The surprising return of the three-borough 'X line' subway
The 'X line'. Regional Plan Association
10:08 am Apr. 25, 201212
To the surprise of the idea’s originators, Manhattan Borough President Scott Stringer earlier this month unearthed a dusty old proposal for a new subway line that would serve the outer boroughs.
“The X Line would connect all but three subway lines in the city and join Brooklyn, Queens and the Bronx, which no other line does today,” said Stringer, speaking to a room full of New York establishment types at a breakfast hosted by the Association for a Better New York.
“Here’s why it’s not a pipe dream: The line is built entirely along existing rights of way,” said Stringer. “That means no tunneling, which is the biggest hurdle in this day and age to building new subways.”
Stringer’s championing of the X line took some transportation advocates (pleasantly) aback.
“It was a total surprise,” said Jeff Zupan, a senior fellow for transportation at the Regional Plan Association, which issued the 1996 report in which the proposal, also known as the Triboro RX, was raised. “As a matter of fact, where he learned of it we have no idea.”
The idea goes something like this.
There are, for the most part, existing freight tracks running from Bay Ridge up through Queens and across the Hell Gate Bridge into the Bronx. Freight traffic on those rails is light. And there is, theoretically, enough space alongside them to accommodate some form of commuter rail.
“It doesn’t have to be a subway type car,” said Zupan. “It could be somewhat smaller, but still operate as a train with multiple cars.”
The train would run above ground and intersect with nearly every subway line in the city, avoiding Manhattan altogether.
Aside from the question of financing—no number has been put on just how much this project would cost—there are other potential hang-ups. First, Stringer’s proposal could conflict with his political mentor Rep. Jerry Nadler’s longstanding desire to see the Bay Ridge railyard used as the terminus of a cross-harbor freight tunnel. Further, the Federal Railroad Administration requires a certain distance between freight and passenger trains that share rights of way, and it's not clear whether the existing right of way is, legally, wide enough.
“So the question is whether the F.R.A. criteria can be overcome,” says Zupan.
Though other aspects of the association's 1996 report took root, namely the jumpstarting of the Second Avenue subway and East Side Access, the X line basically vanished.
“Some things stick to the wall and happen and some things don’t,” says Zupan.
In 2008, before the recession rendered discussion of such expansion plans impracticable, former M.T.A. chairman Elliot Sander resurrected the idea in a 40-year plan he presented at the Cooper Union.
Now, Sander chairs the Regional Plan Association, where the idea originated.
His old employer is not inclined to consider X train anytime soon.
In an email, M.T.A. spokesman Adam Lisberg said the authority has more pressing concerns.
“MTA never formally backed it, and the whole 40th-anniversary package it was part of has long since been set aside as we deal with our current financial situation,” he said.
Barely anyone rides the "G" as it is -- there are far more important priorities out there.
I've always been perplexed as to why the subways between Brooklyn and Queens don't connect -- so much untapped potential! This would be a huge boost for the outer boroughs!
I really hope someone starts a petition or campaign to push this forward!!
Barely anyone rides the G train because it doesn't really connect to other lines, if it ran to Atlantic Avenue and Roosevelt Avenue, I think the ridership numbers would look a lot different. Besides, ridership along the Crosstown is increasing fairly quickly. We need a line to connect the Brooklyn trains (including the A,C,G,L,J, and F, none of which connect at Atlantic) and the existing Bay Ridge - East New York Track would serve that function perfectly.
An appealing idea on the face off it. But how much would it cost,? And is there research that can shed light on what the ridership might be? I think it will never happen-but it would also be interesting to see just where the exact stations and connections might be.
The estimate was 76 thousand daily: http://www.streetsblog.org/2007/06/29/triboro-rx-could-provide-more-tran...
I'm just not sure if that estimate is from 1996 or 2007.
I don't think cost is even a major issue; you can fund and build it in sections quite cheaply assuming it passes the FRA rules.
I can't believe it's taken this long.
The G train could have connected Brooklyn and Queens, but it's an inefficient line (made more inefficient when they stopped running it through Steinway). The residents of BK, Queens and the Bronx need access to jobs and resources that they presently can't utilize. I fail to see how the MTA could possibly have more pressing concerns.
The G line has fairly high (and fast-growing) ridership. It's incorrect to say "hardly anyone rides it".
Its ridership is strong considering the current length, capacity, and frequency.
This is a long time coming! The entire subway system is built on the idea that Manhattan is the center of commerce, and serves to bring a workforce in from more affordable neighborhoods to serve the wealthier who can afford to live in lower Manhattan. Such a train line would encourage business growth in the outer boroughs and allow greater access for all of us on the fringes (I live in Inwood and Queens is a large toll or a very long train ride away--but I want to eat all the delicious Queens food!!!).
Barely anyone rides the "G"? When was the last time you were on it? Every morning it's packed, and yesterday (Saturday) it was mostly standing room during the afternoon. If anything, the G has helped spur development in previously marginal (in terms of transit access) neighborhoods -- Greenpoint, South Williamsburg, north Bed-Stuy, eastern Clinton Hill, etc. If NYC actually did planning, i.e. connecting land use planning, transportation investment and economic development, the triboro X line would no doubt lead to transit-oriented growth and increased transit ridership in the neighborhoods it passed through.
This sounds like some of the crazy and great rail systems we've built here around Seattle...light rail at the surface level (LINK) and commuter trains that run on freight lines (Sounder).
For a city that wants to reclaim it's streets for pedestrians and bicycles, I'm surprised, for example that rather than building a 2nd avenue subway, they didn't build a 2nd avenue trolley, and put it on a road diet with more lanes for pedestrians and bicyclists.
They could also start by running a Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) line along that Right of Way, which would cost less, take less time to set up, and could avoid the FRA requirement about distance between passenger and freight rail, and get most of the benefits of rail, as the bus wouldn't have to compete with vehicular traffic.