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

5 hours 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.

Not the way I would do it.  In my case:

(R) becomes brown and runs the old (RJ) route between 95th Street and in this case Essex with in-service yard run extensions that begin and end at Broadway Junction. 

(N) runs from Coney Island-96th Street/2nd Avenue via Sea Beach.

(Q) runs from Coney Island via Brighton, Broadway Local and the tunnel to Astoria

(W) runs while Whitehall Street-Rockaway Park via Broadway Local and QBL.   Overflow runs begin and end at 9th Avenue on the (D)

(M) becomes a 24/7 local between Metropolitan Avenue and 71st-Continental.  

Only overlaps in this version are the (Q) merging with the (R) and a limited number of (W) trains at DeKalb and the (R) with limited (W) trains at 36th (and in reverse past Whitehall/Broad between the (R) and (Q)  and limited (W) trains).  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Wallyhorse said:

Not the way I would do it.  In my case:

(R) becomes brown and runs the old (RJ) route between 95th Street and in this case Essex with in-service yard run extensions that begin and end at Broadway Junction. 

(N) runs from Coney Island-96th Street/2nd Avenue via Sea Beach.

(Q) runs from Coney Island via Brighton, Broadway Local and the tunnel to Astoria

(W) runs while Whitehall Street-Rockaway Park via Broadway Local and QBL.   Overflow runs begin and end at 9th Avenue on the (D)

(M) becomes a 24/7 local between Metropolitan Avenue and 71st-Continental.  

Only overlaps in this version are the (Q) merging with the (R) and a limited number of (W) trains at DeKalb and the (R) with limited (W) trains at 36th (and in reverse past Whitehall/Broad between the (R) and (Q)  and limited (W) trains).  

This works, but what would you do about the (W) merge to QBL?

Share this post


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

This works, but what would you do about the (W) merge to QBL?

That one is unavoidable.  You want as few merges as possible but you can't avoid every single one. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Wallyhorse said:

That one is unavoidable.  You want as few merges as possible but you can't avoid every single one. 

How about (E)(K)(F)(M) on QBL, (W) to Astoria, and (N)(Q) to 96th and South Brooklyn? (RJ) can run as in your plan.

Share this post


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

How about (E)(K)(F)(M) on QBL, (W) to Astoria, and (N)(Q) to 96th and South Brooklyn? (RJ) can run as in your plan.

No because the (M) does not run in lower Manhattan:

To me, for this to work, the RBB has to be a line that directly serves lower Manhattan for the RBB to get support from certain outlets that are from outside the US and still look at lower Manhattan as (even if we know better) "The Financial District."  Fair or not, to many non-New Yorkers, even if that area is actually now more residential than offices, it's still looked at by many the old way.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, Wallyhorse said:

No because the (M) does not run in lower Manhattan:

To me, for this to work, the RBB has to be a line that directly serves lower Manhattan for the RBB to get support from certain outlets that are from outside the US and still look at lower Manhattan as (even if we know better) "The Financial District."  Fair or not, to many non-New Yorkers, even if that area is actually now more residential than offices, it's still looked at by many the old way.  

From the (M), past West 4th Street, they can transfer to the (E) or (K) as well as the M20 bus on 7th Avenue S. Or the M55 on Broadway. However, the latter two options would suck another fare for those who have already used the transfer prior to getting to West 4th Street.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, Wallyhorse said:

No because the (M) does not run in lower Manhattan:

To me, for this to work, the RBB has to be a line that directly serves lower Manhattan for the RBB to get support from certain outlets that are from outside the US and still look at lower Manhattan as (even if we know better) "The Financial District."  Fair or not, to many non-New Yorkers, even if that area is actually now more residential than offices, it's still looked at by many the old way.  

You are such an idiot sometimes...

Share this post


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

No because the (M) does not run in lower Manhattan:

To me, for this to work, the RBB has to be a line that directly serves lower Manhattan for the RBB to get support from certain outlets that are from outside the US and still look at lower Manhattan as (even if we know better) "The Financial District."  Fair or not, to many non-New Yorkers, even if that area is actually now more residential than offices, it's still looked at by many the old way.  

(K) - Rockaway Park (Howard Beach during off peak hours) -> RBB -> QB Local -> 53rd St Tunnel -> 8th Avenue Local -> World Trade Center 

Problem solved. 
—————————

The RBB isn’t getting support from “certain outlets” outside the U.S. anytime soon, certainly not to the tune of 8.1 billion dollars. And I’m certain said “outlets” know just as much as “we” do where NYC’s center of financial activity is. Otherwise, they wouldn’t be doing business here, now would they? So stop pushing this theory, because it’s 100 percent untrue. I can't believe after all this time and numerous posters telling you you're wrong about it, you're still pushing this completely untrue theory.

I would support a (W) via the RBB and QB local. But not for the reasons you keep pushing. But because I don’t think the (R) should be even longer and even more unreliable than it already is and I don’t think the (M) should be subjected to even more merges than it already has. Not to mention leaving potential RBB riders at stations not also served by the (A) high and dry if the (M) has to be rerouted to Chambers St for whatever reason.  

Edited by T to Dyre Avenue
Clarifying my response
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, subwayfan1998 said:

or (G) Train would be the Best Option for RBB

if not even QBL wants the (G) why would RBB want it?.

 

How about sending the (T) via 63 st/QBL then RBB

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 The G dosen't even count since it does not go to manhattan. The last I checked the T is re4served for the 2nd ave subway.  Perhaps an orange K to Howard beach to 34th and 6th. via 53rd st and sending the M down 63rd st.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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

I would support a (W) via the RBB and QB local. But not for the reasons you keep pushing. But because I don’t think the (R) should be even longer and even more unreliable than it already is and I don’t think the (M) should be subjected to even more merges than it already has. Not to mention leaving potential RBB riders at stations not also served by the (A) high and dry if the (M) has to be rerouted to Chambers St for whatever reason.  

As said, the (R) would in this case become the old (RJ) route between Essex-95th (yard runs to/from Broadway Junction), eliminating those issues with limited exceptions.  The (N)(Q)(W) in this setup would be about as de-interlined as realistically possible with the (W) dealing with a merger with the (M) past Queens Plaza railroad north and at 63rd railroad south and with the (Q) railroad south (plus on those that are extended to Brooklyn merges with the (R) south of Whitehall/north at 36th).  That would work.

  • Confused 1

Share this post


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

As said, the (R) would in this case become the old (RJ) route between Essex-95th (yard runs to/from Broadway Junction), eliminating those issues with limited exceptions.  The (N)(Q)(W) in this setup would be about as de-interlined as realistically possible with the (W) dealing with a merger with the (M) past Queens Plaza railroad north and at 63rd railroad south and with the (Q) railroad south (plus on those that are extended to Brooklyn merges with the (R) south of Whitehall/north at 36th).  That would work.

Not exactly.

How would the (Q) be running between Brooklyn and Manhattan in this (N)(Q)(W) setup? Via Montague Tunnel or Manhattan Bridge? If it’s the former, then I can guarantee you’ll experience major pushback from Brighton Line riders who will not be pleased about their primary service being rerouted to the tunnel when it’s totally unnecessary to do so. If it’s the latter, then you’d have to reinstate the Prince St merge in order to run the (Q) local in Manhattan. Neither is a particularly desirable outcome. You’d also have to run far more (N) trains than are currently run if you’ve got the (N) as the sole 2nd Avenue/Broadway Express, which would over-serve the Sea Beach Line. 

 I think (N)(Q) via Broadway Express to 96th/2nd, (R) to Ditmars-Astoria and (W) to Howard Beach/Rockaway Park is better. Fewer merges this way. The biggest merges would be the (M) and (W) at 63rd Drive and Queens Plaza and the (R) and (W) in LIC before entering the 60th Tunnel.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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

Not exactly.

How would the (Q) be running between Brooklyn and Manhattan in this (N)(Q)(W) setup? Via Montague Tunnel or Manhattan Bridge? If it’s the former, then I can guarantee you’ll experience major pushback from Brighton Line riders who will not be pleased about their primary service being rerouted to the tunnel when it’s totally unnecessary to do so. If it’s the latter, then you’d have to reinstate the Prince St merge in order to run the (Q) local in Manhattan. Neither is a particularly desirable outcome. You’d also have to run far more (N) trains than are currently run if you’ve got the (N) as the sole 2nd Avenue/Broadway Express, which would over-serve the Sea Beach Line. 

 I think (N)(Q) via Broadway Express to 96th/2nd, (R) to Ditmars-Astoria and (W) to Howard Beach/Rockaway Park is better. Fewer merges this way. The biggest merges would be the (M) and (W) at 63rd Drive and Queens Plaza and the (R) and (W) in LIC before entering the 60th Tunnel.

I previously said in other posts via the tunnel.  Brighton riders would have to understand this is about de-interlining Manhattan on the Broadway line AND providing a Rockaway Beach Branch service that starts in lower Manhattan.  There would be no Prince Street merge.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Wallyhorse said:

I previously said in other posts via the tunnel.  Brighton riders would have to understand this is about de-interlining Manhattan on the Broadway line AND providing a Rockaway Beach Branch service that starts in lower Manhattan.  There would be no Prince Street merge.

There is literally no demonstrable need for a Lower Manhattan-Rockaway Beach Branch route. I know you see LM as being 'what the powers that be really want,' but if you so much as opened Crains or the like today, you would notice that LM is increasingly being treated as a residential market, and that business generally doesn't care much about the MTA except as an entity whose debt they can buy/refinance. And that's to say nothing of there already being routes to Lower Manhattan from all but a small portion of any RBB service's potential catchment area. 

As for the specific proposal, allow me to reiterate what I said before: the RBB will not work without Queens deinterlining. The capacity simply is not there. If you want this corridor, you have to accept deinterlining as well. And allow me to add that merging services off of Brighton at Dekalb would be an operational disaster. As regular riders in that area can tell you, the speed at which all 4th local and Brighton trains enter/leave Dekalb is...slow, which would translate into (even more) massive capacity loss under merge operation. 

  • Thumbs Up 5
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


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

Brighton riders would have to understand this is about de-interlining Manhattan on the Broadway line AND providing a Rockaway Beach Branch service that starts in lower Manhattan. 

You know that will never happen. This isn’t the first time you’ve responded with this “(so-and-so) riders will have to understand this is about...” thing (I do recall you saying this with regard to (F) Line riders who would see a substantial cut in service to their stations under a hypothetical full <F> express service plan). Those words are not a justification for what will amount to service patterns that will inconvenience many more riders than will benefit. Telling said riders who will be inconvenienced that “they have to understand” sends exactly the wrong message. And that’s exactly the case with this whole (N)(Q)(W) setup you’ve proposed. We don’t need to create a new merge at DeKalb Avenue and inconvenience all of South Brooklyn to make the (W) fit on QBL and RBB. 

Edited by T to Dyre Avenue
  • Thumbs Up 1
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/20/2019 at 11:18 PM, T to Dyre Avenue said:

You know that will never happen. This isn’t the first time you’ve responded with this “(so-and-so) riders will have to understand this is about...” thing (I do recall you saying this with regard to (F) Line riders who would see a substantial cut in service to their stations under a hypothetical full <F> express service plan). Those words are not a justification for what will amount to service patterns that will inconvenience many more riders than will benefit. Telling said riders who will be inconvenienced that “they have to understand” sends exactly the wrong message. And that’s exactly the case with this whole (N)(Q)(W) setup you’ve proposed. We don’t need to create a new merge at DeKalb Avenue and inconvenience all of South Brooklyn to make the (W) fit on QBL and RBB. 

I don’t mind the authoritarian tone as much as I mind the fact that Brighton has far more ridership than any station hanging on the LIRR portion of the Fulton Street line. The ridership facts just show how much less the Rockaways matter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, N6 Limited said:

For the RBB, couldn't they just send the (M) or (R) down there? It would also reduce the backups at 71st ave.

Maybe the (M). I have a gut feeling that extending the (R) could exacerbate the already-poor reliability. It should be removed from Queens Blvd entirely.  

Share this post


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

Maybe the (M). I have a gut feeling that extending the (R) could exacerbate the already-poor reliability. It should be removed from Queens Blvd entirely.  

Technically they could extend the (G) down there since:

1) QBL Local tracks have capacity

2) It won't need to utilize terminal capacity at 71st Ave

3) It would actually become the Queens Crosstown as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The whole point is *IF they reactivate this line,it is to get people a one seat ride to Manhattan. The G does not go to Manhattan.  Passengers could use the M or an orange K.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, N6 Limited said:

For the RBB, couldn't they just send the (M) or (R) down there? It would also reduce the backups at 71st ave.

16 hours ago, JeremiahC99 said:

Maybe the (M). I have a gut feeling that extending the (R) could exacerbate the already-poor reliability. It should be removed from Queens Blvd entirely.  

Previously, I too was in favor of sending the (M) or (R) down the rebuilt RBB. But over time, I’ve come to believe that extending either of those lines will make them even more unreliable than they already are. The (M) has lots of merges with other lines and often gets rerouted to Chambers St when there’s a problem on QBL. The (R) suffers more from being a very long local route (longer than the (M)), but has more than its share of merges too, all of which contribute to it being a very unreliable service.

Really, any subway line that gets extended onto the RBB shouldn’t continue south of Manhattan. Fortunately, there are several ways it can be done. In the short term (assuming SAS only gets to Phase 2), I’d reroute the (W) to the QBL in place of the (R) and extend the (W) down RBB. 

(K) - Part of a deinterlined QBL. Runs via 53rd St tunnel and 8th Avenue local. Terminates at World Trade Center.

( V ) - Would function as the second SAS service when Phase 3 comes on line. Runs via 63rd St tunnel and 2nd Ave. Last stop to be determined, depending how far downtown they build SAS.
 

14 hours ago, N6 Limited said:

Technically they could extend the (G) down there since:

1) QBL Local tracks have capacity

2) It won't need to utilize terminal capacity at 71st Ave

3) It would actually become the Queens Crosstown as well.

(G) trains on QBL would be carrying mostly air after most of its riders make a mass exodus onto the (E) or (F) at the first available express stop. Extending the (G) down RBB would be like putting the Q53 bus on rails. And, unless one of the existing QBL locals is removed, you’d still have two lines relaying at Continental. And those lines wouldn’t be able to run frequently than now, because they would then have to share the local tracks with the (G), meaning less service once they merge off QBL. This is a major pitfall of reverse-branching.

Edited by T to Dyre Avenue
  • Upvote 2

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.