A Light Rail line in New York?

Amtrak Unlimited Discussion Forum

Help Support Amtrak Unlimited Discussion Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

jis

Permanent Way Inspector
Staff member
Administator
Moderator
AU Supporting Member
Gathering Team Member
Joined
Aug 24, 2003
Messages
39,127
Location
Space Coast, Florida, Area code 3-2-1
MTA officials are leaning towards Light Rail as the modal choice for the proposed Brooklyn-Queens Line:

There was a link here that seems to have disappeared, but its content is pretty much summarized above.
 
Last edited:
MTA officials are leaning towards Light Rail as the modal choice for the proposed Brooklyn-Queens Line
Thus following the trend in North American transit projects of building light rail where heavy rail metro would be more appropriate due to initial construction costs, but ignoring the fact that a metro will provide better service and lower cost, since longer metro/heavy rail trains can run with smaller crews per passengers carried, and labor costs end up being a significant part of operating expenses.
 
Thus following the trend in North American transit projects of building light rail where heavy rail metro would be more appropriate due to initial construction costs, but ignoring the fact that a metro will provide better service and lower cost, since longer metro/heavy rail trains can run with smaller crews per passengers carried, and labor costs end up being a significant part of operating expenses.
Sometimes the boundary between "light rail" and "heavy rail" can be a bit blurry. (See the DART is Dallas the Green Line in Boston, the Muni Metro in San Franscisco and the Subway-Surface cars in Philadelphia). It's possible to run multicar trainsets on a light rail system if the traffic warrants, thus allowing those lower operating costs. The main difference in initial expense seems to be that heavy rail has level boarding and is completely grade separated (although certain outlying parts of the Chicago L have grade crossings.) There might be something to say for building an initial system that's more a light rail, which can then be upgraded over the years to accommodate heavier traffic.
 
Sometimes the boundary between "light rail" and "heavy rail" can be a bit blurry. (See the DART is Dallas the Green Line in Boston, the Muni Metro in San Franscisco and the Subway-Surface cars in Philadelphia). It's possible to run multicar trainsets on a light rail system if the traffic warrants, thus allowing those lower operating costs. The main difference in initial expense seems to be that heavy rail has level boarding and is completely grade separated (although certain outlying parts of the Chicago L have grade crossings.) There might be something to say for building an initial system that's more a light rail, which can then be upgraded over the years to accommodate heavier traffic.
However even a system like Boston with the majority of track on its own right of way still suffers from traffic interference at intersections, especially with the reluctance to install traffic signal priority for transit.

Regarding multicar operation, in many systems (e.g. Boston) due to how fares are collected you still need a person manning each car, thus you still have the higher labor costs. This could be resolved with a proof of payment type system as is in common use in Europe.
 
Or we can build a full automatic light metro system. With 2 minute headways.

The name is so not important it the frequency and the zoning laws around the stations.

Park and ride station vs High density office and residences area, with of course ground floor commercial vendors.

But sadly we in the US can’t have nice things.
 
Last edited:
However even a system like Boston with the majority of track on its own right of way still suffers from traffic interference at intersections, especially with the reluctance to install traffic signal priority for transit.

Regarding multicar operation, in many systems (e.g. Boston) due to how fares are collected you still need a person manning each car, thus you still have the higher labor costs. This could be resolved with a proof of payment type system as is in common use in Europe.
The primary reason for favoring LRT on the Interborough Express was that it can fit in the existing grade-separated freight ROW while preserving the freight tracks, so there would be no traffic interference except for one point where there is not enough space to share a street underpass.

Since it's almost entirely private ROW, I would hope they'd use fare gates. MTA is moving to touchless fare collection, so they could also install tap points on the vehicles that wouldn't require an operator.
MTA officials are leaning towards Light Rail as the modal choice for the proposed Brooklyn-Queens Line:

There was a link here that seems to have disappeared, but its content is pretty much summarized above.
This article in the Daily News probably covers the same info (it may in fact have been the source for the one you referenced):
https://www.nydailynews.com/new-yor...0220923-urcmzqoq6ffy5ezn3tzgwogzni-story.html
 
The primary reason for favoring LRT on the Interborough Express was that it can fit in the existing grade-separated freight ROW while preserving the freight tracks, so there would be no traffic interference except for one point where there is not enough space to share a street underpass. Since it's almost entirely private ROW, I would hope they'd use fare gates.

This article in the Daily News probably covers the same info (it may in fact have been the source for the one you referenced):
https://www.nydailynews.com/new-yor...0220923-urcmzqoq6ffy5ezn3tzgwogzni-story.html
Indeed it does. Thank you!
 
I think the term some of you are/were looking for is 'pre-metro' which sometimes never goes full metro. Makes sense to build it "light" if needed for ROW.

As an aside, the current CTA cars were originally based on/inspired by PCC cars (circle 1950 or so). The size was already set as the system had been built with tight turns.
 
Back
Top