You couldn't fully restore the rail line, though. Tons of development has occurred on land formerly occupied by the railbed. You would have to build a subway in parts. Light rail may work, though. On the western end, the elevated structure is intact.

According to a summary of the a study for reactivating the Rockaway Beach LIRR line the cost is 6-9B depending what option is selected (LIRR vs NYCT heavy rail). Unless they are literally going to rebuild it out of silver bullion I have no idea how that could be a rational estimate.

They need a very short tunnel under the LIRR main line and to fix the existing ROW plus add stations. That's it. Yet they found a way to make it exceed the cost of SAS phase 2...

Well thank God you are not in charge.

cost per mile:
light rail $15-100M
brt $10+M

:shrug:

Hell yeah. This was so effective that it's being made permanent.



Coast Guard issues NPRM to make Portal Bridge rush hour opening restrictions permanent

https://www.masstransitmag.com/rail/...ions-permanent

the gov wants mta to speed up the subways.


https://newyork.cbslocal.com/2019/10...-andrew-cuomo/

not so fast ... !



Higher subway speeds worry NYC train operators — and new report explains why

By CLAYTON GUSE
NEW YORK DAILY NEWS |
OCT 14, 2019 | 5:00 AM


A new MTA consultant report underscores why efforts to speed up subway trains worry the people who drive them.

Operators of 400-ton trains that might carry 1,000 people often can’t see the speed limit signs posted along the tracks, can’t trust the vintage technology that runs track signals, and can’t even be sure if the brakes will work properly.

And faulty speedometers make unclear how fast the train is moving. “One minute it’ll say I’m going 10, the next it’ll say I’m going 60, and all while I know I’m going 20,” said an operator who works on the No. 3 line.

Those are among the problems cited in the report distributed last week to Metropolitan Transportation Authority officials. The report, by consulting firm STV, highlights the complicated challenges that transit officials face in their effort to speed the subway commutes of 5.5 million New Yorkers a day.


more:
https://www.nydailynews.com/new-york...t2y-story.html

Good heavens, what the hell?

Consultants find out that deferred maintenance and systems operated past useful life cause problems. Money well spent!

The system is/was full of faulty timers and failure prone signals. They're making progress on fixing these but it's still going to take a while. Same goes for brake condition standards on the rolling stock.

Really this just underscores the importance of moving the entire system to CBTC as soon as humanly possible even if it means major outages. The L and the 7 are now extremely reliable. They just have to get contractors who know what they are doing and deploy the technology faster.

14st busway deemed a success — more of them to come:

https://nypost.com/2019/10/17/14th-s...after-car-ban/

MTA studies plan to resurrect passenger trains between Bay Ridge and Queens

https://brooklyneagle.com/articles/2...ge-and-queens/




https://www.planetizen.com/files/sty...?itok=AxfwunM1




https://brooklyneagle.com/wp-content...h-1024x686.jpg

Good news.

But what is there to study? The only thing they should be studying is exactly how to get it built so they can start already. You don't need to study its' feasibility because it is overwhelmingly feasible and badly needed, this should be self evident. But why not waste a few milion on a study proving it's a worthwhile project?

^ and that is an understatement!!!!

but anything that brings triboro rx back from the dead letter office is great news.

its the top shelf project after second avenue.

You do the study so that specific project qualifies for federal funds. No one can build anything anymore without doing environmental impact studies, or you will never get the required building permits. And you will be surprised how many impacts they will find that will need to be addressed or minimized. Good luck building anything without studies.

^This is a feasilbilty study not an EIS. Anybody with eyeballs can see it's feasible to use a perfectly placed rr row for transit.

I've never actually looked at this ROW closely... it really is an unparalleled opportunity for a circumferential line, since it would have direct vertical or cross-platform transfers to so many other lines. The only missed connections (or ones that would require a long transfer passage) are the R, F, B, 2/3 and 4. Easy transfers to the N, W, D, Q, L, A/C, J/Z, and M.

I can see where there is a need for a study, though. Most of the structures/bridges along the line appear to be in surprisingly good condition, but there are some potential tricky spots like the East New York tunnel. There's modern engineering standards to consider (ADA, life safety, etc) which could require significant reconstruction to re-introduce passenger services.

Then there's the fact that apparently a major pipeline (actually two pipelines) lie under the former 4th track, to supply jet fuel to LGA/JFK and other major users in NYC. Might need to be relocated (no doubt at massive cost).

A feasibility study may be required before an EIS study can start. One of the first things needed in an EIS is to state the need, amongst the last is a cost analysis. Both requirements can usually be satisfied with a feasibility study.
Per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enviro...pact_statement
"An EIS typically has four sections:
(1) An Introduction including a statement of the Purpose and Need of the Proposed Action.
(2) A description of the Affected Environment.
(3) A Range of Alternatives to the proposed action. Alternatives are considered the "heart" of the EIS.
(4) An analysis of the environmental impacts of each of the possible alternatives. This section covers topics such as:
(a) Impacts to threatened or endangered species
(b) Air and water quality impacts
(c) Impacts to historic and cultural sites, particularly sites of significant importance to Indigenous peoples.
(d) Social and Economic impacts to local communities, often including consideration of attributes such as impacts on the available housing stock, economic impacts to businesses, property values, aesthetics and noise within the affected area
(e) Cost and Schedule Analyses for each alternative, including costs and timeline to mitigate expected impacts, to determine if the proposed action can be completed at an acceptable cost and within a reasonable amount of time."

A feasibility study can determine whether it is worth the time and money performing a formal, more expensive EIS.

At present MTA costs these reactivations will run 10s of billions of dollars. Not that they aren't worthwhile but are they worth it at those costs. Unless they can get costs down to maybe just twice what Europe pays then I doubt it.

yes i seriously doubt this gets to an eis. while we all know the importance of triboro rx, its not manhattan and not suburbia, so its just not sexy enough to get funded to the tune of billions to actually get built.

not yet anyway. someday.

for now, its nice that they will at least take a formal look over the potential route and perhaps gauge what kind of interest it might drum up.

triboro rx couldn't be more important imo, but we have to remember reality is the public at large doesn't know or much care about this stuff.

The Triboro RX would be a game changer for my husband, who currently drives from our place in Astoria to his job at Kingsborough Community College in Manhattan Beach. He'd be able to catch a train at Ditmars and transfer to the Q or F to Coney Island, probably cutting half an hour off his trip by train (his drive can take anywhere from 45 minutes to an hour and a half but by train it is always an hour and a half each way, basically traversing the entire length of the N).