Plans for the "X Train"?

[qjtransitmaster]

The X (Triboro RX) will never exist due to the fact that the ROW north of the Canarsie Line is owned by Amtrak.

 

It can be truncated at the bronx to connect to metro-north east and amtrak

[qjtransitmaster]

well sometimes I would use BM expresses to transfer to BXM to get from brooklyn to bronx fast those lines time very well

[Roadcruiser1]

It can be truncated at the bronx to connect to metro-north east and amtrak

 

 

Canarsie is in Brooklyn. It's nowhere near the areas you are mentioning.

[Guest Lance]

well sometimes I would use BM expresses to transfer to BXM to get from brooklyn to bronx fast those lines time very well

 

 

And that has exactly what to do with this thread? Can you at least try to stay on topic here?

[Grand Concourse]

And that has exactly what to do with this thread? Can you at least try to stay on topic here?

 

A desperate attempt by a troll to get attention. Pay no attention to him.

[qjtransitmaster]

sorry but isn't that what this proposed line would do go from bronx to brooklyn??

[qjtransitmaster]

roadcruser what would you suggest

[KeystoneRegional]

The MUST stay in Queens and WILL NOT access LaGuardia Airport. A said "X" train will not work unless if it goes via the Rockway ROW, then onto an overpass on the LIE Median, then switching to the Grand Central to LGA Airport ~ or ~ if Astoria residents can finally accept some extension to the Airport, but rather than the Terminal be extended, double deck the Astoria Line and let a separate line merge onto the median of the GCP but ends in an open-cut configuration in the Terminal Area to maintain space for flight take offs and landings.

[Grand Concourse]

The best option for the LGA train would be another Airtrain line built over the GCP to the Astoria Blvd stop on the . With the Nimby's, I doubt a subway line would ever be extended around that area.

[Shortline Bus]

The best option for the LGA train would be another Airtrain line built over the GCP to the Astoria Blvd stop on the . With the Nimby's, I doubt a subway line would ever be extended around that area.

 

 

Concourse I am not saying your idea is bad i.e Airtrain over the GCP between Astoria Blvd and LGA. You said it yourself that the NIMBYS in Astoria and throughout Northwest Queens will go nuts. That why imo a better idea is an airtrain between the Willets Points/Flushing Meadows(ie Citifield) stop and LGA via the GCP. It would have very little oppsition and much easier to get approval. Plus connection to the LIRR Pt. Washington line. That a more realsitic idea.

 

Back to this "X" train proposal by Scott Stringer. IMO it will never happen i.e Brooklyn-Queens-Bronx triboro subway line. Instead a much more realstic use is by creating a 'light rail' on those same LIRR across central Brooklyn and into Queens.

[Grand Concourse]

No, the LGA AT could be built over the GCP like the JFK AT over the Van Wyck. Nimby's are opposed to the extension of the past Ditmars. The majority of riders would probably be from Manhattan and they would not want to go all the way to the end of the just to return back, when they can take the to AT directly to LGA.

[Threxx]

Concourse I am not saying your idea is bad i.e Airtrain over the GCP between Astoria Blvd and LGA. You said it yourself that the NIMBYS in Astoria and throughout Northwest Queens will go nuts. That why imo a better idea is an airtrain between the Willets Points/Flushing Meadows(ie Citifield) stop and LGA via the GCP. It would have very little oppsition and much easier to get approval. Plus connection to the LIRR Pt. Washington line. That a more realsitic idea.

 

Back to this "X" train proposal by Scott Stringer. IMO it will never happen i.e Brooklyn-Queens-Bronx triboro subway line. Instead a much more realstic use is by creating a 'light rail' on those same LIRR across central Brooklyn and into Queens.

 

 

A heavy rail line much like LIRR & Amtrak could be created. A combined operation could come to pass, where Amtrak maintains it's part of the line while the operates.

[Shortline Bus]

A heavy rail line much like LIRR & Amtrak could be created. A combined operation could come to pass, where Amtrak maintains it's part of the line while the operates.

 

 

Not trying to sound rude Threxx but do you as a teen have concept of how expensive buliding (along with all of your bus/subway ideas) costs? Have you taken a economics HS course yet? if not get back to me. Money is also a huge factor young man besides just creating bus/subway routes from riding it or using a google map.

[Threxx]

Not trying to sound rude Threxx but do you as a teen have concept of how expensive buliding (along with all of your bus/subway ideas) costs? Have you taken a economics HS course yet? if not get back to me. Money is also a huge factor young man besides just creating bus/subway routes from riding it or using a google map.

 

 

The tracks exist. The stations is the thing that will be an issue. The line can use existing stations in the Bronx, but Queens & Brooklyn would be the problem. The point of my post is to explain that the line can be created if:

1. Amtrak was willing to share the costs of maintainance with the .

2. The money existed to rebuild the stations on the Queens & Brooklyn.

 

I said nothing about costs. You tend to ridicule me because of my age. I don't appreciate that.

 

(P.S. I'm in middle school, and I will take an Economics class. Always wanted to own my own business.)

[Roadcruiser1]

The tracks exist. The stations is the thing that will be an issue. The line can use existing stations in the Bronx, but Queens & Brooklyn would be the problem. The point of my post is to explain that the line can be created if:

1. Amtrak was willing to share the costs of maintainance with the .

2. The money existed to rebuild the stations on the Queens & Brooklyn.

 

I said nothing about costs. You tend to ridicule me because of my age. I don't appreciate that.

 

(P.S. I'm in middle school, and I will take an Economics class. Always wanted to own my own business.)

 

 

The northern section of the tracks doesn't belong to the and light rail and a subway line can't run here because it's a railroad. A subway is different from a railroad. This railroad ROW is still used by freight trains. So therefore it's even more difficult to work out unless if you get rid of it.

[Threxx]

The northern section of the tracks doesn't belong to the and light rail and a subway line can't run here because it's a railroad. A subway is different from a railroad. This railroad ROW is still used by freight trains. So therefore it's even more difficult to work out unless if you get rid of it.

 

 

Re-read my post. Where did I say light rail or subway? I know full well that that line is a railroad.

[KeystoneRegional]

The best option for the LGA train would be another Airtrain line built over the GCP to the Astoria Blvd stop on the . With the Nimby's, I doubt a subway line would ever be extended around that area.

 

Concourse I am not saying your idea is bad i.e Airtrain over the GCP between Astoria Blvd and LGA. You said it yourself that the NIMBYS in Astoria and throughout Northwest Queens will go nuts. That why imo a better idea is an airtrain between the Willets Points/Flushing Meadows(ie Citifield) stop and LGA via the GCP. It would have very little oppsition and much easier to get approval. Plus connection to the LIRR Pt. Washington line. That a more realsitic idea.

 

Back to this "X" train proposal by Scott Stringer. IMO it will never happen i.e Brooklyn-Queens-Bronx triboro subway line. Instead a much more realstic use is by creating a 'light rail' on those same LIRR across central Brooklyn and into Queens.

 

No, the LGA AT could be built over the GCP like the JFK AT over the Van Wyck. Nimby's are opposed to the extension of the past Ditmars. The majority of riders would probably be from Manhattan and they would not want to go all the way to the end of the just to return back, when they can take the to AT directly to LGA.

 

 

One point is greatly missed in the entire arguement, the Airtrain no matter a people mover, light rail or heavy rail cannot run elevated until it reaches by the Terminal Buildings because a runway is directly by the Grand Central Parkway, planes often land in less than 100-200 feet from a car's roof, so an elevated Airtrain would spell disaster because the landing gear could touch the roof of the train equiptment.

 

As for the extension arguement, I could agree it's because that it has to "curve" back down SouthEastWard which will affect people. I think an Airtrain Terminal @ the Astoria Boulevard Station would work, not only that, this Airtrain will run ONLY on the Grand Central Parkway Median, via LGA Airport, as well as another branch to the (7)/LIRR Port Washington Mets-Williets Point Station via the Median. This arguement and options wouldn't affect much people, and really the NIMBY's wouldn't have a bigger voice since it would affect much of their outdoor scenes.

[GojiMet86]

One point is greatly missed in the entire arguement, the Airtrain no matter a people mover, light rail or heavy rail cannot run elevated until it reaches by the Terminal Buildings because a runway is directly by the Grand Central Parkway, planes often land in less than 100-200 feet from a car's roof, so an elevated Airtrain would spell disaster because the landing gear could touch the roof of the train equiptment.

 

As for the extension arguement, I could agree it's because that it has to "curve" back down SouthEastWard which will affect people. I think an Airtrain Terminal @ the Astoria Boulevard Station would work, not only that, this Airtrain will run ONLY on the Grand Central Parkway Median, via LGA Airport, as well as another branch to the (7)/LIRR Port Washington Mets-Williets Point Station via the Median. This arguement and options wouldn't affect much people, and really the NIMBY's wouldn't have a bigger voice since it would affect much of their outdoor scenes.

 

 

If anything, the to LaGuardia would have to go either underground or run at highway level ala Chicago's Blue and Red lines.

[KeystoneRegional]

If anything, the to LaGuardia would have to go either underground or run at highway level ala Chicago's Blue and Red lines.

 

 

Queens does not have the room, Grand Central Parkway is already "stuffed" enough. What should happen is what ever rail lines runs to LGA, a tunnel has to be either bored under Runway Drive or Runway Drive becomes a rail line (note that a sharp turn MUST be made toward either a portal at Plainview Park ~or~ just at one of the parks at the GCP/Astoria Blvd. Split.

[poingly]

The right of way is larger than what is currently being utilized. That is key.

 

As I understand the proposal, it would involve building a set of tracks alongside the tracks currently there.

[Far Rock Depot]

A line like this costs money whether the track is already there or not. First, the track may have to be replaced. Railroads and subways have 2 different rail heights. Then the single system has to be replaced. Then 3rd rails have To be added. Then, here's a real important one, ALL connections between the subway tracks and the rr tracks must be severed! Otherwise, subway trains will be mandated by FRA regulations (think SIR before the class1A status). they might as well build it from scratch.

[qjtransitmaster]

A line like this costs money whether the track is already there or not. First, the track may have to be replaced. Railroads and subways have 2 different rail heights. Then the single system has to be replaced. Then 3rd rails have To be added. Then, here's a real important one, ALL connections between the subway tracks and the rr tracks must be severed! Otherwise, subway trains will be mandated by FRA regulations (think SIR before the class1A status). they might as well build it from scratch.

 

or combine it with SIR? Or extend some MNRR trains and LIRR trains there for combined headways and call it X line but with railroad trains instead of subway

[Roadcruiser1]

A line like this costs money whether the track is already there or not. First, the track may have to be replaced. Railroads and subways have 2 different rail heights. Then the single system has to be replaced. Then 3rd rails have To be added. Then, here's a real important one, ALL connections between the subway tracks and the rr tracks must be severed! Otherwise, subway trains will be mandated by FRA regulations (think SIR before the class1A status). they might as well build it from scratch.

 

 

You are underestimating the ROW. The line can support 4 tracks. Currently only one track exists on the ROW. So it isn't that hard to lay new tracks for this.

[Tokkemon]

The problem with using an old ROW is it only accounts for 20-30% of the work of building a subway line. Like Far Rock Depot said above, all the tracks would have to be replaced, new signals, new stations, new walls or possibly coverings. All the old ROW gives you is a long hole in the ground where you don't have to demolish a bunch of buildings. That's not that big of a deal, especially when said ROW follows a route that isn't particularly helpful for commuters.

 

If there's any subway expansion in the outer boroughs, it should be vast graceful prefab concrete elevateds like they have in Vancouver, but on a grander scale to allow four-track service. There are dozens of Boulevards and highways with medians that could accommodate these els. The Airtrain really proves that they work amazingly well. And, if the wants to get really high-tech, they can set them up for automatic train control and cab signaling and all sorts of other gadgets to show that these are the future of the New York City Subway system. It's a psychological gain as well as a physical one.

[Far Rock Depot]

or combine it with SIR? Or extend some MNRR trains and LIRR trains there for combined headways and call it X line but with railroad trains instead of subway

 

 

Given the frequency of riders within the city on commuter railroads (not traveling past the city lines) doesnt warrent interboro Commuter rail

 

You are underestimating the ROW. The line can support 4 tracks. Currently only one track exists on the ROW. So it isn't that hard to lay new tracks for this.

 

 

Youre underestimating the costs of laying said new tracks whether theres space or not. PLus all the surveys, community elections on the project, impact on the environment-including environmental studies, and procurment of said space if not MTA owned......

 

The problem with using an old ROW is it only accounts for 20-30% of the work of building a subway line. Like Far Rock Depot said above, all the tracks would have to be replaced, new signals, new stations, new walls or possibly coverings. All the old ROW gives you is a long hole in the ground where you don't have to demolish a bunch of buildings. That's not that big of a deal, especially when said ROW follows a route that isn't particularly helpful for commuters.

 

If there's any subway expansion in the outer boroughs, it should be vast graceful prefab concrete elevateds like they have in Vancouver, but on a grander scale to allow four-track service. There are dozens of Boulevards and highways with medians that could accommodate these els. The Airtrain really proves that they work amazingly well. And, if the wants to get really high-tech, they can set them up for automatic train control and cab signaling and all sorts of other gadgets to show that these are the future of the New York City Subway system. It's a psychological gain as well as a physical one.

 

 

yes, laying track is only part of the work.

Els have just as much difficulty, if not, more, of getting approval compared to a subway tunnel or an existing RoW.

AirTrain had an easier time setting up because it was from scratch, most was within PA land, and is elevated above a highway with not as much residential impact especially with no stops between the airport and a Transit Hub (Jamaica).

But i like your thinking........Too bad the MTA isnt as ambitious