“The Fourth Car”

New Type of Light Rail Vehicle That Can Operate in NYC

Subways, on the LIRR, on the AirTrain, and on City Streets
---
A One Seat Ride from midtown Manhattan to JFK Airport, via
the QNS Light Rail and a Re-Built LIRR Rockaway Beach Line

May 16, 2017

Compiled by:
Bob Diamond
718-552-7048
rdiamond@brooklynrail.net

The Brooklyn Historic Railway Assn. - Electric Rail Transit Research Group
Manhattan East Side Transit Alternatives MIS/DEIS

• The east side of Second Avenue between 65th and 66th Streets. This private property is cur-
rently occupied by low-rise conuncrcial buildings.
• A site on the west side of Second Avenue between 96th and 97th Streets. This private
property is occupied by a low-rise lumber store.
More information on these shaft sites and the construction techniques to be used for the project
is provided in Chapter IS.

PROPERTY ISSUES
This alternative would require the purchase ofeasements for the tunnel below private properties
and possible compensation to merchants and property owners for disruption during cut-and-
cover construction. Project cost estimates assumed SO percent of assessed value of business
properties facing the cut-and-cover construction sections in addition to the costs of permanent
easements needed in certain areas.
The alternative would also require the use of public or private property for up to 10 years to
accommodate the shaft access to the tunnel boring machine. In addition, as mentioned above,
work proposed at the 36th-38th Street Yard in BrookJyn could affect private property. More
information on casements is provided in Chapter 3; Chapter 15 describes possible effects to
merchants and property owners during construction.

SUBWAY WITH LIGHT RAIL OPTION ON LOWER EAST SIDE

(BUILD ALTERNATIVE 2)
OVERVIEW AND AUGNMENT
This alternative would contain an the elements of Build Alternative 1, but would add an LRT to
serve the Lower East Side and Lower Manhattan (see Figure 2-11). The recommendation to
include an LRT emerged from a substantial planning and alternatives analysis for the provision
of additional capacity transit service to this underserved neighborhood. In refining the LRT
plan, NYCT and the project engineers were guided by the engineering goals and criteria cited
above and four specific conditions:
• Modeling and other analyses showed that a full-length LRT would not meet the transporta-
tion demands of the entire corridor, but LRT service to connect the Lower East Side to
north-south subway service and to Lower Manhattan was feasible in meeting the needs of
the population south of 14th Street.
• The existing tunnel section under Canal Street east of Allen Street and the easternmost plat-
form in the Nassau Street Line/Chambers Street station could accommodate an LRT vehicle.
• The LRT can follow existing streets, since its minimum turning radius is only 82 feet.
• There is an opportunity for mixed auto and LRT flows in some segments of the LRT align-
ment to help maintain lane capacity for the areas with significant auto traffic.
As a result of these factors, the basic alignment ofthe proposed two-way LRT would begin near
the intersection of Water and Broad Streets, and proceed along Water and Pearl Streets to
Frankfort Street, where it would descend into a new tunnel to the Chambers Strcet/BrookJyn
Bridge station of the Nassau Street (J and M) subway line (see Figure 2-12). From there it would
continue in an existing tunnel section under Centre and Canal Streets to approximately Ludlow

2-24

o,g,tized by Google
 -
•II 180
..
,,o ::::,
120
100
....._

..,,...;_;_;,~::.::::!:"~.;/
115111 SI.

. . '"'"...." _........................
75th SL 80!hSI 85th St.

1'0
120
100
80 80
60 60
I 40
20
0
,0
20
0

I .20 ......- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Section 1
-H1I
Lenox -
S1a11011
Yollcvlle
Slauon
·20

• 15!11Sl 901h S1. 95111 S1. 1001h St 10151h S1.

•
160 -160
140 -1 .io
120 -120
100 100

• -.,..---~~~~~==---,.__J_60
80 80
60
40 .io
20 20

•
0 0
-20
Y0'1n11hl
S1a11011 Section 2
96th St1N1
S1a11011
L_;;_ ·20

•I 160-

100
10S1hS1 110th St 115th SI 12:SthSI

-180

100
80 80

I eoF'*--
,0
20
1.--_ _ __;. 60
40
20

• ·20
0

Fran~.111'1
S111,on Section 3 I. 1251hSIIMI
S1a11011
0
·20

•I ugend
[TI]
CJ
c:::J
Soil & Fill

Bedroct

Proposed Suuw.ay Tunnel

~ E,cisting Suow.ay Tunnel

- Ex,sting Sewer

I hc:tlcNI 2 above

,_ .
I
c=~ -- -· -· a:
-· ½==-~-==r=--J
1
i~· -911. ,_s,
1

--..._.:-·:<
L .. __-L ~

I - - --- - - ._ ... ,_ ,_ .
18"...... :
- :

I Figure 2-9
Build Alternative 1 Profile
Manhauan East Side Transi1 Al1cma1ivcs

I Dig 1,zed by Google

 I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Central
Park I
Legend
- - - Zone Boundary
I
- Ex,sting Tunnel
~ Tunneling (T~M) I
t:illillill) Cut and Cover
fiii™ Mmrng
.........., Ex,strng Suoway Line
I
""' . .... Ex,strng Sutiway Stat,on

..___~ Proposed Subway Station I

~ Possible Shaft and
Staging S,ce (one re'fu,red)
I
..
.~·.. 1
ti" I
:

;=:===:::: ~ I ID
I
'
ToNIR (ttt O S00 l~l
EJCl)fHS a I W I
Tractis S!ll1h Ave
I ~ I
mcten o 152.~ JOU
I
Figure 2-10
Construction Methods I
Upper East Side Zone
-
Manhattan East Side Transit Alternatives
I
I \f:.'::~==~1""L=---=l-fJ\:--'r'~i:""""'~mn~:::s~-,-r:.rL.=-=J1;;:;;;;;;;;~r11

I
~==:!o
.___--I CJ
:::=:::a~ D r=J
I ·~c BD
~~~~~oB
I r----~_F_=:_~a_sD::::;'.....::I==:.JI

I
I Randall'•
laland

I
I
I
I
I Legend

I - - - Zone Boundary
Ex,s~ng Tunnel
.....,&:,.._~-~- Tunneling (TeM) r - - - - . 1 " I r -- - ,

I E;W;;;;;i
ft..'i.'i-"11,1
Cut ,md Cover

M,nmg
- .. -
....,. . .,
............
--,-~--
,-.,.
.......

I ""' """ Ex,stmg Su!lw.ay Line

"" . .... Ex,stmg Subw.ay St.at,on
EAST
RIVER

..__ ..... Proposed Suuw.ay Station

I ~ Poss,t;,Je Shaft and

St.ag,ng 5,te (one required)

I
Central
I Park

I Figure 2- 10
Construction Methods

I 01g1tized by
- East Harlem Zone
l;c ~ 2,
I
I Chapter 2: Project Alternatives

I Street, where it would surface and travel along the center of East Broadway to Grand Street and
then tum north to Kazan to Columbia Street, traveling under the Williamsburg Bridge and onto
Avenue D up to 14th Street. The right-of-way would extend across 14th Street between Avenue
D and Union Square. To accommodate the LRT right-of-way, Avenue D, now two-way, would
I become one-way southbound.
Along this alignment, the n.ew LRT service would travel on a pair of tracks (one northbound

I track and one southbound). For most of the route, the at-grade track would be shared with
rubber-tired vehicles (cars. trucks, buses, bicycles): the tracks in these segments would be
embedded within the pavement so that general traffic could use the right-of-way as well, except

I at LRT stations. In certain sections of the route, however, the LRT right-of-way would be
separated from vehicular traffic. This includes the twmel segment of the route, the portals
cOJU1ecting the twmel to the at-grade section of the route, and the portion of the alignment along

I Avenue D. Vehicles would be able to turn onto side streets across the tracks, however. The
relationship of the LRT service and vehicular traffic is analyzed in detail in Chapter 9 (section
F) of this document.

I The new LRT is described in detail in Appendix D and is sununarized below.

LRTSTATIONS

I As shown in Figure 2-12, stations would be provided at Broad Street and Pine Street ,o n Water
Street, near Fulton and Pearl Streets, within the Chambers Street/Brooklyn Bridge station near
the J and M trains, at Essex Street on Canal Street, near Grand Street on Kazan Street, near

I Houston, 8th, and 13th Streets on Avenue D, and at Avenue B, First Avenue, Irving Place, and
Union Square on 14th Street.
LRT stations would have 200-foot-long platforms, at grade in the center of the street or on the
I side, accessible from the crosswalks at nearby intersections. Depending on the location, there
would be two side platforms or one center platform (see Figure 2-13).The platforms would be
low (approximately curb height) and would offer typical amenities, such as lighting, benches,
I canopies, and windscreens. An exception would be at Seward Park and Straus and Union
Squares, where the design of the "stations" would be minimized to avoid visual and other

• intrusions on these parks.

LRT EQUIPMENT

• The light rail cars would be two-section, articulated vehicles. These would be capable of being
,coupled to two-section vehicles should service warrant it. Each articulated LRT vehicle would
be about 96.5 feet long; a two-car LRT train with two pairs would be about 193 feet long. (In

•
contrast, a typical city bus is 40 feet long; an articulated bus is 60 feet.) The car widths would
be rather narrow, at 7.5 feet, to minimize intrusion on narrow streets. The floor would be low,
allowing passengers to get on and off from a curb-height platform. An overhead wire system

•
(also referred to as an overhead collection system, or OCS) would power the LRT; the conduits,
which require a minimum height of 11.8 feet, would be attached to poles or colunms, placed
approximately 100 feet apart.

•
•II 2-25

o,g,tized by Google
Manhattan East Side Transit Alternadves MIS/DEIS

ANCILLARY FACILmES
In addition, the light rail transit system would require six electrical substations to provide power
for the new line. These stations, each about 3,800 square feet in size, would be located below
grade. Possible locations for the new substations are as follows:
• At the proposed storage yard
• Adjacent to Union Square
• Near the 13th Street station
• Near the Grand Street station
• Near the Chambers Street station
• Near the Broad Street station

SIGNALS
The light rail train control systems are anticipated to include a combination of fixed-block
signaling with Automatic Train Protection for the underground portion and line of sight
operation with limited traffic signal preemption for the surface portion. The goal is a cost-
effective installation that provides for safe operation at reasonable headways in the underground
portion of the alignment and a competitive running time for the at-grade portions.

MAINTENANCE AND STORAGE

Storage and repairs for the LRT vehicles would be accommodated at an underground facility,
which would be built on property along the south side of Delancey Street, from Essex Street to
just east of Clinton Street (sec Figure 2-12). It is estimated that 37 vehicles would be stored
there. This property is city-owned and has been largely cleared for the Seward Parle Urban Rene-
wal Area Extension. It is now in use for shopper parking. One building, the Essex Street Market
building, remains on the western edge of the site along Essex Street. Under the proposed layout,
the yard tracks would occupy the area beneath the shoppers' parking lot, the existing streets
(Norfolk and Suffolk Streets) that run north and south through the site, and the Essex Street
market building. It would use some of the space presently occupied by an abandoned trolley
loop in the Essex-Delancey Street subway station (see Appendix D for details). The facility
would not affect any existing structures other than the Essex Street Market building, which
could be undcrpimed to remain in place during construction of the underground facility. All of
the property that would be occupied by the proposed facility is owned by the City of New York.
NYCT and the city's Department of Housing Preservation and Development (HPD), which
controls the site, will review joint development opportunities associated with the underground
yard construction.
LRT vehicles would reach the new yard by turning from A venue D at the W jl)iamsburg Bridge
onto track to be constructed along Delancey Street South adjacent to the bridge. This track
would descend into a portal between Pitt and Ridge Streets, and then continue in a tunnel
beneath Delancey Street South until the yard.

CONSTRUCT/ON METHOD
As detailed in Chapter 15, construction of the LRT would involve preparing the street and
laying track. In addition, a limited length of new, shallow cut-and-cover tunnel would be
excavated on Frankfort Street between Pearl and Chambers Streets and on Canal Street between
Christie and Ludlow Streets. Exca.vation would also be required for a new ramp and tunnel on

2-26

o,g 1,zed by Google

 ...............,.....

-=--··- - -,
I

- -
\ Eas£V-ifhl&e
I
I
I
I
O aiitet!- I
East I I
- - Side
I
I
·I
Lege11d
- - - Zone Boundary
•••• ....... Ex19t,119 Sutiway L,ne
..·••· I - .~
:
.. . ,f,,._. ...(.J...--~----
•Pa,\

:
i .nnn•n<>•••••• {?MD~
; Ou
.,.. o ... , E.x19tm9 Station
- - Propo,ed Subway Line
w M Prooo~ed Stat/Or
•••••• ... RT Track

::C::C::CC Beiow Grade Uff frl•cl:

CJ L~r Station
:C:Ce• • Port.al

Figure 2-11
Manhattan East Side Transit Alternatives Route Map with Build Alternative 2

rng,1 zed by Google

 EAST
HUDSON RIVER

RIVER

- - - Zone &oundary
·----· LRT Trac(
I I I I I f'etow Gr»de LRT Tr6clc
- ExlfJt ng u~; Tunnel
feet II ~., IIUI
CJ St.a&ion

:c::~-· Porta
~ Ma,ntenance & Sr:.or6Pe
liadim Facility(&aNGr.aae)

Figure 2-12
LRT Alignment
Lower Manhattan Zone Manhattan East Side Transit Alternatives
~

01g1t1zed by \...:,008 e
• ~

• \
((:y

•
\
\\ EAST
RIVER

• ..
0
\
\
\
\

~,
•
~

:t e..1\
\
\

• \
\
\
\

• \
\
\

•
\
\

_ _ _ Z.Cne Boundary

·----· LRT Tracie

:==c Below Grade LRT Track
EAST
- - Ex,~tm9 LRi Tunnel
RIVER

metmCl

Figure 2-1 :
LRT Alignmen
Manhattan East Side Transit Alternati ves Lower East Side Zon

D1g1t1zed by Go0~ L~
 ~
Track I
~
Track 2 I
I

-I
I
I Q'.;0° Oedg!ed
LRTl.ant
I 12'-0· I,o·
:9' o,gg1ec1
LRTLa,..
I
I
I
I

/ /

10·-o· ~ 10·-o·
Track I

~ I Side Platform•

-TroleyWn ~ Track 1 ~ Track 2

Suppo,t Cable

- TrolleyWn

I
...__ BuildlllQ
.I
8u11d1ng-

i, 10'·0" ,,·.o- 10·:9:

Mi>lll<IUsa Turn Lane M1>111<1Use Curt> Lane

Typical Section Betw.... Stations

feet u
'"

Figure 2- 13
LRT Stations and Vehicles Manhauan East Side Transit Alternatives

Dig1t,zed by Goog •e
I
I Chapter 2: Project Alternatives

I Delancey Street South between K37.an and Clinton Streets, and at the proposed yard site. At the
yard, the Essex Street Market building could be underpinned to remain in place· above the new
facility.

I PROPERTY ISSUES
The LRT would be constructed entirely within public property. Its construction period would

I not be as disruptive or as long as the cut-and-cover segments of the subway alternative.

Although its presence and operation would alter traffic patterns, the initial estimate of impacts
found them not to be so adverse as to assess property impact costs against the project. Chapter

I 5 details the potential for effects on business properties along the LRT route; Chapter 15
describes possible effects during construction.

SELECTION OF A LOCALLY PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

I Following publication and public review of this MIS/DEIS, a locally preferred alternative will
be selected and a Final Environmental Impact Statement prepared (this process is described in

I more detail in Chapter 1). The locally preferred alternative may be one of the alternatives
described above (TSM, Build Alternative 1, or Build Alternative 2), or it may join elements
from each of those alternatives to form a combination alternative.

I D. PRELIMINARY PROJECT COSTS

The capital cost estimate for the TSM Alternative is $204 million (1997 dollars). The cost

I estimate for the East Side subway extensiort (Build Altetrtative 1) is estimated at $3.88 billion.
This estimate uses tunneling costs similar to other major investment rail projects, such as the
MTA/LIRR East Side Access Project, as presented in its MIS (April 1998). The Lower East

I Side LRT (in Build Alternative 2) would cost an additional $1.21 billion, for a total coast of
$5.09 billion. All of these estimates represent hard costs (cost of easements and property,
construction materials and labor costs), as well as rolling stock, but exclude ..soft costs."

I Estimated incremental annual operation and maintenance costs (,o ver the No Build Alternative)
for the TSM and Build 1 and Build 2 Alternatives are, respectively, $6.5 million, $25.8 million,
and $36.7 million ( 1997 dollars). •!•

•I
I
I
I
II 2-27

Dig 1,zed by Google