Jump to content


Attention: In order to reply to messages, create topics, have access to other features of the community you must sign up for an account.
LaGuardia Link N Tra

Rockaway Beach Branch

Recommended Posts

You can use 2 Av-Houston as a turnaround if Metropolitan is full. And any line from QB going to the Rockaways has to be local because the bellmouths only go to the local tracks. Plus would there really be demand to have Rockaway express service?

He did say in his post that residents down there want an express.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Or Woodhaven should they ever choose to actually convert the the DAM thing.

 

Also, don't forget about Roosevelt Upper Level, if 2nd Avenue and Metropolitian Avenue is full, trains can run to the upper level of Roosevelt.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Assuming Rockaway trains ever make it down to B 116 St, the transfer between (A) and Rockaway trains won't be convenient, since it will consist of waiting on a side platform for an infrequent service. The layout between Howard Beach and Aqueduct Racetrack doesn't allow for a cross platform transfer.

 

It would be easier if Howard Beach had been rebuilt with island platforms in the 2000s, but the MTA and PA likely saw no need for that.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Assuming Rockaway trains ever make it down to B 116 St, the transfer between (A) and Rockaway trains won't be convenient, since it will consist of waiting on a side platform for an infrequent service. The layout between Howard Beach and Aqueduct Racetrack doesn't allow for a cross platform transfer.

It would be easier if Howard Beach had been rebuilt with island platforms in the 2000s, but the MTA and PA likely saw no need for that.

Then schedule trains to run in batteries of 2. Going NB they'll both be just leaving their terminals, so that shouldn't be too hard to do. SB, either build an xfer to rockaway blvd, or just wait. Remember also that the 5 RH (A) trains to Rock Pk will go to Mott.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Then clearly you don't understand how politics work in this city...which I already figured when you kept bringing up Gale Brewer wanting to keep open the Manhattan portion of the (L) during the tunnel shutdown. Not to mention that whole nonsense about the Gov. Cuomo "pissing off Wall St" by shutting down the subway during what had turned out not to be a huge snowstorm. We don't need to be concerned about politicians who insist that a new subway service on the restored Rockaway Beach Branch serve the Financial District. We doneed to be concerned about politicians who insist that the Rockaway Beach Branch stay abandoned because in their narrow little minds, trains "bring in da noise, bring in da crime!" Folks like City Councilwoman Karen Koslowitz and State Assemblyman Andrew Hevesi, yes, these are the pols we need to be concerned about if we are serious about putting any kind of rail back on the Rockaway Beach Branch. Because they are serious about keeping it off. Old-school NIMBYism at its worst.

 

Oh, and just so you know...the (M) train DOES serve Lower Manhattan. Where do you think Broadway & Lafayette Street or Essex and Delancey streets are?

 

Then clearly you don't understand how politics work in this city...which I already figured when you kept bringing up Gale Brewer wanting to keep open the Manhattan portion of the (L) during the tunnel shutdown. Not to mention that whole nonsense about the Gov. Cuomo "pissing off Wall St" by shutting down the subway during what had turned out not to be a huge snowstorm. We don't need to be concerned about politicians who insist that a new subway service on the restored Rockaway Beach Branch serve the Financial District. We doneed to be concerned about politicians who insist that the Rockaway Beach Branch stay abandoned because in their narrow little minds, trains "bring in da noise, bring in da crime!" Folks like City Councilwoman Karen Koslowitz and State Assemblyman Andrew Hevesi, yes, these are the pols we need to be concerned about if we are serious about putting any kind of rail back on the Rockaway Beach Branch. Because they are serious about keeping it off. Old-school NIMBYism at its worst.

 

Oh, and just so you know...the (M) train DOES serve Lower Manhattan. Where do you think Broadway & Lafayette Street or Essex and Delancey streets are?

I agree total on the narrow minded folks, which should go without saying.  Obviously, those types are too caught up in how they remember the '70s and '80s and still think of the Subway like it has not changed from them.  THAT is the #1 concern.

 

As I also mentioned, long term, an SAS service SHOULD be the Rockaway Branch, ESPECIALLY if the bypass on QB is also built.

 

And when I said lower Manhattan, obviously I mean what is still considered to some The Financial District, though you are right about Essex-Delancey.  

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Assuming Rockaway trains ever make it down to B 116 St, the transfer between (A) and Rockaway trains won't be convenient, since it will consist of waiting on a side platform for an infrequent service. The layout between Howard Beach and Aqueduct Racetrack doesn't allow for a cross platform transfer.

 

It would be easier if Howard Beach had been rebuilt with island platforms in the 2000s, but the MTA and PA likely saw no need for that.

That can be done by building a new island platform at Aqueduct-North Conduit and another with a side platform at Aqueduct Racetrack.  That would be the best way to remedy that and allow for easier short turns as needed.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/21/2017 at 6:41 PM, D to 96 St said:

They would have to build a track connection to Roosevelt since the tunnels connecting to QB aren't tracked. But I agree on converting Woodhaven into an express stop because it would better serve the Queens Mall and takes relief off of Roosevelt. 

Come to think of it, how come the MTA hasn't done that already 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please,

All they have to do tear up the local tracks Woodhaven, extend the platforms across the local tracks and reroute the local tracks through the bellmouths.

 

That should cost 2$ million at most.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Things that seem cheap rarely are, especially when it comes to things underground. Even with the existing bellmouths, this will be an involved process. There are utilities that likely need to be rerouted, tunnel supports that need to be installed or moved as required, ADA access and other important tasks to be done. While none of these are insurmountable hurdles, this is not the kind of project that can be completed in a couple of weeks or something.

  • Like 3
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Right. It would take a lot of time from start to finish to convert Woodhaven Blvd to an express stop. But I think it would be worth doing, given the high traffic that station gets due to the mall and the many bus routes that connect there. It would also take a lot of pressure off the overcrowded narrow platforms at Roosevelt Ave/74th St, where many of the riders who come off those same buses at Woodhaven are transferring from (M) or (R) local trains to (E) or (F) express trains at Roosevelt. Even without the Rockaway Branch, this would be well worth doing. But with the Rockaway Branch, converting Woodhaven to an express stop should be an integral part of the project. 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No doubt about that. It's a long-overdue project that the IND should've bit the bullet on back in the '30s.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, T to Dyre Avenue said:

Right. It would take a lot of time from start to finish to convert Woodhaven Blvd to an express stop. But I think it would be worth doing, given the high traffic that station gets due to the mall and the many bus routes that connect there. It would also take a lot of pressure off the overcrowded narrow platforms at Roosevelt Ave/74th St, where many of the riders who come off those same buses at Woodhaven are transferring from (M) or (R) local trains to (E) or (F) express trains at Roosevelt. Even without the Rockaway Branch, this would be well worth doing. But with the Rockaway Branch, converting Woodhaven to an express stop should be an integral part of the project. 

Agreed.

 

6 hours ago, Lance said:

No doubt about that. It's a long-overdue project that the IND should've bit the bullet on back in the '30s.

 The IRT should have done the same with Columbus Circle back in the 50s.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Normally I'd be ok with such bipartisanship. But with Ulrich saying "Queensrail won't happen in my lifetime," while Mike Scala has been pushing for Rockaway Beach rail restoration almost as hard as Goldfeder has, I have to question why the support for Ulrich? Or at least know whether or not Ulrich actually supports it, but with a cynical attitude about its chances of getting done. Or if, like Karen Koslowitz and Andrew Hevesi, he is totally against it. Hopefully, it's not the second one. 

Edited by T to Dyre Avenue

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, T to Dyre Avenue said:

Normally I'd be ok with such bipartisanship. But with Ulrich saying "Queensrail won't happen in my lifetime," while Mike Scala has been pushing for Rockaway Beach rail restoration almost as hard as Goldfeder has, I have to question why the support for Ulrich? Or at least know whether or not Ulrich actually supports it, but with a cynical attitude about its chances of getting done. Or if, like Karen Koslowitz and Andrew Hevesi, he is totally against it. Hopefully, it's not the second one. 

I agree with you. In this case bipartisanship isn't good. 

I am getting the impression that Ulrich is not against QueensRail, but just doesn't think it will happen. Politicians tend to support what they believe is doable or will be done so they can take credit even if they have little to do with the project. Goldfeder would not publicly oppose SBS because he felt it was going through anyway and taking a position against it puts him on the losing side. Same thing with Ulrich. Didn't make a big deal about changing his allegiance for SBS since it was going through anyway. Doesn't want to be associated with not being on the winning side.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, BrooklynBus said:

I agree with you. In this case bipartisanship isn't good. 

I am getting the impression that Ulrich is not against QueensRail, but just doesn't think it will happen. Politicians tend to support what they believe is doable or will be done so they can take credit even if they have little to do with the project. Goldfeder would not publicly oppose SBS because he felt it was going through anyway and taking a position against it puts him on the losing side. Same thing with Ulrich. Didn't make a big deal about changing his allegiance for SBS since it was going through anyway. Doesn't want to be associated with not being on the winning side.

so does that mean that he's supporting Queensway cause that wont be good, the Queensrail HAS TO STAY STRONG here or else it would make the MTA look worse than they are now and Queens would have some everlasting Damage

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/26/2017 at 10:25 AM, Lance said:

Things that seem cheap rarely are, especially when it comes to things underground. Even with the existing bellmouths, this will be an involved process. There are utilities that likely need to be rerouted, tunnel supports that need to be installed or moved as required, ADA access and other important tasks to be done. While none of these are insurmountable hurdles, this is not the kind of project that can be completed in a couple of weeks or something.

It's better to make cost effective proposals than to f**k up an entire borough with a stupid park which is a waste of millions of dollars

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/26/2017 at 12:13 PM, T to Dyre Avenue said:

Right. It would take a lot of time from start to finish to convert Woodhaven Blvd to an express stop. But I think it would be worth doing, given the high bus traffic that station gets due to the mall and the many outes that connect there. It would also take a lot of pressure off the overcrowded narrow platforms  at Roosevelt Ave/74th St, where many of the riders who come off those same buses at Woodhaven are transferring from (M) or (R) local trains to (E) or (F) express trains at Roosevelt. Even without the Rockaway Branch, this would be well worth doing. But with the Rockaway Branch, converting Woodhaven to an express stop should be an integral part of the project. 

I totally agree with this though I would recommend to 

A) Renovate the Station in phases 

B) Build a bus hub Right outside QB or build an overpass for buses or something :huh:

C) The project must be done in a minimum of a year orf 2

Edited by LGA Link N train

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, D to 96 St said:

Hell yeah! Bring the (L) across 10 Av/86 St/Northern Blvd! Make the Triboro RX! But most especially, build the Rockaway Line, an extension of the (M)!

THANK YOU, AT LEAST SOME PEOPLE UNDERSTAND THE NEEDED TRANSPORTATION PROJECTS FOR OUR CITY

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/21/2017 at 10:51 AM, Far Rock Depot said:

See, the thing is, its not overblown. Its a projection. I've lived in Rockaway since 1990. Ridership has increased in all of those years and with gentrification, a new housing boom, and businesses opening up down here, ridership has increased in just the last few years alone. I commute to midtown everyday. Between that, and current riders of the bus making the switch, there's going to be the demand if this line opens.

You can say "run the M every ten minutes", but there's problems with that 1)terminal capacity at Metropolitan WILL restrict the number of trains ran. 2) Rockaway residents want an express.

 

Then there's the summer factor. And trust when I tell you that during the summer, current trains can rival rush hour crowds easy.

Trust me on this man. This isn't a "wally horse" type thing. I lived down here, I commute from here, and I've worked the A line as a C/R. I'm not just spitting out nonsense.

 

Sent from my LGLS755 using Tapatalk

But that’s exactly it! It’s a projection. It’s entirely possible that there could be enough riders to justify running 10-car (R) or V trains down the Rockaway Branch. But it could also be possible that ridership justifies only 8-car trains like on the (M) . Or maybe not even that and they do ultimately decide to run an extended (H) shuttle train up to Queens Blvd to connect with the (M) and (R) there. If they were to choose this last option and were smart, they’d make the connection at Woodhaven Blvd and convert that station into an express stop so that (H) riders could also connect directly to the (E) and (F) . Though that would not only require building new island platforms at Woodhaven for the express trains to stop there, but also building a separate lower level platform for the (H) . On top of all the rebuilding that would be needed to make the abandoned branch ready for service again. Whereas extending the (M) or (R) just requires building tracks in the bellmouth, then tunneling under 65th or 66th Ave and the LIRR Main Line and digging a portal to connect to the abandoned railroad. 

As for Rockaway riders wanting an express, just about the closest way they’d be able to get it is by returning the LIRR to Howard Beach, Far Rockaway and Rockaway Park. But then you’d be stuck with LIRR frequencies, which will be much lower than even the current split (A) service, as well as LIRR fares, which will be much higher than the current subway fare. And any connections made between to buses and subways in Queens would be far more expensive from a Rockaway Beach LIRR train than they would be from a subway train.

Edited by T to Dyre Avenue

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My main problem with the locals using the Rockaway Beach branch is that it creates one very long local. Both the (M) and (R)  are already long lines running from 71 Avenue to the respective terminals in Middle Village and Bay Ridge. Adding an additional 10-12 miles as the crow flies will do nothing good for the reliability of either line. I can only see this working well if the line serving the Rockaways is truncated somewhere to reduce its length. (And no Wallyhorse, the (D) cannot serve Bay Ridge. That doesn't help.)

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Lance said:

My main problem with the locals using the Rockaway Beach branch is that it creates one very long local. Both the (M) and (R)  are already long lines running from 71 Avenue to the respective terminals in Middle Village and Bay Ridge. Adding an additional 10-12 miles as the crow flies will do nothing good for the reliability of either line. I can only see this working well if the line serving the Rockaways is truncated somewhere to reduce its length. (And no Wallyhorse, the (D) cannot serve Bay Ridge. That doesn't help.)

That's why I make the (W) a full-time line running Whitehall to Rockaway Park (late nights from 34th or Times Square-Rockaway Park).  The (R) would move back to Astoria (going back to its pre-1987 route) with those runs going back to the Yard from Astoria running as (from 36th Street) extra West End trains after 36th to Bay Parkway OR (from 59th Street) extra trains via Sea Beach to Kings Highway, running in-service as such.  Having the (W) start at Whitehall as it does now shortens the route on the RBB.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.