New York City - Transit News

[Crawford]

I'm not a fan of cross-harbor, at all. Funding should be prioritized to transit for humans, not goods.

There are a billion passenger transit needs in the tri-state. Off the top of my head, full buildout of Second Avenue Subway, including Third Ave. extension in the Bronx, Utica Ave. and/or Nostrand Ave. subway extensions in Brooklyn, 7 train extension to NJ, Hudson Tunnel Project, West Side Amtrak line for Metro North, new East Bronx/Hellgate Metro North, Interborough Line, and electrification of a number of suburban commuter rail lines, extending electrification further out, and adding third/fourth tracks on certain commuter corridors like the Harlem Line around White Plains, new rail service over the Cuomo bridge, BRT corridors all over the tri-state, a number of new commuter lines in NJ and CT, like the Scranton extension, and the Monmouth-Ocean extension, and the West Trenton extension, light rail between Newark and Paterson, Bergen County light rail, PATH expansion, new PABT terminal, etc.

I think that's plenty to keep us occupied for the next 20-30 years. We'll have electric, self driving delivery vehicles and vastly expanded drone technology within 10-15 years. Package delivery and idling trucks will be much less of an issue.

[mrnyc]

Originally Posted by Busy Bee

There's no reason to think that. They just need to coordinate everything so one does not preclude the other.

sure there is. there would be no reason to build such a tunnel if half the track (???) was taken away for public transit. it wouldn't be worth the expense. the cross harbor plan or idea really was obviously based on full use of the row.

edit -- this was in fact one of the criticisms of that plan:

The proposed "MoveNY" transportation plan would use right-of-way needed for the tunnel project, including the Bay Ridge branch, to build a new Triboro RX subway service connecting The Bronx, Queens and Brooklyn, potentially interfering with the right-of-way's use for rail freight.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cross-Harbor_Rail_Tunnel

[Busy Bee]

^ It all depends on how its funded. If it gets a substantial private funding partnership I'd be for it. I don't have the impression that the forces advocating for it are going to give up on it. As a matter of fact they're in the middle of a study right this second. Also a corridor investment that would be part of a cross harbor tunnel would likely include grade lowering to allow container trains which in turn means every bridge in the open cut section would need complete replacement,as they probably shoukd due to their age alone, as well as substantial rebuilding of the cut structure itself. All of these things really should be decided before a couple billion is spent on implementing any kind of passenger service whether its subway based or other distinction in search of a difference. A grade lowering presents a theoretical opportunity to stack a passenger service over a single trackway with station layouts similar to CPW. And I just want to encourage people not to lower your expectations with whats possible with this project, including working with the understanding that this route could represent a sliver of what could become a grand inter-metro orbital. Dream big. Remember just 50 years ago the city wanted to not only return passenger service to the Branch but top it with an enclosed super highway topped with a linear city. So i don't think its innappropriate to advocate for even grander ambitions than currently being pondered.

[Busy Bee]

Originally Posted by mrnyc

sure there is. there would be no reason to build such a tunnel if half the track (???) was taken away for public transit. it wouldn't be worth the expense. the cross harbor plan or idea really was obviously based on full use of the row.

A 2 track mainline to a planned intermodel transfer center is all they want anyway. There is barely any commercial customers along the entire branch all the way to Maspeth. Its just a corridor not a miles long siding.

[mrnyc]

Originally Posted by Busy Bee

A 2 track mainline to a planned intermodel transfer center is all they want anyway. There is barely any commercial customers along the entire branch all the way to Maspeth. Its just a corridor not a miles long siding.

i guess if they only needed two tracks its could work, but if so dont see that making sense to build a major tunnel like that. in that case it would seem to be be much cheaper if they just keep on truckin.

[Busy Bee]

You know that urban truck congestion and the infrastructure destruction and adverse health effects left in its wake is an epidemic right? And has been for decades. There should be a unified intergovernmental goal to get as many tractor-tractors off the streets and highways of metropolitain NYC and a modern high capacity rail freight link into Long Island will help tremendously with that.

[202_Cyclist]

Well, Pete Davidson is the proud owner of the Staten Island ferry. I thought it would be cool to make a hip boutique hotel and restaurant and night club on this.

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/21/n...ost-ferry.html

[Busy Bee]

A suprising cool outcome.

[202_Cyclist]

Originally Posted by Busy Bee

A suprising cool outcome.

I agree. It turns out all is well in the world.

[mrnyc]

pete davidson admiring his purchase and tons of cool pix of the jfk staten island ferry boat:

https://nypost.com/2022/01/21/pete-d...rry-he-bought/

[mrnyc]

gateway keeps moving along:



Gateway Tunnel gets good enough rating from feds to keep going

By Kevin Duggan
Posted on January 20, 2022


The federal government deemed the Gateway Tunnel project between New York and New Jersey worthy to move through the process of getting cash from Washington, officials announced last week.

The $11 billion scheme to build two new rail tunnels beneath the Hudson while repairing century-old existing tubes got a “medium-high” rating from the Federal Transit Administration, the second-highest designation.

“The Gateway Tunnel project has just secured a positive rating at the FTA, and it is just huge because it means the billions we secured for this project are that much closer to being put to work,” said Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer in a statement on Jan. 20.


more:
https://www.amny.com/transit/gateway...ds-keep-going/

[Busy Bee]

If this project gets "medium-high" I'd hate to see what high looks like.

[mrnyc]

^ i know right? i mean being able to cause mass death in a collapse at any time? that's medium-high??

but seriously, i take this to mean the full plan with fixing those and building out two new tunnels, instead of just repairing the existing tunnels, is what caused the rating.

[mrnyc]

mta gears up for massive expansion.



MTA vows massive expansion of transit in NYC come 2030, largest transportation boost in decades

By CLAYTON GUSE
NEW YORK DAILY NEWS |
JAN 30, 2022 AT 5:02 PM


The year is 2030.

The long-awaited expansion of the Second Ave. subway into East Harlem is complete, filling in Manhattan’s largest transit desert.

Residents of Co-op City in the Bronx can get to Penn Station via a Metro-North train in 30 minutes.

And Gov. Hochul’s proposed Interborough Express hums along from Bay Ridge, Brooklyn, to Jackson Heights, Queens, slashing travel times for tens of thousands.

Concept artwork showing a street-level view of a possible Wilson Avenue LRT Station in one option for Gov. Hochul’s proposed Interborough Express, from Bay Ridge, Brooklyn to Jackson Heights, Queens.

That’s the vision Metropolitan Transportation Authority officials say will be a reality in eight years. It would mark the largest expansion of mass transit in New York City since the first half of the 20th century, improving commutes for tens of thousands of residents.

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


Concept artwork showing a street-level view of a possible Wilson Avenue LRT Station in one option for Gov. Hochul’s proposed Interborough Express, from Bay Ridge, Brooklyn to Jackson Heights, Queens. (MTA)

[Busy Bee]

I hate to play debbie downer, when taken into the context of essentially zero expansion for 50 years, a "massive expansion" would be the implementation of the IND Second System NOT the rather modest programs they are pursuing, as appreciated as they are.

[mrnyc]

Originally Posted by Busy Bee

I hate to play debbie downer, when taken into the context of essentially zero expansion for 50 years, a "massive expansion" would be the implementation of the IND Second System NOT the rather modest programs they are pursuing, as appreciated as they are.

well to be a puppy upper, i dk why with a headline like that, but they left out the biggest projects of them all -- east side access and penn/empire.

[scalziand]

Originally Posted by ardecila

If Hochul wants to, she can force a wholesale transfer of the Bay Ridge Branch from LIRR to NYCTA but it would be done over the objections of LIRR and would mean the end of freight service. Splitting the ownership down the middle is possible but requires a lot of expensive and space-consuming infrastructure due to various regulations.

Legacy systems didn't have these requirements, so CTA Orange Line sits side-by-side with freight tracks, as do various DC Metro lines, etc with just a chainlink fence separating them. That's no longer possible. Regulations either require a very wide separation between tracks where space permits, or a crash wall where space is limited. The crash wall is basically a 3ft thick military-level fortification to stop a derailing freight train, so it's not cheap to build.

Eh, really? The new Green Line extension in Boston pretty much has the trolley tracks separated from the commuter rail/freight tracks by a chainlink fence- no crash barrier. How wide a separation are you talking?

The EGE

[ardecila]

^ Good question! There's a lot of confusion and variability here because railroads are governed by FRA and transit lines by FTA. It's just a huge bureaucratic barrier that keeps "commuter rail" and "transit" as separate concepts when other countries see it is a continuum between the two. The upshot is that every shared-use corridor like this is a special negotiation between multiple Federal and local agencies, and often freight railroads, and it's not based on predictable rules but on a case-by-case analysis. If you're planning a new project like Interboro, you have to assume that some stakeholders may demand very strict safety regulations.

In the case of the Green Line extension, I believe the close proximity of LRT and heavy railroad tracks was allowed because MBTA owns both lines, so they can be maintained together, and because the heavy railroad tracks basically see ONLY commuter trains and not freight. If there is freight, then it's likely MBTA agreed to restrict freight traffic to 1am-4am when Green Line service is not running.

The situation they're trying to prevent is this:
-freight railroad operates/maintains a track that is <25' from a track that is operated/maintained by a transit agency for light rail or subway trains
-freight railroad neglects maintenance, which is par for the course
-freight train derails and creates a dangerous situation for the transit service. if there is a collision between an LRT/subway vehicle and a freight vehicle, the freight will win every time because it's so much heavier and more rigid.

In the case of Interboro, there is a very clear desire to maintain the freight tracks for freight service, and it's unlikely that a time restriction will work because the subway system is expected to run 24hrs/day and the freight line may also need to carry traffic at all times due to the Cross Harbor Tunnel plan. So a physical separation is necessary. MTA has determined that they can't separate the tracks horizontally, so in the case of the LRT/BRT alternatives they're proposing to stack the new transit line over the freight tracks.

[Busy Bee]

Originally Posted by ardecila

MTA has determined that they can't separate the tracks horizontally, so in the case of the LRT/BRT alternatives they're proposing to stack the new transit line over the freight tracks.

Which is interesting since for any Cross Harbor tunnel plan to be feasible (and worthwhile) the corridor would need to have clearance for standard double stack container cars. Correct me if I'm wrong but that's about 20.5 feet above rail, so realistically bridge clearance would require probably a 24 foot minimum or around the same for electrified HSR. This would require digging down to remove grade. Exactly what, beyond the obvious material expense, would prevent a stacked subway or yes, mainline or some quasi blend of standards, of standard ~12' high cars from sharing a trackway space? It would essentially be a CPW or Lex arrangement inside the confines of an open cut.

[ardecila]

MTA's LRT/BRT alternatives do envision a stacked configuration, it's just that the upper level would be "at grade" and have grade crossings at streets. Putting everything further down creates challenges. If you put the freight at level -1 and the passenger at level -2, then access to the passenger level becomes quite difficult. NFPA130 comes into play requiring multiple high-capacity fire exits from the platform. The structure to hold up the freight trains over passenger would also need to be pretty beefy given the loads. And transfers to existing subway lines become more difficult as most of those are elevated, and you'd need to go up 3 levels.

On the other hand, if you put passenger at level -1 and freight at level -2, then platform access is easier but you introduce a huge problem to vent diesel exhaust from the freight tunnel.

In either of these situations, it gets really deep. Double stack needs ~18' of clearance, figure 6' for structural deck between the two, and then 14' for the subway level, then 4' for the bridges over the cut so that's a ~45' deep trench. This would likely conflict with sewer lines and water mains at every street crossing and it would create a barrier to subway extensions like the 2/5 down Nostrand.