And on another note - would a President Giuliani do anything to normalize the awful imbalance between highway and rail funding flows? Shiver me timbers

http://maps.google.com/maps?f=d&hl=en&geocode=&saddr=2-20+borden+avenue&daddr=50-01+vernon+boulevard,+long+island+city,+ny&sll=40.742453,-73.955707&sspn=0.002849,0.005021&ie=UTF8&ll=40.742449,-73.955804&spn=0.002849,0.005021&t=k&z=18&om=1

It's three short blocks and one long one, which is not much fun in the winter with the wind coming off the river. The intersection of Borden Avenue with Fifth Street has no traffic light or crosswalk, which can make crossing very difficult there. The satellite view seems to show a sidewalk on the south side of Borden Avenue, but I don't remember there being one. It's generally not a pleasant walk, and neither is the walk through the parking lot to the ferry dock.

The nearest bus, the Q103, is at least as far as the subway station, and doesn't go to too many job sites.

The frequencies of the ferry and train connections are also inconvenient. With only a few trains a day, if your #7 train is a few minutes late you miss the one LIRR train that'll take you home, and then you're stuck in the middle of nowhere.

For service on that line to be successful, probably the best thing to do would be to have the trains loop back east and terminate at the new Sunnyside station, where they'll have good subway connections.

Regular service ought to be restored on this line.

On shared trackage, I'm skeptical about the frequency of service and the number of hours that would be possible. I don't think you'd be able to get subway-type levels of service.

If the cross-harbor rail freight tunnel ever gets built, it's not just for trains to Brooklyn, Queens and Long Island, but to the Hudson Valley and New England as well. Since the fire on the Poughkeepsie bridge, the southernmost Hudson River crossing (other than by barge) has been at Selkirk just south of Albany. So there would be more freight trains going over the Hell Gate Bridge as well.

1. Bus lines feeding into subway and rail stations effectively take the place of a circumferential route, but that's not to say that such a route wouldn't be a good idea. The Chicago Transit Authority is studying a circumferential route to reduce congestion in the Loop and is looking at heavy rail, light rail, and BRT options. Chicago's Metra (the commuter rail agency) is looking seriously at a north-south route west of the city limits by knitting together some existing rail lines.

2. Passenger trains could co-exist with freight trains on the NY Connecting, and co-existence would not require daytime embargoes of freight trains as is the case on the NJ Transit River Line (Trenton-Camden). Sufficient crossovers, and bi-directional signaling, would be required. On the Hell Gate Bridge and approaches there are 4 tracks and advanced signaling on the two used by Amtrak, so there would be no conflict with Amtrak trains or with Metro-North service to Penn Station.

3. Most of the complaints from Queens about the Cross-Harbor Tunnel arise from increased transfer traffic at the Fresh Pond Yard, not really from the number of trains per se. As for the complaints from Brooklyn about more trains in the open cut, a simple solution would be to roof over the cut, as was done years ago in Riverside Park. That would create new space for parks or buildings.

4. I think there would be a decent amount of peak-hour ridership on this line, but to ensure any amount of off-peak ridership there would need to be transit-oriented development (TOD) at various points along the route. New clusters at, for example, the Nostrand/Flatbush junction, Brooklyn Terminal Market, East New York LIRR/Broadway Junction, Roosevelt Avenue, and Port Morris would be consistent with PlaNYC 2030, would create outer-borough jobs, and would feed (and be fed by) this passenger service. One of the shining successes of TOD has been with the Washington Metro. Many Metro stations have become hubs of new residential and commercial development. Not only is there no reason it couldn't happen here, there are many reasons it needs to happen here.

5. My only quibble with this proposal is its terminus. It would seem to make a lot more sense to run such a service through to Co-Op City, although TOD in the Bronx Hub area shouldn't be ruled out.

6. Lastly, this proposal needs to be analyzed alongside alternatives such as BRT.

If this plan ever gets implemented, it would probably be best to use commuter rail equipment at a subway fare. Also, the service shouldn't try to incorporate too many stops, so that it remains a fast alternative to driving or taking the subway through Manhattan.

Regarding the G- I'm sure there's a bit of a Chicken and Egg problem with maintaining regular ridership but there is seemingly potential for growth as Downtown Brooklyn expands; LIC develops commecially; and the residential areas in between grow.

One problem of the G that this may avoid is the necessity to share tracks with the F in Brooklyn and, what, the E in Queens? So any service improvements to the G come at the expense of lines going into Manhattan running at capacity already.

Frumin's study is interesting, because it does seem to show that there's significant potential ridership. It would work for my wife's commute!

I'm concerned about whether there's enough capacity in the right-of-way, though. There's currently one track used for freight from Oak Point in the Bronx all the way to the Bay Ridge Terminal, and two tracks used by Amtrak from Oak Point to Sunnyside Junction. If the Cross-Harbor freight tunnel is built, they may need to add another track.

I don't know if there's really room to add two tracks anywhere on the right-of-way, other than on the abandoned Port Morris Branch in the Bronx. There certainly isn't enough room to add two tracks on the Hell Gate Bridge or the NYCR viaduct leading up to it, which would mean either (a) taking the freight track and forcing freight trains to share the two remaining tracks with Amtrak trains and potentially Metro-North trains, (b) taking an Amtrak track and forcing Amtrak (and potentially Metro-North) to use a single track, (c) sharing a track with Amtrak trains, which may run afoul of FRA regulations or (d) using a single-track, which would greatly impede service levels. The proposed Astoria transfer station would also have to be built on of the existing viaduct, which is a tricky proposition.

The map also shows the proposed line somehow crossing the four-track Harlem Line and traveling along 161st Street in the Bronx for eight blocks. I haven't heard of a subway under 161st Street, so I'm assuming that one would have to be built.

I've been thinking of this as a B Division subway, but another possibility would be to extend one of the existing Metro-North branch lines like the New Canaan or Danbury Branch (or even the Shore Line East) down to Bay Ridge. Commuter trains are allowed to share tracks with freight trains if necessary. Commuters from Connecticut could transfer at Greenwich, Stamford or Norwalk (as they currently do) or at Woodside, while reverse commuters from Brooklyn and Queens could get to offices in Greenwich and Stamford easier. It would also give commuters from Co-Op City and Parkchester a two-seat ride to Penn Station.

Yes, Gary, it would use the same right-of-way as the Cross-Harbor Freight Tunnel. And also the same right-of-way as Amtrak trains traveling to and from Boston and Vermont. Same right-of-way does not mean same tracks. The piece of the TRX that is in the Bronx has no tracks at all, but an intact right-of-way.

Circumferential transit lines are a rare thing. As far as I know, the G train may be the only one in the western hemisphere. (Hopefully someone can prove me wrong on that.)

Every time I have the opportunity to ride the G train and am with other people, I find that people are willing to go to walk great distances to find alternatives because the G train has this reputation as offering infrequent service "because it doesn't go to Manhattan." (The G train does run a bit less frequently than the radial lines during the day, but not as much as people think.)

The point is that not going to Manhattan would be a PR obstacle for the TRX, not a selling point.

Does this use some of the tracks, though, for the proposed but stalled Cross Harbor Freight Tunnel project?

Good to be thinking about.