New York City - Transit News

[Busy Bee]

^The bellmouths that they are mentioning being under value engineering review is exactly what you need to make that happen though. A bellmouth is like a launch point off a line, without one they'd basically have to destroy a section of the running tunnels to connect an extension to.

And count me as being in the camp that just because Penn Access is happening that means no more BX subway capacity is needed. The borough is booming and will continue to add population. Hell, a good chunk of the city's housing initiative could be absorbed by the Bronx alone.

I just am increasingly worried that the MTA is making poor long-term planning decisions and doesn't seem to grasp the consequences of their shortsightedness. When the city built the IND they had numerous provisions for the possibility of future expansion. In an effort to save a comparatively meager sum the MTA is making major mistakes. I can only hope a bare bones BX provision remains in the construction plan. Where are the BX pols on this? Do they even know this blink-and-you-miss-it line item could permanently shut out the borough from the SAS, even if it was 30 years down the road?

[ardecila]

So... what problem are you trying to solve with the 2nd Ave bellmouth? Is it about capacity, or coverage? There are different ways to meet the Bronx' transit needs, and if you're trying to solve overcrowding then improvements in Manhattan could be just as effective as a new trunk in the Bronx. vanshnookenraggen has also pointed out that the 4/5/6 have several chokepoints that limit train throughput, and fixing those is way simpler than a whole new subway.

A bellmouth pointing north around 125th/2nd may be cut, but I believe MTA is considering an actual track connection to the 8th Ave & Concourse Lines as part of the extension down 125th St past Lex. I haven't seen a service plan and I don't know if it would be a revenue connection. But potentially some services could run from Inwood/207th or Norwood down 2nd Ave. That's not super helpful until the SAS gets extended downtown, but the possibility is there.

[mrnyc]

Originally Posted by Busy Bee

^The bellmouths that they are mentioning being under value engineering review is exactly what you need to make that happen though. A bellmouth is like a launch point off a line, without one they'd basically have to destroy a section of the running tunnels to connect an extension to.

And count me as being in the camp that just because Penn Access is happening that means no more BX subway capacity is needed. The borough is booming and will continue to add population. Hell, a good chunk of the city's housing initiative could be absorbed by the Bronx alone.

I just am increasingly worried that the MTA is making poor long-term planning decisions and doesn't seem to grasp the consequences of their shortsightedness. When the city built the IND they had numerous provisions for the possibility of future expansion. In an effort to save a comparatively meager sum the MTA is making major mistakes. I can only hope a bare bones BX provision remains in the construction plan. Where are the BX pols on this? Do they even know this blink-and-you-miss-it line item could permanently shut out the borough from the SAS, even if it was 30 years down the road?

no one said anything about about the bx not getting more service. just that in fact the bx is getting more service via mnrr. i’m saying extending second ave to the bx over and above many other projects is unnecessary and unwise when there are much higher priorities. someday? sure, when mta is flush and when after like a dozen other extensions are completed, not the least of which is sas 125st crosstown service and phases three and four. i mean if we are going to do dream projects for more bx service then what they really need is crosstown service so how about connecting all those north-south lines along a tremont crossstown train or something? they are far more desperate for crosstown service in the bx. hell gimmee the money and i’ll molehole new lines all over town and over to nj lol, but lets be real and prioritize a little. anyway imo bellmouth stub or not for now and the foreseeable future the most important thing for phase two is they keep tunneling to broadway.

[mrnyc]

a push for a full upgrade while its down —



‘ The gain must match the pain’: Pols demand ‘full upgrade’ of G train during planned shutdown

By Kirstyn Brendlen
Posted on January 26, 2024

…

That would mean increasing the length of G trains from four or five cars to eight, increasing the frequency of service, and restoring service to Forest Hills, the pols said.


more:
https://www.brooklynpaper.com/pain-g...rain-shutdown/

[Nouvellecosse]

Reece talks about the proposed Interborough Express porject again and argues that it would be better as a subway. Although not necessarily in the traditional NYC subway sense (perhaps light metro?). And while I'm not an expert on the proposal, from what I hear so far I'd have to agree. I'm not an anti-LRT person as I do think there are plenty of valid uses for that protocol. But use on an existing, mostly grade separated rail corridor in a large and urban city probably isn't one of them. The appropriate use case for LRT involves at least some significant segments of street (or at least street-adjacent) running.

• Video Link

[Busy Bee]

This is how I've felt from the beginning. When TriboroRX was first touted I always thought compatible subway was the best mode, then I kind of thought for a while some sort of hybrid like a beefier stock somewhere between metro and mainline (think Crossrail but shorter carriages and rakes) because of its orbital distributive service, but now I've kind of come full circle back to rapid transit subway. What I've been against this whole time and ever since the announcement of preferred mode which I've been sort of sickened by is the notion of light rail on this corridor and for this aim. It's wrong. It's shortsighted. It's myopic. Small plan for big money. And the way I understand it was significantly driven by the MTA's almost unbelievable inept take on and inability to plan sensibly regarding the cemetery tunnel in Maspeth. Their street running "solution" is one of the most embarrassing things I've seen the MTA pitch in a very long time - well besides the new yellow corral fence "platform screen doors" LOL.

Not only is light rail not right for the "IBX" or how I would like to see it operated, the (X) subway line, but it is design flawed to the point of being a disaster operationally, not to mention basically giving up any notion of further extension into the Bronx as a cross-town service. Anyone who hadn't read the amNY article on the cemetery tunnel boner needs to. If the MTA can be convinced by transit voices including Alon Levy to pursue a simple tunnel expansion I'd love to think that may bring the MTA back to reconsideration of mode. I'm not one to root for failure, but they are pursuing an extremely flawed path forward for this project and I'd like to see planning halted, to the extent it's really even started much yet, and reevaluated in favor of rapid subway and not light rail on a corridor so obviously best suited for heavy rail and one where that mode holds the most potential and promise for adequate capacity, future expansion possibilities and economic/housing development.

Light rail in a city like New York should come in the form of a Fordham Road/Pelham Pkwy fast tram or Woodhaven Blvd, maybe an M31/M57 replacement, or yes even a waterfront hugging BQX tram (especially if private funds helped it happen) BUT not on a corridor best suited for bigger thinking, bigger dreaming like the Bay Ridge Branch.

[electricron]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

Reece talks about the proposed Interborough Express project again and argues that it would be better as a subway. Although not necessarily in the traditional NYC subway sense (perhaps light metro?). And while I'm not an expert on the proposal, from what I hear so far I'd have to agree. I'm not an anti-LRT person as I do think there are plenty of valid uses for that protocol. But use on an existing, mostly grade separated rail corridor in a large and urban city probably isn't one of them. The appropriate use case for LRT involves at least some significant segments of street (or at least street-adjacent) running.

If you have an existing railroad corridor that goes where you want it to go, why take all the time and effort buying a new right of way? A new right of way will have many court battles over imminent domain, which leads to delays and cost overruns.
Why tunnel a subway under a good rail right of way? Why build an elevated guideway over a good rail right of way? The cheapest, simplest, and fastest solution is to use that good rail right of way.
Is that rail right of way perfect? Of course not. There is plenty of room in the right of way for more tracks and train station platforms, except in a location where the existing freight tracks tunnel under a cemetery. Not very likely they will ever get permission to build a guideway over the cemetery, and not affordable to build more tunnels under the cemetery. Hence, the light rail solution to grade up to an existing city street, bypass the cemetery, then grade back down to the existing rail corridor.
Just about every light rail line in the USA eventually rely upon running in dedicated lanes in city streets. But many follow existing rail right of ways, many use elevated guideways, many will tunnel when necessary. That's why light rail lines are chosen so often, they are very flexible.
This youtuber would prefer wider and metro style trains in tunnels and on elevated guideways. Prefers higher frequencies over length of the trains unless longer trains are needed to meet demand. He really dislikes light rail trains, especially those with low floors because the wheel bumps reduce passenger capacity.
If the past studies are correct, the proposed ridership numbers suggest what light rail trains can carry for decades into the future. In a world where federal and state transit funding is tight, a cheaper transit proposal will find it easier to get more funding than the more expensive proposal. Why? Because these transit projects are ranked on value, what gives the most bang for the least amount of bucks. That is why very, very few subways and metros have been proposed by transit agencies these last few decades. Competiton for these funds are very competitive. Those that are considered over built and overly expensive do not qualify to get funds and will never get built in our lifetimes.

[Busy Bee]

Originally Posted by electricron

There is plenty of room in the right of way for more tracks and train station platforms, except in a location where the existing freight tracks tunnel under a cemetery. Not very likely they will ever get permission to build a guideway over the cemetery, and not affordable to build more tunnels under the cemetery. Hence, the light rail solution to grade up to an existing city street, bypass the cemetery, then grade back down to the existing rail corridor.
Just about every light rail line in the USA eventually rely upon running in dedicated lanes in city streets.

You should read the amNY article.

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by electricron

If you have an existing railroad corridor that goes where you want it to go, why take all the time and effort buying a new right of way? A new right of way will have many court battles over imminent domain, which leads to delays and cost overruns.
Why tunnel a subway under a good rail right of way? Why build an elevated guideway over a good rail right of way? The cheapest, simplest, and fastest solution is to use that good rail right of way.
Is that rail right of way perfect? Of course not. There is plenty of room in the right of way for more tracks and train station platforms, except in a location where the existing freight tracks tunnel under a cemetery. Not very likely they will ever get permission to build a guideway over the cemetery, and not affordable to build more tunnels under the cemetery. Hence, the light rail solution to grade up to an existing city street, bypass the cemetery, then grade back down to the existing rail corridor.
Just about every light rail line in the USA eventually rely upon running in dedicated lanes in city streets. But many follow existing rail right of ways, many use elevated guideways, many will tunnel when necessary. That's why light rail lines are chosen so often, they are very flexible.
This youtuber would prefer wider and metro style trains in tunnels and on elevated guideways. Prefers higher frequencies over length of the trains unless longer trains are needed to meet demand. He really dislikes light rail trains, especially those with low floors because the wheel bumps reduce passenger capacity.
If the past studies are correct, the proposed ridership numbers suggest what light rail trains can carry for decades into the future. In a world where federal and state transit funding is tight, a cheaper transit proposal will find it easier to get more funding than the more expensive proposal. Why? Because these transit projects are ranked on value, what gives the most bang for the least amount of bucks.

The fact that a bad design is being imposed due to a lack of funding doesn't make the design "good". It just means you've identified the underlying cause of the bad design. And if there's one thing we know about projected ridership it's that it greatly depends on the quality (including frequency) of service being offered.

[Busy Bee]

^I'm assuming that's meant for electricron?

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by Busy Bee

^I'm assuming that's meant for electricron?

Yes I edited it afterward when i noticed another post had appeared.

[electricron]

Originally Posted by Busy Bee

^I'm assuming that's meant for electricron?

Probably so. I am about the only one here that expresses getting value for my taxes.
If a subway is best here, I suggest it will be best everywhere.
Why do you think subways are not built everywhere?
Could the answer be value for your money.
The situation changes when you have to pay for it.

I am the one being realistic. I also believe the urbanists, who studied this project to death and deeply desired for it to happen, came to a sane solution.

[Busy Bee]

Are you saying the MTA is full of "sane urbanists" or the concepts years long advocates, including the RPA, are the "sane urbanists"? Because I'm pretty positive this has always been envisioned as either subway or MTA commuter rail since the beginning by the regional planning advocacy and transit enthusiast voices. It wasn't until it was handed to the MTA with a newly found political nudge did they decide to even look at it, and they're the one's that announced light rail advancing as a mode, based on extremely flawed conceptualization and I believe construction cost numbers. And that's after essentially giving up on any notion that the project should make it to the Bronx which is what the TRI-boro advocates had championed. So, no, as much as I'd like to think the MTA is filled with visionary transit planning geniuses, I have my doubts they are as good at that as what we hope they are.

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by electricron

Probably so. I am about the only one here that expresses getting value for my taxes.
If a subway is best here, I suggest it will be best everywhere.
Why do you think subways are not built everywhere?
Could the answer be value for your money.
The situation changes when you have to pay for it.

I am the one being realistic. I also believe the urbanists, who studied this project to death and deeply desired for it to happen, came to a sane solution.

There's a big difference between being cheap (spending as little money on something as possible) versus maximizing value for the money which sometimes means spending more to leverage the extra cost for even greater benefit. The criticism here is that the project as proposed isn't a good value for the money compared to the alternatives. And no, the overall value for money doesn't change based on who is paying for it. Sure if the payer is different than the value recipient then the payer is less motivated. But the absolute value is the same.

The reason that subways aren't built everywhere is that in many locations they require much or all of their route to be tunneled or elevated and/or that there's not enough potential ridership to fully utilize the potential capacity. Neither is the case here.

[electricron]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

The reason that subways aren't built everywhere is that in many locations they require much or all of their route to be tunneled or elevated and/or that there's not enough potential ridership to fully utilize the potential capacity. Neither is the case here.

But the consultants recommended building light rail? Maybe, just maybe, light rail vehicles can carry the projected passengers afterall?

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by electricron

But the consultants recommended building light rail? Maybe, just maybe, light rail vehicles can carry the projected passengers afterall?

Well sure, they probably can carry the ridership projected for the project if built using LRT running at frequencies as low as 15 minutes off peak since that would be much lower than the corridor's potential. That's an issue that Reece discussed in the video. The answer you get for ridership questions depends on the actual question you ask. If what you ask basically amounts to, "What technology will we need to carry the ridership attracted by a low quality service?" the answer is going to be very different than if you ask, "What technology is best if we achieve the highest potential ridership for the corridor?"

[jmecklenborg]

The IBX is going to be a bad project. Almost every conceivable trip that will use the proposed line will be a 3-seat ride. Plus the various intersections with existing lines will tend to be beyond their interlined forks. That means three 10+ minute waits during off-peak hours and dreadful waits overnight.

The proposed medium-to-low frequency and medium-to-low speed light rail format makes things even worse. For this thing to have any hope, there needs to be an automated train every 5 minutes or less, 24 hours per day.

Also, anyone who starts a trip from inside the ibx to a station on another line outside of it will likely just go inward toward Downtown Brooklyn or Manhattan and switch to the line where their final stop is located rather than travel outward, take the IBX, switch to their destination line, then travel outward some more.

[Busy Bee]

And not to mention the one best suited to spark dense housing developement. Remember the city is in a housing shortage crisis, especially affordable housing, and much of the corridor through Brooklyn is perfectly suited for dense air rights developments. This is exactly what was envisioned with the otherwise deeply misguided Cross-Brooklyn Expwy project in the 60s. I would ask where is this level of bold audacious thinking now? Obviously nearly non-existent or the city would know what is the potential is here and that potential is likely to only be tapped by a rapid subway service integrated into the system not a lower capacity standalone light rail link.

[mrnyc]

the ibx ridership is only projected to be like sixth busiest light rail line in the usa, so ridership isnt a compelling reason to blow out the cost further.

also, it gives mta experience with that service mode for future outer boro use, ie., bx fordham or gun hill rd, etc., that would otherwise never see any rail.

[Busy Bee]

Count me as skeptical that when everything is measured the cost difference would be radically different, especially considering a light rail mode would require it's own standalone department, maintenance facility(s) and bespoke everything that is outside of NYCT operations know-how. Hell, if subway heavy rail was chosen the IBX trains could just take a ride down the Sea Beach Line to the Coney Is Shops, they wouldn't even need their own maintenance shop. Storage could possibly be done an expanded pre-existing Linden Shops yard, Fresh Pond or even Canarsie.