20 Year Needs Assessment Released

[TDL]

https://future.mta.info/documents/20-YearNeedsAssessment_ComparativeEvaluation.pdf

[ABCDEFGJLMNQRSSSWZ]

As for the NYC proper based subway/light rail expansion projects this is the sense I get of what their priority list is:

1. IBX. This project scored well on basically all metrics except capacity (since it would serve as more of a feeder-radial route). Furthermore, the 5.5 billion dollar cost seems pretty good (by MTA standards) considering the extent of the line; it generally does a good job of re-using existing ROW. I think how successful the IBX would be largely depends on how well it's integrated with the subway system. If it's basically a glorified bus line where people have to leave the subway station and pay again, prolly not gonna see the same ridership than if it's basically integrated as it's own subway line.

2. SAS 125th St crosstown. MTA considered several alternatives, but only studied 2 for the time being. One ends at Broadway 125th on the  while the other turns north and ends at 137th on the . MTA seems to favor the 125th St option as it's more cost effective. MTA says the project is high-cost, but justifies the ridership and the improvements to commute times. The $7.5 billion price tag honestly doesn't seem that bad by MTA standards given you have to deal with some difficult topography and have to build 3 transfer stations.

3. Utica Av. MTA investigated 3 alternatives 1 that's just BRT all the way from Woodhull Hospital to Kings Plaza, one that's just a Utica Av subway as a branch of Eastern Parkway down to Kings Plaza, and a 3rd alternative that would have the full BRT + a short Utica Av subway just to Church Av. The MTA seems to favor the last alternative, which I agree with *IF* the BRT is actually effective and integrated well. The MTA assumes fixing Rodgers as a pre-requisite to this project. I wish the MTA would consider doing a Utica Av subway that becomes elevated after Church Av or so because of the swampy conditions in this region, but I think the $15.9 billion dollar price tag for the full line alternative implies it's all subway. The $6.8 billion dollar price tag for the shorter Subway + BRT isn't great, but again it largely depends on what kind of BRT we're talking about.

4. SAS Phase III to Houston St. Honestly scored a bit better than expected and MTA basically said the $13.5 billion dollar price tag may be worth the ridership the line would see. However, Phase III doesn't really outright expand subway access or significantly shorten commute time. Honestly compared to Phase I and II, $13.5 billion is lower than I would expect given how this extension would add 6 stations and 2 transfers, plus this part of midtown is just much much denser. One thing that's notably absent is the lack of transfers at 42 or 55 St.

After this it goes downhill

5. Rockaway Beach Branch Reactivation. I feel like here the MTA basically threw their hands up and said because the city is trying to do other things with the ROW, it just makes the project too much of a problem. As the main transit agency, the whole point of the MTA should be to advocate for public transit and support the public transit option when there are competing alternatives. The MTA also said ridership is also pretty low, which is somewhat fair, especially relative to things like SAS. I think a large part of the benefit of Queenslink would honestly just be the intersystem connectivity providing improvements to both riders and train operations; QBLVD could run more tph on the local,  train would have one less branch ect. Also the $5.9 billion dollar price tag is better than the previous $8 billion dollar price tag, but still seems to high given it's mostly elevated and the ROW already exists. MTA also studied returning Rockaway Beach Branch as LIRR and it found it would outright be a negative lol.

6. New Lots Avenue Extension. MTA studied 2 simillar alternatives; 1 which would go to Flatlands Av and the other which would extend further to Spring Creek. MTA basically found would expand transit to underserved community, but just wouldn't serve enough people to justify the cost (1.8 billion for Flatlands, 2.5 billion for Spring Creek). Those price tags seem absolutely insane given it's only 2 small stations on an elevated line.

7. 10th Av Station on . MTA basically said the projected 1.9 billion cost didn't justify ridership, and also it would add commute time for those commuting to/from Hudson Yards (lol). 1.9 billion price tag for an infill station is ridiculous, and I think this shows when you cut things out in original construction, they become exponentially harder to add after the fact. Also MTA says it doesn't expand transit access; depends on how long you consider a reasonable walk to public transit ig.

8.  to red hook. This was an absolute lol, scoring below 5% on 5 of the 7 MTA metrics. Again, an $11.2 BILLION price tag wouldn't justify the benefit, and MTA sees too many challenges construction a new junction with Montague tunnel, avoiding BQE, and water. Idk why this was even considered in the first place; even if the argument was you wanted a Red Hook subway, this was clearly such a bad way to go about it. Also don't buy MTA's argument it would reduce crowding to any meaningful degree on .

 

Def interesting to see the study, but MTA clearly had tunnel-vision on certain projects over others, and still isn't doing enough to address cost concerns imo.

 

[slantfan4281]

10 hours ago, ABCDEFGJLMNQRSSSWZ said:

As for the NYC proper based subway/light rail expansion projects this is the sense I get of what their priority list is:

1. IBX. This project scored well on basically all metrics except capacity (since it would serve as more of a feeder-radial route). Furthermore, the 5.5 billion dollar cost seems pretty good (by MTA standards) considering the extent of the line; it generally does a good job of re-using existing ROW. I think how successful the IBX would be largely depends on how well it's integrated with the subway system. If it's basically a glorified bus line where people have to leave the subway station and pay again, prolly not gonna see the same ridership than if it's basically integrated as it's own subway line.

2. SAS 125th St crosstown. MTA considered several alternatives, but only studied 2 for the time being. One ends at Broadway 125th on the  while the other turns north and ends at 137th on the . MTA seems to favor the 125th St option as it's more cost effective. MTA says the project is high-cost, but justifies the ridership and the improvements to commute times. The $7.5 billion price tag honestly doesn't seem that bad by MTA standards given you have to deal with some difficult topography and have to build 3 transfer stations.

3. Utica Av. MTA investigated 3 alternatives 1 that's just BRT all the way from Woodhull Hospital to Kings Plaza, one that's just a Utica Av subway as a branch of Eastern Parkway down to Kings Plaza, and a 3rd alternative that would have the full BRT + a short Utica Av subway just to Church Av. The MTA seems to favor the last alternative, which I agree with *IF* the BRT is actually effective and integrated well. The MTA assumes fixing Rodgers as a pre-requisite to this project. I wish the MTA would consider doing a Utica Av subway that becomes elevated after Church Av or so because of the swampy conditions in this region, but I think the $15.9 billion dollar price tag for the full line alternative implies it's all subway. The $6.8 billion dollar price tag for the shorter Subway + BRT isn't great, but again it largely depends on what kind of BRT we're talking about.

4. SAS Phase III to Houston St. Honestly scored a bit better than expected and MTA basically said the $13.5 billion dollar price tag may be worth the ridership the line would see. However, Phase III doesn't really outright expand subway access or significantly shorten commute time. Honestly compared to Phase I and II, $13.5 billion is lower than I would expect given how this extension would add 6 stations and 2 transfers, plus this part of midtown is just much much denser. One thing that's notably absent is the lack of transfers at 42 or 55 St.

After this it goes downhill

5. Rockaway Beach Branch Reactivation. I feel like here the MTA basically threw their hands up and said because the city is trying to do other things with the ROW, it just makes the project too much of a problem. As the main transit agency, the whole point of the MTA should be to advocate for public transit and support the public transit option when there are competing alternatives. The MTA also said ridership is also pretty low, which is somewhat fair, especially relative to things like SAS. I think a large part of the benefit of Queenslink would honestly just be the intersystem connectivity providing improvements to both riders and train operations; QBLVD could run more tph on the local,  train would have one less branch ect. Also the $5.9 billion dollar price tag is better than the previous $8 billion dollar price tag, but still seems to high given it's mostly elevated and the ROW already exists. MTA also studied returning Rockaway Beach Branch as LIRR and it found it would outright be a negative lol.

6. New Lots Avenue Extension. MTA studied 2 simillar alternatives; 1 which would go to Flatlands Av and the other which would extend further to Spring Creek. MTA basically found would expand transit to underserved community, but just wouldn't serve enough people to justify the cost (1.8 billion for Flatlands, 2.5 billion for Spring Creek). Those price tags seem absolutely insane given it's only 2 small stations on an elevated line.

7. 10th Av Station on . MTA basically said the projected 1.9 billion cost didn't justify ridership, and also it would add commute time for those commuting to/from Hudson Yards (lol). 1.9 billion price tag for an infill station is ridiculous, and I think this shows when you cut things out in original construction, they become exponentially harder to add after the fact. Also MTA says it doesn't expand transit access; depends on how long you consider a reasonable walk to public transit ig.

8.  to red hook. This was an absolute lol, scoring below 5% on 5 of the 7 MTA metrics. Again, an $11.2 BILLION price tag wouldn't justify the benefit, and MTA sees too many challenges construction a new junction with Montague tunnel, avoiding BQE, and water. Idk why this was even considered in the first place; even if the argument was you wanted a Red Hook subway, this was clearly such a bad way to go about it. Also don't buy MTA's argument it would reduce crowding to any meaningful degree on .

 

Def interesting to see the study, but MTA clearly had tunnel-vision on certain projects over others, and still isn't doing enough to address cost concerns imo.

 

For IBX I think we could see in-system transfers at 8th Av , New Utrecht  (connection to the  platforms), East 16th with the  , Linden/New Lots, Livonia, Sutter, Atlantic and Wilson with the , and Metropolitan with the . The transfers at Jackson Heights, Flatbush and Avenue I/18th Av will be a bit of a walk. I think they should try to build an in-system transfer to the at 69th just to prevent excessive crowding at 74th. 

Hot take but I think the 125th extension for SAS should only go as far at St. Nicolas Av. Dealing with the water table, rapid decline, and transfer at Broadway is going to be tough when there's already a connection to CPW at St Nicolas. Considering the tail tracks for phase 2 go as far as between Fifth and Lenox Avs, you could immediately build the Lenox stop right after, then tunnel until just after Adam Clayton Powell Blvd, then build a three track terminal whose bumper blocks end right before Morningside Av. 

I think the 10th Av  stop has somewhat of a chance of being built just because of the new PABT and the fact that it would take crowds away from Times Square, but it would take some cajoling to the get the MTA to do it.

Maybe they could do the New Lots extension by only having a stop at Linden Blvd within Livonia yard? Maybe build a center track along the Livonia el between Pennsylvania and New Lots to make up for the lost storage space?

[Chris89292]

11 hours ago, ABCDEFGJLMNQRSSSWZ said:

7. 10th Av Station on . MTA basically said the projected 1.9 billion cost didn't justify ridership, and also it would add commute time for those commuting to/from Hudson Yards (lol). 1.9 billion price tag for an infill station is ridiculous, and I think this shows when you cut things out in original construction, they become exponentially harder to add after the fact. Also MTA says it doesn't expand transit access; depends on how long you consider a reasonable walk to public transit ig.

8.  to red hook. This was an absolute lol, scoring below 5% on 5 of the 7 MTA metrics. Again, an $11.2 BILLION price tag wouldn't justify the benefit, and MTA sees too many challenges construction a new junction with Montague tunnel, avoiding BQE, and water. Idk why this was even considered in the first place; even if the argument was you wanted a Red Hook subway, this was clearly such a bad way to go about it. Also don't buy MTA's argument it would reduce crowding to any meaningful degree on .

 

Def interesting to see the study, but MTA clearly had tunnel-vision on certain projects over others, and still isn't doing enough to address cost concerns imo.

 

I think the 1.9 billion should be used to extend the  to 14th street for a connection to the , maybe even extending the   further more downtown

[zacster]

The transfer at Flatbush shouldn't be that long.  The IRT goes right up to Ave H.  The stop would be between Flatbush and Nostrand and there could be a short walkway under Nostrand. 

It takes longer to go through Rogers Junction than it took for Rodgers to get injured.  My elementary school was on Rogers Avenue, and I watched the last great Jets quarterback win the Super Bowl. 

[slantfan4281]

I wonder if they'll actually look to add new switches to Rogers and de-interline it anytime soon, or if it's something they're just going to forget about or ignore

[LGA Link N Train]

I'm curious about something. 

What do the RTO Folks here think of the 's "Proposal" for Rogers Junction?

[NBTA]

Where the hell would that  train terminate northbound?

[LGA Link N Train]

10 hours ago, NBTA said:

Where the hell would that  train terminate northbound?

Wakefield-241st Street

[CenSin]

On 10/4/2023 at 10:58 PM, ABCDEFGJLMNQRSSSWZ said:

also it would add commute time for those commuting to/from Hudson Yards (lol).

There you have it. The MTA itself has provided a reason in favor of having trains skip 49 Street.

On 10/5/2023 at 9:24 AM, slantfan4281 said:

the 125th extension for SAS should only go as far at St. Nicolas Av. Dealing with the water table, rapid decline, and transfer at Broadway is going to be tough when there's already a connection to CPW at St Nicolas.

I thought that the distance between the underground and elevated platforms would make a 137 Street transfer station much more palatable to commuters. It could take advantage of the obtuse angle between 125 Street and Broadway for a gentler curve under the elevated line.

The covers a lot more area than the or , so it ought to get a transfer station. The is also the only north-south route in the area which has the least crosstown transfer options. Folks have to go all the way down to 96 Street to get a that’ll take them to 149 Street–Grand Concourse for the for the east side of Manhattan or mid-eastern Bronx. The and have the and at 145 Street, which provides access to the east without the roundabout way of going across Manhattan.

Edited October 8, 2023 by CenSin

[slantfan4281]

On 10/7/2023 at 9:37 PM, LGA Link N Train said:

I'm curious about something. 

What do the RTO Folks here think of the 's "Proposal" for Rogers Junction?

bumping this question

[Lawrence St]

On 10/8/2023 at 5:47 PM, CenSin said:

There you have it. The MTA itself has provided a reason in favor of having trains skip 49 Street.

I thought that the distance between the underground and elevated platforms would make a 137 Street transfer station much more palatable to commuters. It could take advantage of the obtuse angle between 125 Street and Broadway for a gentler curve under the elevated line.

The covers a lot more area than the or , so it ought to get a transfer station. The is also the only north-south route in the area which has the least crosstown transfer options. Folks have to go all the way down to 96 Street to get a that’ll take them to 149 Street–Grand Concourse for the for the east side of Manhattan or mid-eastern Bronx. The and have the and at 145 Street, which provides access to the east without the roundabout way of going across Manhattan.

The  should have been skipping 49th St since the  came back. Enough of this whining from people who live in Astoria, you have the .

[slantfan4281]

What do the RTO people in here think of the suggested plan in here to deinterline Rogers with the new switches? Would it be beneficial at all?