|
|
| Blog Post: IBX cannot be a tram (1608442) | |
 |
|
| Home > SubChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
|
| (1608442) | |
Blog Post: IBX cannot be a tram |
|
|
Posted by geoffc on Sat Sep 24 21:53:33 2022 Interesting blog discussing IBX as a street running tram. (Narrator: He is against it)>https://pedestrianobservations.com/2022/09/24/ibx-cannot-be-a-tram/ |
|
|
| (1608451) | |
Re: Blog Post: IBX cannot be a tram |
|
|
Posted by The Silence on Sun Sep 25 00:35:32 2022, in response to Blog Post: IBX cannot be a tram, posted by geoffc on Sat Sep 24 21:53:33 2022. Last I checked it would only really street run through Middle Village. |
|
|
| (1608453) | |
Re: Blog Post: IBX cannot be a tram |
|
|
Posted by New Flyer #857 on Sun Sep 25 07:20:59 2022, in response to Blog Post: IBX cannot be a tram, posted by geoffc on Sat Sep 24 21:53:33 2022. This is the first time I'm hearing about street-running relevant to the IBX. I thought the whole idea was that you have an existing corridor, but of course that corridor may not cover the whole intended routing.The SIlence indicates that street-running may be necessary for a short while in Middle Village. That could be a reason to go with trams instead of heavy-rail. The historic advantages of trams is their high flexibility. They can go fast like a subway when on their own private ROW, and then can function like buses, making smooth 90-degree terms at intersections, while they are on the street. Platforms to access them also can be much simpler. Trams should be the go-to especially if you aren't fully sure how the line will develop long-term, because they can basically go anywhere rail is installed. I disagree that NYC being a "subway city" should have bearing on what type of vehicle is used for this project. The author indicates that probably IBX vehicles would be segregated from the rest of the system anyway, and we're more than used to certain rail vehicles not being able to access certain tracks. |
|
|
(Sponsored) |
iPhone 6 (4.7 Inch) Premium PU Leather Wallet Case - Red w/ Floral Interior - by Notch-It |
|
| (1608460) | |
Re: Blog Post: IBX cannot be a tram |
|
|
Posted by Bill from Maspeth on Sun Sep 25 11:17:43 2022, in response to Re: Blog Post: IBX cannot be a tram, posted by The Silence on Sun Sep 25 00:35:32 2022. Street running thru Middle Village?I "smell" NIMBY's. |
|
|
| (1608465) | |
Re: Blog Post: IBX cannot be a tram |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Sun Sep 25 15:15:40 2022, in response to Re: Blog Post: IBX cannot be a tram, posted by New Flyer #857 on Sun Sep 25 07:20:59 2022. I'm all for LRT systems in and around the city.It's advantages over heavy rail is the deciding factor here. Not only that, but considering that the MTA wants to build new lines now,it would be at a faster pace,rather than 10 year construction time ot took for the SAS. The Montauk line,IBX,LGA,Utica Ave and a few other corridors could offer LRT street running routes as well as private ROW options. Not only that, every under used,or disused rail corridor can potentially serve as a rapid transit route using LRT instead of subway cars. It's about time the MTA considered this as a viable option to subway construction. However, I hate BRTs. It still a bus no matter how you Jazz it up. No BRTS. |
|
|
| (1608467) | |
Re: Blog Post: IBX cannot be a tram |
|
|
Posted by Jackson Park B Train on Sun Sep 25 16:35:07 2022, in response to Re: Blog Post: IBX cannot be a tram, posted by Edwards! on Sun Sep 25 15:15:40 2022. When first proposed 3 decades agoas Triboro RX, the idea included running acrossHell Gate for Bronxaccess skipping Manhattan. In the interim before covid, near in suburban employment/reverse commuting grew substantially. In order to use Hell Gate the fleet must be FRA compliant--thus it should be MN-CDOT compatible--more M-8s or the next order.As to capacity, the New York Connecting was originally multi tracked and had passenger service a century ago. Meanwhile, we now have a pussh for New Rochelle to Penn service. One way or another these two should eitherhave a convenient transfer station (think QBP IRT-BMT) or through routing. |
|
|
| (1608473) | |
Re: Blog Post: IBX cannot be a tram |
|
|
Posted by mta t on Sun Sep 25 17:44:47 2022, in response to Re: Blog Post: IBX cannot be a tram, posted by Bill from Maspeth on Sun Sep 25 11:17:43 2022. especially since it's Middle Village |
|
|
| (1608482) | |
Re: Blog Post: IBX cannot be a tram |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Mon Sep 26 02:45:27 2022, in response to Re: Blog Post: IBX cannot be a tram, posted by Jackson Park B Train on Sun Sep 25 16:35:07 2022. There are various models of FRA compatible LRT type railcars out there.Take NJTransit's River Line. It definitely operates along a "freight" corridor,with shared operational assets in which rapid transit has most of the daytime traffic, and freight has the late evening/overnight movement. The Triboro RX is effectively dead at this moment, with the the MTA claiming the ROW for its MNRR. IF, and I'm using that strongly, they happen to pick Regional rail vehicles for the IBX,then this would be a waste of resources, if the line isn't extended into the Bronx and Westchester County. The cars should be duel powered with overhead power collectors like the M8s along with over and under third rail power shoes. While I am throwing my support behind the line,I'm supporting the LRT option because I know this line will never move beyond Jackson Hts because of how the MTA operates. The same corridor that is being used for the New Haven route was intended for subway services via the Second Ave SUBWAY for as far back as forever. The fact that this was forever put on hold,but MNRR service was pushed instead, after being told for years that there was no money for SECOND AVE extension into the Bronx. I underscore this,because often,in NYC,grandiose plans are put on display with great fanfare, millions of dollars spent on "studies",resulting in nothing being built. What's even more important, is the fact that the MTA has played the three card Monty game with funding before, receiving money for a particular project, then redistributing those funds for other purposes. New York City deserves better. This is why I advocate the LRT option over Regional rail. Also,it's pretty obvious that with LGA right at the door steps of new lines terminal in Jackson Hts,it would make the most sense to use the infrastructure to reach the Airport proper. A LRT can navigate the Airport with little issue that a regional rail car would need a elevated structure,or subway to do. Also,the MTA could build a complete system around the IBX,using some street running and ROWS available for use such as the Rockaway and Montauk lines. The potential for City wide applications are overwhelmingly positive with the right motivation and advocatecy. |
|
|
| (1608484) | |
Re: Blog Post: IBX cannot be a tram |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Mon Sep 26 03:15:20 2022, in response to Re: Blog Post: IBX cannot be a tram, posted by Bill from Maspeth on Sun Sep 25 11:17:43 2022. The tunnel through the Cemetery seems to be the problem.However, the MTA stated that taking some land on either side of the row would reduce the need for street running. Also,there are other locations that are similar to those constraints in Brooklyn, that will be dealt with in a similar manner. I'm sure there will be other obstacles and challenges that included NIMBY objections. I'm also sure that this line is a strong candidate for being built. |
|
|
| (1608487) | |
Re: Blog Post: IBX cannot be a tram |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Mon Sep 26 04:03:43 2022, in response to Re: Blog Post: IBX cannot be a tram, posted by Edwards! on Mon Sep 26 02:45:27 2022. The error I spotted in the article was the statement that the tunnels in ENY are too small for conventional NYCTS rapid transit cars and special cars like those used on the PATH would be necessary. Well, if PATH sized cars would fit there so would standard IRT sized cars soother than ordering a contract of cars similar to the IRT’s NTTs there should not be a prpblam since they would be “standard” sized for one of the NYCTS divisions anyhow. |
|
|
| (1608498) | |
Re: Blog Post: IBX cannot be a tram |
|
|
Posted by jabrams on Mon Sep 26 13:22:04 2022, in response to Re: Blog Post: IBX cannot be a tram, posted by randyo on Mon Sep 26 04:03:43 2022. Are freight cars and freight engines (including the ones used in the past through those tunnels), narrower than the 10 feet wide that a subway car is. So what is wrong with ordering IRT sized cars? On a tour about 10 years ago, we rode through that tunnel with an older style LIRR passenger car, surely it was 10 feet wide and probably 75 feet long. |
|
|
| (1608503) | |
Re: Blog Post: IBX cannot be a tram |
|
|
Posted by Jackson Park B Train on Mon Sep 26 14:19:12 2022, in response to Re: Blog Post: IBX cannot be a tram, posted by Edwards! on Mon Sep 26 02:45:27 2022. When PRR built that route, it was sized for mainline equipment. The tunnel clearance isse is bogus IMHO.Yes, MTA has a history of moving money around--they operate as a patronage distribution organ; actual transportation benefits are secondary. Of course TRX/IBX should access La Guardia. All the more reason for the Bronx connection or a proper transfer to the Penn--New Rochelle service. Westchester/Bronx access to both airports without visiting Manhatten should be useful for flyers and more importantly ground personnel. |
|
|
| (1608509) | |
Re: Blog Post: IBX cannot be a tram |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Mon Sep 26 15:54:09 2022, in response to Re: Blog Post: IBX cannot be a tram, posted by jabrams on Mon Sep 26 13:22:04 2022. That’s what happens when you get a spokesperson who hasn’t a clue abut the subject they are speaking of |
|
|
| (1608534) | |
Re: Blog Post: IBX cannot be a tram |
|
|
Posted by zac on Tue Sep 27 09:01:37 2022, in response to Re: Blog Post: IBX cannot be a tram, posted by jabrams on Mon Sep 26 13:22:04 2022. I think it is the requirement for third rail that makes them too narrow. The cars are 10' wide, but the subway needs additional width. Isn't that what happened with the tunnel in the Bronx with the 9th Ave el and the thought to extend the Lenox line to Jerome? They couldn't fit the subway style 3rd rail in it without major modification and they just dropped it. |
|
|
| (1608539) | |
Re: Blog Post: IBX cannot be a tram |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Tue Sep 27 10:11:37 2022, in response to Re: Blog Post: IBX cannot be a tram, posted by zac on Tue Sep 27 09:01:37 2022. This is why it should be built with wire. |
|
|
| (1608550) | |
Re: Blog Post: IBX cannot be a tram |
|
|
Posted by Jackson Park B Train on Tue Sep 27 14:02:54 2022, in response to Re: Blog Post: IBX cannot be a tram, posted by Spider-Pig on Tue Sep 27 10:11:37 2022. There was catenary from 65th all the way to Hell Gate. When riding the Sea Beach I used to see New Haven exVGN 'E33s'. QED the wires can be put up again. |
|
|
| (1608551) | |
Re: Blog Post: IBX cannot be a tram |
|
|
Posted by BILLBKLYN on Tue Sep 27 14:37:38 2022, in response to Re: Blog Post: IBX cannot be a tram, posted by Jackson Park B Train on Tue Sep 27 14:02:54 2022. Yeah, before I was born of course, every once in a while, a kid here and there would get fried while accidentally touching the wire while on top of the cars, especially in the East Flatbush part. |
|
|
| (1608572) | |
Re: Blog Post: IBX cannot be a tram |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Wed Sep 28 04:43:58 2022, in response to Re: Blog Post: IBX cannot be a tram, posted by BILLBKLYN on Tue Sep 27 14:37:38 2022. Right, "accidentally". |
|
|
| (1608597) | |
Re: Blog Post: IBX cannot be a tram |
|
|
Posted by jailhousedoc on Wed Sep 28 16:16:36 2022, in response to Re: Blog Post: IBX cannot be a tram, posted by BILLBKLYN on Tue Sep 27 14:37:38 2022. The catenary was removed due to some woman who, during the lae 1960's, cried about her son being eletrouted when he came in contact with the high tension lines while playing atop of a box car in a railroad yard. In my opinion, injuries sustained during the commission of a crime should not be compensated, and the boy had no business being in a railroad yard, much less on the roof of a box car - the place is not a playground. |
|
|
| (1608598) | |
Re: Blog Post: IBX cannot be a tram |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Wed Sep 28 16:34:04 2022, in response to Re: Blog Post: IBX cannot be a tram, posted by jailhousedoc on Wed Sep 28 16:16:36 2022. But freight in the US was fully deëlectrified, so it doesn’t matter. |
|
|
| (1608599) | |
Re: Blog Post: IBX cannot be a tram |
|
|
Posted by jailhousedoc on Wed Sep 28 16:51:45 2022, in response to Re: Blog Post: IBX cannot be a tram, posted by Spider-Pig on Wed Sep 28 16:34:04 2022. True, a double stack train probably would not be able to operate on lines with catenary. Still, electrification of the Freemont Secondary for passenger train use could be explored, and tresspassers should not get any breaks. |
|
|
| (1608600) | |
Re: Blog Post: IBX cannot be a tram |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Wed Sep 28 17:00:18 2022, in response to Re: Blog Post: IBX cannot be a tram, posted by jailhousedoc on Wed Sep 28 16:51:45 2022. You didn’t say that there was a successful lawsuit, only that someone made a stink. You can’t stop people from agitating for stupid things. It’s how NIMBYism exists.And there’s a lot of law about the kind of duty that a landowner owes to trespassers. |
|
|
| (1608604) | |
Re: Blog Post: IBX cannot be a tram |
|
|
Posted by jailhousedoc on Wed Sep 28 18:38:54 2022, in response to Re: Blog Post: IBX cannot be a tram, posted by Spider-Pig on Wed Sep 28 17:00:18 2022. All that I knew about the story is that the woman complained about the catenary causing her son to die, when if the tresspassing boy kept off the box car and out of the railroad yard he would be alive. I am quite aware of people agitating for stupid things - I am a now retired physician and I worked on Rikers Island - I got assaulted by a criminal who blamed me because he was arrested, and I never knew him until he saw me in the facility medical clinic. No more of that for me - enough is enough. How is a landowner liable for injuries sustained by a tresspasser who places themselves in harms way ? |
|
|
| (1608616) | |
Re: Blog Post: IBX cannot be a tram |
|
|
Posted by ntrainride on Wed Sep 28 23:12:36 2022, in response to Re: Blog Post: IBX cannot be a tram, posted by Edwards! on Sun Sep 25 15:15:40 2022. new york city is not pittsburgh. it's not salt lake city. it's not tampa. it's not jersey city."trams", per se, are an extremely bad fit for new york city. they're basically toy trains. they'd have to be on no more than a ten minute or less headway. and i've never seen "trains of trams" anywhere. two or three car trains ain't gonna work here. |
|
|
| (1608619) | |
Re: Blog Post: IBX cannot be a tram |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Thu Sep 29 02:47:12 2022, in response to Re: Blog Post: IBX cannot be a tram, posted by jailhousedoc on Wed Sep 28 18:38:54 2022. How is a landowner liable for injuries sustained by a tresspasser who places themselves in harms way ?Certainly a deliberate "burglar trap" can produce liability. Possibly even criminal liability if you do something extreme like rig up a shotgun to blow someone away if they break in. |
|
|
| (1608624) | |
Re: Blog Post: IBX cannot be a tram |
|
|
Posted by New Flyer #857 on Thu Sep 29 07:51:33 2022, in response to Re: Blog Post: IBX cannot be a tram, posted by ntrainride on Wed Sep 28 23:12:36 2022. Times Square is not Broad Channel. The more suburban areas of the city need not be compared to Midtown Manhattan. If trams can work in Downtown Toronto, they can work in most or all of the area the IBX is supposed to serve, though of course street-running should be avoided to the extent possible, especially where there is an existing ROW available. |
|
|
| (1608625) | |
Re: Blog Post: IBX cannot be a tram |
|
|
Posted by ntrainride on Thu Sep 29 08:58:46 2022, in response to Re: Blog Post: IBX cannot be a tram, posted by New Flyer #857 on Thu Sep 29 07:51:33 2022. respectfully disagree. even in the outer boros the population density is way higher than in the majority of cities.every arterial road in the city is surrounded by a high density population. at least in brooklyn the "trolley suburb" developmental patterns are adhered to. except for maybe chicago there are no similar patterns of development in any other city. usually, there will be a small section that has that type of development but it quickly turns into a less dense pattern. that's why i highly doubt a jersey city-like "small train" would be useful here. in new york city, even on staten island any new rail transit that wants to be practical, functional and successful has to be standard heavy rail. |
|
|
| (1608633) | |
Re: Blog Post: IBX cannot be a tram |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Thu Sep 29 10:17:01 2022, in response to Re: Blog Post: IBX cannot be a tram, posted by AlM on Thu Sep 29 02:47:12 2022. Exactly that. Also a greater duty is owed to children. |
|
|
| (1608636) | |
Re: Blog Post: IBX cannot be a tram |
|
|
Posted by Jackson Park B Train on Thu Sep 29 12:09:40 2022, in response to Re: Blog Post: IBX cannot be a tram, posted by AlM on Thu Sep 29 02:47:12 2022. The idea that a RR overhead catenary is an attractive nuisance omits the idea that trespassing to the extent of climbing to the roof of a freight car is already beyond legitimate activity. Parents do have some duty to educate children to avoid dangerous behavior. |
|
|
| (1608639) | |
Re: Blog Post: IBX cannot be a tram |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Thu Sep 29 13:50:00 2022, in response to Re: Blog Post: IBX cannot be a tram, posted by Jackson Park B Train on Thu Sep 29 12:09:40 2022. No one had concluded in this thread that catenary is an attractive nuisance, as there is no evidence that the anecdote recounted by jailhousedoc involved a lawsuit. |
|
|
| (1608658) | |
Re: Blog Post: IBX cannot be a tram |
|
|
Posted by BILLBKLYN on Thu Sep 29 21:58:27 2022, in response to Re: Blog Post: IBX cannot be a tram, posted by Spider-Pig on Thu Sep 29 10:17:01 2022. You said duty.... |
|
|
| (1608659) | |
Re: Blog Post: IBX cannot be a tram |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Thu Sep 29 22:43:54 2022, in response to Re: Blog Post: IBX cannot be a tram, posted by ntrainride on Wed Sep 28 23:12:36 2022. I never said New York City Was comparable to other "smaller cities".Brooklyn in and of itself is a City,of over 2 million people. My point was Brooklyn could support a LRT type system, in lue of Heavy Rail because of how its composed. The same could be said about Queens and the Bronx. Today's LRT isn't like street cars of yesterday. Even the HBLR uses tandem trains on its heavier lines,like Hoboken/8th st and Tonelle West Side.. However, the newer train sets,recently purchased by the TTC for Eglington and Fintch routes are five car sets,about the width of an IRT subway car.. While I am not against the use of a Regional rail car and system..being practical is something that cannot be avoided given the MTAs track record. The Regional system will not go any further Jackson Hts. You know this ,and I know this. With an LRT, the possibility that This route could potentially continue to the Airport is as real as it gets. And if the MTA ever decides to allow trains to travel to the Bronx,the FRA railcars should be purchased from the jump-start. LRTS will enable some street running, and with enough PUBLIC EDUCATION, there will be very little incidents. The MTA said subway service is out of the question since they are using Bushwick Tunnel as a focal point for clearance margins. The exact reason why they couldn't use the Polo Grounds Tunnel for subway services, is exactly what is going on here. The difference,however, is The IBX isn't a subway extension. It's a totally new service built from the ground up. Since the MTA said they have to use a NINE FOOT WIDE railcar to fit the tunnel under the cemetery And Bushwick ROW...because of the inability to place a bench wall along the sides of them. With this being the primary constraint, the M8/9 cannot be used,nor can your average R unit. As I've said before, there are a few builders out the that produce off the shelf FRA compliant LRT cars that will be able to operate over the line without complications. Whether you agree or not, and That,of course is totally within your rights, there is little doubt what the MTA will decide, given their own self imposed guidelines. I looking at the future, and Regional rail in Brooklyn won't make the cut. |
|
|
| (1608662) | |
Re: Blog Post: IBX cannot be a tram |
|
|
Posted by Jackson Park B Train on Fri Sep 30 00:17:21 2022, in response to Re: Blog Post: IBX cannot be a tram, posted by Edwards! on Thu Sep 29 22:43:54 2022. If only a single tunnel or two are a genuine issue, then they should be enlarged. Yes it will add costs, but the reality is the whole project will not be cheap. Hobbling the potential for through routing to the Bronx is penny wise, pound foolish. |
|
|
| (1608665) | |
Re: Blog Post: IBX cannot be a tram |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Fri Sep 30 03:37:53 2022, in response to Re: Blog Post: IBX cannot be a tram, posted by Jackson Park B Train on Fri Sep 30 00:17:21 2022. Understandable.However, What You said,is exactly what they said they would for the tunnels, but WILL do for the narrow sections in trenches (Southeastern Brooklyn). I find this ridiculous, only because some NIMBY TYPE complained about possible street running where the ROW narrows,either by time, debris buildup,or ROW narrowing. Complete agreement with the cost estimates. This will most definitely run into the low billions,( I'm thinking perhaps 6 to 10,given the fact this is a rebuild with additional infrastructure). Tunnel enlargement is a can do..and since the Bushwick Tunnel will include a new ENY station directly under the Fulton St subway,the tunnels will have to be enlarged there anyway. No doubt this will be a complicated program/project..which is why the MTA is going slow dealing with the logistics. When all is said,and done,it will be well worth it. I'm looking at a 7 year construction time line. Look.. I REALLY am pushing for a REGIONAL RAIL SYSTEM because of the connectivity it could provide to the larger system LIRR and MNRR. THIS could be the FIRST step towards building a true hybrid Railroad,combining the subways with regional operations. However, I also see the potential for growth within the Boroughs using the LRT options. The MTA could use this line to create a web of high speed lines across Brooklyn, Queens and even the Bronx. Staten Island could get a piece of the new program ,if the MTA ever decides to put the infrastructure on the bridge with additional reinforcements..or complete the partially dug tunnels under the Narrows. We'll just have to wait and see. Hopefully, This won't be another Second Ave SUBWAY situation situation,where the money gets spent before a.single spade hits the ground. Appreciate the feedback. |
|
|
| (1608670) | |
Re: Blog Post: IBX cannot be a tram |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Fri Sep 30 10:41:30 2022, in response to Re: Blog Post: IBX cannot be a tram, posted by BILLBKLYN on Thu Sep 29 21:58:27 2022. Shut up Beavis. |
|
|
| (1608685) | |
Re: Blog Post: IBX cannot be a tram |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Sat Oct 1 02:29:05 2022, in response to Re: Blog Post: IBX cannot be a tram, posted by Edwards! on Thu Sep 29 22:43:54 2022. I have some coments relative to the so called clearance problem in the Bushwick tunnels. First Ifthe NY Connecting RR was able to use those tunnels for freight which it did then there should be no trouble at all since most standard RR freight cars are bigger than NYCTA subway cars. Second, even if you assume that the tunnels can only clear cars the size of PATH rolling stock, then there should be no problem at all clearing current IRT cars so worst case scenario, the line could be incorporated as a part of the IRT (A) division with no difficult enabling it to also be connected to the Flatbush terminal of the IRT (2 & 5) which it would pass right by. |
|
|
