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.
Union Tpke

ROCKAWAY BEACH BRANCH STUDY IS OUT

Recommended Posts

6 hours ago, bobtehpanda said:

With anecdotally observed SRO loads at Kew Gardens on both (E) and (F) , I don't know that this is manageable. As a former daily rider, I fully expect even a deinterlined QBL to be fully subscribed; it's not as if (F) trains have room because they go via 63rd.

Queens is now the second most populous borough, I wouldn't be surprised if it becomes the first sometime soon, and much of that growth has been happening east of the Van Wyck. (Zoning may not reflect that, but anecdotally there are a lot of illegally subdivided houses in Eastern and SE Queens.

That is my home stop, and yes, they are almost always SRO only. R46s (F)s and (E)s from 179th have some seats available, but (E)s are always more crowded than (F)s.

 

3 hours ago, Cabanamaner said:

Reminds me of the whole elevator debacle at 68th Street (6) where residents of that neighborhood don’t want elevators on 69th street because it would “change the character” of that street. Ridiculousness.

Slight clarification. The elevators would go at 68th, and new staircases would go in at 69th, which they are opposed to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Cabanamaner said:

Reminds me of the whole elevator debacle at 68th Street (6) where residents of that neighborhood don’t want elevators on 69th street because it would “change the character” of that street. Ridiculousness.

In the case of 68th, many of those homes were owned by those in their final years and likely have (or had) heirs looking to sell it for megabucks.  They likely were very concerned such elevators would severely decrease the value of their property, especially for the type of clientele they were looking to have buy it once they could sell. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let me add my $0.02 here, I would either have the blue K come back again..........or have a reincarnated V train to Howard beach via QBL, 8th Ave and 6th ave. after W4th st. to 2nd ave/Houston st. This time the V bullet would be in blue and not in orange. I'm not saying this will happen, I just giving my opinion on it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/13/2019 at 4:05 AM, T J Trainman said:

Let me add my $0.02 here, I would either have the blue K come back again..........or have a reincarnated V train to Howard beach via QBL, 8th Ave and 6th ave. after W4th st. to 2nd ave/Houston st. This time the V bullet would be in blue and not in orange. I'm not saying this will happen, I just giving my opinion on it.

I like it, though I think the reincarnated V should go to WTC alongside the (E). It shouldn’t switch from 8th to 6th after West 4th Street because it would delay the other lines that run through there.

  • Thumbs Up 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What is the deal with the connection to the A train in the subway option? Looks like they copped out on designing a proper junction or they were short on time to do so.

Since the ROW is on a dedicated viaduct/embankment, I was thinking have the southbound RBB line duck under the NB Rockaway track before coming up to join the SB Rockaway track.

The price tag is pretty steep and will be a big hurtle. I'm thinking maybe build the line in two phases, QBL to Atlantic and then Atlantic to Aqueduct.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, SmallParkShuttle said:

What is the deal with the connection to the A train in the subway option? Looks like they copped out on designing a proper junction or they were short on time to do so.

Since the ROW is on a dedicated viaduct/embankment, I was thinking have the southbound RBB line duck under the NB Rockaway track before coming up to join the SB Rockaway track.

The price tag is pretty steep and will be a big hurtle. I'm thinking maybe build the line in two phases, QBL to Atlantic and then Atlantic to Aqueduct.

Or QBL to Rockaway Blvd first.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only reason that this project would have such a high price tag is because NYCT refuses to use cut-and-cover construction even though it's faster and cheaper. The insistence on TBMs and the allergy to elevated construction are a big cause of the extreme expense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Jcb said:

The only reason that this project would have such a high price tag is because NYCT refuses to use cut-and-cover construction even though it's faster and cheaper. The insistence on TBMs and the allergy to elevated construction are a big cause of the extreme expense.

It’s not even that. Do you really think that Half a mile of TBM’s is worth $2 Billion?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Jcb said:

The only reason that this project would have such a high price tag is because NYCT refuses to use cut-and-cover construction even though it's faster and cheaper. The insistence on TBMs and the allergy to elevated construction are a big cause of the extreme expense.

1) Someone more knowledgeable on transit construction can probably do this better, but I believe there's some federal requirement about tunnels' walkways and the ADA that makes TBMs the option easiest to pass FTA scrutiny and get funded; and
2) Manhattan assessed itself a tax to bring down the Els because they're unsightly and noisy with how (NYCT) and even (MTA) will build them. Why shouldn't folks who aren't wealthy UES/UWS residents have an unsightly viaduct increasing neighborhood noise when it could go underground instead? Watch the experience of folks along Broadway with the (J)(M) or Jerome Ave with (4) and it's clearly evident why you don't want high frequency transit on an elevated structure when it could go underground.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, LaGuardia Link N Tra said:

It’s not even that. Do you really think that Half a mile of TBM’s is worth $2 Billion?

No. That's still a ridiculous cost. It should be less.

 

4 hours ago, Deucey said:

1) Someone more knowledgeable on transit construction can probably do this better, but I believe there's some federal requirement about tunnels' walkways and the ADA that makes TBMs the option easiest to pass FTA scrutiny and get funded

Understood.

4 hours ago, Deucey said:

2) Manhattan assessed itself a tax to bring down the Els because they're unsightly and noisy with how (NYCT) and even (MTA) will build them. Why shouldn't folks who aren't wealthy UES/UWS residents have an unsightly viaduct increasing neighborhood noise when it could go underground instead? Watch the experience of folks along Broadway with the (J)(M) or Jerome Ave with (4) and it's clearly evident why you don't want high frequency transit on an elevated structure when it could go underground.

New elevated construction isn't like most of what we have in this city. It can be much quieter and much lower-impact, much like the AirTrain's viaduct.

 

600px-Roosevelt-avenue-queens-nyc_cars_d

The above picture is absolutely not an ideal form of construction.

2560px-TRTC_Bombardier_INNOVIA_APM_256_2

Something like this would be much lower-impact. No one considers these because the words "elevated line" conjure up visions of the old steel frameworks. They just need rebranding, at least in my opinion.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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

1) Someone more knowledgeable on transit construction can probably do this better, but I believe there's some federal requirement about tunnels' walkways and the ADA that makes TBMs the option easiest to pass FTA scrutiny and get funded; and
2) Manhattan assessed itself a tax to bring down the Els because they're unsightly and noisy with how (NYCT) and even (MTA) will build them. Why shouldn't folks who aren't wealthy UES/UWS residents have an unsightly viaduct increasing neighborhood noise when it could go underground instead? Watch the experience of folks along Broadway with the (J)(M) or Jerome Ave with (4) and it's clearly evident why you don't want high frequency transit on an elevated structure when it could go underground.

 

1 hour ago, Jcb said:

No. That's still a ridiculous cost. It should be less.

 

Understood.

New elevated construction isn't like most of what we have in this city. It can be much quieter and much lower-impact, much like the AirTrain's viaduct.

 

The above picture is absolutely not an ideal form of construction.

 

Something like this would be much lower-impact. No one considers these because the words "elevated line" conjure up visions of the old steel frameworks. They just need rebranding, at least in my opinion.

But the Rockaway branch is already outdoors and on an earthen embankment for most of its way. It’ll definitely need a new bridge over the Lower Montauk branch, but I can’t imagine that bothering people who live next to the branch. Maybe the massive old structure between Liberty and Atlantic Avenues is deficient and in need of replacement. But that’s not a steel el.

Share this post


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

Something like this would be much lower-impact. No one considers these because the words "elevated line" conjure up visions of the old steel frameworks. They just need rebranding, at least in my opinion.

How about instead of calling them elevated line, we call them Street viaducts. Paint the structure into pretty colors as well and that should do? After all, who wouldn’t like a concrete viaduct that is colored blue and yellow blending into the cityscape lol.

On a more serious note, if we are to do more outdoor Subway, the one option we can do is an embankment in between the block rather than over the Street. Vanshnookenraggen proposed that for a modern plan for the Utica Avenue a Subway, having an elevated line on the west Side of Utica Avenue through Flatlands, and having development built around it to replace Chop shops.

Share this post


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

New elevated construction isn't like most of what we have in this city. It can be much quieter and much lower-impact, much like the AirTrain's viaduct.

You’re telling an ex-Californian this - where EVERY TRAIN except the LA Subway is on a viaduct for part of its trip.

Yes, I Know. The operative thing I said in relation to this is:

6 hours ago, Jcb said:

2) Manhattan assessed itself a tax to bring down the Els because they're unsightly and noisy with how (NYCT) and even (MTA) will build them.

 

Share this post


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

2) Manhattan assessed itself a tax to bring down the Els because they're unsightly and noisy with how (NYCT) and even (MTA) will build them.

Even though I disagree with the idea that a modern el would still be unsightly and noisy, I understand where you're coming from.

 

4 hours ago, JeremiahC99 said:

On a more serious note, if we are to do more outdoor Subway, the one option we can do is an embankment in between the block rather than over the Street. Vanshnookenraggen proposed that for a modern plan for the Utica Avenue a Subway, having an elevated line on the west Side of Utica Avenue through Flatlands, and having development built around it to replace Chop shops.

That would also allow the MTA to recoup some costs of construction by renting space around the line, much like Japan's train station apartment complexes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, JeremiahC99 said:

How about instead of calling them elevated line, we call them Street viaducts. Paint the structure into pretty colors as well and that should do? After all, who wouldn’t like a concrete viaduct that is colored blue and yellow blending into the cityscape lol.

On a more serious note, if we are to do more outdoor Subway, the one option we can do is an embankment in between the block rather than over the Street. Vanshnookenraggen proposed that for a modern plan for the Utica Avenue a Subway, having an elevated line on the west Side of Utica Avenue through Flatlands, and having development built around it to replace Chop shops.

But without having a long stretch of alleyway (NYC doesn’t have a whole lot of these, unlike Chicago with its many alley ‘L’ routes) or other ready-made non-public right of way, this won’t be a viable option in many places. My concern with doing this for Utica, will be that all those chop shops band together to sue the City and the (MTA). It seems like Chicago had a much easier time telling NIMBYs to go pound sand and taking the property required to build the new flyover for the northbound Brown Line where it branches off from the Purple and Red lines just north of the Belmont station. 

Edited by T to Dyre Avenue

Share this post


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

But without having a long stretch of alleyway (NYC doesn’t have a whole lot of these, unlike Chicago with its many alley ‘L’ routes) or other ready-made non-public right of way, this won’t be a viable option in many places. My concern with doing this for Utica, will be that all those chop shops band together to sue the City and the (MTA). It seems like Chicago had a much easier time telling NIMBYs to go pound sand and taking the property required to build the new flyover for the northbound Brown Line where it branches off from the Purple and Red lines just north of the Belmont station. 

The chop shops would sue the (MTA) to redevelop a neighborhood with a new modern elevated subway and new residential and commercial development so more people can come live in Flatlands? What are they smoking?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, JeremiahC99 said:

The chop shops would sue the (MTA) to redevelop a neighborhood with a new modern elevated subway and new residential and commercial development so more people can come live in Flatlands? What are they smoking?

Imagine you run a business on a major commercial street, and the state wants to take that away and demolish it. The natural reaction is to oppose it, unless the payoff is actually really good.

I'm not defending the quality of the businesses on Utica (I don't even really know what's over there), but I'm saying it's not an unreasonable reaction to have.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, P3F said:

I'm not defending the quality of the businesses on Utica (I don't even really know what's over there), but I'm saying it's not an unreasonable reaction to have.

I live a few blocks from Utica Avenue, more specially on the southern part of the corridor south of the Bay Ridge Branch. Here is what they have:

-A few fast food restaurants

-single or double story commercial and light industrial buildings

-a parking lot

-PS 326 (At Avenue J)

-9 residential buildings (At Avenue M)

All of these are located on the West Side of Utica Avenue, where the new line would be located (I have personally frequented a few of those commercial buildings), and can be easily be replaced with much better development (with a great payoff). Between Avenue O and Fillmore Avenue is the (MTA) NYCT Flatbush Depot, housing nearly 250 buses serving Southeast Brooklyn routes. The depot would remain, but would be modified to house a small yard on the roof.

29 minutes ago, P3F said:

Imagine you run a business on a major commercial street, and the state wants to take that away and demolish it. The natural reaction is to oppose it, unless the payoff is actually really good.

Well with a good payoff, they should be able to relocate the businesses somewhere and accept a modern elevated on the west side of the street. Vanshnookenraggen also proposed an elevated on the West Side of the Street.

http://www.vanshnookenraggen.com/_index/2018/03/the-future-of-the-utica-ave-subway/

And this should be done to the Rockaway Beach Branch. As a pre-existing outdoor rail structure surrounded by light commercial activity, reactivating the rail line would make the area near the line ripe for redevelopment. Perhaps an apartment near Liberty Avenue would be great.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/14/2019 at 10:06 PM, Jcb said:

The only reason that this project would have such a high price tag is because NYCT refuses to use cut-and-cover construction even though it's faster and cheaper. The insistence on TBMs and the allergy to elevated construction are a big cause of the extreme expense.

The tunneling is not the main cost of it (IIRC the tunnel component of SAS Phase I was 25% of the total project costs) but the massive stations. Full-length mezzanines aren't cheap.

On 10/15/2019 at 9:59 AM, Jcb said:

New elevated construction isn't like most of what we have in this city. It can be much quieter and much lower-impact, much like the AirTrain's viaduct.

2560px-TRTC_Bombardier_INNOVIA_APM_256_2

Something like this would be much lower-impact. No one considers these because the words "elevated line" conjure up visions of the old steel frameworks. They just need rebranding, at least in my opinion.

You'll notice that that el is pretty far from the building wall. Most roads in New York are not wide enough to have nearly as much separation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So I took a similar approach to JeremiahC99 As I decided to swap the (R) and (W) having the (R) terminate at a extended version of Astoria Line to LaGuardia Airport along with the (N)  . The (W) will run QBL until 63 Dr- Rego Park where the W will turn at 66 Av then go via Clyde/Fleet/Selfridge St. Than it will eventually go via Woodhaven then the tracks on 99/100 Sts.

Stations I propose

Austin St

Yellowstone Blvd

Metropolitan Av- Union Type

Brooklyn Manor- Jamaica Av

Atlantic Av

Liberty Av 

Linden Blvd - Pitkin Av

(take off Aquaduct Racetrack or leave it there)

Aquaduct - North Conduit

Broad Channel

(Discontinue Rockaway Park Shuttle)

Beach 90 St

Beach 98 St

Beach 105 St

Rockaway Park - Beach 116 St

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, subwaykid256 said:

So I took a similar approach to JeremiahC99 As I decided to swap the (R) and (W) having the (R) terminate at a extended version of Astoria Line to LaGuardia Airport along with the (N)  . The (W) will run QBL until 63 Dr- Rego Park where the W will turn at 66 Av then go via Clyde/Fleet/Selfridge St. Than it will eventually go via Woodhaven then the tracks on 99/100 Sts.

Stations I propose

Austin St

Yellowstone Blvd

Metropolitan Av- Union Type

Brooklyn Manor- Jamaica Av

Atlantic Av

Liberty Av 

Linden Blvd - Pitkin Av

(take off Aquaduct Racetrack or leave it there)

Aquaduct - North Conduit

Broad Channel

(Discontinue Rockaway Park Shuttle)

Beach 90 St

Beach 98 St

Beach 105 St

Rockaway Park - Beach 116 St

 

I would’ve just removed Broadway service from QBL in its entirety, due to the (R) being a sh*t show with its route on QBL and the 60th Street Tunnel connection being a bottleneck on the entire Broadway Line. 

My plans for the RBB go in tandem with the revisions for my grand master plan I posted last month in the proposals thread. The new plan would include the feedback from users who suggested some improvements, notably reworking the SAS and deinterlining QBL. While this is still a work in progress, one is the points here is that the RBB connection will NOT involve the Broadway Line in ANY capacity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

QBL needs to be de-interlined and (R)(W) service should go to Astoria. As part of a removal of reverse-branching I would run (E)(K) service express via 53 and (F)(M) local via 63. (M) service would run to the Rockaways and (F) to Northern Queens via Jewel/73rd Ave. As an alternative an (H) service could run to the Rockaways from Jackson Heights, allowing (M) service to Jamaica-179th.

Edited by Harlem Crosstown

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Harlem Crosstown said:

QBL needs to be de-interlined and (R)(W) service should go to Astoria. As part of a removal of reverse-branching I would run (E)(K) service express via 53 and (F)(M) local via 63. (M) service would run to the Rockaways and (F) to Northern Queens via Jewel/73rd Ave. As an alternative an (H) service could run to the Rockaways from Jackson Heights, allowing (M) service to Jamaica-179th.

Exactly my point. I have proposed something similar in my grand plan (at least for the Astoria bit), and am including the deinterlining the QBL for my revised plan, which will encompass more plans than I initially encountered. However, on the note of deinterline the QBL, if you want to do the express to 53rd and Local to 63rd Street plan, you should also extend the (G) as well, otherwise riders from the local stops lose access to Queens Plaza and Court Sq.

With CBTC, I also recommend running all three trains at 12 trains per hour, for a total of 36 trains per hour on the local track. This would allow for decent service on all branches.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, JeremiahC99 said:

Exactly my point. I have proposed something similar in my grand plan (at least for the Astoria bit), and am including the deinterlining the QBL for my revised plan, which will encompass more plans than I initially encountered. However, on the note of deinterline the QBL, if you want to do the express to 53rd and Local to 63rd Street plan, you should also extend the (G) as well, otherwise riders from the local stops lose access to Queens Plaza and Court Sq.

With CBTC, I also recommend running all three trains at 12 trains per hour, for a total of 36 trains per hour on the local track. This would allow for decent service on all branches.

This works perfectly, I will say that the 36 tph on the local only works if the (M) is taken off Willamsburg. I will discuss this in the Proposals thread.

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.