|
|
| Re: The Time for Reactivation of the Rockaway Beach Line is Now (1325232) | |
 |
|
| Home > SubChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
|
Page 4 of 4 |
||
|
| (1326453) | |
Re: The Time for Reactivation of the Rockaway Beach Line is Now |
|
|
Posted by Wallyhorse on Tue Dec 2 12:58:30 2014, in response to Re: The Time for Reactivation of the Rockaway Beach Line is Now, posted by #5 - Dyre Ave on Mon Dec 1 19:53:57 2014. My revised plan keeps the (M) and (R) as is and actually extended rush hours and other times as warranted to 179 so no one going to 71st-Continental loses a QB local in this (and to avoid a potential conga line at 71st-Continental). The Rockaway line as I would do it would be a revived (V) train, operating from 2nd Avenue-Rockaway Park at all times, eliminating the Rockaway Park shuttle in the process. |
|
|
| (1326465) | |
Re: The Time for Reactivation of the Rockaway Beach Line is Now |
|
|
Posted by #5 - Dyre Ave on Tue Dec 2 13:38:52 2014, in response to Re: The Time for Reactivation of the Rockaway Beach Line is Now, posted by Wallyhorse on Tue Dec 2 12:58:30 2014. There is very little extra capacity on the 6th Ave Local tracks to handle the (F), (M) and a Rockaway Park (V), unless you run that (V) service on very infrequent headways. And QBL riders east of 71st Ave don't want local service. That's why the R to/from 179th didn't last very long.Better to extend the M to from the Rockaway Branch and leave the (F) and ® lines as they are now. |
|
|
| (1326670) | |
Re: The Time for Reactivation of the Rockaway Beach Line is Now |
|
|
Posted by BrooklynBus on Wed Dec 3 19:01:34 2014, in response to Re: The Time for Reactivation of the Rockaway Beach Line is Now, posted by Stephen Bauman on Sun Nov 30 11:29:00 2014. Thanks for the history lesson, but I fail to see your point regarding the importance of the terminal morain in affecting development. I also do not see your point with Queens and Brooklyn now virtually all developed how the terminal morain still divides Queens, but not Brooklyn.All you have proved with this map is that Northern Brooklyn developed ahead of Southern Brooklyn. The reason for that is that Northern Brooklyn is closer to Manhattan than southern Brooklyn. It has nothing to do with the terminal morain. As far as Queens being not as densely developed as Brooklyn,that has to do with the fact that except for its western portion,(eg. Astoria and Long Island City, much of Queens is also farther from Manhattan than northern Brooklyn. Add to that the sparcity of rapid transit lines in Queens which contributes to the lower density. The areas south of the terminal morain (such as Hollis, Rosedale , Laurelton ,etc)is no less populated than areas north of the terminal morain (such as Bayside, Douglaston, etc) given the lack of rapid transit in both areas. The terminal morain does not divide Queens any more than it divides Brooklyn. |
|
|
(Sponsored) |
iPhone 6 (4.7 Inch) Premium PU Leather Wallet Case - Red w/ Floral Interior - by Notch-It |
|
| (1326684) | |
Re: The Time for Reactivation of the Rockaway Beach Line is Now |
|
|
Posted by Terrapin Station on Wed Dec 3 20:56:27 2014, in response to Re: The Time for Reactivation of the Rockaway Beach Line is Now, posted by BrooklynBus on Wed Dec 3 19:01:34 2014. The terminal morain does not divide Queens any more than it divides Brooklyn.LOL, so now you're an expert in yet another area in which you have no practical knowledge?? |
|
|
| (1326710) | |
Re: The Time for Reactivation of the Rockaway Beach Line is Now |
|
|
Posted by BrooklynBus on Wed Dec 3 23:00:07 2014, in response to Re: The Time for Reactivation of the Rockaway Beach Line is Now, posted by Terrapin Station on Wed Dec 3 20:56:27 2014. So you believe then that it does divide Queens but not Brooklyn? |
|
|
| (1326711) | |
Re: The Time for Reactivation of the Rockaway Beach Line is Now |
|
|
Posted by Terrapin Station on Wed Dec 3 23:08:05 2014, in response to Re: The Time for Reactivation of the Rockaway Beach Line is Now, posted by BrooklynBus on Wed Dec 3 23:00:07 2014. I have no opinion on that. |
|
|
| (1327053) | |
Reactivation of the Rockaway Beach Line/6th Avenue-Queens Boulevard Effects |
|
|
Posted by Wallyhorse on Sat Dec 6 05:12:56 2014, in response to Re: The Time for Reactivation of the Rockaway Beach Line is Now, posted by #5 - Dyre Ave on Tue Dec 2 13:38:52 2014. Except that ridership in 2015 is MUCH HIGHER than it was in 1992 when the (R) to 179 was discontinued. Not everyone is in a hurry, and in this scenario, those looking for the Broadway line or would be looking for a more comfortable ride even if it takes longer would be more inclined to take an (R) or an (M) from 179. Even if it takes a small amount of pressure off the (F) (and the (E)'s that start/finish at 179 in rush hours), it helps a LOT since the (F) can run express all the way to 179 while the (R) and (M) are local all the way (with the (M) running with the (F) via 63rd Street).As for doing it as a revived (V) train, you could do one of a couple of things on 6th Avenue with the (F) during "peak of the peak" times (when you would have more than 30TPH on 6th Avenue otherwise): Have 2-4 TPH on the (F) when needed run via the (G) between Roosevelt and Bergen Street. While Park Slope Residents looking for 6th Avenue might get upset by that, they can switch to the (A) or (C) at Hoyt-Schermerhorn if that happens from those (F) trains or using the (G) in the same way. OR Have 2-4 TPH on the (F) run with the (B) and (D) on the Express Track between West 4th and 57th Street, skipping 14th and 23rd Street. This would likely require a new crossing to be built on the downtown side of 6th Avenue north/west of Broadway-Lafayette for it to happen. That would likely cut down the (F) just enough to allow for three lines on 6th Avenue and allow for a (V) to Rockaway Park to also operate enough service that way. |
|
|
| (1327074) | |
Re: Reactivation of the Rockaway Beach Line/6th Avenue-Queens Boulevard Effects |
|
|
Posted by Stephen Bauman on Sat Dec 6 10:06:03 2014, in response to Reactivation of the Rockaway Beach Line/6th Avenue-Queens Boulevard Effects, posted by Wallyhorse on Sat Dec 6 05:12:56 2014. Except that ridership in 2015 is MUCH HIGHER than it was in 1992Peak hour inbound travel (8-9 am) from Queens (42, 53, 60 and 63 St tunnels) is about the same. 1992 Hub Bound Report shows there were 89,591 inbound passengers from Queens from 8-9 am. 2012 Hub Bound Report shows there were 89,028 inbound passengers from Queens during the same peak hour. Ditto for the 3 hour morning rush (7-10 am). 1992: 214,141; 2012: 204,625. |
|
|
| (1327103) | |
Re: Reactivation of the Rockaway Beach Line/6th Avenue-Queens Boulevard Effects |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Sat Dec 6 15:03:29 2014, in response to Re: Reactivation of the Rockaway Beach Line/6th Avenue-Queens Boulevard Effects, posted by Stephen Bauman on Sat Dec 6 10:06:03 2014. What about skewing from one river tunnel to another ?I'd imagine 63rd is mostly at the expense of the 53rd, though I forgot what year that started. |
|
|
|
Page 4 of 4 |
||
