New York City - Transit News

[Busy Bee]

Originally Posted by LineDrive

It would be nice if they extended this new line to The Bronx (and SI but we all know that will never happen)

I wouldn't say that. We dont know what may or not happen in the future.

[mrnyc]

^ yes the terminals at either end should be capped in a way that allows for easiest expansion someday.

also, i dk if automated is a good idea for ibx, but it is a new line, so it’s a new opportunity. if it works there why not.

[Busy Bee]

Its obvious to me that they aspire to get it to LGA (or at least the western edge), and part of the reason for stopping it at Roosevelt is they know that is a much bigger project. As for the southern end, if a SI tunnel is to ever happen, IMO opinion it makes much more sense to turn down Fourth Av and in conjunction with a rebuilding and expansion of the Fourth Av line, cross into SI at the Narrows instead of the exponentially longer tunnel route higher in the harbor to St. George. Not to mention that may complicate future cross harbor tunnel options.

[mrnyc]

Originally Posted by Busy Bee

Its obvious to me that they aspire to get it to LGA (or at least the western edge), and part of the reason for stopping it at Roosevelt is they know that is a much bigger project. As for the southern end, if a SI tunnel is to ever happen, IMO opinion it makes much more sense to turn down Fourth Av and in conjunction with a rebuilding and expansion of the Fourth Av line, cross into SI at the Narrows instead of the exponentially longer tunnel route higher in the harbor to St. George. Not to mention that may complicate future cross harbor tunnel options.

yep, plus the train would cover more of northshore staten like popular ft hamilton, rosebank, stapleton and tompkinsville, instead of just half of it by tunneling to st george.

it might happen someday, but it has to be tied to a full northshore line and a nj connection, and that will take a whole other pot ‘o gold to fund.

[Quixote]

Originally Posted by jd3189

Yeah, hopefully this turns out to be heavy rail. I also didn’t realize how Manhattan-centric the subway was. It made sense in the past when the city was mainly Manhattan, but Brooklyn and Queens have since had the lion’s share of NYC’s population.

The hub-and-spoke model no longer works for large cities because people no longer stick to “their” neighborhoods. A hundred years ago, there was no Yelp or Google to help you find “ethnic restaurants” in other places or the presence of other businesses. And no commercial aviation back then either.

Even Chicago, probably the most centralized large pre-war city on Earth, needs its “Circle Line.”

[Quixote]

And yes, it would be cool if they could integrate this with the SIR, which uses B Division rolling stock. Can’t the FRA make an exception and allow NYC Subway cars to use this corridor’s tracks? They’re letting Caltrain operate lighter vehicles as part of the system’s electrification.

[Busy Bee]

The Fourth Av subway can be extended (as was orig envisioned) into SI through the same stacked (like 63 St) tunnel under the Narrows. I've always envisioned the Bk-SI subway extension over the SIR to serve St. George and as far south as New Dorp maybe, with single seat rush service extended further south possibly all the way to Tottenville. At this point the SIR would be fully integrated into the subway system and acquire a proper route bullet. The hybrid subway/regional rail IBX service could then cut across SI parallel or median running a rebuilt SI Expressway intersecting with SIR on the east side of the island and a new North Shore SIR extension on the west side of the island, crossing into Bayonne and becoming a (Erie-Lackawanna/Conrail row running) north-south Hudson-Bergen county leg of an eventual orbital that crosses the GWB and the Bronx and forms a circle when connected at or near LGA, likely through a tunnel to Port Morris or Hunts Point.

[mrnyc]

Originally Posted by Busy Bee

The Fourth Av subway can be extended (as was orig envisioned) into SI through the same stacked (like 63 St) tunnel under the Narrows. I've always envisioned the Bk-SI subway extension over the SIR to serve St. George and as far south as New Dorp maybe, with single seat rush service extended further south possibly all the way to Tottenville. At this point the SIR would be fully integrated into the subway system and acquire a proper route bullet. The hybrid subway/regional rail IBX service could then cut across SI parallel or median running a rebuilt SI Expressway intersecting with SIR on the east side of the island and a new North Shore SIR extension on the west side of the island, crossing into Bayonne and becoming a (Erie-Lackawanna/Conrail row running) north-south Hudson-Bergen county leg of an eventual orbital that crosses the GWB and the Bronx and forms a circle when connected at or near LGA, likely through a tunnel to Port Morris or Hunts Point.

you forgot the northshore branch spur over the goethals to elizabeth and newark airport.

j/k, but yeah that would be a dream, if quite a bit more than staten actually wants.

i gotta admit the busses over here in shaolin are pretty dam good, but kind of weirdly there is only one bus to nj (to bayonne). so we are still debating on getting a car again even though i have a garage for it.

[mrnyc]

the fare evasion issue — post pandemic its far worse than ever:

https://www.amny.com/new-york/op-ed-...new-york-city/

i havent seen any obvious poors pay on staten island busses lately. the drivers ignore it. seems to be the same everywhere else too. bus ridership must be massively undercounted.

[Gantz]

Originally Posted by mrnyc

^ yes the terminals at either end should be capped in a way that allows for easiest expansion someday.

also, i dk if automated is a good idea for ibx, but it is a new line, so it’s a new opportunity. if it works there why not.

I think there would be too many people boarding for this to be automated.
This line won't be super busy, but it wouldn't be a G train either. It will make a lot of routes very convenient in Brooklyn and Queens for a lot of people. And ridership will set to increase over time as well.

[DirectionNorth]

Originally Posted by Gantz

I think there would be too many people boarding for this to be automated.
This line won't be super busy, but it wouldn't be a G train either. It will make a lot of routes very convenient in Brooklyn and Queens for a lot of people. And ridership will set to increase over time as well.

Automated can increase capacity (except with the MTA, it seems). High ridership lines like Line 14 in Paris, Vancouver's SkyTrain, Singapore's MRT, Chinese systems, etc. A system built on the existing track probably couldn't do that, but if NY was to build disconnected tracks, I can see driverless trains being a possibility.

[mrnyc]

behold the mta’s $30M times square subway staircase:

https://nypost.com/2022/05/16/mta-un...y-station/amp/

[Busy Bee]

I would expect nothing less from the nypost.

It sounds expensive but this was probably one of the most important station access projects in the entire system and well overdue.

[ardecila]

Originally Posted by Quixote

And yes, it would be cool if they could integrate this with the SIR, which uses B Division rolling stock. Can’t the FRA make an exception and allow NYC Subway cars to use this corridor’s tracks? They’re letting Caltrain operate lighter vehicles as part of the system’s electrification.

Not that simple... NYC subway cars are tin cans on wheels, which is what FTA allows. They can do this because the elaborate signaling systems on transit lines make big crashes very unlikely. Grade crossings are uncommon on metro systems, and where they do exist the operating speed is usually limited. FRA, even with the new alt-compliance rules, still requires extensive Crash Energy Management (crumple zones), etc for mainline rolling stock because rail mainlines are not protected with elaborate signaling and any crash that happens will involve significant speed and/or mass involved, so potentially a greater loss of life.

Not to mention that there's a difference in the loading gauge too. If you ran a subway car on the Metro-North, there would be a huge gap at every platform. If you can a freight car on the subway, it would collide with every platform edge.

If IBX is a mixed freight/transit operation, then it makes sense to use mainline rolling stock similar to what Metro-North and LIRR use, except the interior layout would be different. Even then, you'd likely need gauntlet tracks to address the loading gauge issue.

[Busy Bee]

"Virtual town hall" meeting tonite on IBX. I'm sure they will further flesh out what they intend while continuing to pretend they are actually also considering light rail and BRT for the AA requirements. The latest visuals clearly suggest mainline loading gauge cars, in this scenario just to distinguish from subway cars, but with more doors and likely zippier electric motors like subway cars. My guess, it will wind up a "metro" style car of about 70 feet with 4 doors per car and lengths of about 6 cars per train.

[Randomguy34]

New Youtube video for the IBX

• Video Link

[Busy Bee]

The IBX question and answer meeeting video is worth watching for anyone with even a modicum of interest in the project.

[canucklehead2]

Originally Posted by Randomguy34

New Youtube video for the IBX

• Video Link

Build conventional rail already!

[canucklehead2]

Originally Posted by Busy Bee

"Virtual town hall" meeting tonite on IBX. I'm sure they will further flesh out what they intend while continuing to pretend they are actually also considering light rail and BRT for the AA requirements. The latest visuals clearly suggest mainline loading gauge cars, in this scenario just to distinguish from subway cars, but with more doors and likely zippier electric motors like subway cars. My guess, it will wind up a "metro" style car of about 70 feet with 4 doors per car and lengths of about 6 cars per train.

Higher speed regional rail seems to be THE thing these days. Montreal, Toronto, Delhi, London, Paris all are electrifying, automating or metrofying their systems to become Subways on Steroids and I couldn't be happier.

[Busy Bee]

I believe thats the direction they are heading and my confidence in the MTA is boosted after listening. Of course it comes down to funding whether or not it gets underway in 5 years or 20.