HSRR

22 hours ago, Lex said:

Are you talking about the old version, where they had it directly crossing more streets? That hasn't held since they modified the proposal (no such luck for BRT). The current proposal only does that around All Faiths Cemetery (and likely again to serve the Brooklyn Army Terminal).

I now see that they updated that jackson heights terminal! It may be streets at the brooklyn terminal. Definitely through the cemetery, metropolitan ave and surrounding streets. 

On 1/11/2023 at 9:48 AM, T to Dyre Avenue said:

Honestly I don’t see the choice of light rail as a dealbreaker (some folks on Transit Twitter and the NYC Rail subreddit do). Thankfully the MTA didn’t choose bus rapid transit. I would’ve preferred either modified commuter or subway trains, but I think LRVs can work, even though the MTA has no experience operating them (gotta start somewhere, yes?) and completely lets project costs skyrocket into the stratosphere.

With Nippon Sharyo having pulled out of the North American market a couple years ago, I doubt they’ll be interested in offering their DMU vehicles as an option, unless they’re small enough to be considered LRVs, like the Stadler GTW trains that run on NJT’s Riverline. 

Btw, welcome back! 

The vast majority are low-floor, it’s true. Mostly because low platforms in the middle of streets are seen as less unsightly versus high platforms in the street, like you see in LA and on Muni’s T Line on Third Street in San Francisco and the C-Train in Calgary (I think we can include Canadian cities as examples here). All three have recently ordered new high-floor LRVs for their systems - LA with P3010s from Kinki Sharyo and SF and Calgary with S200s from Siemens - so the MTA have at least a couple builders to choose from as long as they don’t let their bureaucratic baloney get in the way as they usually do. I honestly think high-floor LRVs may be a better choice for this project because it will run almost entirely off-street, so “unsightly” high platforms in the street will probably not be that big of an issue, unless they’re already planning to have some street-level stops.

 

I too would have preferred conventional rail for future compatibility with the network. So many low risk, high reward extensions could be made with simply adding a connection and using existing rails.

1) Service into Manhattan to Penn and Grand Central via LIRR. 

2) Service into the Bronx via Hells gate 

I see this as being low floor LRV as in the IBX presentation MTA stated it would be using the streets at the terminal in jackson heights which would preclude this from ever being extended beyond what's planned today. I do not see the MTA installing high level platforms on streets.

I am happy they didn't pick BRT, but do we need a disconnected gadgetbahn with proprietary rolling stock (vs the rest of the system, which is already a problem with div A and div B trains)?

Surprising that the ridgewood-downtown Brooklyn SBS did not make the redesign.

Not happy about the b38 losing LTD. I was really expecting the 38 LTD to turn into the SBS.

Taking a second look, the ROW crosses the LIRR in a way that if they used conventional rail they could connect it to the LIRR east of Woodside and provide service Paris RAR or London overground style service to Grand central and/or Penn Station in addition to running it to the Bronx, this is a no brainer to choose conventional rail. 

On 9/24/2022 at 12:13 PM, LGA Link N Train said:

But there is a clear bias....

Why is the MTA only considering third rail for conventional rail option? caternary help would solve their width issue. I also don't understand why conventional rail can't share some of the tunnels with freight (since freight is only moved a night) since these would be FRA compliant rail cars. Caternary would also make the trains compatible with metro north/amtrak trackage and could be sent to the bronx stopping at the soon to be built metro north penn access stations providing the bronx for the first time ever a direct link to queens. Conventional Rail hits too many low hanging fruit to be ignored while light rail is a complete dead end. 

7 hours ago, bobtehpanda said:

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. 

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?

93 miles of high speed track south of NY could cut 30 minutes off of the travel time between NYP to DC.  Getting the time to 2hrs will beat air travel without a doubt. $117B isn't just for high speed track, it includes fixing/ replacing bridges and tunnels. upgrading slow track to 125 or 135mph where possible. It's an worth investment.

I'd like to point out that Gov Horchul wants to study the cross harbor freight tunnel. if that gets built, wouldn't that increase the amount of freight traffic on the line? And in turn eliminate the possibilities of a bus way or light rail? Unless in the case of a bus way, would it be built over the row? Or for light rail would be time separated mandated by the FRA?