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.

NYC Light Rail Discussion/Proposals Thread


Jova42R
 Share

Recommended Posts

Hi all,

please use this thread to discuss Light Rail and propose routes. You can write about:

  • Streetcars
  • Trolleys
  • LRT (Light Rail Transit)
  • Light Metros
  • Trams

Hope you enjoy this thread!

I'll start with a proposal for Northern Blvd Light Rail. This is a variant of what @LaGuardia Link N Tra@gtNovaBusRTS9369@mrsman and @Around the Horn proposed:

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1XYDafyiqwG22P3HyZMl-gLG2FB9_Kflv&usp=sharing

Edited by Jova42R
Link to comment
Share on other sites


Here is my final BRT/LRT proposal for NYC:

https://drive.google.com/open?id=18-vHk67dBXap48Nkyv03fmx5u4eYboZ9&usp=sharing

  • The rationale behind the routes
    • North Queens LRT
      • to provide service to LGA Airport and along Northern Blvd, relief for the 
    • Queensboro Trolley
      • to replace the Q60 and Q101 across the Queensboro Bridge after the Queens Bus Redesign
    • East Queens BRT
      • cheaper alternative to LRT or an  or  extension, but still serves East Queens well
    • Crosstown LRT
      • to provide relief for the Q52+, Q53+, Q11, and Q21 buses. This could also provide a provision for LIRR service.
    • Park Av BRT
      • to provide relief for the , one of the most crowded lines in the country.
    • Cross-Brooklyn BRT
      • to provide rapid bus service to the underserved Central Brooklyn Area
    • Staten Island LRT
      • to provide better transit on the West and North Shores, and to provide a rail link between SI and NJ.
    • Lower Montauk LRT
      • to provide light rail service to the underserved areas of Central Queens and North Brooklyn
  • Fleet
    • North Queens LRT
      • CAF Urbos 3
      • no catenary in LGA
    • Queensboro Trolley
      • CAF Urbos 3
      • no catenary on bridge approaches
    • East Queens BRT
      • New Flyer XE60
    • Crosstown LRT
      • CAF Urbos 3
      • no catenary when on LIRR Mainline
    • Park Av BRT
      • New Flyer XE60
    • Cross-Brooklyn BRT
      • New Flyer XE60
    • Staten Island LRT
      • CAF Urbos 3 and Kinki Sharyo LRV (KSLRV shared with HBLR)
    • Lower Montauk LRT
      • CAF Urbos 3
  • TPH
    • North Queens LRT
      • LIC-94th: 20TPH
      • LGA Branch: 8TPH
      • Flushing Branch: 12TPH
    • Queensboro Trolley
      • 15TPH
    • East Queens BRT
      • 12BPH
    • Crosstown LRT
      • 12TPH
    • Park Av BRT
      • 15BPH
    • Cross-Brooklyn BRT
      • 15BPH
    • Staten Island LRT
      • St George-Howland Hook: 5TPH
      • St George-Outerbridge: 10TPH
      • Hoboken (via HBLR)-Outerbridge: 5TPH
      • Hoboken (via HBLR)-St George: 7TPH
      • Outerbridge-Howland Hook: 1TPH
    • Lower Montauk LRT
      • Jamaica-Fresh Pond Jct: 18TPH
      • Fresh Pond Jct-E Williamsburg: 8TPH
      • Fresh Pond Jct-LIC: 10TPH

Thoughts @engineerboy6561 @BM5 via Woodhaven @Train92 @OrionVIIonM79 @danig1220 @gtNovaBusRTS9369 @XcelsiorBoii4888

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Jova42R This is honestly one of your better proposals...

The North Queens LRT is solid. I personally would merge it with the Queensboro Trolley; going up/down Northern Blvd AND continuing to Manhattan would bring in more ridership and relieve crowded subways (the (E)(M)(N)(R)(W)(7))

I like the idea of the East Queens BRT... The Q46 lends itself well to BRT concepts because its mostly a straight shot. I would be interested to hear your reasoning behind sending it to Jamaica rather than continuing to Kew Gardens.

Again with the Crosstown LRT, logical expansion of the Q52/53 using the RBB ROW, not much to say here.

I can see the Park Avenue BRT running into some community opposition because they're obsessed with not having buses on that street.

Nevertheless I like the idea and you might want to look at implementing something similar with the existing M98/101/102/103 on 3rd and Lex, perhaps making the M101 SBS the "express" with the M102 and M103 as the "local". Something on 5th/Madison might also work (the longer M3 and M4 making less stops than the M1 and M2)

I'm not quite sure what the Cross Brooklyn BRT is meant to do since it seems to end rather randomly on both ends but the idea of cross Brooklyn travel could work (see B82 SBS). I'd say give it some more thought.

I've always been a proponent of extending the HBLR to Staten Island so you'll get no argument from me on the SI LRT. St George to Elizabeth via Howland Hook might get you more bang for your buck though...

Lower Montalk lends itself more to a Triboro RX-like concept rather than light rail.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

IDC who originally proposed it, What is so "cross Brooklyn" about a half-assed B7 ?

Kings Hwy. around here barely deserves bus service, let alone the implementation of BRT.... There is no significant collective of commuters striving to get from East Flatbush/Crown Heights/Brownsville to Midwood... It's a large reason why the B7 is an afterthought around here as it is now.... You (or whoever that proposed it) could've literally chosen any other major corridor here in Brooklyn to opt to suggest BRT for, over Kings Hwy......

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Around the Horn said:

The North Queens LRT is solid. I personally would merge it with the Queensboro Trolley; going up/down Northern Blvd AND continuing to Manhattan would bring in more ridership and relieve crowded subways (the (E)(M)(N)(R)(W)(7))

Maybe have the LGA trains go to Manhattan, otherwise go to LIC

8 hours ago, Around the Horn said:

I like the idea of the East Queens BRT... The Q46 lends itself well to BRT concepts because its mostly a straight shot. I would be interested to hear your reasoning behind sending it to Jamaica rather than continuing to Kew Gardens.

I was originally thinking LRT, but a Q46 conversion would be better. I'd be open to having a branch to Kew Gradens.

8 hours ago, Around the Horn said:

Again with the Crosstown LRT, logical expansion of the Q52/53 using the RBB ROW, not much to say here.

I was thinking to maybe extend it to the Rockaways somehow -- maybe under this proposal, the Q52/53 could make less stops along Woodhaven?

8 hours ago, Around the Horn said:

I can see the Park Avenue BRT running into some community opposition because they're obsessed with not having buses on that street.

Nevertheless I like the idea and you might want to look at implementing something similar with the existing M98/101/102/103 on 3rd and Lex, perhaps making the M101 SBS the "express" with the M102 and M103 as the "local". Something on 5th/Madison might also work (the longer M3 and M4 making less stops than the M1 and M2)

Ahh, I see. I think having a busway on 3rd/Lex could work, however on 5th/Madison, it would get quite clogged up (all the express busses)

4 hours ago, B35 via Church said:

IDC who originally proposed it, What is so "cross Brooklyn" about a half-assed B7 ?

Kings Hwy. around here barely deserves bus service, let alone the implementation of BRT.... There is no significant collective of commuters striving to get from East Flatbush/Crown Heights/Brownsville to Midwood... It's a large reason why the B7 is an afterthought around here as it is now.... You (or whoever that proposed it) could've literally chosen any other major corridor here in Brooklyn to opt to suggest BRT for, over Kings Hwy......

8 hours ago, Around the Horn said:

I'm not quite sure what the Cross Brooklyn BRT is meant to do since it seems to end rather randomly on both ends but the idea of cross Brooklyn travel could work (see B82 SBS). I'd say give it some more thought.

It was mainly to provide a connector to the subway, and to provide rapid bus service to the underserved Central Brooklyn Area

20 hours ago, Jova42R said:
  • Cross-Brooklyn BRT
    • to provide rapid bus service to the underserved Central Brooklyn Area

 

9 hours ago, Around the Horn said:

I've always been a proponent of extending the HBLR to Staten Island so you'll get no argument from me on the SI LRT. St George to Elizabeth via Howland Hook might get you more bang for your buck though...

How would it get to Elizabeth?

9 hours ago, Around the Horn said:

Lower Montauk lends itself more to a Triboro RX-like concept rather than light rail.

My only thought with LRT is that you could then extend it through LIC and across the Queensboro Bridge. I think that @engineerboy6561 proposed that a few months ago.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, Jova42R said:

It was mainly to provide a connector to the subway, and to provide rapid bus service to the underserved Central Brooklyn Area

20 hours ago, Jova42R said:

Cross-Brooklyn BRT

  • to provide rapid bus service to the underserved Central Brooklyn Area

So Kings Highway being nice & wide & the logical endpoints being that of a subway station had nothing to do with anything?

Anyway, you have got to be joking in regards to "Central" Brooklyn here being underserved..... Many around different parts of the city would say we have too much bus service in this region of Brooklyn....

Compared to the other BRT/LRT ideas you mapped out, the lone Brooklyn one you showcase here is the worst by a good margin (even moreso than the Park av one)..... Quite sure you could come up with better ideas than those two...

9 hours ago, Around the Horn said:

I'm not quite sure what the Cross Brooklyn BRT is meant to do since it seems to end rather randomly on both ends but the idea of cross Brooklyn travel could work (see B82 SBS). I'd say give it some more thought.

For starters, the whole Bay Ridge - JFK concept is one that's been floating out there for quite some time...

 

 

Edited by B35 via Church
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, B35 via Church said:

So Kings Highway being nice & wide & the logical endpoints being that of a subway station had nothing to do with anything?

No. It is a perfect BRT corridor...

1 minute ago, B35 via Church said:

You have got to be kidding me in regards to "Central" Brooklyn being underserved..... Many around different parts of the city would say we have too much bus service in this region of Brooklyn....

Compared to the other BRT/LRT ideas you mapped out, the lone Brooklyn one you showcase here is the worst, by far..... Quite sure you could come up with a better idea than this.

Maybe if we extended it out to Broadway Jct

1 minute ago, B35 via Church said:

For starters, the whole Bay Ridge - JFK concept is one that's been floating out there for quite some time...

Or JFK, but how would that be routed as BRT?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Jova42R said:

No. It is a perfect BRT corridor...

Unlike Northern Blvd., Woodhaven Blvd, and Union Tpke, too bad Kings Hwy. itself isn't much of a draw for riders.....

5 minutes ago, Jova42R said:

Maybe if we extended it out to Broadway Jct

Well it's most certainly better than stubbing it at Sutter-Rutland (3)....

Being objective I suppose, a B'way Junction - [Kings Hwy/Flatbush av.] route doesn't sound like a bad idea (on paper anyway).... Let the B82 SBS have Kings Hwy, south of Flatbush....

6 minutes ago, Jova42R said:
10 minutes ago, B35 via Church said:

For starters, the whole Bay Ridge - JFK concept is one that's been floating out there for quite some time...

Or JFK, but how would that be routed as BRT?

What do you mean "or JFK" ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Jova42R said:

No. It is a perfect BRT corridor...

Maybe if we extended it out to Broadway Jct

Or JFK, but how would that be routed as BRT?

JFK to Bay Ridge has a couple of different options; you could go via Linden Bl/Church Av/Ft Hamilton Pkwy and replace the B35 LTD with the new bus, you could go via Linden Bl/Fountain Av/Flatlands Av/Kings Hwy/Bay Ridge Pkwy/Fort Hamilton Pkwy and replace the B82SBS, or you could even go via 86 St/Shell Rd/Av Z/Belt Pkwy (though I don't think I'd recommend that).

 In the first case, you'd need to get rid of all side parking on Church and Ft Hamilton Pkwy to do it, but it would be worth it. For that configuration you'd probably want stops at Bay Ridge/86 St (R) , Bay Ridge Pkwy/Ft Hamilton Pkwy, Bay Ridge Av/Ft Hamilton Pkwy, 61 St/Ft Hamilton Pkwy (split the difference between the (N) and the B9 connection), 49-50 St/Ft Hamilton Pkwy, New Utrecht Av (D) /Ft Hamilton Pkwy, 39 St/Ft Hamilton Pkwy, Ft Hamilton Pkwy/McDonald Av, McDonald Av/Church Av, Coney Island Av/Church Av, E 18 St (B)(Q) /Church Av, Flatbush-Bedford Avs/Church Av, Nostrand/Rogers Avs/Church Av, New York Av/Church Av, E 42 St/Church Av, Utica Av/Church Av, Kings Hwy/Church Av, Remsen Av/Church Av, E 98 St/Linden Blvd, Rockaway Av/Linden Bl, Van Sinderen Av/Linden Bl,  Pennsylvania Av/Linden Bl, Van Siclen Av/Linden Bl, Ashford St/Linden Bl, Fountain Av/Linden Bl, Euclid Av/Linden Bl, Eldert La/Linden Bl, Lefferts Blvd Airtrain, then all stops. This looks like the highest ridership option, because based on the route profiles in the Brooklyn bus report you'd be combining most of the most-heavily used B15 sections with the most heavily used segment of the B35 (the run between Utica and McDonald carries >4K pax/day, peaking around 7K at Nostrand). The B35 profile shows the westernmost spot with a ton of boarders right near the 9 Av station; I think it's a safe assumption that a fair number of those folks are coming from the (D) and wouldn't mind picking the bus up at Ft Hamilton Pkwy instead. Only the eastern segment would be expected to be comparatively empty (the B16 is an 800-1500 pax/day route that gets nearly half its passengers from local stops).

The second configuration would require no parking on Bay Ridge Pkwy.  For that configuration you'd probably want stops at Bay Ridge/86 St (R) , Bay Ridge Pkwy/Ft Hamilton Pkwy, 13 Av/Bay Ridge Pkwy, 18 Av/Bay Ridge Pkwy, Bay Pkwy/Bay Ridge Pkwy, then all B82 SBS stops to Louisiana Av/Flatlands Av, then Van Siclen Av/Flatlands Av, Ashford St/Flatlands Av, Fountain Av/Flatlands Av, Fountain Av/Linden Bl, Euclid Av/Linden Bl, Eldert La/Linden Bl, Lefferts Blvd Airtrain, then all stops. The B82/B4 combo would likely see less ridership, because the B82SBS mostly has pax loads in the 2k-3k/day range, and the B4 carries peak loads in the 800-1200 pax/day range (while the B35 sees peak loads of almost 7K/day, with basically the entire run between Utica and McDonald carrying >4K/day)

The third case would require no parking on 86 St and would likely see the lowest ridership of the three. It would stop at Bay Ridge/86 St (R), 14 Av/86 St, 18 Av/86 St, 20 Av/86 St (D), Bay Pkwy/86 St (D), 25 Av/86 St (D), 86 St (N) , Av X/86 St (F)<F>, Shell Rd/Av Z, Ocean Pkwy/Av Z, Coney Island Av/Av Z, Sheepshead Bay (B)(Q)/Av Z, Ocean Av/Av Z, Nostrand Av/Voorhies Av, Knapp St/Voorhies Av, Canarsie Pier/Shore Pkwy, Pennsylvania Av/Shore Pkwy, Erskine St/Gateway Pl, Gateway Term/Gateway Pl, Vandalia Av/Flatlands Av, Ashford St/Flatlands Av, Fountain Av/Flatlands Av, Fountain Av/Linden Bl, Euclid Av/Linden Bl, Eldert La/Linden Bl, Lefferts Blvd Airtrain, then all stops. The B1 is a 3K-4K pax/day route, with the big turnover points at Brighton Beach and Bay Ridge; assuming most of those people are coming from Manhattan, picking up a LTD at Sheepshead Bay instead of a local at Brighton Beach isn't a bad idea. The big question is going to be whether the connection to Gateway Ctr is actually a reasonable ridership draw; if so that would be awesome, but I doubt that Gateway Ctr-Brighton Beach ridership is gonna be in any way comparable to B82 or B35 ridership. 

@B35 via Church you know a lot more about Brooklyn buses than I do; I'd love to get your feedback.

 

Edited by engineerboy6561
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/29/2020 at 12:03 AM, Around the Horn said:

I’ve always been a proponent of extending the HBLR to Staten Island so you'll get no argument from me on the SI LRT. St George to Elizabeth via Howland Hook might get you more bang for your buck though...

On 4/29/2020 at 9:12 AM, Jova42R said:

How would it get to Elizabeth?

Either a new bridge, or take away lanes on the Bayonne Bridge - which won’t sit well with folks down the street from me after the years of construction raising the roadbed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/29/2020 at 9:47 AM, B35 via Church said:

So Kings Highway being nice & wide & the logical endpoints being that of a subway station had nothing to do with anything?

Anyway, you have got to be joking in regards to "Central" Brooklyn here being underserved..... Many around different parts of the city would say we have too much bus service in this region of Brooklyn....

Compared to the other BRT/LRT ideas you mapped out, the lone Brooklyn one you showcase here is the worst by a good margin (even moreso than the Park av one)..... Quite sure you could come up with better ideas than those two...

If it was higher speed and connected to the LIRR in Mineola, it could take a good amount of rush hour traffic off the Belt and SSP.

Would need a park-and-ride lot at the Brooklyn terminus or go across the VZ to capture the Staten Island commuters though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Deucey said:

Either a new bridge, or take away lanes on the Bayonne Bridge - which won’t sit well with folks down the street from me after the years of construction raising the roadbed.

Isn’t there room on the Bayonne Bridge?

my question was how would it get from Staten Island to Elizabeth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Deucey said:

If it was higher speed and connected to the LIRR in Mineola, it could take a good amount of rush hour traffic off the Belt and SSP.

Would need a park-and-ride lot at the Brooklyn terminus or go across the VZ to capture the Staten Island commuters though.

What are you referring to with this?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Jova42R said:

Isn’t there room on the Bayonne Bridge?

my question was how would it get from Staten Island to Elizabeth.

No room on the Bayonne nor the Goethals.

HBLR ends in Bayonne right before the bridge begins.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Deucey said:

No room on the Bayonne nor the Goethals.

HBLR ends in Bayonne right before the bridge begins.

It might make sense to use the HBLR as a replacement for the Staten Island proposed BRT; double track it between 22nd and 8th Sts, add a new crossing just west of the Bayonne Bridge with a station at 1st St, then a four-track station at Richmond Terrace and Granite Av. Raise the inner two tracks and swing them onto Morningstar Rd, then run them along Morningstar Rd/Richmond Rd to Eltingville Av/Hylan Blvd while making stops at Walker St, Forest Av, Leo St, Staten Island Expressway, Victory Blvd, Rockland Av, Richmond Hill Rd, Ring Rd opposite Barnes and Noble, Yukon Av, Eltingville Transit Center, Genesee Av, Sylvia St (change for SIR), Koch Blvd and Hylan Blvd. The outer two tracks would drop into the old North Shore ROW and run along that to St George, reactivating the old stops at Elm Park, Tower Hill, Port Richmond, West New Brighton, Livingston, Snug Harbor, New Brighton, the ballpark, and Saint George. That would let you run trains from Hoboken to Hylan Blvd and Hoboken to St. George, with the option of running St. George to Elizabeth NJT by way of the old North Shore ROW to a new rail bridge to an elevated structure along East Jersey St to Broad St.

The biggest physical issue with this is going to be double-tracking the segment from 22 St to 8 St; until you do that you're likely bottlenecked at 15tph. To me the simplest way of doing that is building a new ROW south of 22nd St; take a tight S-curve just south of the station and swing directly over Av E, add an infill stop at Av E/14 St, then build a new two-track station above 8 St at JFK Blvd, continue over 8 St to Av A, take Av A to 1st St with a new station there, then cross directly over to Granite Av/Richmond Av from there. That plus a new fourth light rail track at Hoboken should let us push 25-30tph between Hoboken Terminal and Bayonne; at that point we could push 8-10tph from Richmond/Hylan to Hoboken, another 8-10tph from St. George to Hoboken, the remaining 8-10tph between West Side Av and Hoboken, and 10 more tph from St. George to Elizabeth.

Based on the capacity of a single extended two-car train (600 people peak) this setup would let us push 4.5-6k pax per hour from each branch, and so up to 9-12k pax/hr from SI to Hoboken, with PATH connections at Exchange Pl, Newport and Hoboken for Midtown and downtown. Current travel time from Hoboken to 8th St is half an hour over a nine-mile run. Since the distance to St George is 15.2 miles, and the distance to Richmond and Hylan is 18.5ish miles we could probably expect travel times of 65 minutes from Richmond and Hylan to Hoboken, and 85 minutes from Richmond and Hylan to 33 St via PATH. That knocks the pants off the off-peak SIM buses; the SIM4C takes 100+ minutes to get from Eltingville Transit Center to 41 St in Midtown, as does the SIM1C. For the St George branch the main competition would be the SIM3C, which it still beats by about 10 minutes, and it would be about even with the scheduled runtimes on the SIM8 and some of the SIM30-series buses.

Honestly the only really serious issue would be fare integration with NYCT and PATH; if it were possible to do Eltingville Transit Center to Penn Station in 65 minutes for $2.75 that would be a way better deal than the express buses; if (MTA), HBLR and PATH were able to work out a revenue-sharing agreement that would allow for Penn Station to Eltingville to be a $2.75 total trip that would be amazing; as it stands right now that trip would be $5 with no ability to change to bus or subway without paying a third time. If MTA transfers were accepted on both systems, then a straight trip would be $2.75, and a trip with a third or fourth leg would come to $5.50, which is a dollar less than the express buses.

Edited by engineerboy6561
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, engineerboy6561 said:

It might make sense to use the HBLR as a replacement for the Staten Island proposed BRT; double track it between 22nd and 8th Sts, add a new crossing just west of the Bayonne Bridge...

Neopanamax makes that infeasible. That’s why they raised the Bayonne and replaced the Goethals.

Then you have the neighborhood destruction on both sides of the Kill that’d have to happen for your new bridge because of Neopanamax...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, Deucey said:

Neopanamax makes that infeasible. That’s why they raised the Bayonne and replaced the Goethals.

Then you have the neighborhood destruction on both sides of the Kill that’d have to happen for your new bridge because of Neopanamax...

So the only way to get across the Kill would be a tunnel (that would still need to be 70 feet deep to clear the channel depth for NeoPanamax ships) or adding a lane pair to the Bayonne Bridge to carry LRT trains (which would likely be enough of a PITA to only be worth doing when the bridge gets replaced).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, engineerboy6561 said:

So the only way to get across the Kill would be a tunnel (that would still need to be 70 feet deep to clear the channel depth for NeoPanamax ships) or adding a lane pair to the Bayonne Bridge to carry LRT trains (which would likely be enough of a PITA to only be worth doing when the bridge gets replaced).

Aside from the grade to reach the height or depth needed for Neopanamax ships to clear whatever structure, to link it up with the Richmond Terrace busway (or SIR North Shore like), there’d be residential takings for construction and operations since every road there is at most three lanes wide including parking lanes from Forest Ave back to Richmond Terrace along Morningstar Rd, then the fact Richmond is a narrow two lane with no parking alongside blind curves, there’s also commercial and industrial takings.

That’s billions before factoring in the approach on the NY side of the bridge or tunnel.

And if it’s over the Bayonne, a new level under the roadbed takes clearance away from ships, and over the roadbed requires new support structures and a longer touchdown grade because physics.

Can be done, but now we’re into the “is it worth it for maybe 20k daily riders by year 10?” zone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Deucey said:

Aside from the grade to reach the height or depth needed for Neopanamax ships to clear whatever structure, to link it up with the Richmond Terrace busway (or SIR North Shore like), there’d be residential takings for construction and operations since every road there is at most three lanes wide including parking lanes from Forest Ave back to Richmond Terrace along Morningstar Rd, then the fact Richmond is a narrow two lane with no parking alongside blind curves, there’s also commercial and industrial takings.

That’s billions before factoring in the approach on the NY side of the bridge or tunnel.

And if it’s over the Bayonne, a new level under the roadbed takes clearance away from ships, and over the roadbed requires new support structures and a longer touchdown grade because physics.

Can be done, but now we’re into the “is it worth it for maybe 20k daily riders by year 10?” zone.

That makes sense; the problem is that a tunnel from SI to the mainland is also hilariously expensive, unless you fold it into a Ft Hamilton Pkwy line. I could see a Crosstown extension via Ft Hamilton Pkwy/I-278 potentially working, but who knows?

Edited by engineerboy6561
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/5/2020 at 10:22 PM, engineerboy6561 said:

That makes sense; the problem is that a tunnel from SI to the mainland is also hilariously expensive, unless you fold it into a Ft Hamilton Pkwy line. I could see a Crosstown extension via Ft Hamilton Pkwy/I-278 potentially working, but who knows?

You still have the problem of getting tracks on and off the VZ, or finishing the SI tunnel.

Although it could mitigate SI-Bk-LI traffic - like many light rail projects partially do, it’d have to:

1) Branch at both ends - NJ side to HBLR/Hoboken, EWR, and to Metropark; LI side to Jamaica/Mineola and via southern Bk to a LIRR station or Garden City. It’d end up looking like the TfL Northern or District Lines but with lower capacity and possibly a lower fare box recovery

2) Either be a new bi-state transit authority or do trackage rights to allow (MTA) to Metropark and (NJT) to Bk/LI. That’s when power struggles come into play.

3) Offset toll collections on the VZ and reduce induced demand on the SIE/BQE and the Belt.

Its a nice idea but if it were viable, the B&O would’ve built something for it and not closed the North Shore Line.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Deucey said:

You still have the problem of getting tracks on and off the VZ, or finishing the SI tunnel.

Although it could mitigate SI-Bk-LI traffic - like many light rail projects partially do, it’d have to:

1) Branch at both ends - NJ side to HBLR/Hoboken, EWR, and to Metropark; LI side to Jamaica/Mineola and via southern Bk to a LIRR station or Garden City. It’d end up looking like the TfL Northern or District Lines but with lower capacity and possibly a lower fare box recovery

2) Either be a new bi-state transit authority or do trackage rights to allow (MTA) to Metropark and (NJT) to Bk/LI. That’s when power struggles come into play.

3) Offset toll collections on the VZ and reduce induced demand on the SIE/BQE and the Belt.

Its a nice idea but if it were viable, the B&O would’ve built something for it and not closed the North Shore Line.

That's the problem; the only way to do this in one jurisdiction would be to extend the Church Av Yard tracks down Ft Hamilton to Bay Ridge and then build actual subway to SI via a new Ft Ham-SI tunnel (which would also be hilariously expensive). Frankly, doing SI-Elizabeth with an extension of the S48/98. beefing up S89 service to Bayonne, and beefing up S79/93 service to Brooklyn may be as good as we can get.

Edited by engineerboy6561
Link to comment
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.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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