Rockaway Beach Branch

[vanshnookenraggen]

On 7/12/2021 at 5:07 PM, Lawrence St said:

The price was inflated because they were trying to build a new elevated structure over the existing ROW instead of just using the ROW. and the city can use "eminent domain" I think it's called to take back any part of the ROW that was illegally obtained by homeowners and businesses.

The only issue is whats going to serve the new line. You can't use the or because one will have to reduce TPH in order to allow the other to increase, which also affects the and . 

 

Every word of this is wrong. The price was inflated not because of construction costs but "soft costs" like contingency. Read the report itself http://thequeenslink.org/the-report/

Secondly, the ROW is ENTIRELY city owned and very little, if anything, has been encroached upon. There are a few businesses in the southern section which have month-to-month leases with the city that can be moved. And if there are any homeowners who have built garages on the land then the city is entirely within its right to kick them off.

Finally, there is unused capacity on the QBL. The local tracks only run at most 20tph. The limiting factor is the Forest Hills terminal which can't turn more than that. If the RBB is built, up to an additional 10tph could run on the QBL local tracks since they wouldn't have to deal with the Forest Hills terminal. I suggest that the return to Forest Hills.

[Lawrence St]

3 hours ago, vanshnookenraggen said:

 

Every word of this is wrong. The price was inflated not because of construction costs but "soft costs" like contingency. Read the report itself http://thequeenslink.org/the-report/

Secondly, the ROW is ENTIRELY city owned and very little, if anything, has been encroached upon. There are a few businesses in the southern section which have month-to-month leases with the city that can be moved. And if there are any homeowners who have built garages on the land then the city is entirely within its right to kick them off.

Finally, there is unused capacity on the QBL. The local tracks only run at most 20tph. The limiting factor is the Forest Hills terminal which can't turn more than that. If the RBB is built, up to an additional 10tph could run on the QBL local tracks since they wouldn't have to deal with the Forest Hills terminal. I suggest that the return to Forest Hills.

That school bus parking lot & new apartment building in Forest Park & new baseball field & Home Depot that are perm built on the ROW say otherwise. How do you expect the city to do that and not get backlash.

And your third point, if you add service to one QBL local line, the other has to be reduced to allow it or you'll have trains all over the dam place. Queens Blvd is scheduled the way it is just so trains don't end up blocking one another. And another point, each Queens Blvd line is fed into a mainline in Manhattan which shares tracks with another line running with it. You can't add 10 TPH to the  and expect the  and  to continue functioning the way they do, it would throw the entire southern Broadway Line & 6th AV line off schedule.  This also directly affects the  since the  now has reduced headways which screw up the departures on 8th Av. Unless you de-interline Queens Blvd Local completely, it will always be a problem.

[bobtehpanda]

45 minutes ago, Lawrence St said:

And your third point, if you add service to one QBL local line, the other has to be reduced to allow it or you'll have trains all over the dam place. Queens Blvd is scheduled the way it is just so trains don't end up blocking one another. And another point, each Queens Blvd line is fed into a mainline in Manhattan which shares tracks with another line running with it. You can't add 10 TPH to the  and expect the  and  to continue functioning the way they do, it would throw the entire southern Broadway Line & 6th AV line off schedule.  This also directly affects the  since the  now has reduced headways which screw up the departures on 8th Av. Unless you de-interline Queens Blvd Local completely, it will always be a problem.

1. they block each other at Forest Hills, hence why they don't run anywhere close to a full 30 TPH

2. both the and run alongside other lines with more frequency than the current on QBL Express and 60th St respectively. In fact it may actually make it easier to run service since it's kind of hard to evenly slot the weird amount of into the 4 minute spacing of the with a two minute headway.

3. even at current service levels, a 480 ft train every 7.5 minutes is way more capacity than a 60 foot bus every 10. there's tons of space in the trains themselves on the locals.

Edited July 14, 2021 by bobtehpanda

[LGA Link N Train]

19 hours ago, Lawrence St said:

And your third point, if you add service to one QBL local line, the other has to be reduced to allow it or you'll have trains all over the dam place. Queens Blvd is scheduled the way it is just so trains don't end up blocking one another. And another point, each Queens Blvd line is fed into a mainline in Manhattan which shares tracks with another line running with it. You can't add 10 TPH to the  and expect the  and  to continue functioning the way they do, it would throw the entire southern Broadway Line & 6th AV line off schedule.  This also directly affects the  since the  now has reduced headways which screw up the departures on 8th Av. Unless you de-interline Queens Blvd Local completely, it will always be a problem.

Alright. This is still wrong because of the following. 

- Forest Hills-71st Avenue can only turn up to 20 TPH due to a poor fumigation process. The runs about 10 TPH while the runs about 8 TPH. If you divert 8 TPH from Forest Hills to run via the RBB without altering any service, then that means that 8 Slots open up at Forest Hills under the current system while only the serves 67th Avenue which is not a huge loss. 

- and both respectively run 15 TPH. 15 's + 8 's = 23 TPH on 6th Local between Rockefeller and Broadway-Lafayette. You can add 2 TPH on the having them both run to 2nd Avenue or full route without affecting the and . Preferrably, the and could Swap Tunnels between 36th Street and Rockefeller to get rid of those 2 nasty merges at Queens Plaza (the merge going S/B and the merge going N/B). The would HAVE to become a 24/7 route for its entire length if it were to be the primary line to serve RBB. 

[vanshnookenraggen]

19 hours ago, Lawrence St said:

That school bus parking lot & new apartment building in Forest Park & new baseball field & Home Depot that are perm built on the ROW say otherwise. How do you expect the city to do that and not get backlash.

The only things actually on the ROW itself are parking lots. Everything else is separate and private and would no way interfere with the ROW. The section by Union Turnpike is, admitidly, close to homes. But this could be dealt with via a small box tunnel. It wouldn't cost anywhere near as much as a TBM since this is a ROW with no utilities. Shallow cut-and-cover. Heck, they even have special TBMs that would make it less disruptive.

[Lawrence St]

1 hour ago, vanshnookenraggen said:

The only things actually on the ROW itself are parking lots. Everything else is separate and private and would no way interfere with the ROW. The section by Union Turnpike is, admitidly, close to homes. But this could be dealt with via a small box tunnel. It wouldn't cost anywhere near as much as a TBM since this is a ROW with no utilities. Shallow cut-and-cover. Heck, they even have special TBMs that would make it less disruptive.

Where are you seeing that? If you go to the north end of Forest Park its literally right in front of the ROW.

[LGA Link N Train]

26 minutes ago, Lawrence St said:

Where are you seeing that? If you go to the north end of Forest Park its literally right in front of the ROW.

Yea. The Parking Lot for the Apartment Buildings and the Parking Lot for Trucks to load/unload at the Building where Stop and Shop is on Union Turnpike are the only things that are truly enraoched onto the ROW itself. The Baseball Field is DEBATABLE at best from my prespective because it seems like its been only enroached onto 1 trackway. I happen to live right next to the Right of Way in between these 2 sections so that's how I know. IDK where you got the idea that the Home Depot Parking Lot is enrhaced onto the ROW because its not. 

[Lawrence St]

8 minutes ago, LaGuardia Link N Tra said:

Yea. The Parking Lot for the Apartment Buildings and the Parking Lot for Trucks to load/unload at the Building where Stop and Shop is on Union Turnpike are the only things that are truly enraoched onto the ROW itself. The Baseball Field is DEBATABLE at best from my prespective because it seems like its been only enroached onto 1 trackway. I happen to live right next to the Right of Way in between these 2 sections so that's how I know. IDK where you got the idea that the Home Depot Parking Lot is enrhaced onto the ROW because its not. 

Perhaps my memory is foggy (I haven't been to Forest Park in a LONG time), my apologies. 

Taking a look at Google Maps, you are correct the apartment building is on the side of the ROW, I don't know why I thought it was directly in front (probably confusing it for the apartment building in front of the NYWB leads at 180th St).

The baseball field however does look like it takes up both trackways to the front, as well as the spur to the adjacent LIRR tracks.

That school bus parking lot is the major issue. It has taken up the entire ROW including a part of the old stations SB platform.  Now I'm not sure if the city filled in the connection to the Atlantic Branch, or if Logan Bus took it upon themselves to do it, but it'd be costly to get that connection back. On the north end of the line, there's also the Athletic Association that has seemed to take up one trackway on the former ROW.

Another issue, how is the connection to QBL suppose to happen? You can tunnel under the LIRR tracks, but then you have all these houses in-between there and Queens Blvd.

[LGA Link N Train]

4 minutes ago, Lawrence St said:

Another issue, how is the connection to QBL suppose to happen? You can tunnel under the LIRR tracks, but then you have all these houses in-between there and Queens Blvd.

I think the tunnel might be deep-bored, if eminent domain NEEDS to be accquired in the are between Queens Blvd and the LIRR Main Line (I don't remember if this was mentioned in the study) then at most 4-11 buildings would need to be looked at or taken in the 66th-Wetherole/Austin Street area.

[CenSin]

Well, certainly this is still cheaper than the Winfield Spur.

[T to Dyre Avenue]

On 7/13/2021 at 11:17 PM, Lawrence St said:

That school bus parking lot & new apartment building in Forest Park & new baseball field & Home Depot that are perm built on the ROW say otherwise. How do you expect the city to do that and not get backlash.

And your third point, if you add service to one QBL local line, the other has to be reduced to allow it or you'll have trains all over the dam place. Queens Blvd is scheduled the way it is just so trains don't end up blocking one another. And another point, each Queens Blvd line is fed into a mainline in Manhattan which shares tracks with another line running with it. You can't add 10 TPH to the  and expect the  and  to continue functioning the way they do, it would throw the entire southern Broadway Line & 6th AV line off schedule.  This also directly affects the  since the  now has reduced headways which screw up the departures on 8th Av. Unless you de-interline Queens Blvd Local completely, it will always be a problem.

They will get backlash if they sue; that's to be expected. I'm sure they won't just go quietly. That's not the New York Way. But if it's found out they located on the ROW illegally, then they have no choice but to get off.

You can't add 10 tph to the  no matter what. Because then you'd have to cut  service to the bone, due to capacity constraints by the Williamsburg Bridge and Myrtle-Broadway.

16 hours ago, LaGuardia Link N Tra said:

Alright. This is still wrong because of the following. 

- Forest Hills-71st Avenue can only turn up to 20 TPH due to a poor fumigation process. The runs about 10 TPH while the runs about 8 TPH. If you divert 8 TPH from Forest Hills to run via the RBB without altering any service, then that means that 8 Slots open up at Forest Hills under the current system while only the serves 67th Avenue which is not a huge loss. 

- and both respectively run 15 TPH. 15 's + 8 's = 23 TPH on 6th Local between Rockefeller and Broadway-Lafayette. You can add 2 TPH on the having them both run to 2nd Avenue or full route without affecting the and . Preferrably, the and could Swap Tunnels between 36th Street and Rockefeller to get rid of those 2 nasty merges at Queens Plaza (the merge going S/B and the merge going N/B). The would HAVE to become a 24/7 route for its entire length if it were to be the primary line to serve RBB. 

Would the MTA be willing to run four QBL services on weekends, given they usually do track, signal and electrical maintenance on weekends? This is why I favor rerouting the  (truncated at Whitehall St; replaced by the  in Brooklyn) onto the RBB instead of the . The  has fewer merges and the  often gets booted off QBL whenever there's a signal or switch problem. I wouldn't want that to continue if the  is rerouted down RBB, because then RBB riders will be left high and dry if the  is forced turn at Chambers or Essex. Merge-wise, it may be better if the  and  swap tunnels (it won't be under the current QBL pattern), but then you'd have to have the  and  all run on weekends, otherwise the QB local stations get cut off from Queens Plaza and Court Sq if the  runs on weekends and the  doesn't. Though if the  is rerouted down the RBB, the  or  would have to be sent local (at least partially) to cover for the loss of the  at 67th Ave. I don't see that as a deal breaker. A new express station at Woodhaven Blvd can have additional switches between the express and local tracks for greater flexibility.

[Wallyhorse]

26 minutes ago, T to Dyre Avenue said:

They will get backlash if they sue; that's to be expected. I'm sure they won't just go quietly. That's not the New York Way. But if it's found out they located on the ROW illegally, then they have no choice but to get off.

You can't add 10 tph to the  no matter what. Because then you'd have to cut  service to the bone, due to capacity constraints by the Williamsburg Bridge and Myrtle-Broadway.

Would the MTA be willing to run four QBL services on weekends, given they usually do track, signal and electrical maintenance on weekends? This is why I favor rerouting the  (truncated at Whitehall St; replaced by the  in Brooklyn) onto the RBB instead of the . The  has fewer merges and the  often gets booted off QBL whenever there's a signal or switch problem. I wouldn't want that to continue if the  is rerouted down RBB, because then RBB riders will be left high and dry if the  is forced turn at Chambers or Essex. Merge-wise, it may be better if the  and  swap tunnels (it won't be under the current QBL pattern), but then you'd have to have the  and  all run on weekends, otherwise the QB local stations get cut off from Queens Plaza and Court Sq if the  runs on weekends and the  doesn't. Though if the  is rerouted down the RBB, the  or  would have to be sent local (at least partially) to cover for the loss of the  at 67th Ave. I don't see that as a deal breaker. A new express station at Woodhaven Blvd can have additional switches between the express and local tracks for greater flexibility.

Actually, another way this could be done:

becomes brown and runs from 95th Street to Chambers or Essex while late nights and weekends is extended to Metropolitan Avenue to replace the  entirely.  

terminates at Chambers at all times (with a handful of rush hour trains extended to Broad OR if necessary to the 9th Avenue station) to accommodate the  being moved to Nassau 24/7.

becomes 24/7 and runs from Whitehall (with some trains terminating on the tunnel level at Canal Street during peak hours if necessary) to Rockaway Park via the RBB.  Perhaps with Whitehall in this scenario becoming more of a terminal with only re-routes and perhaps the late nights running as it does now), switches could be re-done so trains could terminate/start from all three tracks there and be used as such a terminal.

goes back to nights and weekends running to 71-Continental ( would still run to 71-Continental as it does now). 

Only people really affected by this would be those who use the Broadway Line between Court Street or DeKalb and lower Manhattan, but those riders would have numerous alternate ways to get there.   

[Lawrence St]

10 minutes ago, Wallyhorse said:

Actually, another way this could be done:

becomes brown and runs from 95th Street to Chambers or Essex while late nights and weekends is extended to Metropolitan Avenue to replace the  entirely.  

terminates at Chambers at all times (with a handful of rush hour trains extended to Broad OR if necessary to the 9th Avenue station) to accommodate the  being moved to Nassau 24/7.

becomes 24/7 and runs from Whitehall (with some trains terminating on the tunnel level at Canal Street during peak hours if necessary) to Rockaway Park via the RBB.  Perhaps with Whitehall in this scenario becoming more of a terminal with only re-routes and perhaps the late nights running as it does now), switches could be re-done so trains could terminate/start from all three tracks there and be used as such a terminal.

goes back to nights and weekends running to 71-Continental ( would still run to 71-Continental as it does now). 

Only people really affected by this would be those who use the Broadway Line between Court Street or DeKalb and lower Manhattan, but those riders would have numerous alternate ways to get there.   

[Theli11]

2 hours ago, Wallyhorse said:

Actually, another way this could be done:

becomes brown and runs from 95th Street to Chambers or Essex while late nights and weekends is extended to Metropolitan Avenue to replace the  entirely.  

terminates at Chambers at all times (with a handful of rush hour trains extended to Broad OR if necessary to the 9th Avenue station) to accommodate the  being moved to Nassau 24/7.

becomes 24/7 and runs from Whitehall (with some trains terminating on the tunnel level at Canal Street during peak hours if necessary) to Rockaway Park via the RBB.  Perhaps with Whitehall in this scenario becoming more of a terminal with only re-routes and perhaps the late nights running as it does now), switches could be re-done so trains could terminate/start from all three tracks there and be used as such a terminal.

goes back to nights and weekends running to 71-Continental ( would still run to 71-Continental as it does now). 

Only people really affected by this would be those who use the Broadway Line between Court Street or DeKalb and lower Manhattan, but those riders would have numerous alternate ways to get there.   

I don't even see how this solves anything.

[Eric B]

17 hours ago, Lawrence St said:

Perhaps my memory is foggy (I haven't been to Forest Park in a LONG time), my apologies. 

Taking a look at Google Maps, you are correct the apartment building is on the side of the ROW, I don't know why I thought it was directly in front (probably confusing it for the apartment building in front of the NYWB leads at 180th St).

The baseball field however does look like it takes up both trackways to the front, as well as the spur to the adjacent LIRR tracks.

From the (J), it does look like it might be over part of the ROW, likely due to the angle of view, but it's hard to tell.

[LGA Link N Train]

31 minutes ago, Eric B said:

From the (J), it does look like it might be over part of the ROW, likely due to the angle of view, but it's hard to tell.

It is

[Wallyhorse]

2 hours ago, Theli11 said:

I don't even see how this solves anything.

By moving the  to the Nassau Line, it shortens that route considerably and at least on 4th Avenue becomes a MUCH more reliable local as except for with the past Chambers (and POSSIBLY late nights with the  from Brooklyn on 4th Avenue and when extended to Metropolitan late nights and weekends with the  from North Brooklyn at Myrtle) it would not merge with any line (in this scenario, the remains express on 4th Avenue at all times though it would still stop at DeKalb late nights).  (and ) would be shortened to Chambers to accommodate the and avoid holding it up southbound at Broad save for possibly a handful of rush hour / trains that would end at Broad.

The becoming 24/7 to Rockaway Park on the RBB and QBL would replace the  on most of QBL and more importantly would have an RBB service from lower Manhattan that some elected officials may want for this to happen.  

The would serve as a weekend replacement on QBL for the  specifically at 67th Avenue and 71st-Continental, otherwise it would run as it does now other than also running late nights to 71-Continental, allowing the in late nights to return to being an express. 

[Theli11]

1 hour ago, Wallyhorse said:

By moving the  to the Nassau Line, it shortens that route considerably and at least on 4th Avenue becomes a MUCH more reliable local as except for with the past Chambers (and POSSIBLY late nights with the  from Brooklyn on 4th Avenue and when extended to Metropolitan late nights and weekends with the  from North Brooklyn at Myrtle) it would not merge with any line (in this scenario, the remains express on 4th Avenue at all times though it would still stop at DeKalb late nights).  (and ) would be shortened to Chambers to accommodate the and avoid holding it up southbound at Broad save for possibly a handful of rush hour / trains that would end at Broad.

This part doesn't help because it's directing trains to Lower Manhattan (where 4th Av riders don't want to really go). You'd be forcing a transfer at either Atlantic, or Canal St. It'd still be the same amount of time to get to Midtown.
 

1 hour ago, Wallyhorse said:

The becoming 24/7 to Rockaway Park on the RBB and QBL would replace the  on most of QBL and more importantly would have an RBB service from lower Manhattan that some elected officials may want for this to happen.  

ehhh okay.

 

1 hour ago, Wallyhorse said:

The would serve as a weekend replacement on QBL for the  specifically at 67th Avenue and 71st-Continental, otherwise it would run as it does now other than also running late nights to 71-Continental, allowing the in late nights to return to being an express. 

I guess you don't need a replacement if you make Woodhaven an express station. Ehhh I'm not entirely against it, but I also don't see the need to have the  run late nights.

[vanshnookenraggen]

22 hours ago, Theli11 said:

This part doesn't help because it's directing trains to Lower Manhattan (where 4th Av riders don't want to really go). You'd be forcing a transfer at either Atlantic, or Canal St. It'd still be the same amount of time to get to Midtown.

Unrelated to this thread, but may I ask, is this really an issue? How many R riders are really taking it local all the way to Union Sq (and beyond)? Don't most of these riders transfer to an N or D (or another line) at the first chance they get? It would then suggest that the only people left ARE in fact riding to Lower Manhattan. Therefore, the J isn't really such a bad idea.

I'm not saying it should be done, mind you, but just that people assume a lot of things without looking at how riders actually use the system.

Edited July 16, 2021 by vanshnookenraggen

[Wallyhorse]

On 7/16/2021 at 4:41 PM, vanshnookenraggen said:

Unrelated to this thread, but may I ask, is this really an issue? How many R riders are really taking it local all the way to Union Sq (and beyond)? Don't most of these riders transfer to an N or D (or another line) at the first chance they get? It would then suggest that the only people left ARE in fact riding to Lower Manhattan. Therefore, the J isn't really such a bad idea.

I'm not saying it should be done, mind you, but just that people assume a lot of things without looking at how riders actually use the system.

Exactly:

The bulk of riders on the in Brooklyn EXCEPT those who MAYBE get on at Jay-Metrotech or Court are going straight to lower Manhattan, and there are alternate ways in the case of those stations to get to places above lower Manhattan anyway.  Most who ride the in Brooklyn looking for midtown have likely switched to the or at Atlantic-Barclays or points further south.  Moving the to Nassau with having it run to either Chambers or Essex (extended late nights and weekends to Metropolitan Avenue to absorb the along Broadway-Brooklyn) would be a far shorter route that makes much more sense at this point.  If need be, you can have a handful of trains run to/from the Broadway Junction station and/or Metropolitan Avenue on the  in service for the to have a northern yard. 

[BreeddekalbL]

Say rbb is built And woodhaven is converted to express station and you build the lie line to queens college kissena and you extend the and  to planed terminals  could the G fit in somewhere with cbtc completed 

and  extended to planned new terminals 

 extended to 179th 

extended to jfk airport 

sent via new lie line to Kissena Queens College 

Feasible? 

 

[Vulturious]

1 hour ago, BreeddekalbL said:

Say rbb is built And woodhaven is converted to express station and you build the lie line to queens college kissena and you extend the and  to planed terminals  could the G fit in somewhere with cbtc completed 

and  extended to planned new terminals 

 extended to 179th 

extended to jfk airport 

sent via new lie line to Kissena Queens College 

Feasible? 

 

I mean do you really want to branch QBL more than it already has? I got no problem with the  and  extended to their planned new terminals, however if the RBB is rebuilt with Woodhaven converted into an express station, certain lines would still become too long. The  and  in this instance is already too long in a way with too much going on. Not only are they both long and all local, but they got other lines that are merging with each other causing delays throughout.

I personally wouldn't mind this, the  would also help pick up the slack that was left behind, but even then, both the  and  would have to fend for themselves once they branch off to their respective terminals with no back up. The  is already long as is and would be in an even worse shape compared to the  since it can't hold much. It is after all 60 feet long with 8 cars. This is because of the Eastern division, which is holding the  back a lot. Doing this would need stations lengthened along Eastern Division, at least the portion the  runs, this'll allow for more capacity to carry people.

Honestly speaking, I know it is a bad idea to bring this up, but what if we bring back the QBL bypass? One line can run super express, probably the  doing that job, to Forest Hills then making it's normal stops the rest of the way. Then an SAS service would maybe take over and run along the RBB branch. Then you can just have the  and  run towards Kissena Queens College, this way if the  can pick up some of the 's slack with the  brought back to pick up both of theirs as well as the  for rush hour express to whatever new terminal it's extended to. 

[vanshnookenraggen]

7 hours ago, Vulturious said:

The  and  in this instance is already too long in a way with too much going on. Not only are they both long and all local, but they got other lines that are merging with each other causing delays throughout.

 

This is something you and others repeatedly bring up, but I question why you think this is the case. The is currently 18.26 miles long which ranks it 15th in overall length. The is longer at 21.84 miles and ranks 10th. So to claim they are already "too long" is... odd and incorrect.

Extending the to Far Rockaway would make it 31 miles long. This would now rank 2nd overall after the to Rockaway Park at 32 miles (assuming the A is rerouted there full time). Is 31 miles too long? I think that is up for debate. Extending the would certainly make that the longest train in the system at 34.91miles. This is one of the reasons QueensLink proposes the over the .

At least one sensible idea I've heard here is to reroute the along QBL and extend that instead. From Whitehall to Far Rockaway would be 25.95 miles, placing it 5th longest overall. My issue here is that the would be lacking direct yard access (although it certainly could use the Rockaway Park Yard) and the would have to be returned to Astoria (also lacking yard access). Another good reason for using the would be that the QueensLink is really only a time saver if you are coming/going to/from midtown and northern Queens. Therefore, the A will still be the dominant train to/from Lower Manhattan. It doesn't really add anything to have the serve both of these areas. The would at least swing off to Williamsburg. But the could be a better compromise.

Merges are certainly an issue, but this is a separate problem entirely. I'm fully in favor of deinterlining to remove as many merges as possible. But to suggest that we can't extend the subway because of current merges is a pretty flimsy excuse. I guess we shouldn't extend 2nd Ave either since the Q merges with the N!

[mrsman]

^^^^

One thing that I think we can all agree on is that we would like to see an increase in service.  An increase in frequency along existing lines as well as an increase in reach with new extensions and branches.  A big question with a lot of this is the how.

There are a lot of positives to the Rockaway Beach Branch being utilized as a subway branch.  It is certainly much cheaper than digging a new Woodhaven Blvd subway.  Woodhaven has shown itself to be a significant transit corridor and the fact that there is already some infrastructure inplace that can be reused is helpful.  We understand that it won't be cheap -- but it is still alot cheaper than building a whole new line somewhere else.

One very nice thing about the QBL local lines, is that it can really use a new branch to increase operations.  Currently, the QBL local is limited to 20 TPH due to Forest Hills turnbacks.  Given current operations, we can add an additional 10 TPH to the QBL local line if we provide a place for it to go to the west and a new branch to divert some of the traffic away from Forest Hills.  10 TPH coming up the RBB can merge into the existing 20 TPH coming from Forest Hills.  10 TPH can go to the  line, while the reamining 20 TPH can flow along  and  as they are currently doing.  If we are stuck with EFMRG along Queens Blvd, I'm in favor of M serving RBB and GR serving Forest Hills.  [This all assumes that every station east of Forest Hills is either an express  or  station and that is politically non-negotiable.]

But if we take an RBB proposal in a different context, it can actually make a deinterlining plan much easier!  If you wanted a "perfect" deinterlining of QBL, (and given the crowding it should certainly be considered), you will need to get all the Broadway BMT trains off QBL, assign all QBL locals to 53rd and all QBL expresses to 63rd (or vice versa) and assign all 63rd trains to the 6th Ave local and assign 53rd trains to 8th Ave.  [Doing the above would also generally require addressing CPW making all of its exrpesses to 6th Ave and all the locals to 8th Ave or vice versa.]  The problem when you look at it becomes how to actually assign the QBL trains.  If you make all the expresses on 53rd and the locals on 63rd, you cut off the QBL local stops west of Roosevelt from reaching Queens Plaza and LIC ( a growing employment center).  If you reverse it, you are making all of the 6th Ave locals into QBL express trains and there would be no feasible way to allow  to be a QBL express without significant capital spending on extending platforms in eastern Brooklyn.  These are not trivial problems and forms one reason why it is still necessary to have  service along QBL.

But the RBB can allow for us to rethink the issue.  Assign all QBL expresses to 53rd continuing on to 8th Ave express and the Cranberry tunnel.  This would allow us to have 20 TPH  and  trains emanating from Forest Hills, servicing the QBL local and continuing to 63rd and the 6th Ave local.  And the new RBB branch of the QBL local will allow a new 10 TPH service to merge into the QBL local and allow 10 TPH to divert away from 63rd to service Queens Plaza and LIC and continue as a  .  The QBL express is completely deinterlined.  The QBL local is partially deinterlined, with some interference with non-trunk lines like  and  and  .  Under such a scenario, IMO, the best operation would be  from RBB and  from Forest Hills during regular hours, and  from Forest HIlls and  from RBB during times when  is truncated to Myrtle.

 

[Vulturious]

10 hours ago, vanshnookenraggen said:

This is something you and others repeatedly bring up, but I question why you think this is the case. The is currently 18.26 miles long which ranks it 15th in overall length. The is longer at 21.84 miles and ranks 10th. So to claim they are already "too long" is... odd and incorrect.

Extending the to Far Rockaway would make it 31 miles long. This would now rank 2nd overall after the to Rockaway Park at 32 miles (assuming the A is rerouted there full time). Is 31 miles too long? I think that is up for debate. Extending the would certainly make that the longest train in the system at 34.91miles. This is one of the reasons QueensLink proposes the over the .

Merges are certainly an issue, but this is a separate problem entirely. I'm fully in favor of deinterlining to remove as many merges as possible. But to suggest that we can't extend the subway because of current merges is a pretty flimsy excuse. I guess we shouldn't extend 2nd Ave either since the Q merges with the N!

What's actually more odd is that you seem to have went over the part where I said it's "all local". That's basically the reason why I and whoever else have said this say that both the  and  is too long. It is because both lines are all local which I know for a fact people want to avoid as much as possible. Like I said I got no problem with the  running along the Rockaway Beach Branch, but there are other factors to consider. 

To say that it would be a pretty flimsy excuse to not extend subway service with the current merges confuses me. What's to say the  and  with whatever proposed extensions they have will be reliable? People are going to realize that service isn't really better regardless of new subway service running into areas void of any.