How Not to Design a Train Line

[@ianhardy9375]

That's why we need the Queens link to improve the service in not only the Fulton street line but the Queens Blvd line.

[@noahnorman6877]

And if QueensLink gets built, the Rockaway Park Shuttle can be rerouted to instead run between Far Rockaway and Rockaway Park, to eliminate the need for commuters to have to walk between stations or having to transfer at Broad Channel for an A or M train.

[@ianhardy9375]

@@noahnorman6877 we don't need the shuttle, both the A and the M should be able to handle the two branches 24/7. The only time to use the shuttle when service disruptions occur

[@ThatCrazyAK-b1g]

#NO WAY WITH QUEENSWAY!!

[@ianhardy9375]

@@ThatCrazyAK-b1g then transit with the Queens link is the logical choice

[@transitimprover]

I actually use Beach 105th Street a lot, and it has another use: It is near a popular section of the beach.
And Broad Channel should have a busy and dense car-free neighborhood on the other side of it.

[@ariesarethebest271]

Never going to be car free. No one should give up their cars for public transportation.

[@transitimprover]

@@ariesarethebest271 that kind of attitude is not appreciated on Urbanist UA-cam

[@RAdaltonracer]

@@ariesarethebest271yeah you definitely don’t belong on this channel. Plenty of areas and people give up their cars for public transportation.

[@DanforthNiceBusQ110]

this is why we need queens link, it will greatly benefit commuters that want to go to Manhattan and revolutionize transit by removing the problematic shuttle and removing the problems on QBL. like giving forest hills some breathing room.I also live in the rockaways so these improvements will help

[@CaseysTrains]

Fun Fact: The A Train is shorter than the DC Metro's Silver Line which is roughly 41 Miles long. A trip on the Silver Line can take up to 2 Hours end to end and the stations are spaced much further apart than NYC. Similar to the A Train, the Silver Line serves the Airport and has the longest stretch of track without a station.

[@EndMii619]

4:20 so relatable because the A trains' horrible headways at Broad Channel will literally fry like an egg at that station

[@jeffrienunez96]

The Rockaways have a lot of potential to gain more ridership especially in the summer. However I usually prefer taking the 2/5 to Flatbush and taking the Q35 than wait for the A or Shuttle

[@poohoo4495]

Queens in general has horrible land use i.e. (cemeteries, sfh, airports, highways, too many big parks and not enough neighborhood parks) realistically it should have a bigger population than Brooklyn but it wastes so much land on nonsense and cancer 😕. Broad Channel residents will probably be forced to leave by the federal government to restore the Jamaica bay wetlands and protect neighborhoods like Howard beach and Marine Park, because Broad Channel prevents dredging and filling the bay for land reclamation.

[@transitimprover]

I like to fantasize that New York CAN build new transit, and that the 2nd Avenue subway can extend to Brooklyn and that Queenslink can get build
Queenslink Service to Far Rockaway as there is more demand for it, A to Rockaway Park, C to Lefferts, and T to Euclid

[@jamesparson]

How about just getting the 2nd Ave Subway to 125th and Manhattan Ave. for the ABCD trains

[@TheRailLeaguer]

I am assuming that the C is express in Brooklyn because if so, I am sold.

[@theforgottenone32100]

You have a lot of experience with this stuff and I love seeing the interesting stuff you propose man, lots of support to you 👊👊👊👊

[@fuzzysstuff9888]

Sounds accurate- a guy who goes to the Rockaways a lot more than previously

[@michaelscott7706]

There ain't enough people on that side of the rock. Even when I worked the A during a GO the train empties out at B90 st for the shuttle buses. Same thing with the 5 showcases in the afternoon they empty out at Broad Channel. The H goes in front of the A heading north and coming south it follows the A.

[@RCfromtheNYC]

I guess we'll have to go historical, to determine how The Rockaways were when the MTA bought the tracks and converted them to IND use in 1956. Rockaway Beach was still a getaway destination at the time, but when master planned Robert Moses created all of the city highways, people went elsewhere for fun. So the need for a full subway line there decreased.

[@johnkriskiewicz2592]

🔆Robert Moses's Triborogh Bridge and Tunnel Authority actually paid for the rebuilding of the LIRR Jamaica Bay trestle after its devastating fire and the peninsula's grade crossing elimination as part of his NYC Parks department Rockaway Beach development and urban renewal projects. Discovered this while doing research in the TBTA archives. It is an anomaly that doesn't fit with Robert Caro's Power Broker's anti-transit narrative.

[@RCfromtheNYC]

Wow...thanks for that info. I did not know Moses has his hand in the tressle rebuilding.

[@TheRailLeaguer]

@@johnkriskiewicz2592He’s still anti-transit, and one or two good things doesn’t excuse him from being anti-transit. Most of his projects are the pinnacle of anti-human.

[@mirzaahmed6589]

20 minute headways are perfectly acceptable for a low demand shuttle. I lived in the Rockaways from 2008 to 2011 and never had a problem scheduling my day around the train frequencies.

[@DanforthNiceBusQ110]

I respect your opinion but if u are very busy and work is far away then the shuttle will be problematic for you.

[@chrispontani6059]

@@DanforthNiceBusQ110I’ll disagree with you. Busy people don’t live on Long Island where the trains operate say every 40 minutes, and commute into the city. Like above, you plan your day around the train.
The reason shuttle ridership is so low is that it doesn’t run the entire length of the subway trackage in the Rockaways. A million years ago it used to make the triangle from Broad Channel to B116th, to Far Rockaway, and back to Broad Channel. That at least made it useful if you wanted to go the length of the Rockaways.

[@TheRailLeaguer]

@@chrispontani6059 That service was very lightly utilized to the point that it wasn’t needed. All it did was create confusion and headache and waste valuable train crews that could be used on the 8th Avenue corridor. What the MTA did is correct, but it could be better. An example would include extending it north to Howard Beach-JFK Airport (a major job generator), or to Rockaway Blvd if that station is rebuilt with middle track access.

[@Interstella-ni3vh]

Yup, I travel to the Rockaways frequently and while I'd love better headways, it's a moot point as the Shuttle carries air to Rock Park. There's just TOO MANY other transit options like ferry, bus, lirr and car for people to use a train that requires 2 transfers to get to Manhattan.

[@TheRailLeaguer]

@@Interstella-ni3vh Yep. The Q53 to the A train at Rockaway Blvd is often a faster choice for people. Perhaps extending the shuttle to Rockaway Blvd (rebuilding that station with middle track access) and bumping its frequency to every 10-15 minutes could help.

[@ianhardy9375]

Oops, I forgot to mention that not only the Queens link can improve the two lines but hit areas that lack more transit options and providing transfer points to other existing subway and bus lines thus being able to access to other parts of Queens and getting around Brooklyn and Manhattan which benefits.
The A cannot serve the three branches by itself as utilizing 15 tph, lefferts Blvd and Far Rockaway would have to be nearly equal while the Rockaway park service is very limited as you suggested 20 minutes which is normally 3 tph. Its dumb to have a particular route to split doing all that work in splitting up just to provide those service to those branches in addition to the shuttle provides insufficient frequency in it's service. Send the M to Rockaway park would shift all A service to Far Rockaway and leaves extending the C to lefferts Blvd where service between lefferts Blvd and Euclid is all times while service between Euclid and 168 would not change leaving the night time service to be use as a shuttle which will be retain while both Rockaway lines will be serve 24/7

[@bootmii98]

BART has 20 minute headways for every line except Yellow (SFIA-PBP) now.

[@ommy7672]

That's so sad

[@jaimerosado3896]

That’s largely because the Transbay tube is made up of only two tracks. It’s a choke point for the BART, especially with trains shooting through at 70 mph. At that speed, a train requires at least a mile to come to a complete stop. Also there can’t be too many trains under the bay at once in case one breaks down, and the trains behind it have to reverse out.

[@ommy7672]

@@jaimerosado3896 why don't they slow it down to 50 and add more frequency

[@jaimerosado3896]

@@ommy7672Once again, you can’t discount the remote but very real possibility of a breakdown.

[@adrianwitzburg4140]

The big problem is that the transbay tube as well the market st subway carries 4 services on two tracks (1 per direction), so every line is limited to 25% of the total capacity in that stretch. The MUNI also carries 4 services on the market st subway (it used to be 5 before the shutdown of the L Taraval line)

[@jaimerosado3896]

You have it backwards. Low frequency isn’t the reason for low ridership on the Rockaway Park shuttle. Low ridership is the reason for low frequency. A lot of Rockaway Park and Belle Harbor residents use NY Waterway to get to Manhattan, or take the Q35 to the 2/5 train in Brooklyn. The Q35 moves pretty fast for a bus route.

[@detroitpeoplemover]

NYC Ferry, not NY Waterway

[@jaimerosado3896]

@@detroitpeoplemoverOops!

[@djpetesake]

As a Californian I'm having a hard time comprehending how 15 minute frequencies is a bad thing

[@anotherview9604]

You'd have to be a New Yorker to understand how stressful a 15 minute headway could be. In it's heyday (1920s-1960s), the IRT express trains in Manhattan would run on 90 second headways during the rush hours. Now the headways are spread out a little more. But even so, when moving a few million or so people every day to and from work, getting to work on time and leaving to get home to their family, the trains would be packed like sardine cans. Miss your regular train or there is a problem causing delays and your personal stress level jumps as well as that of the other 1000 or so adding to the already crowded station platform.

[@Geotpf]

Must not be in Los Angeles. I just checked; they've increased all of their rail lines to 10 minutes or better seven days a week with two exceptions: Late night headways are 20 minutes, and the B and D heavy rail subway lines, which share most of their stations, have 12 minute headways on the branches (but 6 minutes in the shared portion). The first part of an under construction extension to the D line opens next year, and they are just about to replace all their subway cars, so boosting frequency on those two may depend on one or the other. But all their light rail lines are 6 to 10 minutes until 8 pm, seven days a week. (8 to midnight 20 minutes.)

[@TheRailLeaguer]

Bad for metros like the NYC subway, but it should be fine for commuter rail like the LIRR.

[@odemata87]

One side is more affluent and car oriented than the other. Increasing service will not draw them out of their cars.

[@Interstella-ni3vh]

EXACTLY. The area from Beach 90th to 116th is [at most] 1.5-mile narrow stretch of residents who ALREADY have a handful of other methods of transport to the city. Those affluent Belle Harbor/Neponsit people all use cars and would never even THINK about going anywhere near a public transportation vehicle.
Frequency in that corridor isn't good but it's rightfully justified. It carries air.

[@harrykatsos]

We def need Queenslink but we also need the Queens Bypass line from 63rd St to Forest Hills and the Rockaways. That way both services could function on the line properly and get ppl to midtown Manhattan faster. The Bypass line could serve local tracks on the Queenslink while the Queens Blvd local could serve express tracks.

[@TheRailLeaguer]

Why not just tie the Queenslink into the Queens Bypass. We should add two stations on the bypass and you can also gets some good connectivity there.

[@harrykatsos]

@@TheRailLeaguer Tying them would make QBL Local take longer than it should, running it express on Rockaway Beach Branch would speed it up.

[@Daniel-pc2ov]

I just used it yesterday to 90th/broad channel for A service. I waited about 10 minutes at each station for the shuttle. It’s fine but could definitely be a bit more frequent. I like that it was the newer trains though. And so were the A back to Manhattan

[@Hypestrike1]

I was staying in Rockaway Beach in February, quite close to Rockaway Park-116 Street. I was taking the subway almost every day to Brooklyn and Manhattan, which from Rockaway Park-116 Street required taking the shuttle to Broad Channel and transferring to the A Train and enduring another 5-15 minute wait.
While I enjoyed the ride across Jamaica Bay, it was when waiting between trains at Broad Channel that I truly appreciated the potential benefit of Queenslink routing the M Train to Rockaway Park-116 Street and eliminating the Rockaway Shuttle.

[@Interstella-ni3vh]

Love your vids and I'm a Rock Park traveler but low frequencies are justified here. [As other people pointed out] there's a myriad of other alternative methods of getting to Manhattan and the geo-catchment area of residents is too small to justify prioritizing frequency here, not to mention it would feed into Far Rock A frequency.
I'm however open to the idea of Queenslink or a cheaper temporary alternative, have some "Q35" busses go to Kings Highway instead as I'd rather take a direct express train further down Brooklyn than take the 2/5 a million stops to the Junction.

[@dudestir127]

I wonder sometimes if you're going from Manhattan to thr Rockaways, depending on where in the Rockaways, if you might be better getting the M or R to Woodhaven Blvd and transferring to the Q52/Q53SBS.

[@Geotpf]

The catchment area is too small (because, as you pointed out, due to lots of water) to justify more service in the area. Unless a bunch of new high rise apartments are built in the area, it will be hard to justify making any changes.
In fact, I'll bet the whole shuttle area is probably the #1 on the list to close down and replace with buses. Not a politically popular move these days, but if the MTA's finances get bad enough, I'm sure somebody will suggest it.

[@yukaira]

only in ny would they complain about 15 minute service

[@boguette_]

the shuttle should definetely be extended to Euclid Ave. also, the unused track that connects rockaway park and far rockaway should be reactivated, but I'm not sure how. maybe turn the S to the H? having the M go to rockaway park is def a go to, since it may make the A have less branches.

[@TheRailLeaguer]

Ridership projections do not warrant reactivating the connecting track, especially given how infrequent it will be. Intra-island travel can be better served with enhanced bus service.

[@j.t.5178]

They did that with the H train as a round robin shuttle between Euclid Av and both Rockaway branches where it would go from Euclid Av to Rockaway Park, then to Far Rockaway via Hammel's Wye, and back to Euclid Av during late nights. It turned out that it was faster to just go to Beach 67th Street if you were going to Manhattan from Rockaway Park then having to ride to Far Rockaway first, then to Manhattan from Rockaway Park, as the train operators would have to walk to the other side of the train every time the train arrived at each terminal. It ran from 1962 to 1992.

[@thedriver4038]

The A should serve both Far Rockaway and Rockaway Park. Let the C serve Lefferts Blvd.

[@ariesarethebest271]

That makes too much sense for the MTA.

[@jaimerosado3896]

I made that suggestion to the MTA at a public hearing 20 years ago. You can guess how that turned out.

[@TheRailLeaguer]

That would degrade service on the A and C due to the addition of another merge.

[@jaimerosado3896]

@@TheRailLeaguerBut the A and C trains already overlap from Canal Street to Hoyt-Schermerhorn.

[@TheRailLeaguer]

@@jaimerosado3896 Adding another one will make it worse.
At that point we are just better off connecting the Broadway Line to the Fulton Street Line local tracks. That way all the 8th Avenue trains can be on the express and local trains will be provided by Broadway trains. With the A and C going express in Brooklyn, the C can take Lefferts and the A can take the Rockaway Park. Now you won’t have to worry about delays due to a second merge point because there won’t be a second merge point.

[@terrancelord5185]

So let’s say queenslink is built and instead of the M of the R you send W trains to the Rockaways at 12tph and 2 G trains per hour would it fix the service problem in the Rockaways as each branch would get 8tph

[@terrancelord5185]

Then just have all A trains run to lefferts blvd.

[@ccityplanner1217]

I've never really understood why Ozone Park is on the A when it leaves JFK on a branch. I would run:
C 8tph Washington Heights to Ozone Park. Some peak-hour service would terminate at Euclid Avenue.
A 8tph Inwood to both Rockaways formed from a pair of 4-car trains coupled together until Broad Channel, from where the front 4 cars go to Far Rockaway & the rear 4 to Rockaway Park. Some peak-direction service (as ‹A›) would skip 88th Street and Rockaway Boulevard.

[@TheRailLeaguer]

What you’re proposing would be a bit impractical especially your A train proposal of splitting the train. You’re better off just having the current service pattern in place with A service to Rockaway Park eliminated, replaced with extended Rockaway Park Shuttle service to Rockaway Blvd (rebuilt to a three-track two-island-platform station).

[@ccityplanner1217]

@@TheRailLeaguer : It would require different rolling stock that is 4 carriages long & can be coupled in pairs with a gangway to access between the units.

[@TheRailLeaguer]

@@ccityplanner1217 WHY?

[@ccityplanner1217]

@@TheRailLeaguer : I live on the largest third-rail commuter rail system in the world, the Southern Electric. We have numerous dividing services with a variety of different justifications. For example, the 6 train (stopping Horsham to Bognor Regis) is coupled to the back of the 8 (express Victoria to Portsmouth via Chichester) between London and Horsham to provide extra carriages for people heading to Gatwick Airport. The Purley to Tattenham Corner branch is coupled to the London Bridge to Caterham train as far as Purley to save capacity on the express tracks through Croydon.

[@TheRailLeaguer]

@@ccityplanner1217 That doesn’t mean the dividing services make sense for the NYC Subway (or any similar metro system in the world). They are two different things.
Not to mention that the NYC Subway has done that before and it was terrible.

[@richardsantiago429]

it always been problem with service. less demand.

[@williamerazo3921]

Bring back train for the summer

[@archytectanthony5972]

I was honestly expecting you to mention Queenslink the entire watching and you did not dissappoint lol. Also 2 things,
1. Idk if you heard but the EIS didn't make it into the state budget :/ but we will continue the push of course.
2. Joe addabbo made a poll regarding the RBB in his district so i think you should make a community post to spread awareness of that.

[@steveclark4544]

Are you accounting for the fact that it’s primarily a SEASONAL line? It’s right in the station names: BEACH 90th St, BEACH 116th etc. The sole purpose of the line is to get people back and forth from a day at the beach or a local vacation. It’s otherwise not that heavily populated to require much more frequent headways. People are renting bungalows there for weeks at a time and not commuting daily to/from Manhattan. Also, I’d be willing to bet that the line was built several years before the sewage treatment plants.

[@TheRailLeaguer]

The same applies to the Far Rockaway branch, yet you’re not complaining about that. Not to mention that there are thousands of permanent residents who live in the Rockaways, especially on Belle Harbor and Far Rockaway.

[@brucehain]

You're right about Studies. It's hard to fathom why so much is spent on things like the AECOM Rockaway Beach Branch Study when the results are so obviously compromised. I'm not able to determine whether the MTA demanded the conclusions made in the AECOM Study or, as I suspect, this was just another example of the engineers thumbing their noses at the political appointees/fiduciaries. It's a conflict when they're the fiduciaries but the governor rules with an iron hand. I'm not going to get into the value-or-no particulars of the last two governors in this regard. (but you're not going to like this next part.)
The AECOM study shows a scenario at White Pot Junction (where the Rockaway Beach Branch diverges from the LIRR Main Line) which is HIGHLY improbably since it takes out eight big buildings, two of them more than eight stories tall. It is not a genuine effort to draw a feasible connection to the subway. (This is illustrated in a video found here: ua-cam.com/video/lB82-gqiRpY/v-deo.html) I tried to explain this to them, but the QueensLink people went on to hire a second consultant to refute the price point promulgated in the AECOM study. The subway connection though, was conveniently omitted in this study by QueensLink, being slated for a second study, which will likely never happen.
Nonetheless, I believe that reviving the Rockaway Beach Branch is the MTA's most urgently needed project - for reasons described in the video - if only because the existing infrastructure designed to accommodate a high-capacity relatively-high-speed connection at White Pot is in the process of being abandoned, and that's inexcusable.

[@obifox6356]

A no capital cost improvement would be to run the shuttle more frequently from one end of Rockaways to the other. The track is there. Transfer at Beach 67, with A going opposite direction. (Would be better with center platform, but this is a low cost, quick improvement). The heart of the problem for Rockaways and JFK access is infrequency of A train.

[@Geotpf]

Just because there is no capital cost doesn't mean there is no cost. And there would be more capital cost-you would have to buy additional trains to run it. Plus an operator, maintenance, electricity, etc. Ridership gains would probably be very minimal.

[@TheRailLeaguer]

An even quicker improvement would be extending shuttle service to Howard Beach-JFK or to Rockaway Blvd.

[@hairypotter259]

Build that Queenslink!

[@maoschanz4665]

Even with Queenslink, they could keep the shuttle running but instead of Broad Channel it would go east to Far Rockaway and thus connect the neighborhood with itself

[@TheRailLeaguer]

The track connecting the two legs is actually a single track and this would limit this service on this leg to every 15-20 minutes. Given that other services would be operating frequently with Queenslink, this would actually degrade the quality of service along all the routes. Remember, you shouldn’t be focusing too much about the quantity of service, but rather the QUALITY.
Instead what can be done is implement frequent and enhanced Q22 bus service between Rockaway Park and Far Rockaway. This can accomplish the same objectives as what you’re proposing without degrading subway service quality. Plus it’s faster and more frequent for crosstown travel.

[@maoschanz4665]

@@TheRailLeaguer currently (without queenslink), the shuttle doesn't really exit the peninsula, it's only a way to connect people to the infrequent A trains: it could do the exact same job if it went east, which would be better for locals moving across the peninsula.
I'm aware it's single track, but the land use here is so catastrophic (a wasteland, a stroad, and a park for dogs) that it would be extremely easy and cheap to widen it to double tracks. And even without such a second track, 15-20 minutes is... the current frequencies anyways
with Queenslink, which is a very distant dream, you would get better trains, but not every 3 minutes, let's be realistic: as explained in the video, this is a narrow peninsula with terrible land use, so the demand is very low: most trains running on Queenslink would NOT go all the way there. The tracks would be underused and such an east-west shuttle would be very useful, feasible and would simply fill the gaps between infrequent A or M trains

[@TheRailLeaguer]

@@maoschanz4665 Ridership projections for an east-west shuttle would be too low to make such a project worth its time. You are better off enhancing bus service anyway. Bus service would operate every 5 minutes, more frequent than train service on your plan.
Instead, what can be done in the interim is extending the shuttle northward to Howard Beach-JFK Airport, a major traffic generator for Rockaway residents. Potentially it can further extend to Rockaway Blvd for more frequent transfers. Having shuttle service go to Howard Beach or Rockaway Blvd would help locals more than your east-west shuttle plan.
As for Queenslink, service on both legs of the peninsula would be more frequent, as every train would be heading there.

[@adrianwitzburg4140]

What got me thinking is that the M is a long local route much longer than the express E train. So instead of rerouting the M via Queenslink how about rerouting the E instead and the M going to Jamaica Center?

[@TheRailLeaguer]

The provisions come off the local tracks so that’s not possible. Instead, Woodhaven Blvd should be converted to an express station for a cross platform transfer to the E and F express trains, easing congestion at Roosevelt.

[@adrianwitzburg4140]

Oh I see, though I don’t think the IND Archer Ave line, as well the 63rd st-QBL connector were built on provisions.

[@TheRailLeaguer]

@@adrianwitzburg4140 The IND Archer Avenue Lines do have provisions but for other extensions.
The 63rd Street Tunnel connection to the Queens Blvd Line does have provisions for expansion, specifically a bypass of the Queens Blvd line. I had thought your plan involved using the provisions east of 63rd Drive-Rego Park for the connection, to which in that case, having E trains use it is impossible without backing up other trains so in that case you're better off sending the M local to Rockaway and keeping the E express to Jamaica, with Woodhaven Blvd converted to a express.
Honestly though, what should be done to make Queenslink possible is to not have 63rd Street trains use the Queens Blvd Line altogether. Since we are in 2024 and the Queens plans were drafted in 1968, things will be different. Here, the bypass will be built as planned, but will also feature a branch off to the Rockaways (aka Queens Link). In addition to the Northern Blvd and Woodside-61st Street station, there would also be stations at Grand Avenue and at 63rd Drive. Past that station would be the split were F trains travel via the bypass to Jamaica and the M go via Queenslink to Rockaways.
On that note, the service would be deinterlined as to have 53rd Street be exclusively served by the 8th Avenue trains and 63rd Street trains by the 6th Avenue trains (in this case, the F and M). M service along 53rd Street would be replaced by a new K route that would also replace C train service on the local tracks on 8th Avenue to World Trade Center (that route would shift to the express tracks). Queens Blvd service would be restored to some variant of the pre-2001 service pattern, with the E and K trains being the express while the G and R trains having exclusive use of the local tracks.

[@r.g.8977]

I disagree with your suggestion that the Queens link is the answer for Rockaway Park residence - although I agree with building Queens Link. My suggestion is restore the so called round robin (and various other names). Run the service from Far Rockaway to Beach 116th St (eliminating Broad Channel - were no goes anyway) and back. This would give the Rockaways a dedicated service and twice as much service on the Far Rockaway portion (and ten or less minute headways). Transfers would however remain a problem - with several possible solutions.

[@jointransitassociation]

Agree to disagree. More people are working outside the Rockaways than in it. And the top destinations are all in Rockaway Park, which means the A or M works fine.

[@TheRailLeaguer]

Restoring the round robin would result in minimal ridership gains compared to extending the Rockaway Park Shuttle northward from Broad Channel to Howard Beach-JFK Airport or even Rockaway Blvd. Both stations provide major connections with other modes, and JFK Airport is the busiest international gateway into North America. This could also result in more frequent service for Rockaway Park service compared to service being limited to every 15 minutes for your round robin shuttle idea.

[@r.g.8977]

Yes that is another alternative, that would not cost much - as opposed to the Queens Link which would cost tens of millions if not more. But all these things - yourse (remember the HH) and mine have been tried before - and failed. There are not a lot of people in the Rockaways.

[@TheRailLeaguer]

@@r.g.8977 I think a shuttle extension to Howard Beach-JFK or even Rockaway Blvd deserves another try.

[@HesJustSteven]

Queenslink? YES! QueensLink connected to QBL via the M train? No.

[@jointransitassociation]

Interlining is not a problem here when it can add trains to the QBL local tracks.

[@TheRailLeaguer]

The M is a great option for Queenslink connected to Queens Blvd. However, what is also possible is using the Queens Blvd Bypass proposal and having the Rockaway Beach Branch branch off from there. This would allow for both the 63rd Street Tunnel and the Queens Blvd Line to be at full capacity without any merging conflicts and whatnot. Since it’s 2024, the bypass can be modified to have two additional stations at Grand Avenue and at 63rd Drive.
With the F and M on the Queens Bypass, the Queens Blvd service patterns would be restored to some sort of variant of the pre-2001 pattern, except this time, instead of the F, it is a new K route between WTC and Jamaica-179th Street, replacing the F on Queens Blvd, the M on 53rd Street, and the C on 8th Avenue (the latter of which would now be express with the A). For local service, the G can be back there full time, though I do wish for another Manhattan-bound service over there. R service would also be increased to 10 trains per hours.

[@davidoke3909]

rockaways mentioned

[@MagicMike-rd8mz]

Goodnight sir that was a awesome video sir. The Rockaway Park Shuttle has poor headways. Every 20 minutes between trains this why Queens Link is needed if the MTA would've decided to rebuild the Ex Far-Rockaway Beach Branch into the subway the line would've make passengers connections to and from Manhattan much easier then relying on the Qm-17/Qm-16 Express Bus that only runs only during the rush hours and the A train and you'll have make a transfer for the A or to 6 or E. Why can't the MTA allow the passengers who out in Rockaway Park a one seat ride. Also if the MTA would've decided to build Queens Link it wouldn't ink JKF Airport to AirTrain and 74 St Roosevelt ave to the Q-70 S.B.S to LaGuardia Airport one Bus one Train to LaGuardia Airport or Two train 🚉 to JFK Airport sir.

[@ariesarethebest271]

This line would have been a whole lot better had it still been under LIRR control.

[@TheRailLeaguer]

Why?

[@williamerazo3921]

Just extend the S to Rockaway Ave

[@TheRailLeaguer]

They do that during the summer weekend but it’s only possible since train frequencies and ridership are low enough with no negative impacts to train operations (given that trains have to go all the way past another station to turn around). For full time operations, including weekdays, this may require rebuilding Rockaway Blvd into an express station of sorts to have Rockaway Shuttle trains turn around in the station on the middle track with no negative impacts to A and C train service.

[@andyidk]

With Queenslink, the travel times to Manhattan would be longer if you take the M, as you would make all local stops, so rather than doing that, extend the C to lefferts, all A trains go to the rockaways, and the Queenslink right of way becomes a BRT line for the Q52 and Q53 SBS routes, than run approx 500 feet to the west of Queenslink, would would also be cut back to low frequency limiteds if Queenslink was made into a subway. TLDR Queenslink should be a brt line where the Q52/53 SBS lines would be relocated, the mta has already poured so much money into them, why waste it

[@jointransitassociation]

Even if you take the M train, you still save 12 minutes to 34th St. BRT is no substitute for a rail line.

[@andyidk]

@@jointransitassociation yes, but think of the people that will be affected if the Q52/3 are cut, they will have to walk longer to get to the subway, and looking at the proposed stations, it doesn’t look that great, we should improve service on the A while maintaining existing woodhaven BRT that would be relocated onto queenslink and also the new M routing would be a fucking joke, anyways while travel times will still be higher than subway, BRT should be the best option for this, also done forget if people are willing to fork over a few extra dollars they can take the LIRR for $7, far rockaway to Manhattan in just under an hour. And with BRT, service would be more frequent than the subway, with buses they come about every 3-5 minutes as supposed to every 10 on a subway line

[@jointransitassociation]

​@@andyidk First of all, no one is advocating for the Q52 or Q53 to be cut if we go for Queenslink.
Second of all, the A service is capped because of excessive branching on IND Fulton. If you want better Rockaway service, Queenslink, as it adds underused capacity from QBL.
Also, why do you care so much about shapes? The M serves two legs of different NYC neighborhoods, and that is perfectly fine. U shaped lines are perfectly fine. We are designing a subway system, not drawing the next art piece featured in the Met Gala. And no, the M isn't running every 10, it is running every 6.
Finally, what part of "even if you take the M train making all local stops, you save 12 minutes than taking the A train making express stops" do not understand?
Please read the specifics of the Queenslink plan before you comment. No one is advocating to destroy Q52/53 service, nor advocating 10 minute service on the M.

[@TheRailLeaguer]

Not necessarily true since this plan also entails Woodhaven Blvd being converted to an express station plus more frequent service on the M route. Since everyone will be transferring to the E or F at Woodhaven Blvd, that trip will be faster than the current options.

[@samuelitooooo]

3:02 Wait really? I see this as an argument to also bolster bicycle infrastructure lol. The kind of short ride that's perfect for micromobility. And the freeway is redundant, in terms of car lanes. Just give it to bikes and set aside the first row in each of those surface parking lots for bike parking!
[Until QueensLink is built,] I'm not really against this branch line, given that they time the freaking connections right. After all, all you need is two trains and two crews, since A trains are so infrequent in the first place (something QueensLink won't fix, as one of the two branches would remain infrequent).
But it was interesting to see how many people are making short trips along the shuttle. It's an argument in favor of QueensLink I had not thought of. I will add that it would also relieve the Q53 during the summer, as many people are headed to the beach in this exact way.

[@Reformperson]

True and I agree with the fact the QueensLink would solve most of the problems it does help with people headed for Manhattan which is where most are going. Next since the A is infrequent we deinterline and allow the C to take over the service to Lefferts Blvd and Far Rockaway giving riders a line that already runs on Fulton and brings back the 80s pattern that the C once had. With this plan the E would take the local service and terminate at Euclid Ave. all this caps the A only running between 168th St and WTC. But If the 207th St yard we’re able to store 10 car trains then all A service would be diverted to Norwood 205th St taking over service from the current D Train.

[@samuelitooooo]

@@Reformperson I don't understand this deinterlining scheme. In terms of Queens, you're still only having one line (C) to serve both branches (Far Rockaway + Ozone Park). This won't do anything to fix the low frequencies both branches have.

[@Reformperson]

@@samuelitooooo it actually does in this senerio because of two reasons.
1. The C would now run 24tph as it is rerouted on QBL
2. Each Branch after Euclid gets 12tph meaning east of Rockaway Blvd, C trains gets a frequency of 5 minutes or less
3. West of the Station sees C Trains every 2.5 minutes, allowing for better service.
This happens when QueensLink is not factored in.
Now let’s move on to the E Train as not much changes with it except going express on 8th Ave
1. Fulton Local Riders would now see a train once every 5 minutes or less like what the E currently has.
2. The E Train gets extended to Euclid Ave.

[@samuelitooooo]

@@Reformperson Oh! We've been through this before then lol. TTA/vanshnookenraggen calls it the E and K.
I made my comment assuming MTA would not pursue deinterlining though. And on that topic, TTA made a video recently about it where, in summary, full deinterlining largely makes transfers to the east side particularly difficult, where the only option is a narrow and already crowded transfer at Lex/53 to the 6, a local-only line.

[@Reformperson]

@@samuelitooooo true that Vanshnookeraggen calls it the E and K but in reality the K is not really needed when the C and E can handle everything. The A having 8 cars is ideal for CPW and 8th Ave local service.
With that the C is the Express and the E is the Local.
The transfers at 53rd and 63rd wouldn’t matter because they would each have one set of tracks. Unless they transfer at Roosevelt Ave because trains that go through 63rd St don’t stop at Queens Plaza.