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.
Sign in to follow this  
Union Tpke

ROCKAWAY BEACH BRANCH STUDY IS OUT

Recommended Posts

Agreed. There should be only one line relaying at 71st-Continental if we do RBB. One of the proposal’s selling points is how it would reduce conga lines on the northbound QB local if one of the local routes is moved onto the branch. But if we still have two routes relaying at 71st (i.e., if the (G) is extended or substitutes for a rerouted (M) or (R)), then that goes right out the window. 

Edited by T to Dyre Avenue
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just gonna throw this out there: the solution to bad terminal ops is good terminal ops, not a new subway line. With a little creativity and discipline, that place could, you know, work. 

And FWIW, if you're looking for a relief terminal for FH, there already exists one at 179. 

 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, RR503 said:

Just gonna throw this out there: the solution to bad terminal ops is good terminal ops, not a new subway line. With a little creativity and discipline, that place could, you know, work. 

And FWIW, if you're looking for a relief terminal for FH, there already exists one at 179. 

 

Why they dont extend the (M) to 179th St is beyond me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Probably for the same reason they stopped running the (R) to 179th in 1993. Hillside riders didn’t want to ride on a local all the way through Queens during rush hours, so they bailed on the (R) at Parsons or Union in favor of the (F). Don’t get me wrong. I would be willing to give the (M) a shot at 179 as a near-term option for relieving terminal ops at Forest Hills. Maybe it would be different with it being on the same trunk line in Manhattan as the (F). On the other hand, the (M) is limited to 480-foot trains due to the shorter Eastern Division station platforms. 

Edited by T to Dyre Avenue
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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

Probably for the same reason they stopped running the (R) to 179th in 1993. Hillside riders didn’t want to ride on a local all the way through Queens during rush hours, so they bailed on the (R) at Parsons or Union in favor of the (F). Don’t get me wrong. I would be willing to give the (M) a shot at 179 as a near-term option for relieving terminal ops at Forest Hills. Maybe it would be different with it being on the same trunk line in Manhattan as the (F). On the other hand, the (M) is limited to 480-foot trains due to the shorter Eastern Division station platforms. 

Extending the QBL locals to 179 St benefits mainly the MTA by improving service reliability, which indirectly benefits the riders too. If deinterlining is implemented and QBL local tph increases above 20, then the 179 St extension has to happen because FH can't handle any additional trains.  

The tradeoff is the additional train sets and crews associated with them. Do the benefits outweigh the costs?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Caelestor said:

Extending the QBL locals to 179 St benefits mainly the MTA by improving service reliability, which indirectly benefits the riders too. If deinterlining is implemented and QBL local tph increases above 20, then the 179 St extension has to happen because FH can't handle any additional trains.  

The tradeoff is the additional train sets and crews associated with them. Do the benefits outweigh the costs?

Benefits the riders where? Everyone other than Union Turnpike, 179, and Parsons now has to pick between adding an additional transfer or a much slower ride. Significant amounts of riders get off at 169 and other local stops, and many of those are transferring from long bus journeys.

This won't fly.

Share this post


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

Benefits the riders where? Everyone other than Union Turnpike, 179, and Parsons now has to pick between adding an additional transfer or a much slower ride. Significant amounts of riders get off at 169 and other local stops, and many of those are transferring from long bus journeys.

This won't fly.

I mean its also this one seat ride mentality in NYC why we interline everything with everything. Sometimes its best to deinterline and let the passengers transfer.

Those people who get off at 169th could get off at 179th. In fact I think most of them get off at 169th because its the first opportunity to do so, but if the service ran express, much more people will get off at 179th. It will also result in a faster ride for those coming into 179th on the buses

Edited by Mtatransit

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/30/2019 at 12:13 PM, BreeddekalbL said:

It's better that if it is Subway you remove a line from relaying at Forest hills 

100% - If you want to do a shuttle to the Rockaways then one or both of the locals needs to go somewhere else like 73rd avenue or 179th Street.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The (E) already goes to 179th St and I've seen lots of riders taking it. During rush hours, the (M) just HAS to go to 179th St because Forest Hills during rush hour is an absolute joke.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Once again, Forest Hills need not be as bad as it is. The terminal largely suffers an organizational issue when it comes to crews and their readiness to take trains into relay as soon as they’re cleared — thanks to the sheer number of platform CRs, train clearing rarely takes more than 30-40s. If we can just get that right, voila, fluidity.

Now that said, 179 _would_ be a higher capacity terminal. The absence of a switch at the leaving end of the local plats allows trains to enter faster, and as we all know, seconds count for a lot. Question is how high you can guarantee all day frequencies to be to mitigate the time loss thanks to xfers and increased runtimes. 

Edited by RR503

Share this post


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

I mean its also this one seat ride mentality in NYC why we interline everything with everything. Sometimes its best to deinterline and let the passengers transfer.

Those people who get off at 169th could get off at 179th. In fact I think most of them get off at 169th because its the first opportunity to do so, but if the service ran express, much more people will get off at 179th. It will also result in a faster ride for those coming into 179th on the buses

Looking at the Queens bus map, there are a multitude of routes running into the area serving the local and express stations. The 4 local stations in question are:

  • 75 Avenue
  • Briarwood
  • Sutphin Boulevard
  • 169 Street

At each of those stations, there is at least one adjacent express station. Should express and local service be implemented, the most obvious solution for those who insist on getting to an express train without an additional transfer is to walk a little further to reach the express station. For those who live right by the affected stations and has a longer walk to the next one, what are the possible scenarios?

  • The local trains run infrequently compared to the express (F) trains. Waiting for the local to take me to the nearest express station, I see the express trains that I need pass by my station.
  • The local and express trains run just as frequently. If I miss an express train across the platform, the next express train comes before the next local train.
  • The local trains run frequently compared to the express (F) trains. The next express train is a few minutes away if I miss one across the platform.

In any case, there is no one-seat ride. This is something that might be a necessary evil for better operations.

For bus riders, what do they gain or lose?

  • 75 Avenue: all buses that stop here also stop at both Forest Hills–71 Avenue ((E)(F)) and Kew Gardens–Union Turnpike ((E)(F)).
  • Briarwood: all buses that stop here also stop at Jamaica–Van Wyck ((E)).
  • Sutphin Boulevard: all buses that stop here also stop at Jamaica–Van Wyck ((E)) and/or Sutphin Boulevard–Archer Avenue ((E)).
  • 169 Street: most buses that stop here also stop at Jamaica–179 Street and Parsons Boulevard ((F)).
    • The Q30 and Q31 buses stop at Sutphin Boulevard–Archer Avenue ((E)).

It would appear that in more than half the affected stations (169 Street being a partial case), the alternative is to take the (E), which may or may not be the train that’s needed. If not, then the preferred choice of (F) is taken away. Ridership figures will give a hint as to how many people will be negatively impacted, but ridership patterns may also change in response to service patterns. For some PM rush passengers originating from a station that serves both the (E) and (F), they now have only the choice of taking the (E) or taking the (F) and then transferring to a local for their buses.

One question that I don’t think can be answered yet is how any of this is better for operations. Often cited problems include: the slowless of the switch at 75 Avenue; the conga lines coming into Forest Hills–71 Avenue; or the total run time of the (F). There’s a balance, and how many of the remedies create new problems or just shift the problem elsewhere?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, CenSin said:

 

  • 75 Avenue: all buses that stop here also stop at both Forest Hills–71 Avenue ((E)(F)) and Kew Gardens–Union Turnpike ((E)(F)).
  • Briarwood: all buses that stop here also stop at Jamaica–Van Wyck ((E)).
  • Sutphin Boulevard: all buses that stop here also stop at Jamaica–Van Wyck ((E)) and/or Sutphin Boulevard–Archer Avenue ((E)).
  • 169 Street: most buses that stop here also stop at Jamaica–179 Street and Parsons Boulevard ((F)).
    • The Q30 and Q31 buses stop at Sutphin Boulevard–Archer Avenue ((E)).

I want to say right now that the (E) is not a substitute for the (F) being available in Jamaica. We all know bus traffic in Jamaica is horrendously slow. Travelling between Hillside and Jamaica on a bus is like pulling teeth, and it could potentially add ten extra minutes to a commute.

Why are we trying to make the lives of people who already have long bus+subway commutes even shittier, for some arbitrary goal of improving local frequency when the locals are not what the overwhelming amount of QBL demand is? Are we trying to kneecap declining ridership even more?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Mtatransit said:

I mean its also this one seat ride mentality in NYC why we interline everything with everything. Sometimes its best to deinterline and let the passengers transfer.

Those people who get off at 169th could get off at 179th. In fact I think most of them get off at 169th because its the first opportunity to do so, but if the service ran express, much more people will get off at 179th. It will also result in a faster ride for those coming into 179th on the buses

This is not even 'one seat ride' mentality. You are turning what are two seat rides (subway + bus) into three seat rides. And this is assuming that riders aren't also transferring at (F) stations in Manhattan.

Every additional transfer is an additional 20 minutes because you missed your connection and the next train is late because of "signal problems" or whatever the mess of the day is. If you want ridership to nosedive adding needless connections is a great way to start.

Share this post


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

I want to say right now that the (E) is not a substitute for the (F) being available in Jamaica. We all know bus traffic in Jamaica is horrendously slow. Travelling between Hillside and Jamaica on a bus is like pulling teeth, and it could potentially add ten extra minutes to a commute.

Why are we trying to make the lives of people who already have long bus+subway commutes even shittier, for some arbitrary goal of improving local frequency when the locals are not what the overwhelming amount of QBL demand is? Are we trying to kneecap declining ridership even more?

It’s worth noting that if we’re going to manage any more growth in Queens east of Roosevelt, high quality/capacity/frequency local service that’s routed in such a way to be attractive will be crucial. I’m of the opinion that can be achieved at Forest Hills, but it’s also quite possible that the poor layout of that terminal would prevent it, especially under CBTC. In that case, I think you’ve gotta look at the tradeoffs involved here — not everyone is a loser in the local extension scenario, and it’s shitty planning to ignore those who gain. I certainly don’t think this is a perfect plan, but I think that a proper evaluation is called for. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/2/2019 at 7:21 PM, RR503 said:

It’s worth noting that if we’re going to manage any more growth in Queens east of Roosevelt, high quality/capacity/frequency local service that’s routed in such a way to be attractive will be crucial. I’m of the opinion that can be achieved at Forest Hills, but it’s also quite possible that the poor layout of that terminal would prevent it, especially under CBTC. In that case, I think you’ve gotta look at the tradeoffs involved here — not everyone is a loser in the local extension scenario, and it’s shitty planning to ignore those who gain. I certainly don’t think this is a perfect plan, but I think that a proper evaluation is called for. 

I don’t get why two services terminate at FH, then (F) runs local and (E) express until the QBL/Archer split instead of extending (M) or (R) to 179th and keeping (F) express to 179th St.

Eliminates a merge and fumigation delays, and could add a few TPH to the locals to improve service in Bk and MAN (assuming (R) turns back at 71st).

Share this post


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

I don’t get why two services terminate at FH, then (F) runs local and (E) express until the QBL/Archer split instead of extending (M) or (R) to 179th and keeping (F) express to 179th St.

Eliminates a merge and fumigation delays, and could add a few TPH to the locals to improve service in Bk and MAN (assuming (R) turns back at 71st).

If you're going to extend the locals, you pretty much have to extend both to realize the benefits of 179 -- otherwise you'd get Church. And at that point, you have a $$$ issue, an equipment issue, a "selling the change to local riders" issue, a "179 is still very much susceptible to long dwell b/c train clearing" issue. Maybe the improved geometry/flexibility/terminal layout at 179 will actually provide a good capacity bump, idk. But the lion's share of the issue with Forest Hills is policy-driven, and that should be fixed to the extent that we can do so before we spend on an extension.

You don't eliminate the (E)(F) merge btw -- you just move it to Briarwood.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, RR503 said:

If you're going to extend the locals, you pretty much have to extend both to realize the benefits of 179 -- otherwise you'd get Church. And at that point, you have a $$$ issue, an equipment issue, a "selling the change to local riders" issue, a "179 is still very much susceptible to long dwell b/c train clearing" issue. Maybe the improved geometry/flexibility/terminal layout at 179 will actually provide a good capacity bump, idk. But the lion's share of the issue with Forest Hills is policy-driven, and that should be fixed to the extent that we can do so before we spend on an extension.

You don't eliminate the (E)(F) merge btw -- you just move it to Briarwood.

The 1988 service plan improved service by moving the merge to Briarwood.

http://www.laguardiawagnerarchive.lagcc.cuny.edu/FileBrowser.aspx?LinkToFile=FILES_DOC/QUEENS_FILES/03.012.0231.030147.3.PDF

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/2/2019 at 1:11 PM, bobtehpanda said:

This is not even 'one seat ride' mentality. You are turning what are two seat rides (subway + bus) into three seat rides. And this is assuming that riders aren't also transferring at (F) stations in Manhattan.

Every additional transfer is an additional 20 minutes because you missed your connection and the next train is late because of "signal problems" or whatever the mess of the day is. If you want ridership to nosedive adding needless connections is a great way to start.

The number of trains per hour between Jamaica-Forest Hills will increase, and it will also reduce delays along QBL locals at 67th Ave. Those who want the express can always transfer at, Parsons, Kew Garden or Forest Hills which should see the same amount of (F) service.

Those people who currently have long bus rides from Eastern Queens or Nassau, usually gets on the train at Jamaica-179th St anyways, so they will not be affected. In fact they now get a one seat ride to stations along the Broadway Line. 

Those going to Eastern Queens/Nassau usually gets OFF at 169th St. But that will change with the (F) express. 

There wouldn't be any three seat rides for those coming in East. You want an express to Manhattan, take the (F) at 179th St, you want to go to those local stops take the (M) or (R) . You want to go to 6th Av? Take the (M) . Is it about 10 minute slower? Yes but I would argue its much more reliable than the QB Express anyways

Edited by Mtatransit
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Meanwhile, Andrew “Vanshnookenragen” Lynch and Rick Horan have a new and very comprehensive website advocating for extending subway service onto the Rockaway branch together with a linear park - http://thequeenslink.org/ 

I must say it does make a good case for restoring the branch. Though I still don’t think the (M) should be the line that’s extended onto the branch, nor do I think the (G) should return to Queens Blvd.

Edited by T to Dyre Avenue

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, T J Trainman said:

I kind of like the new idea to a point.  I think M would do fine going to rock park.  Didn't the C go to rock park at one time or another?

Yes.  From 1976 until 1992

Service Adjustment on BMT and IND Lines Effective 1 A.M. Monday, Aug. 30October 1992 New York City Subway Map Service Guide

 

  • Thumbs Up 1

Share this post


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

Meanwhile, Andrew “Vanshnookenragen” Lynch and Rick Horan have a new and very comprehensive website advocating for extending subway service onto the Rockaway branch together with a linear park - http://thequeenslink.org/ 

I must say it does make a good case for restoring the branch. Though I still don’t think the (M) should be the line that’s extended onto the branch, nor do I think the (G) should return to Queens Blvd.

I looked at the site, and it is pretty good. I must say that the modern aerial guideway option is a pretty neat option. They should implement it on the RBB as a pilot for future elevated structures. For some reason, I could see this happening for the potential Utica Avenue Line to Kings Plaza. 
 

As for service, I am proposing this alongside several other Queens projects, such as the Queens Bypass to Jamaica Center (now a relief Line), extension of the Hillside Avenue section of Queens Blvd to Springfield Blvd in Queens Village, and extensions of both Archer Avenue levels to Hollis (Lower level) and Rosedale at Francis Lewis (Upper level). Alongside the RBB, four projects (the archer extensions I count as two separate ones) will allow for increase in train turnaround capacity and service into underserved areas of Queens. The problem with putting all of these projects together is creating a service plan that works for almost everyone. Dealing with the bypass is already enough, but with the RBB, I feel like throwing fuel to fire. My original plan was to have the (E) and (K) using the 53rd Street Tunnel and the (F) and (V) on the 63rd Street Tunnel (it ties in with the Nassau-8th connection) These pair of services would be supplemented by services coming from the Second Avenue Subway. Let’s call these (T)-1 and (T)-2. At 36th Street, the (F) would take the bypass and the (G) would join (T)-2 and (V). At Rego Park, the (V) splits off from the other two. In the midst of all this, the (E)(K) and (T)-1 would be express. Past Briarwood, the (E) splits off to meet with the (F) for the trip to Rosedale and the other lines go on Hillside. The problem with this giant complex plan is that even though I have all aforementioned services running at 12 trains per hour, train thorough put of 36 trains per hour on a single track would be impossible with all of the interlining at the 63rd Street connector, the Junction with RBB, and an Briarwood. In light of this, this service plan was scrapped. A new service plan would need to be created. Any ideas?

Share this post


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

I looked at the site, and it is pretty good. I must say that the modern aerial guideway option is a pretty neat option. They should implement it on the RBB as a pilot for future elevated structures. For some reason, I could see this happening for the potential Utica Avenue Line to Kings Plaza. 
 

As for service, I am proposing this alongside several other Queens projects, such as the Queens Bypass to Jamaica Center (now a relief Line), extension of the Hillside Avenue section of Queens Blvd to Springfield Blvd in Queens Village

How would do you do that for Hillside Avenue? At 185 Street—the current end of the tunnel—the road is not wide enough to get a pair of tracks out from underground without taking some property to from either side of the road. There are both homes and businesses on either side of the road.

Going by the satellite view, 202 Street seem to be the nearest opportunity to do so since there is just a parking lot spanning three street blocks on the north side of the road from 202 Street to Francis Lewis Boulevard. With that length of tunnel, There’d be one or two intervening underground stations at 188 Street and possibly 197 Street. And there’d definitely be a station at Francis Lewis Boulevard just east of the tunnel portal (just like Ditmas Avenue). The question is, are there any regulations that might force the right-of-way to be much wider than the trains require? That might make it very expensive to transition the tunnel to an elevated structure. Obviously, the architects could get clever—stacking the lines to minimize width—but I think that will just complicate things (read: more cost, more opposition).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, T J Trainman said:

I kind of like the new idea to a point.  I think M would do fine going to rock park.  Didn't the C go to rock park at one time or another?

I did too. I advocated for extending the (M) in the past. But I’ve come to believe that the (M) would be trouble due to its multiple merges with other lines, its relatively long route and its tendency to be the line that gets cut from QBL whenever there’s a major service problem or scheduled maintenance. I’d much prefer for the RBB service to be a line that terminates in Manhattan, so that it wouldn’t be a ridiculously long local route like an extended (M) or (R) would be. The current (R) is already long enough with multiple merges, so I wouldn’t favor extending it onto RBB either. I’ve suggested extending the (W) onto the RBB and replacing the (R) on QBL from 63rd Drive onwards, while the (R) would provide all service on the Astoria Line and be based at 38th St Yard in Brooklyn. The (N) then becomes a full Broadway Express to/from 2nd Ave. That’s assuming Queens Blvd is not deinterlined. I figure we should have a scenario for a QBL that still has a direct Broadway connection, because removing it may be a hard sell to a riding public that’s had this connection since 1955 (albeit part time prior to 1987).

5 hours ago, JeremiahC99 said:

I looked at the site, and it is pretty good. I must say that the modern aerial guideway option is a pretty neat option. They should implement it on the RBB as a pilot for future elevated structures. For some reason, I could see this happening for the potential Utica Avenue Line to Kings Plaza. 
 

As for service, I am proposing this alongside several other Queens projects, such as the Queens Bypass to Jamaica Center (now a relief Line), extension of the Hillside Avenue section of Queens Blvd to Springfield Blvd in Queens Village, and extensions of both Archer Avenue levels to Hollis (Lower level) and Rosedale at Francis Lewis (Upper level). Alongside the RBB, four projects (the archer extensions I count as two separate ones) will allow for increase in train turnaround capacity and service into underserved areas of Queens. The problem with putting all of these projects together is creating a service plan that works for almost everyone. Dealing with the bypass is already enough, but with the RBB, I feel like throwing fuel to fire. My original plan was to have the (E) and (K) using the 53rd Street Tunnel and the (F) and (V) on the 63rd Street Tunnel (it ties in with the Nassau-8th connection) These pair of services would be supplemented by services coming from the Second Avenue Subway. Let’s call these (T)-1 and (T)-2. At 36th Street, the (F) would take the bypass and the (G) would join (T)-2 and (V). At Rego Park, the (V) splits off from the other two. In the midst of all this, the (E)(K) and (T)-1 would be express. Past Briarwood, the (E) splits off to meet with the (F) for the trip to Rosedale and the other lines go on Hillside. The problem with this giant complex plan is that even though I have all aforementioned services running at 12 trains per hour, train thorough put of 36 trains per hour on a single track would be impossible with all of the interlining at the 63rd Street connector, the Junction with RBB, and an Briarwood. In light of this, this service plan was scrapped. A new service plan would need to be created. Any ideas?

You’re right, that is a lot of interlining. It is kind of complex. I’ve been thinking of ideas for integrating the RBB with a deinterlined QBL. The direct service to the Broadway Line would have to be removed in any of these scenarios, of course. For many, that may be a hard sell, given that it’s been there since 1955. Undoing 80+ years of transit planning in this City that kept adding more and more interlining/reverse branching with each new connection will not be easy. The MTA’s current plans for a “full build” SAS only seeks  to reinforce reverse branching.

The most common proposal I see on here is to have a (K) service replace the (R) on QBL, which then runs via 53rd and 8th Ave Local. One possibly could be to extend this (K) via the RBB to Rockaway Park. You would basically have two 8th Avenue services serving the Rockaways and entering the main 8th Avenue line from two different directions, which would look quite interesting on the subway map. 

Edited by T to Dyre Avenue
Adding information to my post

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.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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