bobtehpanda

9 hours ago, mrsman said:

Yes.  While the fact that street running makes LRT and BRT feasible options, the delays that can be incurred while street running will make this an unacceptable option from the passenger's perspective.  The only way that this train will get reasonable ridership is because the running time along the route is fast.  If this train has to deal with traffic signals, drivers blocking the tracks, or traffic generally, then it no longer will be viewed as an "interboro express" but rather a glorified slow crosstown bus.

Conventional rail thus seems to be the only choice in my view if this gets built.  We maintain the grade separation that already exists on the entire corridor.  We also make use of the existing rails where we need to at the choke points that already exist.

So there are a few segments where trains will intersect streets and a few places where they run alongside streets.

Intersecting is not a big deal. You could slap down four quadrant gates and that would be one way of solving that problem. This is the norm on some light rail lines in other cities.

The alongside segment depends on the details. There is one segment from Metropolitan Av to what looks to be Juniper Blvd. This alignment actually has few street crossings, only at Metropolitan Av, 69 St, and Juniper Blvd S. Three intersections and some other minor ones you could close off are probably not a huge deal.

The killer may be whatever path it takes into Jackson Heights. 

16 hours ago, trainfan22 said:

Putting an station on the Hell Gate Bridge viaduct seems like an engineering nightmare, no idea how they would pull this off.

 

 

I'm NOT an expert, just speculating, but looking at the structure... HOW are they going to build this station exactly. It would have to be near where the Amtrak line merges with the LIRR I'd imagine.

They actually put in an engineering analysis in the Penn Station Access study. It was considered doable, located right above Astoria-Ditmars, but at a 4-car length. Notice the length of that station box.

How long are trains on Metro-North usually? That could be a potentially expensive bottleneck.

On 1/15/2022 at 3:17 AM, Mtatransit said:

Something with the Jamaica Bus network that always bugs me is the lack of Cross Jamaica bus service. Unfortunately this plan doesn't really solves this issue.

Its easy to get TO/FROM 179th Street/Jamaica Center from the east but if you want to get further into Jamaica, you'll either have to take the subway a few stops or walk. Just look at the amount of service east of 165 St compared to the west of it.

This is because

• there is too much congestion to run buses through reliably, or for more buses from the east or wherever to go through
• there is no space for layovers for additional buses running through Jamaica
• the bus runtimes for all the routes terminating in Jamaica are too long to combine with other routes. What would you combine that would have a reasonable runtime and reliability?

14 minutes ago, Lawrence St said:

Why do some of you think this is a good thing if it’s permanent? Unless TA & PA come together on a reduced transfer cost for the AirTrain, no one in their right mind is gonna want to use it.

You don't pay fares unless you start/end at Howard Beach or Jamaica, so at least at Lefferts Blvd that isn't a major issue.

One interesting thing to note: the proposed renderings have no faregates. Even the rail version does not, having direct exits to the sidewalk in a similar fashion to Murray Hill station in Queens. Perhaps SBS-style proof of payment?

They did an alternatives screening already! So this is already more progressed than the Utica Study.

Quote

Conventional Rail (CR)

The final Conventional Rail alternative calls for two dedicated passenger rail tracks, running largely alongside the existing freight rail line. The line would use FRA-compliant electrical multiple units (EMUs). Unlike Conventional Rail elsewhere in the region, trains would be configured similarly to subway cars, allowing for faster boarding and alighting as well as more standing room on trains, and trains would operate at transit-level frequencies.

Light Rail Transit (LRT)
The Light Rail alternative envisions a two-track line that would be physically separated from freight traffic due to FRA regulations. Most of the line would run side-by-side with the freight tracks. Some parts would run on a viaduct above the freight tracks at street level. A short segment of the line would run on existing streets: a half-mile segment on Metropolitan Avenue, 69th Street, 69th Place, and Juniper Boulevard; and a 900-foot segment from the railroad cut to Jackson Heights Bus Terminal.

Bus Rapid Transit (BRT)
The final bus rapid transit alternative involves a dedicated busway fully separated from freight traffic. The busway would run either alongside existing freight tracks or on a viaduct, identical to the alignment of the proposed LRT alternative. Buses would be electrically powered. BRT would operate on the same short on-street segments as LRT. In order to provide the same operating capacity as the other two modes, buses would need to operate more frequently.

Things of note:

• Diesel was categorically rejected, probably for the pollution
• Automated Guideway Transit (AirTrain JFK) and subway was also rejected, probably due to the ROW constraints
• Runtimes are 45 minutes, 39, 41 for Rail, LRT, and BRT respectively.
• The projected yard is either 65th St, Brooklyn Army Terminal, and for BRT Jackie Gleason depot
• Annual ridership estimates range from 22M for BRT to 26M for light rail

And a nice little callout, I guess:

Quote

A Different Kind of Conventional Rail
The Conventional Rail alternative involves the use of FRA-compliant vehicles that can operate in the same corridor as freight trains, but which offer service frequencies and train car interiors that more closely resemble the subway. Such hybrid systems operate in many places, such as London’s Overground, Paris’ RER, and Berlin’s S-Bahn.

1 hour ago, Trainmaster5 said:

This is what I was talking about when I mentioned cost earlier in the thread. Thanks for the article. I've seen similar things over the years. Carry on.

At this point, the thread is mostly a "glass half empty or glass half full" situation.

We should probably wait for the study to actually reject anything outright though. Not sure why people like to just dismiss things out of hand. At the MTA's rate, the study'll come out in like five years. Where's that Utica study?

2 hours ago, rbrome said:

This! I really wish NY had a few more modern elevated lines, so people could understand how quiet they can be with modern designs. We might be able to build more transit in this city, given the high costs of tunneling. 

I am kind of surprised NY has never embarked on wholesale replacement, considering the MTA gets sued over noise on a fairly regular basis, and other cities have reconstructed elevated lines as concrete structures (Philadelphia has done it, Chicago is doing it).

It's part of how those cities have attacked ADA among other things.

Ugh. Meant to post https://youtu.be/HAZosllcM74

On 1/14/2022 at 9:53 PM, R10 2952 said:

The  crossing Broadway Bridge, the MNRR P32s with their horns, and the CSX SD40s with their jet-engine sounds at full throttle paint a very different picture on my end...    

The horns are at least solvable through setting up Quiet Zones. https://railroads.dot.gov/elibrary/how-create-quiet-zone LIRR trains do not sound horns at the Little Neck grade crossing.

This is what the River Line sounds like: 

50 minutes ago, HSRR said:

I think the sticking point is if/when the cross harbor tunnel is built, that would increase freight train movements (which is a good thing, less truck on nyc highways and the LIE). There's semi-opposing/competing interests on that trackage. Dangerous cargo would be banned from the tunnel, but it could take almost every other type of cargo that crosses over the river via truck. Perhaps the movements can be restricted still be restricted to over night, but from a transit perspective, it would leave people stranded at night. Would there be a bus replacement t night?

The bus situation wouldn't be any worse than today, where no such service also exists at all.

In the area, Metro-North also doesn't run 24/7. If you account for it, you can run 30 or even 20 minute service on a single track.

2 hours ago, Lex said:

I mean, sure, but that doesn't diminish its importance.

Even disregarding that, restoring passenger service means that freight would need to be radically changed to shorter, more frequent trains in order to minimize problems along stretches with only two tracks or switches. Some other tings that could help are use of the Montauk Branch on an increased basis (the physical infrastructure, not the use of the Main Line and Central Branch between Jamaica and Babylon), better freight connectivity in Nassau and especially Suffolk, and not having these weird ROW configurations between eastern Queens and western Nassau (really more of a benefit for passenger rail, but it would nonetheless make throughput easier by reducing directional conflicts, something that I'd also like to see done in New Rochelle).

Right, but what I'm saying is that movement on Bay Ridge can still be done on those off-times, as it is done on the rest of the network. 

Most of the freight customers are out east where there are similar if not more restrictions on when one can actually run a freight train. The Babylon Branch is also only double-tracked with frequent services. 

9 hours ago, Lex said:

I hope so. Freight is especially important on Long Island (only way on/off without going through NYC is to cross the drink) and we really need rolling stock that's compatible with existing passenger rail for future extensions and potentially bumping off rolling stock from certain lines to go elsewhere.

So I could be wrong, but don't the NY&A trains run mostly off-peak and nights and weekends anyways?

It's not like there's room for those trains on the Main Line during peak as it is.

8 hours ago, Vulturious said:

That's actually a very interesting question. Here's a follow-up: if they were to open it in segments, what would they open first?

Probably south.

I'd imagine that the yard would be in the Sunset Park end; it does run in the vicinity of Fresh Pond but my understanding is that NY&A is already very busy over there with freight in the yard.

On 1/6/2022 at 1:28 PM, GojiMet86 said:

LRV stands for Light Rail Vehicle. That's the common name given to many different models in the United States. I just really hope this is rail and not a BRT. Preferably heavy rail, most likely mainline, then light rail.

For what its worth, RiverLine in Trenton is considered "light rail" in the US, but the Stadler GTW it uses is actually used as a mainline rail vehicle by most of its operators.

The definition of light rail is very arbitrary.

21 hours ago, R10 2952 said:

Say what you all will, but I still think sending the Second Avenue Line into the Bronx is a higher priority.  Compared to SAS, or the Cross-Harbor Freight Tunnel for that matter, this Triboro RX proposal is lower down on the priority list as far as I'm concerned.  I take it about as seriously as deBozo's half-baked plan to put a Brooklyn-Queens streetcar in from a few years ago.

God forbid anyone should have a contrary opinion around here...

Dude, no one is personally attacking you.

Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from questioning and debate. This is a forum. That's what the whole point is.

4 hours ago, R10 2952 said:

You're not getting it, as you say, because you apparently see Triboro RX as a viable plan that the MTA can offload yet-to-be fully determined cash into, whereas I see Triboro RX as unrealistic pie-in-the-sky.

Although there are exceptions, most people in Hunt's Point, West Farms and Parkchester are trying to get to Midtown and below; not Glendale or Flatlands.  I grew up across the street from the Bay Ridge Branch in Middle Village- much of nobody was clamoring for light rail along a north/south freight secondary that would either get them to derelict factories in Mott Haven on one end or abandoned warehouses in Sunset Park on the other.

With this whole TriboroRX thing, there seems to be a fundamental disconnect between the transit planners and enthusiasts, versus the everyday people who live along the Bay Ridge Branch.  Go to communities along the line like Ridgewood or Midwood, and ask them if this thing is a priority on their list compared to say, restoring LIRR commuter rail service on the Rockaway or Lower Montauk branches.

Better yet, ask the folks up in Crotona Park or Claremont whether they'd rather have a subway to Manhattan, or a dinky rail shuttle to West Elmhurst.  A misplaced priority is a misplaced priority, that's how I see it.

 

This is a weird take.

The closest "crosstown" bus lines to the RX's path (e.g. the Q58, the B6, the B8, the B9) tend to be the slowest bus routes and also some of the busiest bus routes per mile in their borough. Asking someone in Maspeth about the Triboro RX is missing the forest for the trees, because it's about providing citywide connections.

If you look at a map of Brooklyn and Queens, your options for getting between the two are:

• detouring all the way west, either to the or BQE
• detouring all the way east, either to Woodhaven or the Van Wyck

This is a trip that's not exactly currently being made in large numbers because it's not possible to do so in a timely manner. It literally takes 2 hours by public transportation to get to Queens from Brooklyn. And Census trends continue to show that more outer borough residents are now working in other outer boroughs. And yet segments of the route are already incredibly busy on slow buses.

Also, part of the regional inequality in this city is that Midtown is basically the only place with access to the entire region's employees and jobs in a reasonable time and commute distance. Anything to close that gap for other parts of the region will level out the playing field.

On 12/21/2021 at 9:06 AM, N6 Limited said:

I disagree. It may be different than the current NYCT set up (which has been proven to be slow and antiquated), but it did make sense from a service and coverage point.

On the contrary, most people bashing the plan don't live in Queens and don't ride the bus in Queens. The plan addressed many issues I've had trying to get around Queens via bus, such as buses ending short of convenient transfer points, buses veering away from each other and not allowing continuing trips without going to Jamaica or Flushing, etc.

Most of the "limited" routes had local routes running along the same corridors.

I think everyone here is just against any type of change, this is why we have slow buses and it took an "outsider" Andy Byford to simply take a look at trains/timers to realize why they were always going BIE and getting increasingly slow.

LMAO, this is a hell of a take.

This screwed over a lot of riders. As an example, the whole blue/red subway-express vs local thing was unnecessarily complicated. Splitting a long bus route subway feeder bus may have its merits, but not at the cost of totally preventing riders from the outer half of the route to get off at the inner half without a bus transfer. Making the subway expresses closed-door with limited connections to intermediate stops and destinations would've screwed over a lot of riders.

On 12/25/2021 at 8:22 AM, LTA1992 said:

I'm still seeing the common mistake of looking at the system by how you use it now, versus how people will use it 20 years from now.

Which is what every redesign from here to Auckland would ask of you

What generational changes to land-use patterns was this supposed to facilitate? The zoning map for Queens has not changed significantly; if anything, the city continues to dogpile residents and jobs around subway corridors and particularly in Jamaica and Flushing.

5 minutes ago, R10 2952 said:

I've heard people raise the specter of Boston every now and then when it comes to finance and large corporations more generally, which I find laughable.  Mostly because their infrastructure isn't too great and the people there are the rudest bunch I've ever encountered.

I will just say this.

If you're afraid of liberal policies, high taxes, and high cost of living, Boston is the same or worse in literally all of those things.

22 hours ago, JAzumah said:

I don't. There is nothing stopping the financial industry from relocating to West Palm Beach and Miami or Houston. No state income tax. Safer environment. Great weather 9-10 months of the year. Rail expansion in both places. Massive intercontinental flight hubs in both places. The largest number of Fortune 500 companies are in Texas and it has been that way for the last 10 years or more. 

There is, and it's called the laws of physics.

The financial industry, particularly investment banking, is about executing transactions as fast as possible, because if you let someone in front of you go first they can snatch a better price before you can. They will literally spend billions of dollars laying new cable across the Atlantic to save 5 milliseconds. 5 milliseconds could be the difference between hundreds of millions of dollars in profit.

How that comes into play is that New York is

• the physical home of the stock exchange
• one of the closest big cities to London and Europe, which is why
• it's the landing point of nearly all major transatlantic cables

Any firm moving to another city to do financial transactions would have to add in the additional transaction time of the distance it takes to send information from wherever they are to New York and onwards. The speed of light is not instant, it still will be slower for messages to travel a longer distance. The only cities with shorter distances would be in New England or eastern Canada, neither of which is particularly appealing compared to New York.

1 hour ago, B35 via Church said:

In his defense though, he did say he'd rather have that part of the discussion on another platform (twitter).... Can't really blame him for sparing the forum here (basically) from a bunch of red vs. blue shit.....

Right. The politics is not helpful, particularly when locally both sides basically don't admit the MTA has a spending problem, and if they do, they signed off on that every two years fare hikes thing and called it a day, maybe sprinkled in some good ol' "two books auditing" to make it sound like they wanted to do something. Uncle Sam cannot fix the fact that the MTA's financial problems are structural in nature.

Quite frankly, I don't remember the last time we had a Governor, State Assembly Speaker, or State Senate Leader who did not eventually have some federal indictment against them. I'm not holding out my hopes for Hochul, Stewart-Cousins, or Heastie either.

On 11/20/2021 at 6:25 AM, LaGuardia Link N Tra said:

Werid idea I saw posted on a Discord server a few weeks ago and I thought of sharing here because it intriuged me.

Hypothetical: Metropolitan Avenue - Prospect Park. The idea here is to connect the Myrtle and Franklin Lines in order to provide a small circumfremental line throughout Brooklyn while simultaneously allowing for Jamaica Peak Express Service to be extended to Broadway Junction and increasing line Capacity. The Myrtle Avenue Upper Level would be rebuilt to accomodate heavier weight trains (just like in the Myrtle Flyover proposals). The Franklin line would be re-extended to 2 tracks with each Platform being reaccommodated to handle up to 8 car trains. Stops in between would be the following:

Gates Avenue

DeKalb Avenue (Maybe)

Marcy Avenue (to provide transfer with the line. (Is the demolition of the Myrtle EL why theres that empty space on both platforms at that station?)

Pros: - 2 Seperate Portions of Brooklyn are now connected by rail, with the providing direct links to up to 10 subway lines.

- Service can now be increased up to 24 TPH and Peak Direction Service can now run East to Broadway Junction. 

- Queens Blvd would get a 10% Capacity increase as the would need to be reintroduced, but with the Culver Express being a thing, I'd have it run to Church Avenue so that the could handle that service

Cons - Myrtle Loses Direct Manhattan Service

- Emininent Domain Required

- Essex Street would need an expansion to prevent overcrowding

The is not very busy, why would you need to get rid of the Manhattan service?

2 minutes ago, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

You are likely correct, but if they figure out a funding situation (lawmakers that is), they need to repeal that.

Time to wait for the members of the Legislature to do the right thing.

May as well wait for the heat death of the universe.

https://nypost.com/2021/11/17/mta-to-test-wide-aisle-turnstiles-at-five-subway-stations/

Quote

Transit officials are testing “wide-aisle” turnstiles for wheelchair users at five stations — while beginning to let all riders enter through some emergency gates, officials said Wednesday.

MTA officials have budgeted $25 million to install the wider gates at over 200 different stations over the next few years, MTA Chief Accessibility Officer Quemuel Arroyo said — beginning with five gates at Sutphin Boulevard in Queens, Flushing Avenue and Atlantic Avenue in Brooklyn, and Penn Station and Bowling Green in Manhattan.

Arroyo said the new gates will not only let riders in wheelchairs enter through the subway’s turnstiles — but also make it easier for parents with strollers, cyclists and riders with heavy luggage.

Additionally, the MTA has installed tap-and-go payment readers at 240 emergency gates, which any rider can use to pay their fare and enter. Entry via the so-called “slam” gates is otherwise limited to 28,000 people with reduced fare MetroCards, Arroyo said.

He said the MTA is studying the tap-and-pay “slam” gates at five stations to see who is taking advantage of the new entry option.

Riders on wheelchairs can now pay their fares via tap-and-go at 240 emergency gates, according to the MTA.

“These wide-aisle fare gates are not just for people with disabilities,” Arroyo told MTA board members during their monthly meeting. “Wide-aisle fare gates is where we’re headed.”

“A lot more than 28,000 people need access to our system,” he said. “A lot more people need access to our stations for whom a turnstile did not work.”

Personally, I like paddle gates more than turnstiles, so I welcome this development.

On 11/18/2021 at 7:02 AM, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

What's the disturbing go me is they've received $14 billion last year and will get another $10 billion this year, and a chunk of that money is allocated for capital projects and the rest for the operational budget, so on the one hand they claim they have enough funding to carry them through to 2024, with no fare hikes or service cuts, but then on the other hand, just days later, they're claiming that they still need to look at fare hikes in 2022. What a mess... I get that their long-term situation isn't clear, but when you have the Governor saying and promising one thing and then the head of the  reversing direction just days later, it erodes public trust.

So as far as I remember, the biannual fare hikes are enshrined in state law as a result of the recession rescue package, and I didn't hear anything about the Legislature repealing it.