Interborough Express (Triboro RX) Discussion

[Roadcruiser1 286]

Yup. Even did a Street View. It is just the cemetery entrance then a parking lot behind that.

[Roadcruiser1 286]

In any case you do not have to build anything on top of them. Just build an arch bridge so it would go over them.

[bobtehpanda 6,115]

On 1/11/2023 at 6:48 AM, T to Dyre Avenue said:

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.

Unsightly is not the issue. ADA compliance is.

For the most part, low floor LRVs are basically flush with the curb, or a little bit higher. The ADA limits slope, so a high floor platform needs a longer, more expensive ramp. Not to mention the cost of the additional concrete and whatnot.

[T to Dyre Avenue 1,446]

2 hours ago, bobtehpanda said:

Unsightly is not the issue. ADA compliance is.

For the most part, low floor LRVs are basically flush with the curb, or a little bit higher. The ADA limits slope, so a high floor platform needs a longer, more expensive ramp. Not to mention the cost of the additional concrete and whatnot.

For street-running stops, yes. But it appears that the IBX line will be almost entirely off-street running (as it should be). And for that, I think high floor vehicles will work better. It seems like they can potentially resemble A-Division cars, but with bullet-shaped noses, pantographs and articulated joints. It might make it quicker to learn maintenance on them versus a low-floor car. And you still have the required accessibility pursuant to ADA because the IBX line stations will still have ramps and possibly elevators. 

FWIW, LA Metro, Muni and C-Train do have high platforms with long ramps at either all (Metro, C-Train) or some of their on-street surface stations (Muni). I’m definitely not saying we should copy them on that. I don’t know if any of the stops are planned to be on-street. If not, then I say go with high floor. Although there certainly are more options for low floor cars. 

 

Edited January 13 by T to Dyre Avenue

[HSRR 11]

22 hours ago, Lex said:

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).

I now see that they updated that jackson heights terminal! It may be streets at the brooklyn terminal. Definitely through the cemetery, metropolitan ave and surrounding streets. 

[bobtehpanda 6,115]

21 hours ago, T to Dyre Avenue said:

For street-running stops, yes. But it appears that the IBX line will be almost entirely off-street running (as it should be). And for that, I think high floor vehicles will work better. It seems like they can potentially resemble A-Division cars, but with bullet-shaped noses, pantographs and articulated joints. It might make it quicker to learn maintenance on them versus a low-floor car. And you still have the required accessibility pursuant to ADA because the IBX line stations will still have ramps and possibly elevators. 

FWIW, LA Metro, Muni and C-Train do have high platforms with long ramps at either all (Metro, C-Train) or some of their on-street surface stations (Muni). I’m definitely not saying we should copy them on that. I don’t know if any of the stops are planned to be on-street. If not, then I say go with high floor. Although there certainly are more options for low floor cars. 

 

It's worth noting the very specific case of "off the shelf". Off the shelf means that they're going to be pretty much exactly the same as all the other units in the country (which makes me thinks Siemens S70/700 is the obvious choice) and it means that parts are cheap. Also, all those agencies around the country using those vehicles already have spares, already have people trained, etc. so it's clearly not very hard. On the other hand we don't really have off-the-shelf high floor cars; LA Metro has been off doing its own thing for a while now, and the high-floor S200 has exactly two operators.

The NTTs are notable in that they are actually fairly expensive per car, and a good deal of that is because no one else really operates trains like NTT.

Edited January 14 by bobtehpanda

[Lex 1,186]

2 hours ago, bobtehpanda said:

It's worth noting the very specific case of "off the shelf". Off the shelf means that they're going to be pretty much exactly the same as all the other units in the country (which makes me thinks Siemens S70/700 is the obvious choice) and it means that parts are cheap. Also, all those agencies around the country using those vehicles already have spares, already have people trained, etc. so it's clearly not very hard. On the other hand we don't really have off-the-shelf high floor cars; LA Metro has been off doing its own thing for a while now, and the high-floor S200 has exactly two operators.

The NTTs are notable in that they are actually fairly expensive per car, and a good deal of that is because no one else really operates trains like NTT.

Does that mean the R179s are relatively cheap, then? They're built on the Movia platform, after all.

[HenryB 118]

On 1/10/2023 at 11:40 PM, 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.

i hope they change their minds. Light rail option kills the possibilities of extending service elsewhere via LIRR/MNR

[Roadcruiser1 286]

Once again not really. There are light rail vehicles that are compatible. Like New Jersey’s River Line. It all depends on the M.T.A. in the end.

[I love NY 9]

Is there the possibility that both projects (https://new.mta.info/project/interborough express and https://www.brooklynqueensconnector.nyc/route) can become reality or one excludes the other?

[Vulturious 299]

2 hours ago, I love NY said:

Is there the possibility that both projects (https://new.mta.info/project/interborough express and https://www.brooklynqueensconnector.nyc/route) can become reality or one excludes the other?

IBX, take it or leave it. The BQX was a failed attempt by De Blasio, that should already tell you everything. However, I can tell you why I highly doubt anyone sane enough will never back this project ever. The line is parallel to the  from Red Hook to Astoria, you're better off with a beefed up service of the  such as longer length cars and an increase in service frequency along the line. As for portions of the Astoria area, you can always just take the  as they aren't even a 5 minute walk from 21 St. 

[Lawrence St 1,609]

Instead of this garbage, how about doing useful extensions such as the  to LGA,  to Startett City, etc etc.

[Lex 1,186]

5 hours ago, Lawrence St said:

Instead of this garbage, how about doing useful extensions such as the  to LGA,  to Startett City, etc etc.

If you're implying restoring rail service on this corridor is useless, well, I can bring up some of your proposals for Brooklyn's bus network.

[LGA Link N Train 587]

In my personal opinion, I’m not a fan of going forward with Low Floor LRV’s but it isn’t a deal breaker either. With that being said, since  is choosing to go this route, I think they should at least have the foresight to make the line easy to upgrade it to a Light Metro or Conventional Rail if the ridership justifies it in the long run. I doubt that’ll happen but it’d be nice.

[ABCDEFGJLMNQRSSSWZ 58]

Ig I'm a bit out of the loop on the IBX as a whole.

I understand as of right now it would be a light rail aimed at better connecting Brooklyn and Queens via existing tracks that are abandoned or just rarely used.

Would it be integrated with the rest of the subway system in the sense it's free transfer. Would it appear on the subway map as an actual route (perhaps in a thinner line)? Would it still have the turnstiles like the subways do or would there be its own payment system?

I actually like the idea of a light-rail; they can add a "charm" of sorts to neighborhoods and feel a lot lighter while still being relatively high capacity. The Hudson-Bergen Light Rail in Jersey City just increases the vibes idk how else to put it.

[mrsman 155]

6 hours ago, ABCDEFGJLMNQRSSSWZ said:

Ig I'm a bit out of the loop on the IBX as a whole.

I understand as of right now it would be a light rail aimed at better connecting Brooklyn and Queens via existing tracks that are abandoned or just rarely used.

Would it be integrated with the rest of the subway system in the sense it's free transfer. Would it appear on the subway map as an actual route (perhaps in a thinner line)? Would it still have the turnstiles like the subways do or would there be its own payment system?

I actually like the idea of a light-rail; they can add a "charm" of sorts to neighborhoods and feel a lot lighter while still being relatively high capacity. The Hudson-Bergen Light Rail in Jersey City just increases the vibes idk how else to put it.

I would hope so.  It's probably more likely to be treated as an SBS bus for fare purposes since it likely won't have stations with turnstyles so people can go in and out without a fare control.  So there is probably a possiblity of a bus-LR free transfer and a LR-subway free transfer but probably not a bus-LR-subway free transfer, which is unfortunate as I can envision a lot of people will need a bus connection to get to the light rail.

[T to Dyre Avenue 1,446]

On 1/14/2023 at 6:18 AM, bobtehpanda said:

It's worth noting the very specific case of "off the shelf". Off the shelf means that they're going to be pretty much exactly the same as all the other units in the country (which makes me thinks Siemens S70/700 is the obvious choice) and it means that parts are cheap. Also, all those agencies around the country using those vehicles already have spares, already have people trained, etc. so it's clearly not very hard. On the other hand we don't really have off-the-shelf high floor cars; LA Metro has been off doing its own thing for a while now, and the high-floor S200 has exactly two operators.

The NTTs are notable in that they are actually fairly expensive per car, and a good deal of that is because no one else really operates trains like NTT.

If this forum about Ohio’s cities and this blog are any indication, then the S200 may have a third operator in the not-so-distant future. So why not have a fourth? 

https://forum.urbanohio.com/topic/705-greater-cleveland-rta-news-amp-discussion/page/287/#comments

https://neo-trans.blog/2023/01/20/sneak-peek-at-gcrtas-new-trains/

But if they choose to go with low-floor LRVs, then I won’t lose sleep over it. After all there are more of them to choose from. 

[TheMTAEmprie 5]

On 1/18/2023 at 12:31 PM, Lex said:

If you're implying restoring rail service on this corridor is useless, well, I can bring up some of your proposals for Brooklyn's bus network.

lol