Interborough Express (Triboro RX) Discussion

[P3F]

6 hours ago, bobtehpanda said:

One interesting thing to note: the proposed renderings have no faregates. Even the rail version does not, having direct exits to the sidewalk in a similar fashion to Murray Hill station in Queens. Perhaps SBS-style proof of payment?

I imagine this is what the future holds for the Staten Island Railway as well.

[T to Dyre Avenue]

On 1/20/2022 at 7:56 PM, trainfan22 said:

YES! They are considering a light rail option!!!!!!

 

 

They better not make this no BRT/SBS BS, buses suck, every major transportation project from here on out should be rail, PERIOD!

 

 

On 1/20/2022 at 9:50 PM, mrsman said:

I would think that it is done for the purpose of reports to show a careful consideration of alternatives.

BRT would make no sense over here.  You already have the rails.  The rails at present are needed for freight, so we are not ripping them apart.  To the extent that you have a wide ROW, great - separate freight from passenger to the extent practical.  But given that there are places where there is no easy way to widen the corridor to more than two tracks wide, leads me to believe that the only good option is FRA compliant train.

 

Agreed. FRA compliant trains are really the most practical option, even it’s not the fastest. With LRT and BRT, they’ve already stated they’ll have to deviate from the r.o.w. in several areas where it’s only two tracks wide. They’ll still likely have to for an effective transfer between the  in Jackson Heights, but it’s better to have to deviate in just one area versus several. I’m surprised how quickly the subway option was ruled out.

[Lex]

1 hour ago, T to Dyre Avenue said:

 

Agreed. FRA compliant trains are really the most practical option, even it’s not the fastest. With LRT and BRT, they’ve already stated they’ll have to deviate from the r.o.w. in several areas where it’s only two tracks wide. They’ll still likely have to for an effective transfer between the  in Jackson Heights, but it’s better to have to deviate in just one area versus several. I’m surprised how quickly the subway option was ruled out.

I'm not. Subway rolling stock is far too narrow for freight trains, which have roughly the same width as mainline passenger trains.

[T to Dyre Avenue]

4 minutes ago, Lex said:

I'm not. Subway rolling stock is far too narrow for freight trains, which have roughly the same width as mainline passenger trains.

I assumed subway rolling stock would have been on separate tracks, same as LRT or BRT. That’s why I was surprised it was eliminated right away. 

[Lex]

45 minutes ago, T to Dyre Avenue said:

I assumed subway rolling stock would have been on separate tracks, same as LRT or BRT. That’s why I was surprised it was eliminated right away. 

And that's part of the problem. LRT and BRT can mitigate some of the costs and connectivity issues by street-running, while using trains built to mainline height and width drastically limits the amount of new infrastructure needed. The subway option is incompatible with either option, thus completely defeating the purpose if it's pushed.

Edited January 22, 2022 by Lex

[mrsman]

On 1/22/2022 at 2:54 PM, Lex said:

And that's part of the problem. LRT and BRT can mitigate some of the costs and connectivity issues by street-running, while using trains built to mainline height and width drastically limits the amount of new infrastructure needed. The subway option is incompatible with either option, thus completely defeating the purpose if it's pushed.

Yes.  While the fact that street running makes LRT and BRT feasible options, the delays that can be incurred while street running will make this an unacceptable option from the passenger's perspective.  The only way that this train will get reasonable ridership is because the running time along the route is fast.  If this train has to deal with traffic signals, drivers blocking the tracks, or traffic generally, then it no longer will be viewed as an "interboro express" but rather a glorified slow crosstown bus.

Conventional rail thus seems to be the only choice in my view if this gets built.  We maintain the grade separation that already exists on the entire corridor.  We also make use of the existing rails where we need to at the choke points that already exist.

[CenSin]

For the Roosevelt Avenue station, I’m wondering if a gentler curve for the detour might be a feasible alternative since it would be both faster to traverse and have a physical connection directly above/below the existing station complex. This is as opposed to an almost right-angle hook depicted in the interim report as well as the rendering which shows a conventional rail station 3 blocks away from the complex.

It would peel off from the railroad to run on/below 73 Street and then follow Broadway to rejoin the railroad. 74 Street is another obvious option; it would bring the line closer to the centroid of the station complex, but the line would run under an extra 3 blocks of street.

[Mtatransit]

1 hour ago, CenSin said:

For the Roosevelt Avenue station, I’m wondering if a gentler curve for the detour might be a feasible alternative since it would be both faster to traverse and have a physical connection directly above/below the existing station complex. This is as opposed to an almost right-angle hook depicted in the interim report as well as the rendering which shows a conventional rail station 3 blocks away from the complex.

It would peel off from the railroad to run on/below 73 Street and then follow Broadway to rejoin the railroad. 74 Street is another obvious option; it would bring the line closer to the centroid of the station complex, but the line would run under an extra 3 blocks of street.

That area is very residential, so there would be significant pushback from the community.

I was thinking maybe a moving passageway (you know like the one MTA took out from Court Sq) would work better. Its not too long of a walk between the end of the mezzanine area for the QBL (at 73rd St and 71 Street for the new station

(Although it is a guarantee that the station next to the BQE is closer to the 69th St Station on the ) So either an overpass to 69th Street over the BQE or a tunnel to connect the mezzanine of the QBL

Edited January 23, 2022 by Mtatransit

[Lex]

1 hour ago, CenSin said:

For the Roosevelt Avenue station, I’m wondering if a gentler curve for the detour might be a feasible alternative since it would be both faster to traverse and have a physical connection directly above/below the existing station complex. This is as opposed to an almost right-angle hook depicted in the interim report as well as the rendering which shows a conventional rail station 3 blocks away from the complex.

It would peel off from the railroad to run on/below 73 Street and then follow Broadway to rejoin the railroad. 74 Street is another obvious option; it would bring the line closer to the centroid of the station complex, but the line would run under an extra 3 blocks of street.

Perhaps, assuming that the plan is to have it permanently separate to serve LGA at some point. Aside from that, it's not worth doing.

[Eric B]

Quote

On 1/20/2022 at 7:56 PM, trainfan22 said:

YES! They are considering a light rail option!!!!!!

They better not make this no BRT/SBS BS, buses suck, every major transportation project from here on out should be rail, PERIOD!

 

On 1/20/2022 at 9:50 PM, mrsman said:

I would think that it is done for the purpose of reports to show a careful consideration of alternatives.

BRT would make no sense over here.  You already have the rails.  The rails at present are needed for freight, so we are not ripping them apart.  To the extent that you have a wide ROW, great - separate freight from passenger to the extent practical.  But given that there are places where there is no easy way to widen the corridor to more than two tracks wide, leads me to believe that the only good option is FRA compliant train.

 

On 1/22/2022 at 12:41 PM, T to Dyre Avenue said:

Agreed. FRA compliant trains are really the most practical option, even it’s not the fastest. With LRT and BRT, they’ve already stated they’ll have to deviate from the r.o.w. in several areas where it’s only two tracks wide. They’ll still likely have to for an effective transfer between the  in Jackson Heights, but it’s better to have to deviate in just one area versus several. I’m surprised how quickly the subway option was ruled out.

 

I don't like LRT because of it leaving the ROW and running on the streets with three turns around MET. Though being able to run via the street to the Roosevelt hub wuld be good. But I think it would better be extended via the other BQE spur, to LGA. (I thought DMU was the best idea, but that was ruled out for some reason).

[CenSin]

1 hour ago, Lex said:

2 hours ago, CenSin said:

For the Roosevelt Avenue station, I’m wondering if a gentler curve for the detour might be a feasible alternative since it would be both faster to traverse and have a physical connection directly above/below the existing station complex. This is as opposed to an almost right-angle hook depicted in the interim report as well as the rendering which shows a conventional rail station 3 blocks away from the complex.

It would peel off from the railroad to run on/below 73 Street and then follow Broadway to rejoin the railroad. 74 Street is another obvious option; it would bring the line closer to the centroid of the station complex, but the line would run under an extra 3 blocks of street.

Perhaps, assuming that the plan is to have it permanently separate to serve LGA at some point. Aside from that, it's not worth doing.

If it stayed on the main R.O.W. it would connect easily to the nearly stations (69 Street and Northern Boulevard), but unfortunately require two separate stations and miss the .

Might they avoid NIMBY complaints if they did a deep bore under the streets and built the station on a curve underneath the commercial area between Roosevelt Avenue and Broadway on 73 Street?

[R10 2952]

2 hours ago, Eric B said:

I don't like LRT because of it leaving the ROW and running on the streets with three turns around MET. Though being able to run via the street to the Roosevelt hub wuld be good. But I think it would better be extended via the other BQE spur, to LGA. (I thought DMU was the best idea, but that was ruled out for some reason).

Yeah, cheapest option I could see them doing (cheapest as in the most likely to come to fruition) would be hourly, peak-time, LIRR-style service using something similar to Budd RDCs, and double-tracking as well as reopening the closed, previously-existing passenger stops.  Anything beyond that, I just don't see getting off the ground.

Edited January 24, 2022 by R10 2952

[Lex]

2 hours ago, Eric B said:

I don't like LRT because of it leaving the ROW and running on the streets with three turns around MET. Though being able to run via the street to the Roosevelt hub wuld be good. But I think it would better be extended via the other BQE spur, to LGA. (I thought DMU was the best idea, but that was ruled out for some reason).

Wait for one of those diesel-powered trains to pass by underground, then try breathing.

[N6 Limited]

1 hour ago, Lex said:

Wait for one of those diesel-powered trains to pass by underground, then try breathing.

Ugh, I hate when those work trains pass by in the subway.

[CenSin]

23 minutes ago, N6 Limited said:

Ugh, I hate when those work trains pass by in the subway.

Underground, above ground, anywhere near. Passed by one on the Brighton Line around Kings Highway a while back with the train doors closed and I could still smell it.

[Around the Horn]

In regards to what mode the Interborough Express will be, I think they're probably going to operate this similarly to : a line that to the average passenger is part of the subway system but under a separate operating authority within the MTA following "mainline" FRA signalling rules.

They can add on additional cars to the R211S order for the Interborough Express, provided that they meet the FRA's definition of alternate compliance since the feasibility study claims that "The Conventional Rail alternative involves the use of FRA-compliant vehicles that can operate in the same corridor as freight trains, but which offer service frequencies and train car interiors that more closely resemble the subway."

[Lex]

9 minutes ago, Around the Horn said:

In regards to what mode the Interborough Express will be, I think they're probably going to operate this similarly to : a line that to the average passenger is part of the subway system but under a separate operating authority within the MTA following "mainline" FRA signalling rules.

They can add on additional cars to the R211S order for the Interborough Express, provided that they meet the FRA's definition of alternate compliance since the feasibility study claims that "The Conventional Rail alternative involves the use of FRA-compliant vehicles that can operate in the same corridor as freight trains, but which offer service frequencies and train car interiors that more closely resemble the subway."

That would fall into subway territory, even with FRA-compliant cars.

If  you tried to use the R44s on the LIRR, you'd immediately notice a glaring issue when trying to board/alight.

Edited January 24, 2022 by Lex

[bobtehpanda]

9 hours ago, mrsman said:

Yes.  While the fact that street running makes LRT and BRT feasible options, the delays that can be incurred while street running will make this an unacceptable option from the passenger's perspective.  The only way that this train will get reasonable ridership is because the running time along the route is fast.  If this train has to deal with traffic signals, drivers blocking the tracks, or traffic generally, then it no longer will be viewed as an "interboro express" but rather a glorified slow crosstown bus.

Conventional rail thus seems to be the only choice in my view if this gets built.  We maintain the grade separation that already exists on the entire corridor.  We also make use of the existing rails where we need to at the choke points that already exist.

So there are a few segments where trains will intersect streets and a few places where they run alongside streets.

Intersecting is not a big deal. You could slap down four quadrant gates and that would be one way of solving that problem. This is the norm on some light rail lines in other cities.

The alongside segment depends on the details. There is one segment from Metropolitan Av to what looks to be Juniper Blvd. This alignment actually has few street crossings, only at Metropolitan Av, 69 St, and Juniper Blvd S. Three intersections and some other minor ones you could close off are probably not a huge deal.

The killer may be whatever path it takes into Jackson Heights. 

[LGA Link N Train]

Something that I've been thinking about recently is what impact would a fully realized IBX have on the rest of the system in terms of how we run service? (This includes both the Subway and Bus Network)

[bobtehpanda]

2 hours ago, LaGuardia Link N Tra said:

Something that I've been thinking about recently is what impact would a fully realized IBX have on the rest of the system in terms of how we run service? (This includes both the Subway and Bus Network)

I don't think bus or subway service changes all that much. It'd be a faster line in the grid, but if you're far enough away it's still faster to just take a parallel bus than to go in on subway, connect to IBX, and come back out on subway.

Maybe on parallel routes, you see some fall in ridership that is going end to end, but this is a much smaller change on the network than say expanding subways east and south in Queens.

[Vulturious]

2 hours ago, bobtehpanda said:

4 hours ago, LaGuardia Link N Tra said:

Something that I've been thinking about recently is what impact would a fully realized IBX have on the rest of the system in terms of how we run service? (This includes both the Subway and Bus Network)

I don't think bus or subway service changes all that much. It'd be a faster line in the grid, but if you're far enough away it's still faster to just take a parallel bus than to go in on subway, connect to IBX, and come back out on subway.

Maybe on parallel routes, you see some fall in ridership that is going end to end, but this is a much smaller change on the network than say expanding subways east and south in Queens.

I can definitely say some buses will see a drop in ridership say for example the B6 and the B11. Both Midwood High School and Brooklyn College is along the B6 route and I always hear people complain about how trash the B6 and the B11 runs or how much they hate taking the bus just to get to school. Both those lines also directly cross paths with other subway routes in South Brooklyn so anyone that lives near one of those subway lines could just take that to transfer to the IBX. However, this all depends on how much the fare costs and if subways and buses will allow for easy transfers with the IBX and vice versa.

Let's say the IBX has the same fare and easy transfers, this would definitely without a doubt get some people off of certain bus routes. Certain lines in Brooklyn would also see an increased amount of people because of it. Even certain bus lines might also see an increased number of people if they were to directly cross paths with the IBX. People would change their path from their current one that'll get them to their destination, maybe it'll be easier without having to backtrack or transfer so many times. 

[bobtehpanda]

1 hour ago, Vulturious said:

I can definitely say some buses will see a drop in ridership say for example the B6 and the B11. Both Midwood High School and Brooklyn College is along the B6 route and I always hear people complain about how trash the B6 and the B11 runs or how much they hate taking the bus just to get to school. Both those lines also directly cross paths with other subway routes in South Brooklyn so anyone that lives near one of those subway lines could just take that to transfer to the IBX. However, this all depends on how much the fare costs and if subways and buses will allow for easy transfers with the IBX and vice versa.

Let's say the IBX has the same fare and easy transfers, this would definitely without a doubt get some people off of certain bus routes. Certain lines in Brooklyn would also see an increased amount of people because of it. Even certain bus lines might also see an increased number of people if they were to directly cross paths with the IBX. People would change their path from their current one that'll get them to their destination, maybe it'll be easier without having to backtrack or transfer so many times. 

This will definitely happen, but I don't think anything about the bus routes themselves will really change, which is more of what I was getting it. IBX is not really a major change in that sense, not like how Archer Avenue's opening in 1988 rerouted dozens of buses to serve the new line.

[CenSin]

On the Bay Ridge end, bypassing the looks like it’d be another missed transfer opportunity. With the extra space provisioned along the eastern half of 4 Avenue, it should be easy to cut and cover a short tunnel to connect with the at Bay Ridge Avenue.

It could even extend southward for all the buses to/from Staten Island since the Bay Ridge branch itself is so short that it doesn’t make sense to make people take the for 4 stops just to get on the RX. Those coming to/from the local stations 53 Street and 45 Street could also avoid making 2 transfers in Bay Ridge/Sunset Park to use the RX.

[bobtehpanda]

22 minutes ago, CenSin said:

On the Bay Ridge end, bypassing the looks like it’d be another missed transfer opportunity. With the extra space provisioned along the eastern half of 4 Avenue, it should be easy to cut and cover a short tunnel to connect with the at Bay Ridge Avenue.

 

It could even extend southward for all the buses to/from Staten Island since the Bay Ridge branch itself is so short that it doesn’t make sense to make people take the for 4 stops just to get on the RX. Those coming to/from the local stations 53 Street and 45 Street could also avoid making 2 transfers in Bay Ridge/Sunset Park to use the RX.

Where exactly are the extra spaces on 4th Av? They ruled out subway cars as an alternative, so presumably they'd need to at least be walled off from each other.

[GojiMet86]

5 minutes ago, bobtehpanda said:

Where exactly are the extra spaces on 4th Av? They ruled out subway cars as an alternative, so presumably they'd need to at least be walled off from each other.

The extra trackways that were left over from the old 4-track proposals, south of 59th.

Alternatively, the train can skip 8th Avenue, and instead tunnel and swerve across 61st Street to underneath 60th Street to reach the 59th Street station.

Edited January 25, 2022 by GojiMet86