not everyone is going to Manhattan during the AM rush, and if you're trying to go to points north of Liberty Junction, you're basically screwed over unless you take the overcrowded buses. One major market other than Queens Center Mall is LIC, which is place that neither the  nor  serve. This is why the RBB is mainly useful for intra-borough travel, rather than multi-borough travel. It's obvious that no one will sit on a local train to Manhattan. I do agree QBL is overcrowded, but what's already causing that problem in the first place is the fact that many are using local buses to get to it. If the RBB was constructed, it will greatly relieve the buses in nearby areas and would make commuting less stressful. 

As for which service that should run on the RBB, I've always seen the  to be the best fit. It doesn't make things complicated given that the only affected stations would be 67 Av and Forest Hills-71 Av, but that would be negligible given we have the  (or any other service, your pick, if the  was routed to Astoria). Sending the  would only make things more complicated because it would mean that a plethora of stations would get affected, including the busy Jamaica Center. 

This is basically my overall take on the matter, and I fully agree with the argument presented!

[NoHacksJustKhaks]

@MrQuesada Bewitching argument you brought up, definitely a unique perspective from someone who mostly panned the project!

I will say that subway service in general needs to improve. And the importance of a North - South connector is important, just look at the Q53 (one of the most ridden on buses in the city, where subways don’t run). The  can be a complete joke and I think that three factors will need to be addressed before it improves. 1. Improving fleet and infrastructure such as the south channel bridge and timers 2. Getting trains to run faster and more reliably (relies on 1) 3. Increased capacity through Fulton St, especially with rising demands, CBTC isn’t the only deciding factor in this. Can’t say much for the  , but I do feel any improvement to the line lessens the number of people transferring at Sutphin to the . And with an idea of bringing up a new connector to the subway system directly impacting QBL, balancing passengers matter, since the QBL is beyond capacity for any leniency.

I just hope that such a plan like this (if done) isn’t done on the cheap. This line pushes vast impacts that may yield good in the long run. But cheaping out when restoring stations and signals, harms its ability to mediate service needs on Fulton and Jamaica, and attract passengers. As well as not fit well onto QBL with concerns like crowding and reliability as mentioned before and in others posts. I also don’t want this project to be milked upon by politicians when concerns like obtaining funding are still high, even if the infastructure is there already, it’s NY and anything happens.

My 5 cents though... 

Edited January 14, 2019 by NoHacksJustKhaks

[RR503]

@MrQuesada the issue with drawing conclusions about demand from existing bus ridership is that much of it is driven by shoddy service quality on the . The Q10 runs at a roughly equivalent frequency to the  through the day, and the Q52/Q53 combo actually beat out the subway on frequency through most of the day. That, and the fact that it's actually faster to take the 52/53 to the QB for Manhattan than suffer waits and slow travel on the Ozone Park subways are I believe massive drivers of ridership on those routes. In other words, I'd bet good money that many of the people using those buses are actually going to areas accessible by the , but are using the bus instead of the train because it runs more frequently and (in combination with QB) gets you to Midtown faster than area subways.

This is why I place as much emphasis as I do on improving  service. I think the Woodhaven corridor would be significantly less crowded if it wasn't used as an escape route from trains that treat Woodhaven/Ozone Park like flyover country ( skip-stop) or like frequency-undeserving farmland (the ). 

All of that said, if someone can show me an analysis that proves that there not only is a crosstown market that cannot be adequately served by SBS (or SBS expansion), but also that the combination of RBB and  improvements would not palpably impact Queens Boulevard crowding, then I'm all ears. Beyond citation of bus ridership figures (whose flaws are addressed above), though, I've not seen this. ROW risk or not, we can't make investments in transit that pose a threat to system function. 

As an aside from my criticisms, though, I have some thoughts on service patterns. If you want to create a world in which QB doesn't get killed by RBB crowding, you have to make the express/local decision about destination as much as about speed (something @shiznit1987 has talked about extensively elsewhere). I would do it, then, as a branch of an 8th Ave/53/QB Local route, with 6th/63 sent express and the  eliminated. Otherwise, you can kiss functional  goodbye. 

[Lawrence St]

Not sure if anyone saw, but there was a new plan for the Rockaway Beach Beanch that was shared on facebook. Anyone see it?

[LGA Link N Train]

1 hour ago, Lawrence St said:

Not sure if anyone saw, but there was a new plan for the Rockaway Beach Beanch that was shared on facebook. Anyone see it?

Is this in a group or in general? 

[Lawrence St]

1 minute ago, LaGuardia Link N Tra said:

Is this in a group or in general? 

In a group if I remember correctly.

[LGA Link N Train]

5 minutes ago, Lawrence St said:

In a group if I remember correctly.

Yup. I know which one you’re talking about. All I found was a track diagram of the Ozone Park Area. 

[R68OnBroadway]

@MrQuesada

What would be your view on this pattern?

 Far Rock/RPK-207 via express

 Lefferts-168; local in Manhattan and express in Brooklyn

 new tunnel built after Whitehall to link to Hoyt Schermehorn outer tracks (Transit museum would not be used however as it might be too high for the river)

Bay Ridge service replaced by a  that runs from Bowery (central tracks with a reconfiguration) to Bay Ridge.

[RR503]

10 minutes ago, R68OnBroadway said:

@MrQuesada

What would be your view on this pattern?

 Far Rock/RPK-207 via express

  Lefferts-168; local in Manhattan and express in Brooklyn

 new tunnel built after Whitehall to link to Hoyt Schermehorn outer tracks (Transit museum would not be used however as it might be too high for the river)

Bay Ridge service replaced by a  that runs from Bowery (central tracks with a reconfiguration) to Bay Ridge.

This reminds me: I'd love to see a cost/benefit comparison between building a Whitehall-Hoyt tunnel and the RBB. I'd imagine the tunnel would be more expensive, but it'd also be a lot more impactful -- it'd double capacity on Fulton. 

[Jemorie]

Hey guys. Found something that might interest you folks in this thread:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1NtC72Aqo61FcsRMxokl7JSE0FIdIy50T/view?fbclid=IwAR0Eb_vUMZ1r0PY-os7atvGiDba-3KbO9j6tSXi-puZyxgqIx1-G-pLIS_0

Shown to me by a friend of mine. You'll have to download it in order to zoom all the way through.

Edited January 14, 2019 by Jemorie

[Lawrence St]

2 minutes ago, Jemorie said:

Hey guys. Found something that might interest you folks in this thread:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1NtC72Aqo61FcsRMxokl7JSE0FIdIy50T/view?fbclid=IwAR0Eb_vUMZ1r0PY-os7atvGiDba-3KbO9j6tSXi-puZyxgqIx1-G-pLIS_0

Yes thats the one! This proposal is easy and simple. 

[LGA Link N Train]

29 minutes ago, Lawrence St said:

Yes thats the one! This proposal is easy and simple. 

The only hard part is the Roosevelt Part. Other than that, this shouldn’t be a problem. However, I don’t agree with This layout. 

[MrQuesada]

I'm glad that I was able to open up this discussion on transportation in some parts of Queens. Regardless of whether we get the RBB or not- it is definitely true that the A, J and Z need to be improved. @R68OnBroadway brings up an interesting point on extending the R and making the C express. I see how that can benefit Lefferts riders, but would a tunnel cost too much, and would having A and C trains share the express track reduce the amount of As and Cs? Lefferts riders could always catch an A at Rockaway Blvd.

And also, like @Nohacksjustkhaks stated- renovations to these lines would have to be done properly. I don't know if New York politicians have heard of that word before, though.

On a serious note, if these renovations are done properly, transportation to South Queens will be improved- even though this transportation would only go to Brooklyn and Manhattan- and not other parts of Queens.

That's where the RBB comes in- I think the main issue people are citing is the fact that that the QBL would get more crowded than it is already if the RBB sent riders there. I don't think this should be a cause for eliminating the idea of the line, though - since backing out will lead to a park getting built- or worse, nothing gets built and the RBB becomes more of a crime and insect hazard. There are even bridges along the RBB that are rusting and may collapse soon. This line is a chance to fix these issues and ease congestion on the very crowded North-South Queens bus routes.

I would love some opinions on these proposals to try and avoid the crowding on QBL:

-1. Creating the "super express" line using LIRR tracks and connect those to the RBB. The only issue I see here is cost and the fact that this would make it harder for the RBB to become a North-South Queens connector. This line would connect to LIC, though-which is becoming an important business district. If there somehow was a way to create a transfer to the Woodhaven Blvd-Queens Center Mall station using moving walkways, though, this plan might work to connect North and South Queens.

-2. Making the tracks LIRR and making the fare $2.75 (this is the proposal on Facebook). While it sounds good on paper, LIRR is a bit less frequent and you would have to find a way to connect the RBB to the LIRR system without disrupting the current A services.

-3. Connecting to QBL and using CBTC to increase train capacity, reducing perecieved crowds.

One question I continue to have this whether or not CBTC would actually help create the room needed for another branch on QBL

The demand for a RBB is there- it's just a matter of implementing the line in a way that wouldn't put more weight on the QBL. If the A and J could be helped- they may be able to take Manhattan bound riders- leading to mostly North Queens bound riders taking the RBB.

 

 

[Lawrence St]

52 minutes ago, LaGuardia Link N Tra said:

The only hard part is the Roosevelt Part. Other than that, this shouldn’t be a problem. However, I don’t agree with This layout. 

Why?

[bobtehpanda]

I actually don't think that RBB would be all that much of an improvement.

1. Connections. Connections to RBB are pretty difficult; it's hard to place a platform that would intersect with Rockaway Blvd (A), and RBB also cuts directly between two stations. On this metric, the bus wins.

2. Travel time. According to the Bus Turnaround Campaign the Q52 is 13MPH. This is actually pretty fast for a bus; a subway ride would not be all that much faster. And given the subway's issues I don't think reliability is a very 

3. Re: north-south travel; Woodhaven and Cross Bay are major vehicle routes, yes, but this ignores the fact that most cars on that road are not heading to and from places directly on Woodhaven and Cross Bay. No one is going to replace a one seat car ride with a 3+ seat ride.

I don't think there is much movement either on an RBB reactivation or Queensway. Lots of talk but no hot air, and I'd rather get the decision right.

[NoHacksJustKhaks]

23 minutes ago, bobtehpanda said:

I don't think there is much movement either on an RBB reactivation or Queensway. Lots of talk but no hot air, and I'd rather get the decision right.

Absolutely, I emailed my local politicians on this matter and they gave me no real response in change, even after giving them around 6 months and some time to respond (they are humans after all). That’s a pretty big hurdle to this restructuring of RBB and transit in general around this section of Queens. The city seems focused more on other fish to fry and the current analogy put on this project is just extra HW (or credit), for lack of a better word. 

Itll take years for such a plan to meet fruition at this stage, if they even start tomorrow (obviously not), it’s going to take another 5 years at least with a lot of drive that still needs more on top of that to get it right. For good or bad...

Edited January 14, 2019 by NoHacksJustKhaks

[Union Tpke]

7 hours ago, bobtehpanda said:

I actually don't think that RBB would be all that much of an improvement.

1. Connections. Connections to RBB are pretty difficult; it's hard to place a platform that would intersect with Rockaway Blvd (A), and RBB also cuts directly between two stations. On this metric, the bus wins.

2. Travel time. According to the Bus Turnaround Campaign the Q52 is 13MPH. This is actually pretty fast for a bus; a subway ride would not be all that much faster. And given the subway's issues I don't think reliability is a very 

3. Re: north-south travel; Woodhaven and Cross Bay are major vehicle routes, yes, but this ignores the fact that most cars on that road are not heading to and from places directly on Woodhaven and Cross Bay. No one is going to replace a one seat car ride with a 3+ seat ride.

I don't think there is much movement either on an RBB reactivation or Queensway. Lots of talk but no hot air, and I'd rather get the decision right.

The 102nd Street entrance of 104th could be rebuilt, although the mezzanine would have to be reopened, and since the elevated increases in height toward Woodhaven, there is plenty of room under the structure for an elevated passageway.

I have talked to a few people have told me that it would be so much easier to get between different parts of Queens if the line was in place, such as LIC to/from the Rockaways.

[LGA Link N Train]

8 hours ago, Lawrence St said:

Why?

On that track map, it shows the  using the same tracks as the  and  to terminate at Roosevelt. I get that the local on QB tracks have Spare capacity, but They can be better utilized if they were used to increase  and  service. Secondly, it shows a connection from the local tracks to take a ramp to the Upper level of Roosevelt Avenue. It’s a pretty interesting idea and I’ll agree on that, but the feasibility of building such ramps (not to mention how narrow Broadway is of a Street) makes me Question if we can achieve doing such at the sake of using up whatever last droplet we have of the capacity on the QB Local tracks. This  looks like it’ll only be able to handle 8-10 TPH which isn’t really a big improvement in my opinion. 

 

7 hours ago, bobtehpanda said:

3. Re: north-south travel; Woodhaven and Cross Bay are major vehicle routes, yes, but this ignores the fact that most cars on that road are not heading to and from places directly on Woodhaven and Cross Bay. No one is going to replace a one seat car ride with a 3+ seat ride.

I’m curious to know. Is there a data table that shows where drivers on Woodhaven/Cross Bay are headed to specifically?

[Union Tpke]

Issues with that plan:

1. There is no transfer at Jamaica Ave.

2. No Rockaway Park <A>

3. There is no stop at Atlantic Avenue to transfer to the LIRR Atlantic Branch, which has an abandoned subway stop at Woodhaven.

3. It is impossible to have such a terminal layout at Roosevelt. Look at how the provisions for the Winfield Spur ACTUALLY exist

3. 

On that track map, it shows the  using the same tracks as the  and  to terminate at Roosevelt. I get that the local on QB tracks have Spare capacity, but They can be better utilized if they were used to increase  and  service. Secondly, it shows a connection from the local tracks to take a ramp to the Upper level of Roosevelt Avenue. It’s a pretty interesting idea and I’ll agree on that, but the feasibility of building such ramps (not to mention how narrow Broadway is of a Street) makes me Question if we can achieve doing such at the sake of using up whatever last droplet we have of the capacity on the QB Local tracks. This  looks like it’ll only be able to handle 8-10 TPH which isn’t really a big improvement in my opinion. 

 

I’m curious to know. Is there a data table that shows where drivers on Woodhaven/Cross Bay are headed to specifically?

Look at my comment. It is impossible to do this.

Edited January 14, 2019 by Union Tpke

[Union Tpke]

The RBB could run along their old two tracks on the LIRR Main Line and then connect to the Upper Level, with no stops between Parkside or Yellowstone and Roosevelt–this could be a temporary terminal, to be used until a Bypass is built. This would require a transfer but would provide much better service.

[Lawrence St]

1 hour ago, Union Tpke said:

Issues with that plan:

1. There is no transfer at Jamaica Ave.

2. No Rockaway Park <A>

3. There is no stop at Atlantic Avenue to transfer to the LIRR Atlantic Branch, which has an abandoned subway stop at Woodhaven.

3. It is impossible to have such a terminal layout at Roosevelt. Look at how the provisions for the Winfield Spur ACTUALLY exist

3. 

Look at my comment. It is impossible to do this.

Since when was there an Atlantic stop on RBB? I thought Woodhaven Junction was the one that connected RBB to the rest of the network.

EDIT: Woodhaven Junction station IS the stop that connects the  to the Atlantic Branch.

Edited January 14, 2019 by Lawrence St

[Lance]

16 hours ago, RR503 said:

This reminds me: I'd love to see a cost/benefit comparison between building a Whitehall-Hoyt tunnel and the RBB. I'd imagine the tunnel would be more expensive, but it'd also be a lot more impactful -- it'd double capacity on Fulton. 

I can't give you a cost/benefit analysis, but a conservative estimate of the entire combined project could be somewhere around $3bn. Restoring the Rockaway Beach line itself would be a massive expense as everything along the ROW would have to be replaced to current standards that meet ADA requirements. Nothing along that ROW can be salvaged as it's been left to rot since the early '50s. The second expense would be extending the Fulton St tunnels from Court St to the East River. Comparing it to similar expenses like the Flushing extension, which cost about $2bn for a mile-long extension from Times Square, it's not outside the realm of possibility that a half-mile stretch of new tunneling would be around a billion. Of course, that does not account for land acquisition that would be necessary as the entire area is full of very narrow streets that don't meet up with Court and Schermerhorn Sts. The final and largest expense would be the cross-river tunnel itself. Digging around both the Montague and Joralemon tunnels and any other obstructions can will likely drive up costs.

In order for this to actually be beneficial, especially the Rockaway Beach portion, that line would have to pick up a ton of riders from that section alone. The actual Rockaways line has a direct connection to Manhattan with the , despite the low frequency there. Anything that ran via Rockaway Beach and Queens Blvd would take about the same amount of time to reach Manhattan as its Fulton St counterpart. Without a bypass (another large expense), Rockaway Beach does not have the draw required to offset the high costs unfortunately.

[RR503]

3 hours ago, Lance said:

In order for this to actually be beneficial, especially the Rockaway Beach portion, that line would have to pick up a ton of riders from that section alone. The actual Rockaways line has a direct connection to Manhattan with the , despite the low frequency there. Anything that ran via Rockaway Beach and Queens Blvd would take about the same amount of time to reach Manhattan as its Fulton St counterpart. Without a bypass (another large expense), Rockaway Beach does not have the draw required to offset the high costs unfortunately.

I think for this reason precisely (along w/ the fact that if this weren't true, we'd have to make it true so as to not overload QB) the RBB has to live or die on crosstown traffic. If someone can show me there's good O/D demand on the corridor for intra-boro travel and that the long transfer penalties would be acceptable to riders, then I'm sold. 

[bobtehpanda]

14 hours ago, LaGuardia Link N Tra said:

I’m curious to know. Is there a data table that shows where drivers on Woodhaven/Cross Bay are headed to specifically?

Short of requiring drivers to submit GPS data to the government, it'd be pretty much impossible.

That's my guess though, because

- Woodhaven/Cross Bay have no major destinations on them other than QCM, which is popular but not enough to explain all the traffic in the area.

- More importantly, Woodhaven is the only major continuous north-south road for quite a while. To the west the only road connecting the Belt and Queens Blvd is the BQE; to the east you have the Van Wyck. In between every other road is too disjointed or too narrow or both.

[RR503]

44 minutes ago, bobtehpanda said:

Short of requiring drivers to submit GPS data to the government, it'd be pretty much impossible.

NYMTC uses survey data and (I’m assuming) some complex analytic algorithms to create O/D estimations for relatively granular road segments. 

https://www.nymtc.org/Data-and-Modeling/New-York-Best-Practice-Model-NYBPM

This was the model used in the BQE replacement analysis, for example.