That's ridiculous about Hochul when CHI, PHL, POR, and CA are on the brink of major transit service cuts. Hochul got the congestion tax, SAS Phase II, and is now serious about Triboro as ALM. She is better on transit than Maura Healey here, who has essentially given up on RBC & CR electrification.
Hochul paused the congestion tax for as stupid reason and then restored it at a lower level. Her real positive contribution to transit is IBX, but ETA has had to do a lot of advocacy to prevent it from making terrible decisions on mode and alignment.
Nowhere else in the U.S. has a congestion tax, so I'd argue that any governor being able to enact one is huge. I do think IBX should be ALM. I might argue to convert the Myrtle Ave Line to ALM, and break up IBX into 2 grade-separated lines with one line from Broadway El to Queens and the other ...
... from Metropolitan to Bay Ridge (or just not do this line). But I think Hochul is absolutely right on ALM for IBX.
Who do you think pushed ALM for IBX? Hochul wanted it as light rail with street-running segments. Investigative reporters had to do the work the MTA should have been doing re the cemetery.
Voters pushed for ALM for IBX. I thought ETA was advocating the subway for IBX of making a Yamanote-style loop with the Myrtle Ave El to QB Local. That, to me, was a really bad idea.
Voters weren't given the only sane option for IBX, which is for IBX to be a subway line just like all of the other subway lines, and use subway rolling stock. Basically making it just the X train. This was because of bullshit FRA stuff they should have been told to pound sand about
FRA has no opinion on rail within the same RoW as mainline that isn’t mainline. See: WMATA red line
There's been a whole thread - I'm trying to figure out "what went wrong" with the decision not to even consider MTA compatible heavy rail in the alternatives analysis
And if not told to pound sand, the option for running subway cars next to Freight Rail should have been to just construct a steel wall of whatever height and thickness the FRA specified.
This would dramatically save money in the long term because there wouldn't have to be a *dedicated maintenance and repair facility* for the IBX
Using MTA rolling stock would also preserve freedom of action for the X train and northward extensions
The demand for IBX doesn't merit 490-600 ft. subway trains, and would greatly increase construction costs. My bet is a 200-300 ft. train running every 6 minutes on Sundays and peak being whatever will be more than enough supply of service to match demand.
Après elle, le déluge.
It's not FRA stuff - for the FRA, light rail and subway are equally distinct from mainline rail. A lot of it boils down to FTA guidelines overrating the difference between modes, so that's what the MTA studied early (and not, say, stop spacing).
So what was actually the specific reasons Heavy Rail / MTA compatible rolling stock wasn't considered?
I suspect a deep desire to avoid the current labor arrangement.
Yeah my presumption is that Heavy Rail wasn't included in the alternatives analysis because the planners didn't want to do it and it would have won if they included it
Best we can tell - they wanted something new for the sake of newness. They're more open to ALM than to a subway line with five-car platforms.
I just don't understand this idea that IBX won't eventually have just as much demand as other subway lines
A 5-car train running every 6 minutes on Sundays for IBX still sounds like too much service for its route, which doesn't hit any major or emerging market. You can save on construction costs with shorter trains/shorter platforms.
I personally think the Myrtle Ave (and Dyre Ave) Line should be a forced transfer to go to Manhattan as it is at night. The lower operating costs from the shorter line line length could be invested in higher frequency.
White Plains Road cannot terminate enough trains by itself to make this work. Through-routing Dyre with WPR in 1957 led to a significant increase in train frequencies from E180 south thanks to the increased terminal capacity (previously trains had to short turn as early as Simpson Street).
What is the terminal capacity at 242 Wakefield, and is it possible to add tail tracks? I think with three tracks on White Plains Road, the line should be a full trunk. Another option would be no express tracks at rush hour and half service past Simpson off-peak and full service peak.
I am unsure how that is a service improvement. Simpson Street has not been used as a terminal since the 1940's and the requisite interlocking plant no longer exists. Bronx Park was demolished in 1952 to remove a flat junction, and thus there are no longer any short turn locations south of E180.
Dyre Avenue trains cannot terminate on the center track at E180 without a flat crossing of the WPR main tracks in both directions. Access to the NYW&B platforms is no longer possible in the southbound direction without significant single-tracking and wrong-railing on the northbound WPR local track.
No, the ETA line has been that there should be brief tunneling in the cemetery to avoid a street-running zigzag and the MTA should look into ALM technology instead of light rail.
I do agree that you almost certainly have to tunnel under the cemetery to make IBX competitive with the L to Midtown. Absolute rights of way matter when the competition has absolute rights of way.
(Agreed on Healey sucking. Why the fuck is a Democrat in Massachusetts prioritizing tax cuts over investments in green infrastructure.)
Because it's Massachusetts -- not California (or Europe for that matter). We're more allergic to taxes than many would like to believe (though less than almost all of the US).
Healey is the best Massachusetts has done on transit since ... checks notes ... Mike Dukakis, whose specialty was TOD. The T is going to be open longer at night, and that's not nothing.
I mean, the competition on transit is Baker (ugh), Patrick (no), Romney (no), and... Weld (even more no)? But Patrick wasn't prioritizing tax cuts, at least.
Patrick forfeited $750M of federal funds for Red-Blue Connector; Healey at least didn't do that. Advantage Healey. But I didn't vote for either Patrick (only 2010 as I wasn't living in Mass. in 2006) or Healey because of their grand transportation plans. Neither did most Massachusetts voters.