The Light Rail Thread

[Grand Concourse]

I'm not in favor of LRT because: you'd need to set up the streets to support the rails and trains. A BRT does about the same thing if it's road is maintained properly and if there's a major obstruction, a bus can always drive around the obstruction. And I can't imagine those trains would be cheap as where would you maintain them?

 

LRT would really work if you plan to have a large network of them serving multiple areas. So I think it's best to be either subways that connects to existing lines [even though that can take decades] or BRT.

[checkmatechamp13]

 

At the very least, this is what the should be doing to combat overcrowding on Queens subway lines. It's ridiculous that they're not. As I've posted before, I'd take the LIRR into Manhattan on weekdays and avoid the madness that is the Main Street-Flushing station. But at $8 each (and rising), it's very expensive, so I take the Q12 or Q13 to Flushing and transfer to the . Even if I got a monthly, with a monthly MetroCard, it's still a lot of money per month.

 

I'm not sure I agree with the pricing. I think the fare should be the same as the express fare ($5.50) at all times except for weekends, when the CityTicket is available for $3.50. I think the fact that there is less crowding on the LIRR than the subway merits a higher fare.

[Donald]

What about a light rail along the Hudson? It could start at Chelsea Piers and go to 59th St. It could run directly parallel with the NJ Transit light rail on the other side of the Hudson. That would be cool.

[Roadcruiser1]

I don't know. Light Rail is built in not so dense but demanding areas like Staten Island. Even though Manhattan might sound good. My opinion is that New Yorkers would be complaning about losing several Avenue lanes. Plus the West Side Highway moves around there. You don't really wan't people to drive onto street level complaning about the delays because of a light rail. Maybe if it runs underneath 10th Avenue that might work. Then again won't a subway line that carries a high capacity of people be more benifical.

[Art Vandelay]

BRT does NOT do the same thing as LRT. BRT carries far fewer people at far higher cost. LRT has a high initial startup cost, and then is much cheaper and carries many more people.

[gregorygrice]

How about changing High Line to light rail. They have tracks. Just take the plants out. I think that it would be perfect.

[Nexis4Jersey]

Light Rail can hold as high is 150,000. Parts of Eastern Brooklyn and Queens and Staten Island are candidates for it , but not the denser areas. Long Island could also use a LRT line or 2. The Length of the trains is an issue but a few Companies make Trains as long as 3 buses.

[Kamen Rider]

Please, watch the Nazi Banksters Crimes Ripple Effect at http://jforjustice.co.uk/banksters

[Nova RTS 9147]

The proposed Triboro Rx could make a good light rail line. I think the time for this mode of transportation to re-enter the New York market has come. It allows the to expand service into areas that need it, while only at half the cost.

[Bus Guy]

how about putting them in highways?

[R32 3348]

Light rail would probaly be good for a Bronx-Queens crosstown service connecting to LGA. The Queens Blvd line is just about serves a good portion of Queens, I hope a Queens Blvd super express is a priority the near future w/ the and a future 2nd Av train serviing it.

I honestly don't think Queens Blvd. Super Express will do anything to improve the system. It doesn't make the trip much faster seeing as it only skips one stop - OK, the LIRR ROW allows for much faster speeds, but then you trade off the high ridership and heavily-used transfer to the (and airport buses) that many people on the Queens Blvd. lines use.

 

The main rationale, I'm led to believe, behind the Queens Blvd. Super Express, is to increase capacity. However, if you want to do that, it's more prudent to build in areas that are rather isolated from transit, than build on top of a single main line in Queens.

I always supported Light Rail and would be great for places like Merrick Blvd, Northern Blvd among others.

 

It a cheaper alternative than buliding subway lines. Also I always thought the should use LIRR/MNRR trains that stop at Bronx/Queens stations by charging no more than the express bus fare rush hours(peak)to/from Manhattan as well. Off peak the same price as a subway/local bus.

 

Not to get too off topic but a great idea other than extending the (Q)to LGA Airport in which Astoria/Elmhurst NIMBYS have blocked now & recent past is to bulid a Airtrain shuttle train between (7)Mets-Williets Point(aka Citifield)stop and LGA Airport.

 

Just my takes.

I would generally be against light rail service that is only meant to serve as a feeder line to other subway service. For example, I would be against a Merrick Blvd. LRT because extending the train, while more expensive, would not increase costs spent on a new fleet of LRV's, new ROW above-ground, etc. You would also not need to transfer at Jamaica if you want the train (which most people would since I doubt everyone just works at Jamaica).

 

As for your Airtrain to LGA idea, I would support it, but not to Citifield. Yes, it's a popular attraction but Citifield and the Arthur Ashe tennis stadium are litearlly the only things worth visiting in that area. Otherwise, it's practically the middle of nowhere (at least for now, so long as Willets Point remains undeveloped). Not to mention that the Q48 takes a direct enough path between Willets Point/Flushing to LGA, and an airtrain's construction costs would not justify a few minutes saved over the Q48. I would be more open to a Flushing-LGA airtrain but I am not sure about the cost-effectiveness of that either. What makes LGA different from JFK in terms of a need for an airtrain is the proximity to other transportation options. JFK is rather isolated and miles away from other transportation. However, LGA to Astoria Blvd. is only 2 miles via Astoria Blvd. (which is a service road), so an airtrain would not have any time savings there. LGA to Jackson Heights - Roosevelt Ave. is not very far either (on a good day, you can take a bus between the two in ~20 minutes).

LRT would really work if you plan to have a large network of them serving multiple areas. So I think it's best to be either subways that connects to existing lines [even though that can take decades] or BRT.

I agree. LRT should be an overall separate network that doesn't just act as a feeder line to other systems (see: HBLR).

What about a light rail along the Hudson? It could start at Chelsea Piers and go to 59th St. It could run directly parallel with the NJ Transit light rail on the other side of the Hudson. That would be cool.

Running directly parallel to the HBLR wouldn't exactly be cost-effective though.

 

The proposed Triboro Rx could make a good light rail line. I think the time for this mode of transportation to re-enter the New York market has come. It allows the to expand service into areas that need it, while only at half the cost.

This is a good idea, in that it wouldn't act as a feeder line to other transportation services. However, the ROW is already there for heavy rail service, so it would just be easier to install an extra 1-2 tracks and start running service.

[T to Dyre Avenue]

I honestly don't think Queens Blvd. Super Express will do anything to improve the system. It doesn't make the trip much faster seeing as it only skips one stop - OK, the LIRR ROW allows for much faster speeds, but then you trade off the high ridership and heavily-used transfer to the (and airport buses) that many people on the Queens Blvd. lines use.

 

The main rationale, I'm led to believe, behind the Queens Blvd. Super Express, is to increase capacity. However, if you want to do that, it's more prudent to build in areas that are rather isolated from transit, than build on top of a single main line in Queens.

 

I think increased capacity was the original intent when planners proposed the Super Express. But wouldn't that be a good thing? You can't increase and express service on Queens Blvd without either overhauling or replacing the current signal system. Having two extra tracks will let you increase express service. Plus, the LIRR ROW crosses under the in Woodside and has a connecting station there, so Super Express trains can stop at Woodside-61st St for a transfer to the , as well as the Express (unlike 74th St, which is a stop for Local trains only).

 

But the Super Express tracks could also be used to host service to parts of Queens that don't have subway service. If one service from the Queens Blvd Line is rerouted to the Super Express tracks, there would still be track capacity for at least one additional service. Let's say the were to be rerouted onto Super Express. That's 15 tph. Surely another line serving northeast Queens could run via Super Express and the 63rd St Tunnel with the . Perhaps this new service can run down 2nd Avenue once in Manhattan (of course it would require the building of the 2nd Avenue Line south of 63rd Street).

 

I would generally be against light rail service that is only meant to serve as a feeder line to other subway service. For example, I would be against a Merrick Blvd. LRT because extending the train, while more expensive, would not increase costs spent on a new fleet of LRV's, new ROW above-ground, etc. You would also not need to transfer at Jamaica if you want the train (which most people would since I doubt everyone just works at Jamaica).

 

This I agree with. The should be extended to southeast Queens. And it doesn't even have to be a costly underground extension. It could "capture" one of the two LIRR branches in southeast Queens and run to Laurelton that way. But I do believe there are parts of eastern Queens where LRT can work.

[T to Dyre Avenue]

LRV's can't swerve.

They don't need to. Not if they run in a reserved right-of-way, like Boston's Green Line's B, C and E branches which run in the medians of Commonwealth Avenue, Beacon Street and Huntington Avenue, respectively. Surely, there are major streets in eastern Queens that can host a similar type of operation.

[T to Dyre Avenue]

I'm not in favor of LRT because: you'd need to set up the streets to support the rails and trains. A BRT does about the same thing if it's road is maintained properly and if there's a major obstruction, a bus can always drive around the obstruction. And I can't imagine those trains would be cheap as where would you maintain them?

 

LRT would really work if you plan to have a large network of them serving multiple areas. So I think it's best to be either subways that connects to existing lines [even though that can take decades] or BRT.

That's the problem. Subways can take decades to construct because they have to be grade-separated from vehicular traffic. The stations can't be simple because they have to be built to accommodate large amounts of people. They must have elevators in order to be ADA-compliant. At least with LRT, if it's on the surface, stations don't need elevators to comply with the ADA. They don't have to be huge because LR trains don't carry as many passengers as subway trains. It's much cheaper to build on surface or above ground because there's no tunneling involved. LRT can have its own unique signals like HBLR does, or they can follow street traffic signals like Boston's Green Line and Philadelphia's Subway-Surface Line do.

 

LRT isn't as good as subway extensions are, I'll grant you that. But it's certainly better than the current situation of people jamming onto 40-foot buses that all go to one subway station with everyone on all of those buses getting off and descending into that one station.

[Santa Fe via Willow]

Staten Island is an ideal place for more lightrail.

 

Speaking of lightrail, LA County has beautiful nicely built lightrail. The Long Beach Transit Mall's lightrail station & the way lightrail is built into the streets in Long Beach is how I'd like to see lightrail done in SI.

 

As well as other places in the area.

[Roadcruiser1]

I had suggested Staten Island. Hudson Bergen could extend the light rail across the Bayonne Bridge and run down the western section of Staten Island. The western section of Staten Island is good for light rail because its mostly suburban. Another idea is that they should extend the light rail from the western section pass the mall with several stations then run south along the former Staten Island South Beach Branch.

 

 

Hopefully this might happen in my lifetime. They should also reconfigure the SIR and extend the subway from Brooklyn to the SIR. Also they have to reactivate the North Shore Branch.

[GojiMet86]

Hopefully this might happen in my lifetime. They should also reconfigure the SIR and extend the subway from Brooklyn to the SIR. Also they have to reactivate the North Shore Branch.

 

If anything, it shouldn't be the subway that extends to Staten Island. It has to be the SIR that has to be extended to Brooklyn. The would be as long as hell, and any other lines, like the , would be long, too. Now if the subway were extended, it should just stop at St. George. That way, people would take the Railway to St. George, and any subway line wouldn't have to go beyond St. George.

[Roadcruiser1]

They should reactivate the Triboro RX plan for it then. The Triboro RX should be a light rail and heavy rail track. The heavy rail could use the freight track. They should run four new services on there. 2 express services and 2 local services. 2 of them should run to Staten Island via Queens and the other two should run from Brooklyn to the Bronx.

[R32 3348]

I think increased capacity was the original intent when planners proposed the Super Express. But wouldn't that be a good thing? You can't increase and express service on Queens Blvd without either overhauling or replacing the current signal system. Having two extra tracks will let you increase express service. Plus, the LIRR ROW crosses under the in Woodside and has a connecting station there, so Super Express trains can stop at Woodside-61st St for a transfer to the , as well as the Express (unlike 74th St, which is a stop for Local trains only).

 

But the Super Express tracks could also be used to host service to parts of Queens that don't have subway service. If one service from the Queens Blvd Line is rerouted to the Super Express tracks, there would still be track capacity for at least one additional service. Let's say the were to be rerouted onto Super Express. That's 15 tph. Surely another line serving northeast Queens could run via Super Express and the 63rd St Tunnel with the . Perhaps this new service can run down 2nd Avenue once in Manhattan (of course it would require the building of the 2nd Avenue Line south of 63rd Street).

This would increase capacity, but it wouldn't necessarily affect subway expansion. For example, both the and the could be extended further east into Queens without the super express, serving more people. It would also improve service since any terminal is better than Jamaica Center and the wouldn't have to send trains to 179th St. anymore. A Queens Blvd. super express would be beneficial, but building other lines instead of it would have a bigger effect on reducing crowding on Queens lines. For example, if a purely hypothetical Long Island Expressway subway line were to be built, it would take big crowds off both the and the Queens Blvd. lines, since people who live near the line wouldn't have to take buses to the other two lines. This would mean less crowding at Main St., Union Turnpike, Woodhaven Blvd., Forest Hills, Queens Plaza, etc. I understand the point about possible 2nd Ave. service, since it wouldn't be possible to provide that without a super express.

[Santa Fe via Willow]

I had suggested Staten Island. Hudson Bergen could extend the light rail across the Bayonne Bridge and run down the western section of Staten Island. The western section of Staten Island is good for light rail because its mostly suburban. Another idea is that they should extend the light rail from the western section pass the mall with several stations then run south along the former Staten Island South Beach Branch.

 

 

Hopefully this might happen in my lifetime. They should also reconfigure the SIR and extend the subway from Brooklyn to the SIR. Also they have to reactivate the North Shore Branch.

 

:cool:

 

Very interesting.

 

:tup:

[NX Express]

This would increase capacity, but it wouldn't necessarily affect subway expansion. For example, both the and the could be extended further east into Queens without the super express, serving more people.

But since there's more people served, that means more trains are needed. However, the QBL Express is completely jammed and needs an alternative route... like the super-exp. To allow for the same level of ridership, it can stop at 61-Woodside. Also, the Q33 and Q47 could be extended there if needed.

[T to Dyre Avenue]

This would increase capacity, but it wouldn't necessarily affect subway expansion. For example, both the and the could be extended further east into Queens without the super express, serving more people. It would also improve service since any terminal is better than Jamaica Center and the wouldn't have to send trains to 179th St. anymore.

 

True. You can extend the and trains further into Queens. I would certainly be in favor of that. It would be an improvement for the because it would be able to handle a full 15 tph on the entire line, instead of the current 12 between Jamaica Center and Union Turnpike. But you wouldn't be able to run them at more than 15 tph each, unless the signaling system is either rebuilt or replaced by one that can handle more than 30 tph.

 

A Queens Blvd. super express would be beneficial, but building other lines instead of it would have a bigger effect on reducing crowding on Queens lines. For example, if a purely hypothetical Long Island Expressway subway line were to be built, it would take big crowds off both the and the Queens Blvd. lines, since people who live near the line wouldn't have to take buses to the other two lines. This would mean less crowding at Main St., Union Turnpike, Woodhaven Blvd., Forest Hills, Queens Plaza, etc. I understand the point about possible 2nd Ave. service, since it wouldn't be possible to provide that without a super express.

 

Yes, it would. I would be one of those riders who switch to a Long Island Expressway subway line if there was one. But where would it run once it leaves the LIE r.o.w.? I'd suggest the 63rd Street tunnel, then down 2nd Avenue once in Manhattan.

[Roadcruiser1]

I know but Second Avenue even if it is complete is only a two track configuration. Only three services in total could use it. Two exist the , and the . Only one more service could be created and it would have to use the 63rd St tunnel with the . It can go any farther to catch up with the . Therefore if future service is intended a six track Third Avenue Line would have to be created. In fact I actually favor the last Second Avenue train service head to LaGuardia Airport to serve the passengers. A future Third Avenue service could act as a super express.

[T to Dyre Avenue]

I know but Second Avenue even if it is complete is only a two track configuration. Only three services in total could use it. Two exist the , and the . Only one more service could be created and it would have to use the 63rd St tunnel with the . It can go any farther to catch up with the . Therefore if future service is intended a six track Third Avenue Line would have to be created. In fact I actually favor the last Second Avenue train service head to LaGuardia Airport to serve the passengers. A future Third Avenue service could act as a super express.

You'd have two services north of 63rd in the and the and you'd also have two services south of 63rd in the and the hypothetical ( V ) (LIE service). It shouldn't be a problem, operations-wise.