Department of Subways - Proposals/Ideas

[Union Tpke]

8 hours ago, bobtehpanda said:

A modest proposal to boost capacity at train terminals and run CBTC to its fullest potential. After all, CBTC is used in other cities to run as much as 40TPH.

Do you want to eliminate freight? The ROW between the Brighton Line and the Culver Line is only two tracks wide.

Also, why don't you have a stop at Albany Avenue?

Edited July 18, 2018 by Union Tpke

[RR503]

7 hours ago, Trainmaster5 said:

The problem,  as we see it, isn't the politics first and foremost but the legalities surrounding a national landmarked Historic district. NYC landmarks and Federal landmarks are two different things as far as we can determine. Look no further than the Farley Post Office building and how plans for the area around it tiptoe around the building itself.  Brooklyn Heights is a federal landmarked Historic district as well as a NYC historic landmark.  The Atlantic Avenue tunnel and a portion of State Street also have some level of landmark status too IIRC. Forget whatever merits any plans might have for a minute.  What politician is going to carry water for such a plan ? Every plan conceived since the was established has been sponsored or the water carried by the local politicians. SAS station at 116th St ? Local initiative. LIRR Third Track or  Ronkonkoma Second Track projects only move forward with the support of the affected local pols.  We doubt that the Prince,  the , nor the Mayor or County Executives will ramrod any idea without local support. You may be correct in your assessment but we can see this being decided in Federal court not locally. Carry on 

My parents are both architects, so over the years I’ve learned a good bit about Landmarks. Legally, that group has power solely over preserving neighborhood aesthetic character in building stock. Thus, unless the MTA is forced to place an ancillary that cannot be fit within an existing building shell (unlikely — see my last post), LPC wouldn’t have any binding say on the project, as it would be something under the neighborhood. The Atlantic Tunnel is (I believe) NRHP, which is slightly different from Landmarks, but I don’t really see its relevance to this discussion given that most proposals for a new Bk tunnel involve one connecting to Hoyt. 

As for ramrodding, I think that some of the examples you give are perfect instances of that happening. Third Track was dead in the water until Andy C summoned his political blitz force to cajole legislators up and down the route to acquiesce after receiving “assurances” (scoldings, more like) from those in Albany. To this day, unhappiness with the LIRR’s plans is common — just browse the various Facebook groups dedicated to its opposition for evidence. I really don’t think that bulldozing a vocally opposed constituency for a greater good is in any way an impossibility. 

Edited July 18, 2018 by RR503

[Caelestor]

5 hours ago, Union Tpke said:

Do you want to eliminate freight? The ROW between the Brighton Line and the Culver Line is only two tracks wide.

Also, why don't you have a stop at Albany Avenue?

It makes sense to eliminate freight along a potentially useful crosstown corridor. 

In his map, the  stops at transfer stations or streets with a north/south bus route and commercial development. Albany Ave doesn't have that and a potential stop there would be in a mostly residential neighborhood with low possibility of commercial development.

[Trainmaster5]

3 hours ago, RR503 said:

My parents are both architects, so over the years I’ve learned a good bit about Landmarks. Legally, that group has power solely over preserving neighborhood aesthetic character in building stock. Thus, unless the MTA is forced to place an ancillary that cannot be fit within an existing building shell (unlikely — see my last post), LPC wouldn’t have any binding say on the project, as it would be something under the neighborhood. The Atlantic Tunnel is (I believe) NRHP, which is slightly different from Landmarks, but I don’t really see its relevance to this discussion given that most proposals for a new Bk tunnel involve one connecting to Hoyt. 

As for ramrodding, I think that some of the examples you give are perfect instances of that happening. Third Track was dead in the water until Andy C summoned his political blitz force to cajole legislators up and down the route to acquiesce after receiving “assurances” (scoldings, more like) from those in Albany. To this day, unhappiness with the LIRR’s plans is common — just browse the various Facebook groups dedicated to its opposition for evidence. I really don’t think that bulldozing a vocally opposed constituency for a greater good is in any way an impossibility. 

With respect to the Third Track or Ronkonkoma projects IMO connecting those with ESA was the determining factor.  Like the opening of the SAS he takes the credit and the photo op for someone else's work. The population(s) of Nassau and Suffolk who stand to benefit from the projects are looking at ESA. As long as the projects were tied solely to Pennsylvania station the projects went nowhere. He got the local Republicans involved too so they can take the credit along with him. With so many transit "deserts" within NYC I don't foresee any clamor or political backing for any new tunnel construction.  The local politicians can't even get the agency to provide reliable bus service to their neighborhoods.  Just my opinion,  not my group as a whole, but I can't see herding these cats ( citywide pols) to agree with you on the need for a new tunnel no matter the merits. Read the book about the routes not taken if you haven't already. Historically any transit projects involved tradeoffs. Don't forget that politics is parochial in NY. Neither the city,  State,  nor the has the financial wherewithal to fund anything AFAIK.  Carry on. 

[Union Tpke]

2 hours ago, Caelestor said:

It makes sense to eliminate freight along a potentially useful crosstown corridor. 

In his map, the  stops at transfer stations or streets with a north/south bus route and commercial development. Albany Ave doesn't have that and a potential stop there would be in a mostly residential neighborhood with low possibility of commercial development.

Without the stop there will be a long distance between stops. The Triboro should serve transit deserts as well.

[bobtehpanda]

6 minutes ago, Union Tpke said:

Without the stop there will be a long distance between stops. The Triboro should serve transit deserts as well.

Stops are expensive. The area around Albany Av is not a crazily dense area, and is 10-12 minutes walk from the nearest stops, hardly a transit desert.

[Union Tpke]

Just now, bobtehpanda said:

Stops are expensive. The area around Albany Av is not a crazily dense area, and is 10-12 minutes walk from the nearest stops, hardly a transit desert.

You are willing to get rid of freight?

[bobtehpanda]

7 hours ago, Union Tpke said:

Do you want to eliminate freight? The ROW between the Brighton Line and the Culver Line is only two tracks wide.

Most freight is not carried by rail in New York, and the Cross Harbor Tunnel is a pipe dream being pushed by a single politician. Even if such a facility were to be built for billions, there are no yards to take up the slack, and no land to put in new yards.

[Union Tpke]

Just now, bobtehpanda said:

Most freight is not carried by rail in New York, and the Cross Harbor Tunnel is a pipe dream being pushed by a single politician. Even if such a facility were to be built for billions, there are no yards to take up the slack, and no land to put in new yards.

I'm not sure how politically viable it will be to eliminate all freight.

[bobtehpanda]

Just now, Union Tpke said:

I'm not sure how politically viable it will be to eliminate all freight.

"Politics" is a fancy way of handwaving arguments you don't have answers for.

[Union Tpke]

Would you also get rid of freight on the Lower Montauk, and get rid of the New York and Atlantic. The Oak Point Link will be wasted. How do you think food gets to Hunts Point?

[Union Tpke]

Just now, bobtehpanda said:

"Politics" is a fancy way of handwaving arguments you don't have answers for.

The Mayor has just come up with a plan to expand freight.

https://www.nycedc.com/sites/default/files/filemanager/Services/PortNYC/5054-PT_FreightNYC_book_PRESS_digital_3.pdf

[Union Tpke]

They can be segregated for most of the right of way. If needed, property could be condemned and the ROW between the Brighton and Culver Lines can be widened. The issue is then north of Fresh Pond. I guess it is possible to reroute freight via the Lower Montauk, a rebuilt Montauk Cut-off and through Sunnyside for exclusive service. Light rail vehicles that are FRA compliant can be used to avoid this.

[bobtehpanda]

3 minutes ago, Union Tpke said:

Would you also get rid of freight on the Lower Montauk, and get rid of the New York and Atlantic. The Oak Point Link will be wasted. How do you think food gets to Hunts Point?

North from Selkirk.

1 minute ago, Union Tpke said:

The Mayor has just come up with a plan to expand freight.

https://www.nycedc.com/sites/default/files/filemanager/Services/PortNYC/5054-PT_FreightNYC_book_PRESS_digital_3.pdf

The mayor has a lot of ideas. How's the BQX coming along?

If you can barge directly to Hunts Point there's not much value in having trains take the scenic route through Brooklyn on a railroad.

[Union Tpke]

4 minutes ago, bobtehpanda said:

North from Selkirk.

The mayor has a lot of ideas. How's the BQX coming along?

If you can barge directly to Hunts Point there's not much value in having trains take the scenic route through Brooklyn on a railroad.

You would rather kick freight out than either track sharing or the four tracking of the remaining stretches?

[bobtehpanda]

2 minutes ago, Union Tpke said:

You would rather kick freight out than either track sharing or the four tracking of the remaining stretches?

Better things cost money. If NY&A won't pay for it, why should the public? Diesel freight locomotives have huge health impacts on the neighborhoods they run through, as do rail intermodal yards.

[Union Tpke]

Just now, bobtehpanda said:

Better things cost money. If NY&A won't pay for it, why should the public? Diesel freight locomotives have huge health impacts on the neighborhoods they run through, as do rail intermodal yards.

Reelectrify the line with catenary.

[RR503]

You legally can’t requisition the Bay Ridge Branch for passenger service. As it has active customers and serves as a critical interchange link for NY&A’s freight, the forcible abandonment of such a line would not hold up in front of the STB — that’s the interstate commerce clause for ya. 

Moreover, the line is actually quite heavily used (10k+ carloads/year), and is experiencing growth — much of it at the hands of the very city programs you deride. I also think you’re mischaracterizing the CHFP. While the tunnel itself is indeed a bit of a pipe dream, the “improve current floating operations” section is actually underway — NYNJ just bought new barges to that end, and is in the process of negotiating as many customers as possible away from the Selkirk hurdle. 

37 minutes ago, bobtehpanda said:

Better things cost money. If NY&A won't pay for it, why should the public? Diesel freight locomotives have huge health impacts on the neighborhoods they run through, as do rail intermodal yards.

This is rich. If you’re at all worried about emissions, you should be throwing all your weight behind freight rail. Yes, diesel locomotives emit fumes, but a) T4 regs are changing that and b) trucks are so, so much worse. 

I’d give these arguments maybe a shred more credence if there was no viable alternative to freight requisition, but that’s just not the case. You can just buy some M9s (or, hell, FLIRTs) and add platforms... 

Edited July 18, 2018 by RR503

[officiallyliam]

19 minutes ago, RR503 said:

Moreover, the line is actually quite heavily used (10k+ carloads/year), and is experiencing growth — much of it at the hands of the very city programs you deride. I also think you’re mischaracterizing the CHFP. While the tunnel itself is indeed a bit of a pipe dream, the “improve current floating operations” section is actually underway — NYNJ just bought new barges to that end, and is in the process of negotiating as many customers as possible away from the Selkirk hurdle. 

54 minutes ago, bobtehpanda said:

Better things cost money. If NY&A won't pay for it, why should the public? Diesel freight locomotives have huge health impacts on the neighborhoods they run through, as do rail intermodal yards.

@RR503 is right - if the concern is the environment and emissions in the city (which it should be), than we should really embrace freight rail. The Bay Ridge branch and the Lower Montauk are both key to this, as are expansions of rail yards at Fresh Pond and in Maspeth. And if we're still that concerned about emissions, I'd be all for what @Union Tpke suggested - electrifying the line using catenary. Any cross-harbor tunnel (which, yes, is a pipe dream) will likely need to be electrified, the northern end (Hell Gate) is already electric, and electrification would almost certainly happen for any passenger rail project along the corridor.

I think also, though, that a strengthened freight rail service and a hypothetical passenger one could coexist along the Bay Ridge branch. Most of the line (except the open-cut through Midwood) is four tracks wide, and as long as things are scheduled (and operated) well, it should be conflict-free. Building a full circumferential line around Brooklyn and Queens (Triboro) is a better use of the ROW than an extension, and if the rolling stock could just be M8 cars with a more rapid transit seat layout, which gets rid of the FRA problems that would crop up for subway service. The only issue with this is Fresh Pond: we'd need to build a second yard somewhere in Queens to take pressure off of FP; right now, NY&A basically uses the tracks as far south as Wilson Avenue as part of FP Yard, which would kill any passenger service.

But anyway, freight rail in NYC is somewhat undervalued as a resource (and potential resource): if anything, we should be using more freight rail (which would feed smaller, more local trucks for distribution) not less - that would only lead to more congestion (and large trucks) on roads like the LIE and all over the city.

 

[bobtehpanda]

1 hour ago, officiallyliam said:

@RR503 is right - if the concern is the environment and emissions in the city (which it should be), than we should really embrace freight rail. The Bay Ridge branch and the Lower Montauk are both key to this, as are expansions of rail yards at Fresh Pond and in Maspeth. And if we're still that concerned about emissions, I'd be all for what @Union Tpke suggested - electrifying the line using catenary. Any cross-harbor tunnel (which, yes, is a pipe dream) will likely need to be electrified, the northern end (Hell Gate) is already electric, and electrification would almost certainly happen for any passenger rail project along the corridor.

I think also, though, that a strengthened freight rail service and a hypothetical passenger one could coexist along the Bay Ridge branch. Most of the line (except the open-cut through Midwood) is four tracks wide, and as long as things are scheduled (and operated) well, it should be conflict-free. Building a full circumferential line around Brooklyn and Queens (Triboro) is a better use of the ROW than an extension, and if the rolling stock could just be M8 cars with a more rapid transit seat layout, which gets rid of the FRA problems that would crop up for subway service. The only issue with this is Fresh Pond: we'd need to build a second yard somewhere in Queens to take pressure off of FP; right now, NY&A basically uses the tracks as far south as Wilson Avenue as part of FP Yard, which would kill any passenger service.

But anyway, freight rail in NYC is somewhat undervalued as a resource (and potential resource): if anything, we should be using more freight rail (which would feed smaller, more local trucks for distribution) not less - that would only lead to more congestion (and large trucks) on roads like the LIE and all over the city.

 

Building an extension doesn't preclude a RX subway. One, right now, is a lot easier to achieve than the other.

It also rather neatly solves the issue of terminal capacity at Rockaway Parkway; even if you were to solve the issues with 8th Av, Rockaway Parkway is another terminal constraint, and you can only turn so many trains at Myrtle-Wyckoff.

[LGA Link N Train]

5 hours ago, Trainmaster5 said:

Read the book about the routes not taken if you haven't already.

Speaking of that book, I need to finish the 5th chapter. Thanks for reminding me

[officiallyliam]

14 minutes ago, bobtehpanda said:

Building an extension doesn't preclude a RX subway. One, right now, is a lot easier to achieve than the other.

It also rather neatly solves the issue of terminal capacity at Rockaway Parkway; even if you were to solve the issues with 8th Av, Rockaway Parkway is another terminal constraint, and you can only turn so many trains at Myrtle-Wyckoff.

But an extension is somewhat harder to accomplish given the need to separate those tracks from the freight tracks (or find some other way to circumvent the FRA). A Triboro line - as an Overground-style railroad line, not a subway - is much easier to accomplish given the need to work side-by-side with both freight trains and Amtrak/Metro-North trains. As for adding southern capacity to the line, I'd use some of the old structure at Atlantic Avenue to build a terminating track there. Most of the capacity crunch exists west of Myrtle-Wyckoff (and soon will be west of Broadway Junction), and terminating trains at Atlantic rather than down in Borough Park gets them back to the area where they're needed most more quickly.

[bobtehpanda]

5 hours ago, Union Tpke said:

Reelectrify the line with catenary.

How many freight railroads run lines using dual-mode, anywhere? The American railroads have stripped all the catenary from their existing lines to save money, because the economies of scale don't work out. And unless the City of New York is about to electrify the entire Northeast, let alone the entire country, the freight railroads won't take to it, because what's the point of buying a few locomotives that work only in a limited area?

[bobtehpanda]

4 hours ago, RR503 said:

This is rich. If you’re at all worried about emissions, you should be throwing all your weight behind freight rail. Yes, diesel locomotives emit fumes, but a) T4 regs are changing that and b) trucks are so, so much worse. 

I’d give these arguments maybe a shred more credence if there was no viable alternative to freight requisition, but that’s just not the case. You can just buy some M9s (or, hell, FLIRTs) and add platforms... 

Sure, if you want to run this type of commuter rail service:

https://www.progressiverailroading.com/passenger_rail/article/Inspector-general-Freight-delays-cost-Amtrak-millions-in-rsquo07--16462

Quote

Last month, the U.S. Department of Transportation’s Office of Inspector General released a report detailing freight-rail delays’ effects on Amtrak. Requested in February 2007 by Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.), the report states that the delays cost the national intercity passenger railroad almost $137 million in overtime and fuel costs, and lost revenue in fiscal-year 2006. The amount is equal to about 30 percent of Amtrak’s federal operating subsidy.

Between fiscal years 2003 and 2007, Amtrak’s on-time performance (OTP) for long-distance trains outside of the Northeast Corridor fell from an average of 51 percent to 42 percent, and OTP for shorter corridors outside the NEC fell from 76 percent to 66 percent, the report states. In comparison, OTP for Acela service — which runs on the Amtrak-owned-and-operated NEC — currently stands at 86.1 percent.

Or this type of freight rail service:

https://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/08/us/chicago-train-congestion-slows-whole-country.html

Quote

Shippers complain that a load of freight can make its way from Los Angelesto Chicago in 48 hours, then take 30 hours to travel across the city. A recent trainload of sulfur took some 27 hours to pass through Chicago — an average speed of 1.13 miles per hour, or about a quarter the pace of many electric wheelchairs.

Travel demand for RX will be very high; probably too high to accommodate both freight and passenger demand well. Sure, it's an orbital route connecting the outer boroughs, but the outer boroughs themselves are bigger than most American cities. Brooklyn is just shy of Chicago's population, and Queens is bigger than Houston.

[Union Tpke]

8 hours ago, bobtehpanda said:

Sure, if you want to run this type of commuter rail service:

https://www.progressiverailroading.com/passenger_rail/article/Inspector-general-Freight-delays-cost-Amtrak-millions-in-rsquo07--16462

Or this type of freight rail service:

https://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/08/us/chicago-train-congestion-slows-whole-country.html

Travel demand for RX will be very high; probably too high to accommodate both freight and passenger demand well. Sure, it's an orbital route connecting the outer boroughs, but the outer boroughs themselves are bigger than most American cities. Brooklyn is just shy of Chicago's population, and Queens is bigger than Houston.

If the demand is so high four-track the whole line.