The foregoing posts, Parts I, II, and III, leave at least two important system elements with which to facilitate, that of a new option for a storage and maintenance yard, and 'turning' the tram at the southern terminus point.
First, a reminder as to why we CHOOSE to turn the train/tram. The 100% urban rail experience in NYC is with a metro rail mode. That mode is characterized by ~10' wide vehicles which are long and not flexible. They hold more people, but also have 6 double doors in each car, even though most stations are constructed for right-side platforms. It makes it easy for changing direction, as the long cars would require a sizeable area in which to loop, otherwise.
Trams are so FOREIGN to New Yorkers, rather Americans, that they simply aren't even on their radar. While we have (or are creating) a heavy rail corridor, the use of the LRV is still quite suitable, and preferred, for this application (which wasn't true for the GLX in Boston, but I won't go there, right now). The flexibility of the LRV affords service options which metro (or conventional) rail modes do not.
And yet, there is still the fact that the narrower LRV's (trams) lose some space, per car, vs. the metro cars; an argument that metro-rail ONLY proponents enjoy using. SINCE, there is no functional need to have doors on both sides of the vehicles outside of the ease of changing directions at the termini, it behooves us to limit the doors to one side, thus allowing an increase in seating, on average,
by 20%.
Easily, at least, 12 additional seats can be added in each car (4 per eliminated double-door), which is more beneficial than just for peak periods. It is always a comfort factor, the number of seats available when passengers board a car. Thus, simple looping of trains on each end provides this full time benefit for passengers. And, trams, especially articulated ones, are turned with far, far, less space that it would take for metro rail cars. And too, all of the seats can face forward, for many an additional benefit.
As noted in the post initially introducing this characteristic, the one directional trams afford more than just the benefit of additional comfort for passengers (which should be enough), it also eliminates the perpetual cab changing, at the end of each line run, by drivers; i.e. less stress. Thus, a one time infrastructure step, facilitating turning around at each end, provides several benefits. And in this case, one of those, the northern terminus, provides the, still additional, benefit of a superior station/stop location, as seen by graphics/photos in the first posting of this series.
SOUTHERN RETURN LOOP
Now, we need a loop at the southern terminus, which might not seem so easy, considering the narrow corridor space. But, as good fortune would have it, past decisions provide us the space needed.
The southern terminus (at least for IBX Phase I) will be the E. 16th Street Station, or the B/Q Line (aka Brighton Line). Using a turn radius of, no less, than 85' is desired, but the corridor's width does not provide for this. It just so happens, that on the west side of the Brighton Line ROW, as it crosses the Bay Ridge rail corridor, is housing for a traction power substation, in fact two, one no longer used.
A new building with equipment was installed, date unknown, beside the older one, which stayed working until the new one was brought online. The older equipment was removed, and the building left to ruin. The latter purchase of property just south of the old substation, provides the public property space needed to turn the tram, without any additional property buys.
The former building's foundations should still be quite suitable for the substation application, needing only a rehabilitation of the building, and then movement of equipment. Even the installations of new substations run less than $1M.
By moving the substation equipment to the site of the old substation, it clears the space needed for the 'return' portion of the terminus loop.
The loop is a quick descent past the E. 16th Street Station platform, that will turn underneath the existing freight and space for a second freight track, passing well beneath the dead-end portion of E. 15th Street, as it more slowly rises back to the station's outbound (or Queens-bound) platform. Both platforms will be lowered by ~4 feet, with a track descent and ascent east of the station, in order to better faciliate the loop vertical clearances.
While the full project is within the property owned by NYC, a courtesy purchase offer could be made for the end residential property/building, which is actually two residences. The work to create the loop could be done without too much inconvenience, so an inconvenience fee could be extended as well, sans a property sale.
The B/Q tracks, and station platforms are bridged over the freight corridor, but even so the crossing was noted as a reconstruction in the PEL report. The track redesign proposed by this series, likely could have mitigated that work to one of excavation, if the bridge is as designated in the PEL report's graphic representations.
However, the return portion of the loop would be beyond the apparent south end of the current bridges span, and indeed would need to pass through its support structure, so here work to replace the bridge(s) will be needed.
It can be done without disrupting service on the Brighton Line, at least for any signifcant amount of time.
Here is a time lapse video of the work to put a new freight rail bridge into place, and then excavating beneath it for a roadway underpass; a much larger project . . .
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9AB6ReooXsU&t=125s
STORAGE & MAINTENANCE
Now, the need (or, depending on your viewpoint, preference) to truncate the IBX routing to the portion most cost justified (in order to get any of it implemented), leave us with sourcing a new location or locations for the functions of storage and maintenance.
The writers of the PEL report very generalized an area for these functions, proffering an area as much as 8 acres in size, which is more typical of a major metro rail yard. The need here is not only less, it should be (or can be) cost effectively much less.
The MTA (with all of its divisions) owns a lot of acreage in Brooklyn. With that many land resources, some of it is bound to become less productive (acre for acre) over time, and could be more productive with some reallocation.
The best prospect is the above Linden Shops parcel. A very important function occurs here, fabrication of rails, and track rehabilitation. There is no dismissing the contribution of this facility to the MTA's operation. However, is there not some degree of over allotment of space occuring here. Indeed, not only is this facility 17.5 acres in the main, it has 6.6 acres as a backyard space just to its north.
Just to the east of these MTA parcels, is a yard which stores trains from several lines, in an efficient use of 6.5 acres, that includes a maintenance building. Also, these trains are almost twice the length of IBX consists.
An efficient use of a small portion of the Linden Shops Yard for an IBX facility would render this, which keeps virtually all existing buildings and all functions of the present operation intact, leaving plenty of space for its operations, retaining a 1/3 mile long track length.
A couple of points:
First, it is important to recognize that the functions of Storage and Maintenance are not co-dependent. They are functions independent of each other, and can have locations apart. Thus, if necessary, overnight and off peak storage of trains (i.e. a parking lot), can be had in one location, while a maintenance facility for routine upkeep can be had in another.
Secondly, the flexibility of the LRV's to handle far, far, smaller radius curves, than one of NYC's standard metro rail cars, allows for many more options in locating suitable parcels for supporting functions. Thus, the above suggestion for an 'all-in-one' facility is just one of many possibilities. However, it appears to be a very effective use of existing MTA property, and a sublimely located parcel, functionally.
Lastly, should an extension to Bay Ridge occur in the future, it would provide additional storage opportunities at the site currently proposed in the PEL for such facilities. Yet, I can't help but to insert a personal note: Despite the adjacent public uses, a waterside site, such as the rail head held by the MTA, which overlooks the busy harbor of the nation's largest city, the world's most renown skyline, and the iconic Statue of Liberty, should have far greater prospects than use as a train parking lot, but that's just me.
The last part of this series will be about a potential of extending the northern end of the IBX, but not along the CSX corridor.
