Jump to content


Attention: In order to reply to messages, create topics, have access to other features of the community you must sign up for an account.
Sign in to follow this  
BrooklynIRT

Triboro (RX) News?

Recommended Posts

I was thinking that it might be an issue, and upon closer inspection, there is no way the FAA would allow anything in the path of the runway north of 30th Avenue. Would also nix any elevated (N) extention. Unless, of course, they tear down some of the public housing next to LGA and build a portal there. The only real options would be to build a tunnel (disruptive and expensive) or build a viaduct from the east (not as hard because there aren't height restrictions).

 

I've always thought that the particular restrictions for a within-LGA AirTrain would be best suited for at-grade light rail.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

AirTrain will probably be what will happen because the Port Authority wants all revenue from an airport rail link. Plus, they can charge twice as much and still have people ride. What else could fliers do? Take a cab or the (gasp) bus? There's no other reason why there couldn't be a subway link. Other cities have built subway links under similar conditions. The problem is that the Port Authority is not known for playing nice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i agree with you cl94. Somebody is holding up all this great idea to have subway to LGA. It becoming popular these days to have rail connecting to the airport. newark airport got monorail to NJtransit and amtrak . JFk have air train to howard beach station or Jamaica Station.  Baltimore have train connecting with Amtrak or Marc. Shanghai got Maglev connecting airport to downtown. Chicago got the El to O'hare airport. Septa have rail from suburban station to airport. Wmta has subway that run outside of ronald regan international airport.  i saw a video on youtube and london heathrow airport got two different rails option at the airport. They said tube or underground is cheap with a 40  minutes ride.  The other is high speed for higher prices for 15 minutes ride i think. So, who really lacking these idea to have subway to LGA? Community, Albany, MTA or PA? My answer is all of them. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is literally the point of the RX. Not everyone is trying to go to Manhattan, and not everyone lives along a train line. You've got cross-Brooklyn routes like the B6 and the B35 that are crowded, busy, and slow, and job growth in the outer boroughs has been much faster than job growth within Manhattan. The (G) is, quite frankly, useless, since it only provides one transfer to a non-IND line in Brooklyn and is too far west to be useful for the majority of people. Even the individual segments of the RX would be very useful; the Q58 is the only connection between Ridgewood and Queens Blvd, and is one of the busiest bus lines in Queens.

 

The current subway setup has a "all roads lead to Rome" problem, in that the geometrically fastest way between two points (twenty minutes on the BQE between Queens and Brooklyn) is a good 70 minutes by the fastest mass transportation option because you have to go all the way into the core and all the way back out. It'd also do a fair amount to relieve core congestion, since going into Manhattan would no longer be necessary for inter-borough travel.

 

Not trying to be a d*ck but I can think of very few subway, BRT and even local bus systems in the world where one doesnt have to go to the core to get transfers to other places within the city... Sure, NYC is big so it might be a bigger problem. Just sayin that its actually quite a common setup in most of the world.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not trying to be a d*ck but I can think of very few subway, BRT and even local bus systems in the world where one doesnt have to go to the core to get transfers to other places within the city... Sure, NYC is big so it might be a bigger problem. Just sayin that its actually quite a common setup in most of the world.

 

At least in the United States, Canada, and Australia, many areas have moved from a strictly radial transit system model (although this is less of the case in Australia simply because their cities tend to follow coastlines and rail lines vs. the sprawl of American areas). Above a certain city size, it becomes less desirable to have everyone going into the core, especially if it results in trip diversions of half an hour or more.

 

AirTrain will probably be what will happen because the Port Authority wants all revenue from an airport rail link. Plus, they can charge twice as much and still have people ride. What else could fliers do? Take a cab or the (gasp) bus? There's no other reason why there couldn't be a subway link. Other cities have built subway links under similar conditions. The problem is that the Port Authority is not known for playing nice.

 

Well, the other issue is that by serving the airport you also avoid all of Elmhurst, and the fact that LGA is set to undergo major renovation in the next couple years, so building a train to a terminal that will not be configured the same way in a decade is probably not the best idea.

 

Honestly, I would rather see a subway line under Astoria Blvd and a small light rail connection to LGA's terminals, because some passengers would still have to take an airport shuttle if there was a station at the Central Terminal (to get to the Marine Air or Delta terminals, for instance)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Honestly, I would rather see a subway line under Astoria Blvd and a small light rail connection to LGA's terminals, because some passengers would still have to take an airport shuttle if there was a station at the Central Terminal (to get to the Marine Air or Delta terminals, for instance)

Biggest problems with an Astoria Boulevard line are the large amount of land acquisition required for a tunnel portal and that subway construction would screw up Astoria Boulevard, the BQE, and the GCP for years.

 

Other cities have a line that makes multiple stops within an airoort. For example, the Picadilly Line in London has 3 stations within Heathrow Airport. Say the subway extension had stops at Terminals A/B amd C/D. That would cover everything. Throw in a few moving sidewalks to make the walk easier for people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its purpose would be served best to be a "glorified (S)" and take strain off the buses.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Biggest problems with an Astoria Boulevard line are the large amount of land acquisition required for a tunnel portal and that subway construction would screw up Astoria Boulevard, the BQE, and the GCP for years.

 

Other cities have a line that makes multiple stops within an airoort. For example, the Picadilly Line in London has 3 stations within Heathrow Airport. Say the subway extension had stops at Terminals A/B amd C/D. That would cover everything. Throw in a few moving sidewalks to make the walk easier for people.

See, a portal assumes that you start with a elevated line. You would need an underground portal anyways due to the presence of the runway/landing path and the fact that at some point you'd need to cross the GCP to get to LaGuardia (which you can't really do if the line is at grade in a cramped median that has no space)

 

A perfect model for a LGA subway would be to follow the example of the TTC, whose Sheppard line was designed to be extended in both directions. Start with an initial operating segment between say, Astoria/Ditmars and 82nd/Astoria, and then you can extend it in both directions in phases: to Manhattan as a crosstown, and to Flushing via Astoria Blvd. The airport would be best served using a circulator.

 

Heathrow works because the Heathrow layout has stayed relatively static over time, and the terminals are arranged in a very convenient way (three of them are arranged around a very tight circle, so walking distance is no issue.) There also isn't anything worth extending the Picadilly Line to past Heathrow, as the line is already quite far out of London. This is not the case in LaGuardia; the layout of the airport is set to change drastically, as the Central Terminal is rebuilt (earlier phases of this long-running project include the construction of a new ATC tower and the renovation of the Delta Terminal). It is also the case that pretty much all subway options would be unable to connect to the Marine Air Terminal in a meaningful way, and there's a massive underserved business district (Flushing) and residential district adjacent to the airport (Elmhurst).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

See, a portal assumes that you start with a elevated line. You would need an underground portal anyways due to the presence of the runway/landing path and the fact that at some point you'd need to cross the GCP to get to LaGuardia (which you can't really do if the line is at grade in a cramped median that has no space)

 

A perfect model for a LGA subway would be to follow the example of the TTC, whose Sheppard line was designed to be extended in both directions. Start with an initial operating segment between say, Astoria/Ditmars and 82nd/Astoria, and then you can extend it in both directions in phases: to Manhattan as a crosstown, and to Flushing via Astoria Blvd. The airport would be best served using a circulator.

 

Heathrow works because the Heathrow layout has stayed relatively static over time, and the terminals are arranged in a very convenient way (three of them are arranged around a very tight circle, so walking distance is no issue.) There also isn't anything worth extending the Picadilly Line to past Heathrow, as the line is already quite far out of London. This is not the case in LaGuardia; the layout of the airport is set to change drastically, as the Central Terminal is rebuilt (earlier phases of this long-running project include the construction of a new ATC tower and the renovation of the Delta Terminal). It is also the case that pretty much all subway options would be unable to connect to the Marine Air Terminal in a meaningful way, and there's a massive underserved business district (Flushing) and residential district adjacent to the airport (Elmhurst).

 

One wouldn't need a portal if a viaduct came in from the southeast. Simply build over the GCP. There is enough room to do it. If you don't believe me, I could run the calculations. Obviously, anything would have to wait until they reconfigure LaGuardia. This would get the northern parts of Elmhurst and the ROW exists. A free people mover inside airport property could get people to/from the various terminals.

 

If such an extension is built properly, there would be no need for it to be extended. Personally, I'd like an (N) extension down Astoria Boulevard to serve Elmhurst, then over to Bayside. All I was mentioning was getting to/from the airport, and for this purpose, it is much cheaper and simpler to build an elevated railway with connections to the LIRR over a parkway than tunnel under a residential area along a route that is nearly 50% longer.

 

The Sheppard Line, while designed to be extended, might not be the best example to serve your purpose. It is currently an underutilized shuttle running with ~2 trains of 4 ~75 foot cars, making it Toronto's (G) or Rockaway (S). If extended to Downsview and Scarborough Centre, it would serve more of a purpose, but the same goes for a few lines in New York. Many other lines in New York were designed to be extended including both levels of Archer Avenue, Hillside Avenue, the New Lots Line, the Eastern Parkway line (with a provision for expansion down Utica Avenue), Nostrand Avenue (Flatbush (2)(5) was obviously not intended to be a terminal), and Grand Concourse (205th Street (D) doesn't even have crew facilities). I'm not even counting the many other provisions for the Second System.

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Many other lines in New York were designed to be extended including both levels of Archer Avenue, Hillside Avenue, the New Lots Line, the Eastern Parkway line (with a provision for expansion down Utica Avenue), Nostrand Avenue (Flatbush (2)(5) was obviously not intended to be a terminal), and Grand Concourse (205th Street (D) doesn't even have crew facilities). I'm not even counting the many other provisions for the Second System.

I might be drooling a little bit here but I have to ask...where was the New Lots line supposed to terminate if it had been built to specs? Elevated or underground?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I might be drooling a little bit here but I have to ask...where was the New Lots line supposed to terminate if it had been built to specs? Elevated or underground?

 

Depends. Trackways exist for it to continue east onto New Lots Avenue to a location I do not know, but there was a proposal in the 1960s to extend it south to Flatlands Avenue. I think it was to turn south on the yard leads and run alongside the yard, but don't quote me on that one. Don't know whether it was to be elevated or subway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are there any diagrams or concept maps posted anyplace where 'mine eyes would see the glory of the coming...' (He said with tongue firmly planted in cheek) :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One wouldn't need a portal if a viaduct came in from the southeast. Simply build over the GCP. There is enough room to do it. If you don't believe me, I could run the calculations. Obviously, anything would have to wait until they reconfigure LaGuardia. This would get the northern parts of Elmhurst and the ROW exists. A free people mover inside airport property could get people to/from the various terminals.

 

If such an extension is built properly, there would be no need for it to be extended. Personally, I'd like an (N) extension down Astoria Boulevard to serve Elmhurst, then over to Bayside. All I was mentioning was getting to/from the airport, and for this purpose, it is much cheaper and simpler to build an elevated railway with connections to the LIRR over a parkway than tunnel under a residential area along a route that is nearly 50% longer.

 

The Sheppard Line, while designed to be extended, might not be the best example to serve your purpose. It is currently an underutilized shuttle running with ~2 trains of 4 ~75 foot cars, making it Toronto's (G) or Rockaway (S). If extended to Downsview and Scarborough Centre, it would serve more of a purpose, but the same goes for a few lines in New York. Many other lines in New York were designed to be extended including both levels of Archer Avenue, Hillside Avenue, the New Lots Line, the Eastern Parkway line (with a provision for expansion down Utica Avenue), Nostrand Avenue (Flatbush (2)(5) was obviously not intended to be a terminal), and Grand Concourse (205th Street (D) doesn't even have crew facilities). I'm not even counting the many other provisions for the Second System.

 

The thing about any connection from the Southeast (and I'm going to assume that this is over the GCP, because a viaduct over Junction Blvd is not happening, ever) is that it would almost definitely not be time-competitive with the Q70 or the M60. That would literally just be a waste of money, since the only big district SE of LaGuardia would be Flushing, and the Q48 carries air. You would be better off building a grade separated transitway for the Q70 and M60 within airport grounds that didn't restrict them to an airport style distribution loop.

 

I love rail as much as anybody here, but let's build things that actually help people. The best way to serve LGA would be a starter line between Astoria Ditmars and 82nd/Astoria via Hazen St, and maybe even further into the Central Terminal (which won't be done for at least a decade). In the future it would be extendable to both Manhattan and Flushing. That's the best-case scenario.

Edited by bobtehpanda
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Depends. Trackways exist for it to continue east onto New Lots Avenue to a location I do not know, but there was a proposal in the 1960s to extend it south to Flatlands Avenue. I think it was to turn south on the yard leads and run alongside the yard, but don't quote me on that one. Don't know whether it was to be elevated or subway.

 

Yup, it was supposed to go Flatlands Ave: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proposed_New_York_City_Subway_expansion_%281929%E2%80%9340%29#1968_plans

 

The trackways continue east for about 75 feet.

 

Are there any diagrams or concept maps posted anyplace where 'mine eyes would see the glory of the coming...' (He said with tongue firmly planted in cheek) :)

 

Yes:

1968expansionlarge.jpg

Edited by Vistausss
  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like the IND Second System Map best. It would have been nice to see it built. We wouldn't have the transit problems that exists today if it was built. Though even though it may not make sense to build the plan fully now we can take ideas from it to address the problems that is bothering us today!!!!!!!!!!

 

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b3/1939_IND_Second_System.jpg

1939_IND_Second_System.jpg

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like the IND Second System Map best. It would have been nice to see it built. We wouldn't have the transit problems that exists today if it was built. Though even though it may not make sense to build the plan fully now we can take ideas from it to address the problems that is bothering us today!!!!!!!!!!

 

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b3/1939_IND_Second_System.jpg

1939_IND_Second_System.jpg

 

The Utica Avenue Line and the (N) extension to near the county line would have been nice. Not certain that the extended Fulton line is necessary, especially because that could be covered by a (J)(Z) extension that requires less new construction. The Flushing Line extensions are needed even today. Not as much to the northeast, as the LIRR has that covered pretty well, but Whitestone needs the service. A Fort Hamilton Parkway line would provide some much-needed transfers to the IND in addition to connecting SIR to the rest of the system, but might (read: would) be overkill. Hillside needs the extension and the Second Avenue line is finally being built. I think transit planners should still use this plan as guidance for 21st Century needs becuase the areas this would have given service to are in dire need of mass transit options.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its not going to happen at all, its a dead proposal. The reason is because Governor Andrew Cuomo has recently announced that he will financially back with state dollars a new Metro North Railroad Penn Station Access project that may use much of the existing Amtrak ROW  up to and including the Hells Gate Bridge. The MTA is dedicated to building this new MNRR line so that effectively eliminates any prospects of the NYC Transit's Triboro RX project ever becoming a reality.

 

Link: http://www.wnyc.org/story/gov-cuomo-supports-new-metro-north-train-line-through-east-bronx/

 

Link: http://web.mta.info/mta/planning/psas/pdf/MorrisPark_September2012.pdf

 

12253325364_fb1455f28b_b.jpg

 

In the long run, sending MNRR to Penn could save the state a lot of money, especially if MNRR is extended north to Albany (which has been discussed). It's cheaper for the (MTA) to operate its own New York-Albany service than pay Amtrak to do it. Half of the Albany trains could be sent to GCT, more (much needed) Poughkeepsie-Albany service could be provided to serve the many commuters who use Amtrak from Rhinecliff or Albany or drive south to Poughkeepsie for commuter rail. Theoretically, everyone would win. Yes, the New Haven connection kills the NX, but it would certainly help people getting into the city as well as provide a high-speed upgrade to the line (hopefully).

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the long run, sending MNRR to Penn could save the state a lot of money, especially if MNRR is extended north to Albany (which has been discussed). It's cheaper for the (MTA) to operate its own New York-Albany service than pay Amtrak to do it. Half of the Albany trains could be sent to GCT, more (much needed) Poughkeepsie-Albany service could be provided to serve the many commuters who use Amtrak from Rhinecliff or Albany or drive south to Poughkeepsie for commuter rail. Theoretically, everyone would win. Yes, the New Haven connection kills the NX, but it would certainly help people getting into the city as well as provide a high-speed upgrade to the line (hopefully).

I wasn't aware that the State subsidized Amtrak service to Albany. Amtrak runs 10 trains from Albany to Penn btn 6AM-10PM weekdays. Average ticket price is $61. MNRR runs 26 thru trains btn Puoghkeepsie & Grand Central at an average price of $26 at full fare, with numerous sub runs leaving from Croton-Harmon, Ossining, Scarborough, Philipse Manor & Tarrytown.

 

I don't think Amtrak would give that Albany route up without a fight, especially since they own the ROW. Why bring DC into this when there's already enough political infighting already in Albany?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wasn't aware that the State subsidized Amtrak service to Albany. Amtrak runs 10 trains from Albany to Penn btn 6AM-10PM weekdays. Average ticket price is $61. MNRR runs 26 thru trains btn Puoghkeepsie & Grand Central at an average price of $26 at full fare, with numerous sub runs leaving from Croton-Harmon, Ossining, Scarborough, Philipse Manor & Tarrytown.

 

I don't think Amtrak would give that Albany route up without a fight, especially since they own the ROW. Why bring DC into this when there's already enough political infighting already in Albany?

 

Most Amtrak routes are subsidized; keep in mind that Amtrak counts state subsidies as "revenues."

 

Amtrak can charge whatever the hell they want to as long as the seats are filled. That doesn't change the fact that Amtrak and MNR serve two completely different markets and operate completely different styles of service.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the long run, sending MNRR to Penn could save the state a lot of money, especially if MNRR is extended north to Albany (which has been discussed). It's cheaper for the (MTA) to operate its own New York-Albany service than pay Amtrak to do it. Half of the Albany trains could be sent to GCT, more (much needed) Poughkeepsie-Albany service could be provided to serve the many commuters who use Amtrak from Rhinecliff or Albany or drive south to Poughkeepsie for commuter rail. Theoretically, everyone would win. Yes, the New Haven connection kills the NX, but it would certainly help people getting into the city as well as provide a high-speed upgrade to the line (hopefully).

 

See, this is the part where the existence of the MTA becomes dubious. The agency's explicit purpose is to serve the Metropolitan area of New York; we do have commuters coming from as far as Poughkeepsie, Montauk, and New Haven. However, by no stretch of the imagination would Albany ever be considered part of the metro area.

 

The way the MTA is set up now, MTA Bridge and Tunnels basically funds the commuter rail network, which makes sense; the commuter railroads take a lot of pressure off of the highway network in the city. However, the same cannot be said of any extension to Albany, so that wouldn't make sense. How would you fund such a service; congestion pricing Albany, or diverting Thruway tolls to the MTA?

 

MTA is already too big to be accountable to all of its constituents. The Albany area would be better off running its own commuter rails instead of launching onto the unwieldy bohemoth that is MTA. (MTA should ideally have been three separate agencies at its inception, with one agency managing the city's subways and buses, another managing buses and commuter rail for the northern suburbs, and another one for Long Island's buses and commuter rails, but that's another story.)

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the long run, sending MNRR to Penn could save the state a lot of money, especially if MNRR is extended north to Albany (which has been discussed). It's cheaper for the (MTA) to operate its own New York-Albany service than pay Amtrak to do it. Half of the Albany trains could be sent to GCT, more (much needed) Poughkeepsie-Albany service could be provided to serve the many commuters who use Amtrak from Rhinecliff or Albany or drive south to Poughkeepsie for commuter rail. Theoretically, everyone would win. Yes, the New Haven connection kills the NX, but it would certainly help people getting into the city as well as provide a high-speed upgrade to the line (hopefully).

Absolutely, this makes sense, thats a good arguement you are bringing to the table here. But I cant say its a win win however... Only in the sense that with the NYC Transit Triboro Rx plan axed, locals will have no alternatives to cross-borough travel. The MNRR amazingly has no Queens stops slated in its plan. Many locals will be relunctant to pay railroad fares to travel between Manhattan and the Bronx. The Q44 just doesnt cut it. Both the IRT Flushing and IND Queens Blvd lines which the bus route feeds into is severly overcrowded. (Queens Bvld is the second busiest line in the nation second only to the Lex but you know this just throwing it out there for the record.)

 

The (G) only is useful for Brooklynites wishing to gain access to Long Island City esp now that service to Forest Hills is now history.

 

So even as you are correct on how the MNRR will provide better commuter access to Manhattan from upstate it has no usefulness for Brooklyn or Queens residents who has no crosstown rapid transit options. In the 20 year needs assessment pdf released by the MTA they acknowledged that demographics are exploding outside of Manhattan in its residential and business districts in the outer boros making a loop line something to consider.

 

One can only imagine the potential for fare collection revenue the MTA could have collected from a such a line as the Triboro Rx had it been built. It would have paid for itself many times over in a short period of time and even turn a high profit after operational costs are factored in.

Edited by realizm
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.