Rockaway Beach Branch

[officiallyliam]

3 minutes ago, bobtehpanda said:

For starters, a connection to the is lost, and the next ones down are at 168 St (which many people will tell you is not actually a reasonable transfer due to depth) and 59 St Columbus Circle.

How important is this? The and are relatively parallel through Upper Manhattan and Midtown, though they cross each other a couple of times. The has going for it that it better serves the heart of Inwood on Broadway, but that's not far from the either. And the better serves the larger main commercial areas of Washington Heights by running under St Nicholas Avenue, while the skirts around that on residential Fort Washington.

5 minutes ago, bobtehpanda said:

The  is also B-Division to the  's A Division, which has poorer single train capacity as a result.

Poorer single train capacity, maybe, but far higher frequency potential. I'd rather have an IRT train every 4 minutes than an IND one every 8 or 10.

8 minutes ago, bobtehpanda said:

Most importantly is the availability of express service to Manhattan. Riders east of the Concourse may very well use the line as a connection to Manhattan. Even if Eighth and CPW were completely de-interlined, a change to express services would be available at 145th St. The CPW express is not actually faster, but right now that's the consequence of a timer-happy MTA and should not be considered something that might change in the future.

services, on the other hand, do not encounter express trains until 96th St. Not only that, but the original NYCDOT BRT Phase II study had a diagram of congested routes at capacity, and the Broadway Express at 96th St was one of them. I don't find shoving bodies onto an overcrowded trunk wise.

But as I brought up above, the is simply not that much slower than the - only 2 minutes slower to Columbus Circle and 3-4 minutes slower all the way to Chambers. Yes, part of that is a consequence of timers, but even with express trains going as fast as possible, the is still only going to be a few minutes slower.

And as for the number of additional people on the 7th Avenue Line, I don't actually think Fordham will add all that much. It's really only people west of the Concourse or Jerome, and those whose destinations are on the Upper West Side, who will use the line as a radial to Manhattan; that's just fine, as that isn't the service that a Fordham crosstown line is ever going to excel at providing.

[RR503]

So I see two options here -  this really is a trade off.

The  brings operational simplicity, and relatively tph with few modifications. Yes, it's a div stock, but according to you, we won't have crowding on the line, so that's moot. It is slower headed downtown, and does feed into a crowded express route, but both of those facts could be changed if the MTA were to send some s express 137-103, and increase  and  service to attract people away from the  in Manhattan, and to a lesser extent, in the Bronx.

I see only one realistic way of doing the  thing: sending Lefferts/Far Rock trains local in Manhattan, terminating at 168, while Fulton Locals run express to Pelham. Issues with this would be terminating greater volumes of trains at 168, and the fact that you'd now have two routes of unusual length. 

[Deucey]

How did a Fordham-207th/Pelham Line morph into a  or  extension? I ask because while it'd be "cool" for the  to operate in 4/5 boroughs,  along Fordham would turn into a 2+ hour headache with delays and gaps worse than  already has.

So for map-making, it's a nice exercise, but operationally, I don't see the point.

What I do see, if sAS is ever built again, is two potential lines along Fordham:  west to 207th St via Fordham & Landing Rd under 207th Yard to 207th  from Manhattan via 3rd or Webster Avs, and a (U) east from Webster/Fordham over to Pelham  or all the way to Bay Plaza, with maybe a Cross-Bronx local. With both halves of the line being 3 track with peak express.

And I'm only seeing it that way just to relieve the Bx12, Bx15 and Bx55 since those routes have the worst problems - in my experience - of ruining days trying to get across the Bronx.

 

Feel free to decimate this.

[officiallyliam]

12 minutes ago, Deucey said:

How did a Fordham-207th/Pelham Line morph into a  or  extension? I ask because while it'd be "cool" for the  to operate in 4/5 boroughs,  along Fordham would turn into a 2+ hour headache with delays and gaps worse than  already has.

So for map-making, it's a nice exercise, but operationally, I don't see the point.

What I do see, if sAS is ever built again, is two potential lines along Fordham:  west to 207th St via Fordham & Landing Rd under 207th Yard to 207th  from Manhattan via 3rd or Webster Avs, and a (U) east from Webster/Fordham over to Pelham  or all the way to Bay Plaza, with maybe a Cross-Bronx local. With both halves of the line being 3 track with peak express.

And I'm only seeing it that way just to relieve the Bx12, Bx15 and Bx55 since those routes have the worst problems - in my experience - of ruining days trying to get across the Bronx.

 

Feel free to decimate this.

SAS as its being built (and planned) will not be able to support three northern branches (one to 125th and Lex, and two via Fordham) on the two tracks it has, if we assume reasonable peak TPH. Even if four tracks are built south of 63rd Street, which is a fine idea, the upper half will be double-tracked, unless express tracks are built below the existing ones. At that point, the total cost for the Fordham line has gone through the roof and is contingent upon other long-delayed and now-unplanned capital projects being completed.

You're right about the potential operational issues with an  extension, but the  lets us build a Fordham-Pelham subway line without dependence on other projects and without operational or capacity headaches.

[Deucey]

5 hours ago, officiallyliam said:

SAS as its being built (and planned) will not be able to support three northern branches (one to 125th and Lex, and two via Fordham) on the two tracks it has, if we assume reasonable peak TPH. Even if four tracks are built south of 63rd Street, which is a fine idea, the upper half will be double-tracked, unless express tracks are built below the existing ones. At that point, the total cost for the Fordham line has gone through the roof and is contingent upon other long-delayed and now-unplanned capital projects being completed.

You're right about the potential operational issues with an  extension, but the  lets us build a Fordham-Pelham subway line without dependence on other projects and without operational or capacity headaches.

I hate dissecting, but...

SAS as its being built (and planned) will not be able to support three northern branches (one to 125th and Lex, and two via Fordham) on the two tracks it has, if we assume reasonable peak TPH.

IIRC, SAS was originally supposed to be a 3 or 4 track express. 90 years later and it was going to be a 3-track, then right before they put a TBM in the ground, they disregarded the already-built structures and made it a 2-track.

Point being plans change.

Even if four tracks are built south of 63rd Street, which is a fine idea, the upper half will be double-tracked, unless express tracks are built below the existing ones. At that point, the total cost for the Fordham line has gone through the roof and is contingent upon other long-delayed and now-unplanned capital projects being completed.

Lest we forget 6 Av express tracks weren't used for 25 years after 6 Av was opened, and the express tracks were deep-bored under the H&M tube - even though the idea/plan was for BOT/NYCTA to buy H&M instead of Port Authority.

So it ain't hard - it's just expensive because  views taxpayer money as an Amex Black card to spend with profligacy and enrich themselves and the corrupt contractors they use because they're not footing the bill - NYCers are.

So what's a better way to piss away a shit-ton of money for transit - build an actual rail line that'll benefit 75-250k people daily, or to build another modern art cavern that doubles as a train station?

If we're gonna do it, may as well do it right instead of going half-assed and creating problems for us a decade later that won't get fixed for 50 years...

You're right about the potential operational issues with an

 extension, but the  lets us build a Fordham-Pelham subway line without dependence on other projects and without operational or capacity headaches.

Even with  or  to Pelham, you're still:

1. Halving capacity and frequency on the B-way/7th Local
2. Creating another stupidly long monstrosity that will have delays and gaps as bad as  and even .

Most rapid transit lines finish their runs in 80 minutes or less just to avoid these sorts of issues (How LA will do it when the Blue and Pasadena Gold Lines, and the Expo and East LA Gold Lines merge, I dunno). The best way to create a reliable and useful line is to not make it long and dependent on everything working perfectly.

A crosstown Fordham-Pelham line isn't meant to be a Manhattan trunk - it's a feeder. Instead of folks shlepping on the 12, or any of those other buses in the BX for an hour to get to a train that stops every other block for 30-45 minutes before 125th St, they get a train that connects them to those trains stopping at every other stop WITHOUT devoting an hour on an overcrowded bus that stops at every bodega between their home and the subway.

Which is why I said:

5 hours ago, Deucey said:

How did a Fordham-207th/Pelham Line morph into a  or  extension? I ask because while it'd be "cool" for the  to operate in 4/5 boroughs,  along Fordham would turn into a 2+ hour headache with delays and gaps worse than  already has.

So for map-making, it's a nice exercise, but operationally, I don't see the point.

Maybe this would get 250k riders daily, but more than likely it'll be 50-75k if it's just a connecting LRT. Most LRTs operate within similar catchment areas as a Fordham-Pelham line and don't get much higher than that in ridership. But it's not meant to be a backbone, Fordham-Pelham is meant to be an upgrade that improves connections, reliability and traffic conditions.

Now if you want it to be a subway, sure IRT-spec would be okay vs IND/BMT-spec, but if you want it to be useful to more NYers and more areas, it's going to have to integrate into SAS, it's gonna need an express component because of the distance travelled - whether doubled back to 207/Broadway or out to Bay Plaza/City Island - to ensure reliability, and it can't be operated like a Banker's Special BMT - up 3rd, Down Fordham, merged into 8th Av Line. That's a waste of resources.

The Express tracks could go from B-way/207 to Fordham/3rd as a local; the local could go between Hanover Sq and Bay Plaza (or stop at Fordham/3rd, and the local Fordham-Pelham line follows the Bx12 and the old Fordham Streetcar. BUT, if you're worried about 's stupid decision to two-track the IND SAS, run the expresses down 1st Av after 125th St and bring back via deep bore with the QBL junction.

It can be done; the problem is that the IOS was built with shortsightedness when  two-tracked the  extension, and current "thinking" is just as short-sighted. Like I said above:

If we're gonna do it, may as well do it right instead of going half-assed and creating problems for us a decade later that won't get fixed for 50 years...

[MovingBlock]

Did you know there are 47 acres of city owned land in the middle of Queens sitting unused since 1962? This is what’s known as the former Rockaway Beach Branch of the Long Island Rail Road. Many groups have been discussing whether this asset should be reused for future rail service or turned into a linear park. Today I sit down for a group interview, with representatives from the Trust for Public Land. I’ll be chatting with Adrian Benepe, former New York City Parks Commissioner, as well as Andy Stone and Carter Strickland who are deeply involved in trying to turn this asset into city park called The Queensway. Listen here for more

 

you can subscribe to my podcasts about transit and politics here

 

https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/moving-block/id1206677935?mt=2

[Italianstallion]

On 3/21/2018 at 4:29 PM, officiallyliam said:

Having considered extensions of the , , , and lines, as well as a light rail system, to serve the Fordham Road - Pelham Parkway corridor, I think that the superior option is a branch of the Broadway-7th Avenue line, as a resurrection of the designation without the old skip-stop service.

The new line would branch off of the north of the 207th Street stop, with a new tunnel portal built in the 207th St Yard. The tunnels would pass under the river and follow 190th Street, with a station at University Avenue, and under Grand Concourse, connecting to the and and running underneath Fordham Road. From there, it would continue with stops at Fordham Plaza with a connection to MNRR and at Southern Blvd for the Bronx Zoo. The tunnels would run straight under Bronx Park, meeting Pelham Parkway where the line would then run elevated - stopping at White Plains Road for the , Esplanade for the , and Eastchester Road to serve the hospitals. Then, it would follow the ROW of the Northeast Corridor to a shared subway and MNRR stop at Co-Op City, where a station is planned as part of Penn Station Access. This is where the line will terminate; perhaps we could also examine a extension to a nearby location, creating a sort of transit hub to serve the area.

I think that this balances the need for subway-level capacity on the corridor with the cost-effectiveness of using elevated structures wherever possible. There are, naturally, a few disadvantages that I can think of: 1. The would likely be a faster ride downtown, though, as I said earlier, the majority of riders going further downtown would have transferred to faster lines such as the and already. 2. While track capacity should be fine on the , the terminal capacity at South Ferry raises questions. The new station can apparently support 24 TPH; balanced evenly between Fordham and Van Cortlandt, this only allows a maximum of 12 TPH to serve Fordham. It would be feasible, though, to increase southern terminal capacity by terminating some trains at Rector and running OOS around the loop, and/or speeding up terminal procedures at South Ferry.

The reason I choose the over the is because of track capacity and anticipated reliability. The already suffers from uneven headways and low reliability due to its merges, two or three branches, and Cranberry tube constraints. Because of that, I am wary of making the any longer than it is today. The has no track sharing with other lines, and is not terribly long. Also, under a totally de-interlined system, which would increase reliability and frequency, it would make sense to send the to Norwood, via CPW local. At that point, the ride downtown is just as slow as the , and the route would also be too long.

This is a map showing the alignment of the proposed line, and the new stations:

https://www.google.com/maps/d/u/0/viewer?mid=1_O77SCCsOavlDMY0YTP8GBhjyNNF2uhJ&ll=40.79594693211451%2C-73.91882120000002&z=11

Thoughts?

 

I doubt putting an el over the greensward in the Pelham Parkway median would be well-received.

[RR503]

3 hours ago, Deucey said:

IIRC, SAS was originally supposed to be a 3 or 4 track express. 90 years later and it was going to be a 3-track, then right before they put a TBM in the ground, they disregarded the already-built structures and made it a 2-track.

Point being plans change.

Lest we forget 6 Av express tracks weren't used for 25 years after 6 Av was opened, and the express tracks were deep-bored under the H&M tube - even though the idea/plan was for BOT/NYCTA to buy H&M instead of Port Authority.

So it ain't hard - it's just expensive because  views taxpayer money as an Amex Black card to spend with profligacy and enrich themselves and the corrupt contractors they use because they're not footing the bill - NYCers are.

So what's a better way to piss away a shit-ton of money for transit - build an actual rail line that'll benefit 75-250k people daily, or to build another modern art cavern that doubles as a train station?

If we're gonna do it, may as well do it right instead of going half-assed and creating problems for us a decade later that won't get fixed for 50 years...

Look, I agree SAS should have been built with 4, but I would say that given the fact that Fordham -- and other transit needy corridors -- can be served with existing services/a 2 track SAS, building another 2 tracks should not be made a priority. 

Also, FWIW, 6th ave was built with a zillion provisions for express tracks. SAS has no such amenities, and thus integrating such tracks into it -- especially given its depth and proximity to buildings -- would be difficult, to say the least. 

3 hours ago, Deucey said:

Even with  or  to Pelham, you're still:

1. Halving capacity and frequency on the B-way/7th Local
2. Creating another stupidly long monstrosity that will have delays and gaps as bad as  and even .

Most rapid transit lines finish their runs in 80 minutes or less just to avoid these sorts of issues (How LA will do it when the Blue and Pasadena Gold Lines, and the Expo and East LA Gold Lines merge, I dunno). The best way to create a reliable and useful line is to not make it long and dependent on everything working perfectly.

A crosstown Fordham-Pelham line isn't meant to be a Manhattan trunk - it's a feeder. Instead of folks shlepping on the 12, or any of those other buses in the BX for an hour to get to a train that stops every other block for 30-45 minutes before 125th St, they get a train that connects them to those trains stopping at every other stop WITHOUT devoting an hour on an overcrowded bus that stops at every bodega between their home and the subway.

Which is why I said:

Your SAS/Fordham proposal is literally doing the exact same thing, just on the opposite side of the island. And FWIW, it wouldn't cut frequencies on the vast majority of the route. In fact, by providing more capacity at northern terminals, it'd eliminate the need to short turn at 137, thereby allowing more service to the northern reaches of the . The only stops that'd lose would be 215, 225, 231, 238, 242. 

And that said, doing a  extension isn't the only way to do this. You could do the  Manhattan route swap, and then extend the . 

3 hours ago, Deucey said:

Maybe this would get 250k riders daily, but more than likely it'll be 50-75k if it's just a connecting LRT. Most LRTs operate within similar catchment areas as a Fordham-Pelham line and don't get much higher than that in ridership. But it's not meant to be a backbone, Fordham-Pelham is meant to be an upgrade that improves connections, reliability and traffic conditions.

Now if you want it to be a subway, sure IRT-spec would be okay vs IND/BMT-spec, but if you want it to be useful to more NYers and more areas, it's going to have to integrate into SAS, it's gonna need an express component because of the distance travelled - whether doubled back to 207/Broadway or out to Bay Plaza/City Island - to ensure reliability, and it can't be operated like a Banker's Special BMT - up 3rd, Down Fordham, merged into 8th Av Line. That's a waste of resources.

The Express tracks could go from B-way/207 to Fordham/3rd as a local; the local could go between Hanover Sq and Bay Plaza (or stop at Fordham/3rd, and the local Fordham-Pelham line follows the Bx12 and the old Fordham Streetcar. BUT, if you're worried about 's stupid decision to two-track the IND SAS, run the expresses down 1st Av after 125th St and bring back via deep bore with the QBL junction.

It can be done; the problem is that the IOS was built with shortsightedness when  two-tracked the  extension, and current "thinking" is just as short-sighted. Like I said above:

This route could definitely pull 100k+ if built correctly. All those lines up yonder have high ridership, so adding another way of getting into Manhattan, and then adding a way to get crosstown so those bodega workers can avoid the bus should pull in the masses. 

Integration into SAS is not a prerequisite for this to work. In fact, if you're looking to enhance cross borough connectivity, connecting to SAS defeats that, as you'd be splitting the route into two at 3rd ave. I also think that given the fact that there again, myriad other, more important projects in the region before we get to a 4 track SAS, we should be looking to do this in the most cost effective way possible. Given the crazy expenses associated with burrowing under/integrating with existing infrastructure, and the fact that we don't really need the capacity, I again don't think this is a necessary expenditure. 

Look, I'm with you shortsightedness is a massive issue in planning. But I think that among failures of our planning bureaucracy, not building a 4 track SAS is a relatively small one. I'll give you not triple tracking 72nd, but aside from that, SAS's planning (don't get me started on execution) has been relatively sound. And as for Fordham, connecting it to an existing express service (the , or whatever we'd call the swapped train), and making it into a full crosstown (not one that splits at 3rd) actually will do more for the Bx than any foamy scheme with a 4 track SAS. 

[Italianstallion]

On 3/22/2018 at 4:57 PM, bobtehpanda said:

A ten car train is roughly 25x the capacity of a bus. A train every 8 minutes at 6AM would be a 8-12x capacity improvement over current SBS services. It's not all that crazy.

This is an excellent point. A crosstown line on Fordham would have as its main purpose crosstown Bronx travel. Direct travel to Manhattan would be a bonus. Most of its potential riders would continue to use their existing north-south lines to get to Manhattan. So, frequency on the line would not need to measure up to typical frequencies  applicable to Manhattan trunk lines. Thus, for instance, if run off the 1 train, there would be no need to split frequencies equally between the current VCP terminal and the new line. And such an even split would severely inconvenience VCP users anyway. During off-hours, in fact, it would probably make sense to run the new line as a shuttle without direct access to downtown Manhattan.

[W4ST]

1 hour ago, Italianstallion said:

This is an excellent point. A crosstown line on Fordham would have as its main purpose crosstown Bronx travel. Direct travel to Manhattan would be a bonus. Most of its potential riders would continue to use their existing north-south lines to get to Manhattan. So, frequency on the line would not need to measure up to typical frequencies  applicable to Manhattan trunk lines. Thus, for instance, if run off the 1 train, there would be no need to split frequencies equally between the current VCP terminal and the new line. And such an even split would severely inconvenience VCP users anyway. During off-hours, in fact, it would probably make sense to run the new line as a shuttle without direct access to downtown Manhattan.

They could use a current terminal in the area for some service, or create a new one. For example, if the A train was used (as an example) the A trains could curve off north of Dyckman and take Fordham Road, but some trains on Fordham would also turn north to terminate at 207th Street. If the 1 train was used they could do something similar.

[Deucey]

1 hour ago, RR503 said:

And as for Fordham, connecting it to an existing express service (the , or whatever we'd call the swapped train), and making it into a full crosstown (not one that splits at 3rd) actually will do more for the Bx than any foamy scheme with a 4 track SAS.

Hey, my thing since the beginning of this thread was build a Fordham LRT; the “foaming” is me saying “If you want a subway, here’s how I think it can be made useful for more than the Bronx and increase capacity/decrease loads in Manhattan.”

 

But all that’s actually needed is a LRT from B-way to Pelham .

Subway could be built, and with some actual planning could incorporate RBB AND be useful too.

But with this  extension stuff - de-interlined or not, I don’t see it doing anything except making  excessively long  and more unreliable while moving the SRO issue from Washington Heights to University Heights. 

And with , you now made a moderately reliable line less so because now it’s runtime has been extended AND it has a merge with  because the 3rd track disappears after 145th and returns at Dyckman - at which point it’ll have a (likely level) junction to branch to Fordham OR, if it happens above 215th St, is now subject to more delays from two lines because of the Broadway Bridge.

(And we haven’t even gotten to property destruction for these elevated junctions and tunnel portals.)

But in the end, capacity hasn’t increased insofar as customer utilization, it’s only a capacity increase in regards to turning trainsets. Might be able to run  more frequently with  local between 145th and 59th, but on Fordham you just introduced more  utilitization from Bronxites so now Uptowners are getting on to SRO trains or letting them pass until there’s space. (I used to live on 148th - three s would pass before I got on one because of loads at 175th and 168th.)

Realistically, a stand-alone Fordham line is new capacity; linking it to SAS is new capacity. Extending existing heavily utilized lines is not.

[officiallyliam]

1 hour ago, Deucey said:

But all that’s actually needed is a LRT from B-way to Pelham .

I was also in favor of LRT in the beginning, and I'm sure it could work. What started this whole subway debate in the first place was the apparent need for grade-separation of the LRT line along the narrower western portion of Fordham Road. Reallocating street space to give the LRT its own reserved path is perfectly possible, but often popular - though the busyness and importance of the Fordham corridor could change that.

1 hour ago, Deucey said:

But with this  extension stuff - de-interlined or not, I don’t see it doing anything except making  excessively long  and more unreliable while moving the SRO issue from Washington Heights to University Heights. 

And with , you now made a moderately reliable line less so because now it’s runtime has been extended AND it has a merge with  because the 3rd track disappears after 145th and returns at Dyckman - at which point it’ll have a (likely level) junction to branch to Fordham OR, if it happens above 215th St, is now subject to more delays from two lines because of the Broadway Bridge.

This is one of the reasons that I'm not in favor of having an Eighth Avenue Line extension - whatever designation the new service is given - serve Fordham Road.

As for the , I don't think that the addition of the Fordham branch will cause reliability to tank on the 7th Avenue Local. The and would essentially be the same line, only branching near the northern end of the route on the outskirts of the CBD. That is perfectly acceptable service planning, and, as has been mentioned above, would eliminate the need for the short-turns at 137th and provide more service between 137th and 207th Streets. The third track thing isn't a big factor for me; I don't think that s, or s for that matter, need to use the third track at all.

Now for runtime: the runtime of the from South Ferry to Bay Plaza would not be much longer than the current runtime to Van Cortlandt, and would fall within the 80-minute guideline. The is scheduled to take 54 minutes in the AM peak to make the northbound trip, meaning it will reach 207th Street in about 47. At a 20 mph average speed, the 5.5 mile journey across Fordham and Pelham will take 16.5 minutes; therefore, the full journey time is 65 minutes. Even with minor delays due to dwell time and other factors, the runtime is still perfectly acceptable.

The junction at the proposed alignment would be just north of the 207th stop, and no, it wouldn't be level. While that would simplify construction, we could build a junction identical to the one on the at Rockaway Blvd, where the middle track is used to handle the new line in one direction, and the elevated is expanded outward by one track. The diverging tracks dip below the main line and make the right turn. This, as well as the tunnel portal, can be built fully within MTA property at the 207th St Yard. If residents object to an elevated in the Pelham Parkway median, cut-and-cover could be done relatively easily; otherwise, the tunnel portal there will be built on city land in the parkway median.

[bobtehpanda]

3 hours ago, Deucey said:

Hey, my thing since the beginning of this thread was build a Fordham LRT; the “foaming” is me saying “If you want a subway, here’s how I think it can be made useful for more than the Bronx and increase capacity/decrease loads in Manhattan.”

 

But all that’s actually needed is a LRT from B-way to Pelham .

Subway could be built, and with some actual planning could incorporate RBB AND be useful too.

But with this  extension stuff - de-interlined or not, I don’t see it doing anything except making  excessively long  and more unreliable while moving the SRO issue from Washington Heights to University Heights. 

And with , you now made a moderately reliable line less so because now it’s runtime has been extended AND it has a merge with  because the 3rd track disappears after 145th and returns at Dyckman - at which point it’ll have a (likely level) junction to branch to Fordham OR, if it happens above 215th St, is now subject to more delays from two lines because of the Broadway Bridge.

(And we haven’t even gotten to property destruction for these elevated junctions and tunnel portals.)

But in the end, capacity hasn’t increased insofar as customer utilization, it’s only a capacity increase in regards to turning trainsets. Might be able to run  more frequently with  local between 145th and 59th, but on Fordham you just introduced more  utilitization from Bronxites so now Uptowners are getting on to SRO trains or letting them pass until there’s space. (I used to live on 148th - three s would pass before I got on one because of loads at 175th and 168th.)

Realistically, a stand-alone Fordham line is new capacity; linking it to SAS is new capacity. Extending existing heavily utilized lines is not.

LRT akin to the Boston Green Line in the corridor would be the best; with enough tunnel portals and will, you could use the benefits on the Bx9, 17, 22, and any of the other lines using the Fordham corridor.

That being said, the impact of an extension of a train line would be highly negligible. The Fordham Line would not reduce reliability because it wouldn't be shared with any other trains. As for portals, on the Harlem River you have 207 St Yard and the cliffsides of Fordham Landing Playground; and Pelham Parkway is to a usable park as Sbarro is to an acceptable pizza.

New train tracks under Fordham Road are new train tracks under Fordham Road. There is, functionally, no difference between passengers making a convenient transfer across the platform or up/down some stairs, than there is for a through subway train. The extra two minutes you save while on your tush isn't going to encourage that much more ridership.

[RR503]

16 hours ago, Deucey said:

But all that’s actually needed is a LRT from B-way to Pelham .

Subway could be built, and with some actual planning could incorporate RBB AND be useful too.

But with this  extension stuff - de-interlined or not, I don’t see it doing anything except making  excessively long  and more unreliable while moving the SRO issue from Washington Heights to University Heights. 

And with , you now made a moderately reliable line less so because now it’s runtime has been extended AND it has a merge with  because the 3rd track disappears after 145th and returns at Dyckman - at which point it’ll have a (likely level) junction to branch to Fordham OR, if it happens above 215th St, is now subject to more delays from two lines because of the Broadway Bridge.

(And we haven’t even gotten to property destruction for these elevated junctions and tunnel portals.)

But in the end, capacity hasn’t increased insofar as customer utilization, it’s only a capacity increase in regards to turning trainsets. Might be able to run  more frequently with  local between 145th and 59th, but on Fordham you just introduced more  utilitization from Bronxites so now Uptowners are getting on to SRO trains or letting them pass until there’s space. (I used to live on 148th - three s would pass before I got on one because of loads at 175th and 168th.)

Realistically, a stand-alone Fordham line is new capacity; linking it to SAS is new capacity. Extending existing heavily utilized lines is not.

LRT faces issues with grades, capacity, and non-conformity with the rest of the city's services. Better to build a subway. 

The  currently has SRO issues s/b because it doesn't run full capacity s/b. N/b, it runs 15-16 tph during the AM rush, while s/b it gets to only 10. You could easily bump that to 15, fixing the SRO issue with a Fordham extension. I also think that saying the  will be unreliable therefore we shouldn't do it is acquiescing to a problem that does not have to be. Firstly, we could do the Manhattan route swap with the, , keeping the Rockaway and Fordham parts of the line to manageable lengths. And secondly, if the MTA learned how to run their railroad just a wee bit better (no more timers, dynamic/centralized dispatching, more t/o and c/r autonomy) we wouldn't have such bad reliability issues in the first place. 

Officiallyliam has covered the  above, so I'll demur from responding. 

A standalone Fordham line, LRT or subway, will put a smaller, but still significant number of passengers onto the . This just makes the transfer more convenient, thereby attracting people away from other more crowded trunk options -- like the . 

[LGA Link N Train]

56 Years of Abandonment...now nature is taking over on the #RockawayBeachBranch! Listen to my pod for more info.

https://t.co/RdKPxePZDq https://t.co/V2eHY2EDc

More RBB on Twitter 

Edited March 24, 2018 by LGA Link N train
The bold part is what I quoted from Twitter. Since I'm using a mobile phone I don't have a "quote" option

[bobtehpanda]

1 hour ago, RR503 said:

LRT faces issues with grades, capacity, and non-conformity with the rest of the city's services. Better to build a subway. 

• Any evidence for this grade comment? A rail vehicle is a rail vehicle. The current subway actually has issues with grades over 6%.
• Capacity is lower than a subway but much higher than a bus; a Seattle Link light rail train is half the length and half the capacity of a subway train, which is more than enough compared to existing bus services. I don't really see the need to provide that much additional capacity anyways; the lack of transport links to Manhattan is clearly not the lid on development in that area, since they all have much more direct links to Manhattan than a Fordham Subway, and the lack of quick transportation to other parts of the Bronx is certainly not an inhibiting factor.
• I don't actually count this as a negative; several places maintain three types of transportation networks and do just fine (Boston, LA, DC, Toronto), and that's just in North America. We need something that is an actual intermediate step in capacity - the BMT came up with a four tier service hierarchy, and if you replace streetcar in its hierarchy with light rail then it's fine. 

[Deucey]

2 hours ago, RR503 said:

LRT faces issues with grades, capacity, and non-conformity with the rest of the city's services. Better to build a subway. 

Not in San Francisco - which has steeper grades for its LRTs and cable cars than anything encountered in NYC.

In NYC alone:

• The subway isn’t a conforming operation. BMT east can’t hold 75 footers; BMT/IND can’t run on IRT lines

• LIRR and MNCR can’t run on the subway

• NJT can’t run through on MNCR or LIRR

• PATH 

•HBLR

Three different parent authorities, FIVE different operating agencies. Conformity is a non-issue.

That doesn’t translate to an effective argument for a Fordham subway over a Fordham LRT - there already was a Fordham streetcar. And the issue along Fordham-Pelham isn’t access to Manhattan - it’s access to the access to Manhattan being extremely time-consuming before riding the local  even when express variants are available (with emphasis on the 149th St bottleneck for ).

Fordham-Pelham is just one line needed or useful. Cases could be made to restore the defunct streetcar lines with LRT at 145th, 155th, 167th and Tremont to give folks faster rides to  than current bus service allow.

Should  be extended to do this too?

[CenSin]

3 hours ago, Deucey said:

Not in San Francisco - which has steeper grades for its LRTs and cable cars than anything encountered in NYC.

The trick is, for cable cars, the entire vehicle grapples the moving cable running underneath. If people were strapped securely, the cable car could even move vertically up a cliff or upside down. I’ve been to San Francisco and I think the only vehicles that climb those grades are cable cars and buses. The rail-based vehicles stick with gentler grades.

3 hours ago, Deucey said:

In NYC alone:

• The subway isn’t a conforming operation. BMT east can’t hold 75 footers; BMT/IND can’t run on IRT lines

• LIRR and MNCR can’t run on the subway

• NJT can’t run through on MNCR or LIRR

• PATH 

•HBLR

Three different parent authorities, FIVE different operating agencies. Conformity is a non-issue.

That doesn’t translate to an effective argument for a Fordham subway over a Fordham LRT - there already was a Fordham streetcar. And the issue along Fordham-Pelham isn’t access to Manhattan - it’s access to the access to Manhattan being extremely time-consuming before riding the local  even when express variants are available (with emphasis on the 149th St bottleneck for ).

Fordham-Pelham is just one line needed or useful. Cases could be made to restore the defunct streetcar lines with LRT at 145th, 155th, 167th and Tremont to give folks faster rides to  than current bus service allow.

Should  be extended to do this too?

So you want to add one more incompatible system into the mix?

[Deucey]

26 minutes ago, CenSin said:

So you want to add one more incompatible system into the mix?

I’m saying system ‘incompatibility’ is a poor reason to advocate subway over LRT in NYC since even the backbone - the subway - isn’t compatible with itself.

[officiallyliam]

4 hours ago, bobtehpanda said:

We need something that is an actual intermediate step in capacity - the BMT came up with a four tier service hierarchy, and if you replace streetcar in its hierarchy with light rail then it's fine. 

4 hours ago, Deucey said:

Cases could be made to restore the defunct streetcar lines with LRT at 145th, 155th, 167th and Tremont to give folks faster rides to  than current bus service allow.

I've though that the Bronx would do well with an LRT system to improve crosstown, as well as some radial, journeys. The only problem I see really is street space. I don't have an issue with reallocating street space to LRT; without a decent ROW that avoids traffic conflicts as much as possible, LRT is only going to be expensive slow transportation. The other thing I fear about LRT in New York is ending up with one orphaned line that doesn't have a place in a greater network, but the Bronx has several corridors that could do well as light rail. Other than Fordham, a good place to start (as you suggested somewhat) would be making an LRT system out of the Washington Heights - Bronx bus routes. They're well used, all fold in to a single trunk line, and have good subway connections.

I made a map a while ago of what this would look like; it also includes some other Bronx routes that would complete a grid system of LRTs through the borough. I'm not sure how feasible grade-separation would be along 181st Street or on Fordham Road, but as @bobtehpanda wrote above, a system following the model of the Boston Green Line or the MUNI Metro could work here.

 

[Deucey]

1 hour ago, officiallyliam said:

I've though that the Bronx would do well with an LRT system to improve crosstown, as well as some radial, journeys. The only problem I see really is street space. I don't have an issue with reallocating street space to LRT; without a decent ROW that avoids traffic conflicts as much as possible, LRT is only going to be expensive slow transportation. The other thing I fear about LRT in New York is ending up with one orphaned line that doesn't have a place in a greater network, but the Bronx has several corridors that could do well as light rail. Other than Fordham, a good place to start (as you suggested somewhat) would be making an LRT system out of the Washington Heights - Bronx bus routes. They're well used, all fold in to a single trunk line, and have good subway connections.

I made a map a while ago of what this would look like; it also includes some other Bronx routes that would complete a grid system of LRTs through the borough. I'm not sure how feasible grade-separation would be along 181st Street or on Fordham Road, but as @bobtehpanda wrote above, a system following the model of the Boston Green Line or the MUNI Metro could work here.

 

In all honesty, with the way traffic goes on Fordham west of the Concourse, taking away the parking lanes to make it general traffic so pylons could be built for an aerial LRT would be a good thing. So would taking parking lanes away and making a Fordham LRT operate like the DC Streetcar, San Diego Trolley or Sacramento Light Rail - curbside service.

Or, leave the parking, reduce Fordham to one general traffic lane in each direction and putting LRT on pylons in the middle - that would slow down the traffic via traffic calming, and make Vision Zero effective for once. (Cars race through between Jerome and the Deegan at close to 45 mph.

22 minutes ago, Prospect Park S said:

Uhh guys? How is this related to the RBB? 

So when this came up originally, I or someone else suggested doing RBB like it's part of Triboro Rx and connect it to the Bx and run the line down Fordham so it hits Manhattan.

[RR503]

I don't think LRT can work in this area of NYC. The nation's busiest LRT line -- the T's Green Line -- serves areas with population densities of about 30,000 people/sq mi. The areas around Fordham Road are about twice to three times that. Yes, it's a crosstown line in an already subway served area, but the sheer volume of folks who will opt for this to get to their trunk of choice instead of switching in Manhattan, along with those who want to just go crosstown will quickly inundate an LRT line. We have to remember that LRT is an entry level transit type designed for the suburb-cities that dominate America, not for high-density metropoles like NYC. Any such line in the core areas of NYC would thus be quickly inundated, rendering the facility it provides obsolete pretty much from the get-go. There's a reason we were the first city to adopt rapid transit in such a manner; it's because the alternatives like these weren't working.

I also think that culture factors into this equation. No city in the US has such a strong culture of transit as NYC. People who live along LRT lines elsewhere are likely to use them to get to/from work or school or whatever, but in NYC we use transit for literally everything. Doctors, shopping, family visits, outings with family, etc etc etc. No other transit system in the country has to cope with such diverse -- and therefore voluminous -- loads. To ignore that is to fail at planning. 

I think a case for LRT can be made in other parts of the city. Outer Brooklyn/Queens are at the optimum density level for such installations at the large scale, and as other posters have noted, there are other crosstown routes that could be justifiably LRT-ed. Here, however, we have a trunk literally pointing at the corridor. With a service swap that would require zero infrastructural changes, we could make the route that would serve this corridor viable, thus enabling us to provide service to Fordham within the paradigm of our existing transit network. So I ask, why not? 

[Deucey]

16 minutes ago, RR503 said:

People who live along LRT lines elsewhere are likely to use them to get to/from work or school or whatever, but in NYC we use transit for literally everything. Doctors, shopping, family visits, outings with family, etc etc etc.

I don’t think 32,000 people on Saturdays and 29,000 on Sundays are riding the Blue Line from Downtown Long Beach to 7th St Metro Center in Downtown LA for work...

 

[RR503]

45 minutes ago, Deucey said:

I don’t think 32,000 people on Saturdays and 29,000 on Sundays are riding the Blue Line from Downtown Long Beach to 7th St Metro Center in Downtown LA for work...

 

Yeahhhh the Blue Line is about 22 miles long -- about the length of the . If the  was the only line through the vast majority of its stations, and was still only getting 32,000 people per weekend, it wouldn't be a route. 

Again, two wholly incomparable scenarios. 

[Deucey]

55 minutes ago, RR503 said:

Yeahhhh the Blue Line is about 22 miles long -- about the length of the . If the  was the only line through the vast majority of its stations, and was still only getting 32,000 people per weekend, it wouldn't be a route. 

Again, two wholly incomparable scenarios. 

The tangent we're on is whether it'd make sense to run LRT on Fordham (and other East-West corridors) to replace buses or to build heavy rail and connect it to something.

The Blue Line comparison only comes up because you asserted:

2 hours ago, RR503 said:

People who live along LRT lines elsewhere are likely to use them to get to/from work or school or whatever, but in NYC we use transit for literally everything. Doctors, shopping, family visits, outings with family, etc etc etc. No other transit system in the country has to cope with such diverse -- and therefore voluminous -- loads. To ignore that is to fail at planning.

And my rebuttal to that statement is that 30k people aren't riding 22 miles from Long Beach to Downtown LA for work on Saturdays. Given that the Bx12 has 44k people per day riding the SBS and Local on buses that can hold 120 seated and standing, and that LA MetroRail's P2000 cars hold 100 per car (300 per train) comfortably - replacing three buses in 3 car sets and replacing at least 2 SBS trips per 8 minute interval with room to spare, LRT is a viable option.

And grade separated with CBTC - which is possible - if demand rose rapidly for it, LRT could run as many people per day as heavy rail - with longer train sets and/or with  train-like frequent service. VTA in San Jose can run with 175 people per car; Manila's Light Rail system carries 500,000 on Line 1 and 200,000 on line two daily (with 86 ft cars on Line 1 - 272 seated and 1116 standing); Monterey (Mexico) LRT carries 480,000 people per day over two lines. LRT carrying heavy rail loads is not without precedent.

 

Edited March 25, 2018 by Deucey