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

If the RBB is reactivated then the idea for a half Express on the (M) could work. But If you wanted to have an efficient express service headed to JFK and the Rockaways then that's where the Queens Bypass would come in with provisions to Forest Hills and Jamaica which I think would be the (H)

Edited by LGA Link N train

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, LGA Link N train said:

If the RBB is reactivated then the idea for a half Express on the (M) could work. But If you wanted to have an efficient express service headed to JFK and the Rockaways then that's where the Queens Bypass would come in with provisions to Forest Hills and Jamaica which I think would be the (H)

The (M) cannot halve service just so it can run express. It would create merging delays at Roosevelt if the (M) ran half express. This also reduces service on QB local- unless you extend the (G) to 71 Av. No one will accept only the (R) at QB stations due to its delays. The bypass is a waste if it goes to the Rockaways. Extending the local (M) will suffice. Riders really wanting express service can transfer to the (A) at Broad Channel, Howard Beach-JFK, and the two Aqueducts. Or they can switch across the platform for the (E)(F) at Roosevelt or Woodhaven Blvd if its converted. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, D to 96 St said:

The (M) cannot halve service just so it can run express. It would create merging delays at Roosevelt if the (M) ran half express. This also reduces service on QB local- unless you extend the (G) to 71 Av. No one will accept only the (R) at QB stations due to its delays. The bypass is a waste if it goes to the Rockaways. Extending the local (M) will suffice. Riders really wanting express service can transfer to the (A) at Broad Channel, Howard Beach-JFK, and the two Aqueducts. Or they can switch across the platform for the (E)(F) at Roosevelt or Woodhaven Blvd if its converted. 

First off, if the (M) DID run half express then the (G) would obviously have to take over the local service. Yes, there would be merging delays. 

Technically, the Bypass wouldn't necessarily be a waste if it went to Rockaways because there would be Direct Express service that goes straight into midtown. 

As for a QB Local on the RBB, it could just terminate at either WTC or Houston St-2 Av 

And it would ultimately be a wise Decisionto convert Woodhaven Boulevard into an express station of which the (M) would merge onto the local tracks to RBB and an open door for a LIE subway line

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, LGA Link N train said:

First off, if the (M) DID run half express then the (G) would obviously have to take over the local service. Yes, there would be merging delays. 

Technically, the Bypass wouldn't necessarily be a waste if it went to Rockaways because there would be Direct Express service that goes straight into midtown. 

As for a QB Local on the RBB, it could just terminate at either WTC or Houston St-2 Av 

And it would ultimately be a wise Decisionto convert Woodhaven Boulevard into an express station of which the (M) would merge onto the local tracks to RBB and an open door for a LIE subway line

Yeah no. Lets do some addition. 

There are currently 15 (F) trains per hour on Queens Boulevard Express. There are also 15 (E) trains. That adds to 30. With the current signal system, only 30 trains per hour can run on the express tracks. They are therefore at capacity. Even with CBTC, you would not be able to provide any meaningful level of train service via express, to say nothing of the fact that the attachment provisions head to the local tracks. 

As for the bypass, its highest and best use is to provide the necessary capacity for second avenue service to the Queens Corridor -- including areas east of Rego Park. The RBB, while important, will never attain the same ridership numbers as the QC in general, so when building new lines to serve the area, we must plan accordingly. Local service will be more than adequate, and honestly isn't actually much slower. 

Ending QB Local - RBB trains at 2av or WTC will overfill WTC and lose the Jamaica/Myrtle - 6th ave connection. Just extend the (M) -- the (2) has 49 stops while the (M) currently only has 35. It can be done.

1 stop on Queens Boulevard will lose useful train service -- 67th ave. No new local service needs to be added there -- the (R) frequency can just be increased as the Forest Hills layups will finally have capacity to spare. Also the (G) is a completely useless waste of track capacity -- it doesn't serve manhattan. You're asking for more platform issues at QP/Roosevelt. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/5/2017 at 10:04 AM, LGA Link N train said:

First off, if the (M) DID run half express then the (G) would obviously have to take over the local service. Yes, there would be merging delays. 

Technically, the Bypass wouldn't necessarily be a waste if it went to Rockaways because there would be Direct Express service that goes straight into midtown. 

As for a QB Local on the RBB, it could just terminate at either WTC or Houston St-2 Av 

And it would ultimately be a wise Decisionto convert Woodhaven Boulevard into an express station of which the (M) would merge onto the local tracks to RBB and an open door for a LIE subway line

Even if you didn't run the (M) express, you could still fit the (G) into Forest Hills. But why add merging delays for no good reason? And like it was said before, the express tracks are full. Unless you want to reduce (E)(F) service, which would be a nightmare. 

The bypass will be a waste. There is better demand for it to connect to east of 71 Av than go to the Rockaways. The (M) is already direct to Midtown, and the (A)would be the direct express from the Rockaways. Plus, most of the ridership will be north of Aqueduct Racetrack, already close to QB. 

Why have it terminate at either? The (M) already would almost mimic the route from Rockaway Park to Bway-Lafayette. And do you really think WTC can spare more trains since the (E) is at 15 TPH? 

I do agree on having Woodhaven converted, but the LIE line should be the (B) via a new Myrtle Av bypass out to Little Neck Pkwy. The (D) would take its place on the Brighton Line and the (W) will take over West End. Branching it off of QB will leave 67 Av as a (G)-only stop. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, D to 96 St said:

Even if you didn't run the (M) express, you could still fit the (G) into Forest Hills. But why add merging delays for no good reason? And like it was said before, the express tracks are full. Unless you want to reduce (E)(F) service, which would be a nightmare. Ok

 Ok, I get it

The bypass will be a waste. There is better demand for it to connect to east of 71 Av than go to the Rockaways. The (M) is already direct to Midtown, and the (A)would be the direct express from the Rockaways. Plus, most of the ridership will be north of Aqueduct Racetrack, already close to QB. 

While you would say that a Rockaway-Queens Bypass "would" be a waste, I'd still leave an emergency connection just in case.

Why have it terminate at either? The (M) already would almost mimic the route from Rockaway Park to Bway-Lafayette. And do you really think WTC can spare more trains since the (E) is at 15 TPH? 

OK, we got to figure out something to resolve that issue

I do agree on having Woodhaven converted, but the LIE line should be the (B) via a new Myrtle Av bypass out to Little Neck Pkwy. The (D) would take its place on the Brighton Line and the (W) will take over West End. Branching it off of QB will leave 67 Av as a (G)-only stop. 

Erm, what happens to the (R) in this plan?? Can the LIE be a combo in some sort of way

replies are in red

Edited by LGA Link N train

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, D to 96 St said:

Even if you didn't run the (M) express, you could still fit the (G) into Forest Hills. But why add merging delays for no good reason? And like it was said before, the express tracks are full. Unless you want to reduce (E)(F) service, which would be a nightmare. 

The bypass will be a waste. There is better demand for it to connect to east of 71 Av than go to the Rockaways. The (M) is already direct to Midtown, and the (A)would be the direct express from the Rockaways. Plus, most of the ridership will be north of Aqueduct Racetrack, already close to QB. 

Why have it terminate at either? The (M) already would almost mimic the route from Rockaway Park to Bway-Lafayette. And do you really think WTC can spare more trains since the (E) is at 15 TPH? 

I do agree on having Woodhaven converted, but the LIE line should be the (B) via a new Myrtle Av bypass out to Little Neck Pkwy. The (D) would take its place on the Brighton Line and the (W) will take over West End. Branching it off of QB will leave 67 Av as a (G)-only stop. 

 

 Why bother with the (G) when you have the (R) ?

  Rerouting the (B) would be terrible. This would require sending it via 53rd, effectively cutting off most of Midtown, and that line would empty. This would put more pressure on the (D) and (E)  and strip local Bronx and Manhattan riders of their one-seat ride to Midtown and Brooklyn. Sending the (D) down Brighton will piss off the East Asian community in Bensonhurst as you killed their one-seat ride to Grand Street. The (W) is a local in Manhattan, and its longer travel time to Manhattan will overcrowd the (N) . Plus, with the (D) now on Brighton you have to operate an extra service on late nights and weekends, which is why the (B) and (D) swapped in 2004.

 Would it really hurt to to introduce a new service?

Edited by R68OnBroadway

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LGA Link N train IF the LIE line branched off of QB, the (R) would have to go to the LIE, and (M) to Rockaways, which is what i meant about why i wouldn't branch it off of QB.

R68onBroadway: When did I say the (B) would run via 53rd? Seems like you are a bit confused. The (B) would branch off at Broadway-Lafayette and run via a new Houston-S 4 St Tunnel to Union Av where it would meet up with the (C)(J)(M), then would run via the Bushwick and Montauk branches to Metropolitan Av, where it would re-join the (M), and THEN run out to Little Neck. Stops would be at Montrose Av and Maspeth for the Bushiwck-Montauk portion. No elimination of Bronx/CPW service. I'd NEVER do that. Plus, SAS service would run on Fulton and West End to replace the (C) and (D) respectively. The (W) would be for additional rush hr service and run closer in the heart of Midtown, plus it would follow the old (brownM) route to Bay Pkwy. Plus, the (D) on West End would mean SAS service replacing the (B) tho both services would have to run full-time at the same time. In other words, no matter what you do when you swap them, they both still have to run full-time. Finally SAS service on Brighton would mean losing access to the heart of Midtown. Whereas if SAS service was on the West End and 6 Av on Brighton, you would still have a balanced out levels of service to central Midtown. 

IDK if you know this or not, but the community actually OPPOSED cutting the (G) to Court Sq back in 2001 when the (V) was introduced, and because of this, it wasn't cut back until 2010. The only reason why it was cut back most of the time was because 71 Av was at capacity. Late at night is when it is MOST useless but the (G) isn't like that ALL the time. Rush hrs and middays it isn't that bad. Besides, if the (G) was really useless it wouldn't have been extended to Church Av. The (G) would offer transfers to many lines if it went to 71 Av when the (M) goes to Rockaways. Same logic as the Triboro RX. Just because it doesn't enter MAnhattan doesn't mean it's completely useless. It can actually be a SHORTCUT to avoid overcrowding. Plus you would have to increase (R) service, which would be impossible due to the congestion in the 60 St Tube. The (G) and (R) can both handle 67 Av by themselves. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, D to 96 St said:

LGA Link N train IF the LIE line branched off of QB, the (R) would have to go to the LIE, and (M) to Rockaways, which is what i meant about why i wouldn't branch it off of QB.

R68onBroadway: When did I say the (B) would run via 53rd? Seems like you are a bit confused. The (B) would branch off at Broadway-Lafayette and run via a new Houston-S 4 St Tunnel to Union Av where it would meet up with the (C)(J)(M), then would run via the Bushwick and Montauk branches to Metropolitan Av, where it would re-join the (M), and THEN run out to Little Neck. Stops would be at Montrose Av and Maspeth for the Bushiwck-Montauk portion. No elimination of Bronx/CPW service. I'd NEVER do that. Plus, SAS service would run on Fulton and West End to replace the (C) and (D) respectively. The (W) would be for additional rush hr service and run closer in the heart of Midtown, plus it would follow the old (brownM) route to Bay Pkwy. Plus, the (D) on West End would mean SAS service replacing the (B) tho both services would have to run full-time at the same time. In other words, no matter what you do when you swap them, they both still have to run full-time. Finally SAS service on Brighton would mean losing access to the heart of Midtown. Whereas if SAS service was on the West End and 6 Av on Brighton, you would still have a balanced out levels of service to central Midtown. 

IDK if you know this or not, but the community actually OPPOSED cutting the (G) to Court Sq back in 2001 when the (V) was introduced, and because of this, it wasn't cut back until 2010. The only reason why it was cut back most of the time was because 71 Av was at capacity. Late at night is when it is MOST useless but the (G) isn't like that ALL the time. Rush hrs and middays it isn't that bad. Besides, if the (G) was really useless it wouldn't have been extended to Church Av. The (G) would offer transfers to many lines if it went to 71 Av when the (M) goes to Rockaways. Same logic as the Triboro RX. Just because it doesn't enter MAnhattan doesn't mean it's completely useless. It can actually be a SHORTCUT to avoid overcrowding. Plus you would have to increase (R) service, which would be impossible due to the congestion in the 60 St Tube. The (G) and (R) can both handle 67 Av by themselves. 

I agree with you on (R) to LIE. 

This whole (B) plan seems like a lot for nothing, Isn't it much simpler and much more direct to get N Queens capacity with an (L) extension up 10th/86th/Northern Boulevard? Rearranging all these 6th avenue/SAS/South Brooklyn services just strikes me as overly complex and highly disruptive, not to mention illegal given you're appropriating freight ROWs for subway service... 

Now about the (G) -- yes I did know that. You must remember though that these community groups exist for the sole purpose of elevating those who hate change. Regardless of whether the change would be beneficial, people will oppose it because they want things to be "the way they always were." I'm sure if you asked actual QB subway riders at the time, they'd be all for more Manhattan service. That is where the VAST majority of commuters on the corridor go, so designing service that goes, well, there, will always get points from them. 

The reason the (G) wasn't cut back was that the MTA didn't want to run the (V) nights and weekends, and needed a second service on QB. Then in 2010, when service cuts came along, they cut it due to low ridership. And the reason they extended it to church was to facilitate the Culver rebuild, and the reason they kept it is that more service is always better. I never said the (G) didn't get used at all -- I said Manhattan services were more useful. Given that we can't add another Manhattan to Culver service, why not. 

Now a word on transfers from an extended (G). Queens Boulevard is one of the most chronically overcrowded corridors in the city. As such, to discourage the creation of unsafe platform conditions, the aim of service planning there is to create services that go exactly where people want without transfers. By going to Manhattan, the (E)(F)(M)(R) accomplish that. The (G) does not. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This (B) plan would serve a large transit desert of Queens! Why would it be detrimental? Plus, I would build both this Bushwick-LIE line and the 10 Av-Northern Blvd (L) crosstown. If building along freight lines was illegal than how come this isn't a problem for the Triboro RX? But if it really was, then the tracks would be built UNDER the freight line and emerge on an elevated viaduct just east of College Point Blvd. 

I guess I should clarify:

(B) Bedford Park Blvd to Little Neck Pkwy via Concourse Lcl, 6 Av Exp, and Bushwick-LIE Exp.

(C) 168 St to 234 St-Cross Island Blvd via 8 Av Lcl and Jamaica Exp.

(D) Norwood-205 St to Coney Island via 6 Av Exp, Concourse Exp, and Brighton Exp.

(J) Hollis-193 St to Broad St via Jamaica Lcl and Nassau St Lcl. 

(M) College Point-20 Av to Rockaway Park via 6 Av Lcl, QB Lcl, and Rockaway Lcl.*Could return to Nassau St since (B) trains provide 6 Av service to Midtown in Bushwick, Middle Village, and Maspeth*.

(Z) is eliminated and replaced by the (C).

There could also be a potential Lafayette Av Line, as a spur off of the (G) train. 

The reason why it so-called got low ridership was because it only went there LATE AT NIGHT when not much people are demanding for extra service. COST-CUTTING was the #1 reason why it got cut back. If they really wanted another service on QB on weekends, then the (R) would've not been the sole QB service on wkends as we know today. The reason they kept it is because it offered more transfers at 4 Av-9 St to the (R), plus better layup capacity at Church as opposed to Smith-9 Sts. The (G) isn't really popular because of the lack of transfer to the (J)(M) at Hewes/Lorimer(both should be demolished with a new Union Av stop in between to allow for this transfer), (R) at Queens Plaza, and Atlantic Av-Barclays Ctr on the (2)(3)(4)(5)(B)(D)(N)(Q)(R). If all those transfers were built then there would be more demand for it go to additional areas, one being QB.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, D to 96 St said:

This (B) plan would serve a large transit desert of Queens! Why would it be detrimental? Plus, I would build both this Bushwick-LIE line and the 10 Av-Northern Blvd (L) crosstown. If building along freight lines was illegal than how come this isn't a problem for the Triboro RX? But if it really was, then the tracks would be built UNDER the freight line and emerge on an elevated viaduct just east of College Point Blvd. 

I guess I should clarify:

(B) Bedford Park Blvd to Little Neck Pkwy via Concourse Lcl, 6 Av Exp, and Bushwick-LIE Exp.

(C) 168 St to 234 St-Cross Island Blvd via 8 Av Lcl and Jamaica Exp.

(D) Norwood-205 St to Coney Island via 6 Av Exp, Concourse Exp, and Brighton Exp.

(J) Hollis-193 St to Broad St via Jamaica Lcl and Nassau St Lcl. 

(M) College Point-20 Av to Rockaway Park via 6 Av Lcl, QB Lcl, and Rockaway Lcl.*Could return to Nassau St since (B) trains provide 6 Av service to Midtown in Bushwick, Middle Village, and Maspeth*.

(Z) is eliminated and replaced by the (C).

There could also be a potential Lafayette Av Line, as a spur off of the (G) train. 

The reason why it so-called got low ridership was because it only went there LATE AT NIGHT when not much people are demanding for extra service. COST-CUTTING was the #1 reason why it got cut back. If they really wanted another service on QB on weekends, then the (R) would've not been the sole QB service on wkends as we know today. The reason they kept it is because it offered more transfers at 4 Av-9 St to the (R), plus better layup capacity at Church as opposed to Smith-9 Sts. The (G) isn't really popular because of the lack of transfer to the (J)(M) at Hewes/Lorimer(both should be demolished with a new Union Av stop in between to allow for this transfer), (R) at Queens Plaza, and Atlantic Av-Barclays Ctr on the (2)(3)(4)(5)(B)(D)(N)(Q)(R). If all those transfers were built then there would be more demand for it go to additional areas, one being QB.

For SAS it would be the following:

(P) E Tremont Av to Lefferts Blvd via 2 Av Exp, Throgs Neck Lcl, and Fulton St Exp.

(T) Gun Hill Rd to Euclid Av via 2 Av Lcl, 3 Av Lcl, and Fulton St Lcl.

(U) Bartow Av to Euclid Av via 2 Av Lcl, Co-op-City Lcl, and Fulton St Lcl.

(V) Jamaica-179 St to Coney Island-Stillwell Av via 2 Av Exp, Queens Blvd Bypass, and West End Exp. 

(W) extended to BAy Pkwy via West End Lcl.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, D to 96 St said:

This (B) plan would serve a large transit desert of Queens! Why would it be detrimental? Plus, I would build both this Bushwick-LIE line and the 10 Av-Northern Blvd (L) crosstown. If building along freight lines was illegal than how come this isn't a problem for the Triboro RX? But if it really was, then the tracks would be built UNDER the freight line and emerge on an elevated viaduct just east of College Point Blvd. 

I guess I should clarify:

(B) Bedford Park Blvd to Little Neck Pkwy via Concourse Lcl, 6 Av Exp, and Bushwick-LIE Exp.

(C) 168 St to 234 St-Cross Island Blvd via 8 Av Lcl and Jamaica Exp.

(D) Norwood-205 St to Coney Island via 6 Av Exp, Concourse Exp, and Brighton Exp.

(J) Hollis-193 St to Broad St via Jamaica Lcl and Nassau St Lcl. 

(M) College Point-20 Av to Rockaway Park via 6 Av Lcl, QB Lcl, and Rockaway Lcl.*Could return to Nassau St since (B) trains provide 6 Av service to Midtown in Bushwick, Middle Village, and Maspeth*.

(Z) is eliminated and replaced by the (C).

There could also be a potential Lafayette Av Line, as a spur off of the (G) train. 

The reason why it so-called got low ridership was because it only went there LATE AT NIGHT when not much people are demanding for extra service. COST-CUTTING was the #1 reason why it got cut back. If they really wanted another service on QB on weekends, then the (R) would've not been the sole QB service on wkends as we know today. The reason they kept it is because it offered more transfers at 4 Av-9 St to the (R), plus better layup capacity at Church as opposed to Smith-9 Sts. The (G) isn't really popular because of the lack of transfer to the (J)(M) at Hewes/Lorimer(both should be demolished with a new Union Av stop in between to allow for this transfer), (R) at Queens Plaza, and Atlantic Av-Barclays Ctr on the (2)(3)(4)(5)(B)(D)(N)(Q)(R). If all those transfers were built then there would be more demand for it go to additional areas, one being QB.

I'm all for filling transit deserts, all for a line along the LIE (beyond Queens Boulevard, where it's physically possible) and all for (L) to Northern Boulevard. What I'm saying is that spending all those billions on a new, seemingly 4 track subway line to north Brooklyn and central Queens seems like overkill, especially given that Maspeth/Glendale/Ridgewood are pretty low density, and sending commuters from Little Neck to Manhattan via Bushwick is quite circuitous. Spend that $$$ on the Bypass, full length SAS (I don't think exp tracks are necessary, but we've had that discussion), and (L) to queens. 

FYI Triboro RX would not be run with subway trains -- it'd be run with something along the lines of high capacity M8s for FRA compliance, as appropriating freight lines for passenger service is illegal (I can provide laws and explanation if you want -- I occasionally consult on lower Montauk branch passenger service for the MTA).

From what I've seen, the (G) has become quite popular with commuters who transfer from the (A)(C)(L)(E)(M) trains for access to North Brooklyn. That said, I agree with you that there's significant room for improvement -- I'm all for the Union Ave station, and the Atlantic Ctr xfers, but not the Queens Plaza one. You'd disrupt (E)(M) and (R) train service with terminating (G) trains. That said, I don't think any of the projects you propose would have any effect on (G) demand on QB. Queens Plaza is a station served by QB trains, so that's moot, no market of size exists between the (J) / (M) lines east of Union and QB (also it'd probably be faster to take a bus given geography), and no commuter in their right mind would take the (G) to Atlantic from QB to catch the services found there. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is a general outline of one possible solution to the debate of where the Rockaway Beach line should be sent. Before reading this proposal, please understand the following points:

  • I have intentionally omitted the routing of the Queens Boulevard - Rockaway service east of Jackson Heights, because that is a different question. However, assume that there is at least some capacity on Queens Boulevard, and points west.
  • It is obvious that money will be required to perform some of the tasks necessary to run this service. Please don't be unconstructive by saying "this costs too much money" and nothing else.
  • The layout at Howard Beach is not optimal, unfortunately. However, it doesn't make this proposal's implementation impossible.
  • I am concerned only with rush hour service at the moment. Service at other times of the day would presumably be a modified version of the following.

That being said, the proposal includes two services which run on the reactivated Rockaway Beach line. I will avoid proposing specific route bullets until later.

  1. Rockaway Beach Local: Runs from Howard Beach - JFK Airport, to Roosevelt Avenue - Jackson Heights, and points west. It makes all stops between Howard Beach and the northernmost Rockaway Beach stop, and then runs via the Queens Boulevard line. I will not elaborate on whether or not it should run local or express on Queens Boulevard, because that is outside the scope of this proposal. To give a tentative list, let's say the local service stops at Howard Beach, N. Conduit Av, Aqueduct Racetrack, 101 Av - Ozone Park, Jamaica Av - Brooklyn Manor, Myrtle Av, Metropolitan Av - Parkside, and Fleet St. This service runs about 5 trains per hour during rush hours; the frequency will depend on ridership at the stations it serves.
  2. Rockaway Beach Express: Runs from Beach 116 St - Rockaway Park to the Queens Bypass (the track connection would be north of Fleet St station.) The stops could be as follows: All stops south of (and including) Broad Channel, then Howard Beach, Jamaica Av, and Metropolitan Av. Which stations are express stations can be changed depending on ridership levels (as described below.) North of Fleet St (which the service bypasses), it would merge with the Queens Bypass line and head west to Manhattan. This service would run about 4 trains per hour; maybe 5 or more if ridership levels necessitate a service increase.

There are some important notes that need to be made:

  • The (A) line's routing and frequencies are unaffected by this.
  • The express stations north of Ozone Park were chosen based on where I think ridership would be greatest, but there is no physical necessity to such an express station layout. The Rockaway Beach line right-of-way is 4 tracks wide until just past Ozone Park station, and then narrows to 2 tracks. Express service can reasonably be run on the two track section if service frequencies are kept low. If service frequencies are expected to significantly increase, it may be more cost-effective in the long run to bite the bullet and expand the right-of way (assuming such actions are even possible.)
  • This service proposal in general assumes that service runs at low frequencies. It is reasonable that a revamp would be required if service is increased to higher frequencies.

The express service would probably be called (H), and the local service bullet would be based on wherever it goes past Queens Boulevard.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/7/2017 at 7:36 PM, RR503 said:

FYI Triboro RX would not be run with subway trains -- it'd be run with something along the lines of high capacity M8s for FRA compliance, as appropriating freight lines for passenger service is illegal (I can provide laws and explanation if you want -- I occasionally consult on lower Montauk branch passenger service for the MTA).

IIRC the ROW basically has room for four tracks, so couldn't you just build two subway tracks next to the existing tracks?

Realistically speaking, the RX would be so separated from the rest of the network that it would be nice to build it as a fully automated metro service, but that would happen over the TWU's dead body.

Edited by bobtehpanda

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, bobtehpanda said:

IIRC the ROW basically has room for four tracks, so couldn't you just build two subway tracks next to the existing tracks?

Realistically speaking, the RX would be so separated from the rest of the network that it would be nice to build it as a fully automated metro service, but that would happen over the TWU's dead body.

It does in certain places, but there are long stretches of 2 track wide cuts, for example in midwood and Jackson heights. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/7/2017 at 11:26 PM, P3F said:

Here is a general outline of one possible solution to the debate of where the Rockaway Beach line should be sent. Before reading this proposal, please understand the following points:

  • I have intentionally omitted the routing of the Queens Boulevard - Rockaway service east of Jackson Heights, because that is a different question. However, assume that there is at least some capacity on Queens Boulevard, and points west.
  • It is obvious that money will be required to perform some of the tasks necessary to run this service. Please don't be unconstructive by saying "this costs too much money" and nothing else.
  • The layout at Howard Beach is not optimal, unfortunately. However, it doesn't make this proposal's implementation impossible.
  • I am concerned only with rush hour service at the moment. Service at other times of the day would presumably be a modified version of the following.

That being said, the proposal includes two services which run on the reactivated Rockaway Beach line. I will avoid proposing specific route bullets until later.

  1. Rockaway Beach Local: Runs from Howard Beach - JFK Airport, to Roosevelt Avenue - Jackson Heights, and points west. It makes all stops between Howard Beach and the northernmost Rockaway Beach stop, and then runs via the Queens Boulevard line. I will not elaborate on whether or not it should run local or express on Queens Boulevard, because that is outside the scope of this proposal. To give a tentative list, let's say the local service stops at Howard Beach, N. Conduit Av, Aqueduct Racetrack, 101 Av - Ozone Park, Jamaica Av - Brooklyn Manor, Myrtle Av, Metropolitan Av - Parkside, and Fleet St. This service runs about 5 trains per hour during rush hours; the frequency will depend on ridership at the stations it serves.
  2. Rockaway Beach Express: Runs from Beach 116 St - Rockaway Park to the Queens Bypass (the track connection would be north of Fleet St station.) The stops could be as follows: All stops south of (and including) Broad Channel, then Howard Beach, Jamaica Av, and Metropolitan Av. Which stations are express stations can be changed depending on ridership levels (as described below.) North of Fleet St (which the service bypasses), it would merge with the Queens Bypass line and head west to Manhattan. This service would run about 4 trains per hour; maybe 5 or more if ridership levels necessitate a service increase.

There are some important notes that need to be made:

  • The (A) line's routing and frequencies are unaffected by this.
  • The express stations north of Ozone Park were chosen based on where I think ridership would be greatest, but there is no physical necessity to such an express station layout. The Rockaway Beach line right-of-way is 4 tracks wide until just past Ozone Park station, and then narrows to 2 tracks. Express service can reasonably be run on the two track section if service frequencies are kept low. If service frequencies are expected to significantly increase, it may be more cost-effective in the long run to bite the bullet and expand the right-of way (assuming such actions are even possible.)
  • This service proposal in general assumes that service runs at low frequencies. It is reasonable that a revamp would be required if service is increased to higher frequencies.

The express service would probably be called (H), and the local service bullet would be based on wherever it goes past Queens Boulevard.

Howard Beach would need to be rebuilt to add an island platform in the middle for this.

Also, I would be adding an island platform at either Aqueduct-North Conduit OR Aqueduct Racetrack to accommodate those going to and from the Casino/Racetrack there. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, BreeddekalbL said:

And besides at the racetrack station wont they have to build a sb platform?

Yes, but that is something I would do anyway, though if you only have three tracks there, a wide island platform would work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/4/2017 at 7:16 PM, D to 96 St said:

You can turn (M) trains at 2 Av-Houston if line length becomes an issue. But for some odd reason, the (A) doesn't even have this issue. 

Well Logistically the (A) has support from the (C) and the short turns to/from Ozone Park

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/9/2017 at 8:48 AM, RR503 said:

It does in certain places, but there are long stretches of 2 track wide cuts, for example in midwood and Jackson heights. 

They run about 4 trains day on the Bay Ridge for freight. Maybe 2 tracks for passenger service on one for freight? The ROW should be able to support it (3 tracks). Doing business in London at least twice a year I have to say I'm a big fan of the Overground system I think NYC can learn alot there. RX, Lower Montauk, Upper Rockaway and SIR could easily make a 3rd division and run FRA Compliant cars think PA5 (PATH) or M7 with subway layouts. This would be super deal a lot cheaper then Building from scratch. I know I've stated this before but could be a way forward. Tie it into fare control with the Existing subway.

Edited by RailRunRob
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, RailRunRob said:

They run about 4 trains day on the Bay Ridge for freight. Maybe 2 tracks for passenger service on one for freight? The ROW should be able to support it (3 tracks). Doing business in London at least twice a year I have to say I'm a big fan of the Overground system I think NYC can learn alot there. RX, Lower Montauk, Upper Rockaway and SIR could easily make a 3rd division and run FRA Compliant cars think PA5 (PATH) or M7 with subway layouts. This would be super deal a lot cheaper then Building from scratch. I know I've stated this before but could be a way forward. Tie it into fare control with the Existing subway.

Absolutely -- and if you're using FRA compliant vehicles there's no need for more than 2 tracks in those narrower areas.

The only potential problem would be with the PANYNJ. Their cross harbor program (as pie in the sky-y as it is) would funnel a lot more freight traffic to those aforementioned tracks, including double stacks. Those well cars can't clear the third rail, so either you'd have to string catenary (which costs a lot, is more of a disturbance, and makes LIRR interoperability more difficult (you'd need loads of M8s)), or get into a very complex interstate commerce lawsuit, one which the port authority would probably win. 

Even once beyond that, you have the congestion around Fresh Pond, where the NYA uses main tracks of both the LMB and Bay Ridge branch as yard space, another complex issue given our regional aversion to more railyard space. 

None of these issues are in any way irresolvable, but they are food for thought. I for one am a big supporter of an overground type network -- maybe using Freedom Ticket to begin with -- on the Bay Ridge and Lower Montauk branches (RBB should be subway given available connections at both ends). 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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

But can't the subway run along a railroad, or does the FRA not allow it?

JU7W14b.jpg

bfxLMw0.jpg

Just separation between jurisdictions 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Lawrence St said:

But can't the subway run along a railroad, or does the FRA not allow it?

This can also be done temporally, but that’s impossible in this case — freight and subway both need 24 hr access. Much much easier to use FRA compliant vehicles. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/5/2017 at 10:04 AM, LGA Link N train said:

Technically, the Bypass wouldn't necessarily be a waste if it went to Rockaways because there would be Direct Express service that goes straight into midtown. 

...

And it would ultimately be a wise Decisionto convert Woodhaven Boulevard into an express station of which the (M) would merge onto the local tracks to RBB and an open door for a LIE subway line

Not exactly. If a line from Rockaway Beach was routed onto the bypass, then it wouldn’t really be a bypass. It would just be a line running parallel to Queens Blvd between Rego Park and LIC. And not doing very much to relieve the overcrowding on the (E) and (F) or even the (M) and (R) between Rego Park and Roosevelt Ave. A Rockaway Beach line via the bypass would have very limited usefulness if it were a “Direct Express” because it would have very few stops and connections to other lines in Queens once on the LIRR Main Line right-of-way. It would have to have additional stations on the right-of-way to connect with the local bus routes that cross it to offer some relief to the (E)(F)(M)(R) by enticing bus riders onto the new service. But then it wouldn’t really be an express.

On 10/4/2017 at 7:24 PM, D to 96 St said:

The (M) cannot halve service just so it can run express. It would create merging delays at Roosevelt if the (M) ran half express. This also reduces service on QB local- unless you extend the (G) to 71 Av. No one will accept only the (R) at QB stations due to its delays. The bypass is a waste if it goes to the Rockaways. Extending the local (M) will suffice. Riders really wanting express service can transfer to the (A) at Broad Channel, Howard Beach-JFK, and the two Aqueducts. Or they can switch across the platform for the (E)(F) at Roosevelt or Woodhaven Blvd if its converted. 

Or perhaps it could be the (R), even though it is a longer line than the (M). Hey, who knows, perhaps seeing a gold (R) line next to the blue (A) line on a proposed service map (those New York State colors together on the subway map) might warm Governor Cuomo’s heart up so much that he might actually give serious consideration towards restoring rail onto the Rockaway Beach Branch, lol. 

Though I do think they should relocate the Aqueduct Racetrack stop a little further north to Linden Blvd/Centerville St. That might entice more riders to board there instead of taking the buses to the (A) at Rockaway Blvd (where both branches stop). 

  • Like 1
  • LMAO! 2
  • Upvote 1

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.