Interborough Express (Triboro RX) Discussion

[Vulturious]

They still haven't decided what form of transportation is going to be used.

[LGA Link N Train]

On 9/22/2022 at 7:29 PM, Vulturious said:

They still haven't decided what form of transportation is going to be used.

But there is a clear bias....

[HSRR]

On 9/24/2022 at 12:13 PM, LGA Link N Train said:

But there is a clear bias....

Why is the MTA only considering third rail for conventional rail option? caternary help would solve their width issue. I also don't understand why conventional rail can't share some of the tunnels with freight (since freight is only moved a night) since these would be FRA compliant rail cars. Caternary would also make the trains compatible with metro north/amtrak trackage and could be sent to the bronx stopping at the soon to be built metro north penn access stations providing the bronx for the first time ever a direct link to queens. Conventional Rail hits too many low hanging fruit to be ignored while light rail is a complete dead end. 

[LGA Link N Train]

3 hours ago, HSRR said:

Why is the MTA only considering third rail for conventional rail option? caternary help would solve their width issue. I also don't understand why conventional rail can't share some of the tunnels with freight (since freight is only moved a night) since these would be FRA compliant rail cars. Caternary would also make the trains compatible with metro north/amtrak trackage and could be sent to the bronx stopping at the soon to be built metro north penn access stations providing the bronx for the first time ever a direct link to queens. Conventional Rail hits too many low hanging fruit to be ignored while light rail is a complete dead end. 

I won't be able to answser every question in this post as of this moment as I lack the answers to do so, but on the topic of freight, it seems that has no interest in working with CSX. On top of that, CSX has been known to be hostile to the idea of sharing their tracks/corridors with Rapid Transit Services in spite of running infrequent freight trains, which I think sheds light on a much larger issue. 

[T to Dyre Avenue]

If this is indeed another example of the MTA not playing nice with another entity - and not CSX just being Chicken Shit eXpress - then maybe it’s time for an investigation into how the MTA plans projects. Because the MTA should not be intentionally throwing up their own roadblocks and be trying to stop a project that has the potential to benefit many thousands of transit riders in Brooklyn and Queens, and eventually, The Bronx (hopefully).

Edited September 26, 2022 by T to Dyre Avenue

[PML]

I live along the route, and there are mature trees growing alongside the track. I'm concerned those may be vulnerable during construction of the line. The trees provide shade and cool down this neighborhood that is home to an elderly working class population. They also provide shelter for migrating songbirds. Does anyone know the policy for trees along the track? Are there any groups working to protect them?

[JustTheSIR]

34 minutes ago, PML said:

I live along the route, and there are mature trees growing alongside the track. I'm concerned those may be vulnerable during construction of the line. The trees provide shade and cool down this neighborhood that is home to an elderly working class population. They also provide shelter for migrating songbirds. Does anyone know the policy for trees along the track? Are there any groups working to protect them?

As long as they aren’t too close to the tracks and trains they should be fine

[zacster]

If they are so close to the tracks that they are threatened by the construction they aren't shading the neighborhood.  The birds are a different story.  I was trimming an overgrown weed/shrub/tree/whatever it is on the side of my house because it was rubbing against it and the birds gathered and started making a lot of noise as I was cutting down their habitat.  I cut one more branch that had grown into the house and stopped.  I am in fact looking out the window behind my computer at the same weed as I type and there is a cardinal there at the moment, a bluebird earlier, and others come and go all day.  One year we had a cardinal there that would fly into the window repeatedly, hit its head and go back.  Apparently this is noted behavior in these birds.  Since then I've just let it grow. 

[HSRR]

Taking a second look, the ROW crosses the LIRR in a way that if they used conventional rail they could connect it to the LIRR east of Woodside and provide service Paris RAR or London overground style service to Grand central and/or Penn Station in addition to running it to the Bronx, this is a no brainer to choose conventional rail. 

[LGA Link N Train]

https://www.governor.ny.gov/news/governor-hochul-announces-public-transit-expansions-increase-access-affordability-and-safety

[Cait Sith]

Quote

 

Interborough Express

Governor Kathy Hochul today announced that the Interborough Express project will move forward using light rail following a Planning and Environmental Linkages study. The transformative transit project, announced in the Governor’s 2022 State of the State, will connect communities in Brooklyn and Queens to 17 subway lines and the Long Island Rail Road, and will significantly reduce travel times within and between the two boroughs along a 14-mile corridor.    

The Interborough Express will use the existing right-of-way of the Bay Ridge Branch and Fremont Secondary – a freight rail line running from Bay Ridge to Jackson Heights – that connects diverse neighborhoods throughout Brooklyn and Queens. Drawing from conclusions in the Planning Study, the MTA determined the most efficient mode of transportation, created a list of preliminary stations, and conducted other important planning and engineering analyses to advance the project.   

The extensive planning and engineering analysis outlined in the Planning Study strongly supports the MTA’s decision to choose light rail because it would provide the best service for customers at the lowest cost per rider. Key factors in this determination include:    

Capacity: Light rail’s quick acceleration and short dwell times make it the fastest of the three options. Combined with trains that can fit up to 360 people, light rail can fully meet demand.   

Reliability: Since it can operate in the existing railroad right-of-way through 96 percent of the corridor, rather than on surface streets, light rail will provide reliable service.   

Constructability: Light rail’s smaller, more flexible vehicles fit within the constraints of the existing corridor. It can also run on the street for short distances, which allows it to avoid construction of a complex and costly tunnel at a key pinch point.   

Vehicle Specialization: Light rail vehicles can be procured “off the shelf” without modification and can draw on a different pool of potential suppliers than traditional MTA rolling stock.   

Relative Cost: Thanks to its projected high ridership of 115,000 weekday riders and cost beneficial construction budget of $5.5 billion, light rail offers the best value with a cost of $48,173 per daily rider.    

The Planning Study indicates up to 115,000 daily weekday riders would use the 14-mile line with approximately 34.6 million riders annually. Travel times between Brooklyn and Queens could be reduced by up to 30 minutes each way, depending on travel distance. The Interborough Express would be a major advance for equity in the transit system. Seven out of 10 people served will be people of color, approximately one-half will come from households with no cars and approximately one-third will be living in households at or below 150 percent of the Federal Poverty Line. 

The preliminary stations included in the Planning Study would connect the Interborough Express to 17 subway lines, including the 2/3/5/7/A/B/C/D/E/F/J/L/M/N/Q/R/Z lines. These new stations would provide massive benefits for diverse neighborhoods, such as Bay Ridge, Sunset Park, Borough Park, Kensington, Midwood, Flatbush, Flatlands, New Lots, Brownsville, East New York, Bushwick, Ridgewood, Middle Village, Maspeth, Elmhurst and Jackson Heights. The project would include several new connections in neighborhoods that currently lack efficient connections to each other, and in some cases, to Manhattan.   

Proposed service would operate at up to five-minute headways during the peak periods, with off-peak headways of up to 10 minutes at other times of the day. The number and location of stations along the 14-mile corridor were also conceptualized as part of the current Planning Study.     

Public input was a key factor as the Planning Study advanced. The MTA held town hall meetings last year and received more than 700 comments on its website over a six-month period. Public outreach will continue as the project progresses.  

 

Source: https://www.governor.ny.gov/news/governor-hochul-announces-public-transit-expansions-increase-access-affordability-and-safety

[Vulturious]

I'm very disappointed that the project is moving forward with Light Rail, I mean I shouldn't be surprised in the slightest. However, the project is on the more expensive side, yet another thing I shoudn't be surprised about, but it doesn't really make sense. That budget seems to be too high, cost per rider is much higher than the SAS iirc. A lot of the wrong steps are being taken here, only thing I'm hoping from here on is the MTA looks at other examples of Light Rail everywhere else. Still very disappointed, oh well.

[JustTheSIR]

Do we have any ideas on rolling stock yet? 
will it be high or low platform

my bet is on high platform because the N and L

[Roadcruiser1]

I am hoping that the Nippon Sharyo DMU’s get used on the Interborough Express. They are FRA compliant. It makes it useful so that future extensions can cross the Hells Gate Bridge into the Bronx.

[bobtehpanda]

6 hours ago, Vulturious said:

I'm very disappointed that the project is moving forward with Light Rail, I mean I shouldn't be surprised in the slightest. However, the project is on the more expensive side, yet another thing I shoudn't be surprised about, but it doesn't really make sense. That budget seems to be too high, cost per rider is much higher than the SAS iirc. A lot of the wrong steps are being taken here, only thing I'm hoping from here on is the MTA looks at other examples of Light Rail everywhere else. Still very disappointed, oh well.

5.5bn for 14 miles comes out to about $240M per km.

The cost per rider actually compares favorably with SAS; this is 5.5bn for 115,000 riders, SAS Phase II is  is $6.3B for 110,000 riders.

In general this is cheaper than a subway but at inflated New York costs

Edited January 11, 2023 by bobtehpanda

[bobtehpanda]

1 hour ago, JustTheSIR said:

Do we have any ideas on rolling stock yet? 
will it be high or low platform

my bet is on high platform because the N and L

It's probably going to be low platform. They specifically mention using off-the-shelf rolling stock, and all of that in the US is low-floor.

You can have flat cross platform transfers between light rail and subway, the light rail trackbed would just be higher.

[Vulturious]

2 hours ago, bobtehpanda said:

5.5bn for 14 miles comes out to about $240M per km.

The cost per rider actually compares favorably with SAS; this is 5.5bn for 115,000 riders, SAS Phase II is  is $6.3B for 110,000 riders.

In general this is cheaper than a subway but at inflated New York costs

I was more focusing on Phase I, but I guess that works. I wanted to have the mindset of what you pointed out, but I just couldnt bring myself to the point where I felt like we'll end up with nothing but wasted effort. There's probably a better phrasing for that sentence, but I just can't seem to think of it at the moment. My disappointment is probably clouding my judgment in thinking rationally, but then again maybe not since we've already seen the MTA and their shenanigans plenty of times before what with going for the expensive yet cut corner options and whatnot. I'm just very skeptical that we're going to get anything competent with the IBX. Oh well, here's hoping I'm wrong.

[T to Dyre Avenue]

15 hours ago, Vulturious said:

I'm very disappointed that the project is moving forward with Light Rail, I mean I shouldn't be surprised in the slightest. However, the project is on the more expensive side, yet another thing I shoudn't be surprised about, but it doesn't really make sense. That budget seems to be too high, cost per rider is much higher than the SAS iirc. A lot of the wrong steps are being taken here, only thing I'm hoping from here on is the MTA looks at other examples of Light Rail everywhere else. Still very disappointed, oh well.

Honestly I don’t see the choice of light rail as a dealbreaker (some folks on Transit Twitter and the NYC Rail subreddit do). Thankfully the MTA didn’t choose bus rapid transit. I would’ve preferred either modified commuter or subway trains, but I think LRVs can work, even though the MTA has no experience operating them (gotta start somewhere, yes?) and completely lets project costs skyrocket into the stratosphere.

9 hours ago, Roadcruiser1 said:

I am hoping that the Nippon Sharyo DMU’s get used on the Interborough Express. They are FRA compliant. It makes it useful so that future extensions can cross the Hells Gate Bridge into the Bronx.

With Nippon Sharyo having pulled out of the North American market a couple years ago, I doubt they’ll be interested in offering their DMU vehicles as an option, unless they’re small enough to be considered LRVs, like the Stadler GTW trains that run on NJT’s Riverline. 

Btw, welcome back! 

9 hours ago, bobtehpanda said:

It's probably going to be low platform. They specifically mention using off-the-shelf rolling stock, and all of that in the US is low-floor.

You can have flat cross platform transfers between light rail and subway, the light rail trackbed would just be higher.

The vast majority are low-floor, it’s true. Mostly because low platforms in the middle of streets are seen as less unsightly versus high platforms in the street, like you see in LA and on Muni’s T Line on Third Street in San Francisco and the C-Train in Calgary (I think we can include Canadian cities as examples here). All three have recently ordered new high-floor LRVs for their systems - LA with P3010s from Kinki Sharyo and SF and Calgary with S200s from Siemens - so the MTA have at least a couple builders to choose from as long as they don’t let their bureaucratic baloney get in the way as they usually do. I honestly think high-floor LRVs may be a better choice for this project because it will run almost entirely off-street, so “unsightly” high platforms in the street will probably not be that big of an issue, unless they’re already planning to have some street-level stops.

 

Edited January 11, 2023 by T to Dyre Avenue

[HSRR]

On 1/11/2023 at 9:48 AM, T to Dyre Avenue said:

Honestly I don’t see the choice of light rail as a dealbreaker (some folks on Transit Twitter and the NYC Rail subreddit do). Thankfully the MTA didn’t choose bus rapid transit. I would’ve preferred either modified commuter or subway trains, but I think LRVs can work, even though the MTA has no experience operating them (gotta start somewhere, yes?) and completely lets project costs skyrocket into the stratosphere.

With Nippon Sharyo having pulled out of the North American market a couple years ago, I doubt they’ll be interested in offering their DMU vehicles as an option, unless they’re small enough to be considered LRVs, like the Stadler GTW trains that run on NJT’s Riverline. 

Btw, welcome back! 

The vast majority are low-floor, it’s true. Mostly because low platforms in the middle of streets are seen as less unsightly versus high platforms in the street, like you see in LA and on Muni’s T Line on Third Street in San Francisco and the C-Train in Calgary (I think we can include Canadian cities as examples here). All three have recently ordered new high-floor LRVs for their systems - LA with P3010s from Kinki Sharyo and SF and Calgary with S200s from Siemens - so the MTA have at least a couple builders to choose from as long as they don’t let their bureaucratic baloney get in the way as they usually do. I honestly think high-floor LRVs may be a better choice for this project because it will run almost entirely off-street, so “unsightly” high platforms in the street will probably not be that big of an issue, unless they’re already planning to have some street-level stops.

 

I too would have preferred conventional rail for future compatibility with the network. So many low risk, high reward extensions could be made with simply adding a connection and using existing rails.

1) Service into Manhattan to Penn and Grand Central via LIRR. 

2) Service into the Bronx via Hells gate 

I see this as being low floor LRV as in the IBX presentation MTA stated it would be using the streets at the terminal in jackson heights which would preclude this from ever being extended beyond what's planned today. I do not see the MTA installing high level platforms on streets.

I am happy they didn't pick BRT, but do we need a disconnected gadgetbahn with proprietary rolling stock (vs the rest of the system, which is already a problem with div A and div B trains)?

[Lex]

3 minutes ago, HSRR said:

I too would have preferred conventional rail for future compatibility with the network. So many low risk, high reward extensions could be made with simply adding a connection and using existing rails.

1) Service into Manhattan to Penn and Grand Central via LIRR. 

2) Service into the Bronx via Hells gate 

I see this as being low floor LRV as in the IBX presentation MTA stated it would be using the streets at the terminal in jackson heights which would preclude this from ever being extended beyond what's planned today. I do not see the MTA installing high level platforms on streets.

I am happy they didn't pick BRT, but do we need a disconnected gadgetbahn with proprietary rolling stock (vs the rest of the system, which is already a problem with div A and div B trains)?

Are you talking about the old version, where they had it directly crossing more streets? That hasn't held since they modified the proposal (no such luck for BRT). The current proposal only does that around All Faiths Cemetery (and likely again to serve the Brooklyn Army Terminal).

[Roadcruiser1]

Also I do not understand the purpose of street running. They have enough room to build a bridge over All Faith’s Cemetery.

[Lex]

2 hours ago, Roadcruiser1 said:

Also I do not understand the purpose of street running. They have enough room to build a bridge over All Faith’s Cemetery.

Think about what you just proposed for a second.

[Roadcruiser1]

2 hours ago, Lex said:

Think about what you just proposed for a second.

Yes, but street running means dealing with NIMBY’s.

[Roadcruiser1]

https://pin.it/1UT8auM

Plus I am not suggesting tearing up graves. There is a section that is empty between Metropolitan Avenue, and JGN Construction.

[Lex]

2 hours ago, Roadcruiser1 said:

https://pin.it/1UT8auM

Plus I am not suggesting tearing up graves. There is a section that is empty between Metropolitan Avenue, and JGN Construction.

Did you zoom in?