increased fare and drastically reduced service

But on the other hand it is the MTA's RR so they can do what they want.

The MTA is a state agency. Even though it has been set up as an authority with its own board of directors and bonding authority, it is ultimately beholden to the people through our representatives.

NEVER, NEVER, NEVER forget that.

We all have a voice. Perhaps its time to start writing to our legislators and demand action.

LI Loco wrote:

But on the other hand it is the MTA's RR so they can do what they want.

The MTA is a state agency. Even though it has been set up as an authority with its own board of directors and bonding authority, it is ultimately beholden to the people through our representatives.

NEVER, NEVER, NEVER forget that.

We all have a voice. Perhaps its time to start writing to our legislators and demand action.

Technically you are correct, but did the public outcry over the last fare increase have any effect?

The MTA directors do not stand for election. Your state assemblyman, state senator and governor do.

Last year was not an election year so they were immune to the impact. This is the year to make your views known to your state legislators. Demand that they take a stand regarding the MTA. In 2006, you'll have a chance to get to the guy who forestalled fare increases in the interest of his own re-election in 2004, Gov. George Pataki.

LI Loco wrote:The MTA directors do not stand for election. Your state assemblyman, state senator and governor do.

Last year was not an election year so they were immune to the impact. This is the year to make your views known to your state legislators. Demand that they take a stand regarding the MTA. In 2006, you'll have a chance to get to the guy who forestalled fare increases in the interest of his own re-election in 2004, Gov. George Pataki.

You have a good point.

<i>The MTA is a state agency. Even though it has been set up as an authority with its own board of directors and bonding authority, it is ultimately beholden to the people through our representatives.
</i>

I sure hope so. I do'nt know ANYONE who's in favor of the the PJ yard propsal besides the LIRR/MTA. What's really stupid is it'll probbably cost more than electrifying the PJ line, which the surrounding area and riders DO want.

Then again, I really don't get what motivates planning at the MTA at all. They seem perpetually unable to look beyond the next year, and generally make decisions that have no rational basis, and will stick with them even after it's blindingly obvious how stupid they are. Afterall, this is the agency that gave us the DM-30, the 75 foot subway car, the multimillion dollar stub extensions to the subway, The terminal below the underutilized terminal, the Hillside overruns, 1 car platforms at the busiest station on the OB line, the one electric train a day from East Williston, a complete inability to transfer best practices between agencies, the 20 year 'temporary' service change, the $1.35 token....

It's sad, but the replacement for Moses is a logjam that's turning out in a lot of ways to be just as bad for transportation in the area overall...

Afterall, this is the agency that gave us the DM-30, the 75 foot subway car, the multimillion dollar stub extensions to the subway, The terminal below the underutilized terminal, the Hillside overruns, 1 car platforms at the busiest station on the OB line, the one electric train a day from East Williston, a complete inability to transfer best practices between agencies, the 20 year 'temporary' service change, the $1.35 token....

Forgive my ignorance, but I'm unsure of what many of these things are or why they're possibly "bad." What's wrong with 75 foot subway cars? What were the stub extensions, the terminal, and the 20 year service change?

Thanks in advance for satisfying my curiosity!

-- Dave

There's not a whole lot wrong with the "75' subway car". Alot of people seem to be very critical of it though.

-Tom

Actually, there *are* a lot of problems with them - they had to clearence check the ENTIRE IND/BMT division when the first few arrived, fix a few tunnels, etc. And there's places they can't go to, anyway.

There's two operational problems with them, too:

* The end doors are locked. This is a security issue, especially late night. No way to 'move to another car'

* There are fewer side doors per train. This is because a 75 foot car train has fewer cars. The result is that stops are longer in places where high exchanges of passengers occur.

The R-143 and R-160 orders have gone back to shorter cars as a result. Apprently, even the NYCTA seems to think that 75 footers aren't do great.

Have the LIRR and NYCTA ever exchanged ideas on shoe beam maintenance? They use pretty much the same shoe beam setup, and I know the NYCTA is really really picky about the way they maintain them, the wood and it's treatment, etc. The result is they have very few failures of shoe beams today.

Oh yes, the 20 year rerouting was the Manhattan Bridge mess (IMHO, it should have been replaced, it's an inherently flawed design anyway), the stub extension was the millions spent on the 63rd st tunnel, just to go one extra stop in Queens (though, didn't they recently do an extension to some other line?). The terminal referrs to the MTA's insane desire to build a whole sepperate terminal under GCT, even though there's little reason why part of the lower level of GCT can't be reconfigured for LIRR trains. I can't imagine what the costs to excavate below GCT and the existing tracks will be like - it's an engineering nightmare between the trainshed, Met Life building, and existing GCT, and there's really little reason to do it if it can at all be avoided, and I've yet to hear a real reason (i.e., something that actually makes sense) why it needs to be done - there's plenty of capacity at GCT as it is now, and it shouldn't be too hard to chop 8 tracks off from MN and hand them to the LIRR. I can't imagine MN would miss 8 tracks, and I can't imagine it would be harder to reconfigure part of the lower level for LIRR trains and their own tunnel, than it would be to tunnel below the entire GCT complex.

Of course, why not simply build the terminal east of GCT like the MTA's origional plan from the 60's was anyway. Actually, I don't see why the MTA isn't designing ESA and the 2nd ave line together - why not make GCT/42nd street an intermediate stop on ESA, then run the LIRR below the 2nd ave line* all the way to wall street (if straight enough, this could be 40 - 60mph track, thus really a fast way down), thus saving the cost of another tunnel for lower manhattan access, not to mention whatever the Flatbush Ave line will need upgradewise...

The only thing I see is it wouldn't put the LIRR near GCT, but under 2nd ave. Big whoop. Why is the MTA (Pataki?) so fixated on the LIRR to GCT in the first place? Is there *really* that many LIRR<-> MN cross commuters? In any case, a tunnel could connect the two, and it wouldn't be very long - nowhere near as long as the 42nd street A/C/E to everything else tunnel, and on top of that, it'd have the 2nd ave subway over it anyway...

*Of course, if not for the FRA, the two could concieveably share trackage, thus significantly cutting costs. There's pretty much zero technical reason why this can't be done, and the LIRR did run joint services in the eraly 1900's anyway.

Nasadowsk,

I think your idea is real good as well as cost effictive, but the only cost effictiveness the MTA knows is "service cuts &/ fare hikes"

also i was in GCT last winter and i noticed that it has some 100 + tracks, is this true?

if so there definitly is room for the LIRR to share whats currently in GCT, with absolutly no need to escavate below GCT.

if there is however a need to escavate a seprate level for the LIRR then running it from GCT to Wall st or Ex. WTC site, would be a good idea.

also, whats the condition of the old NYC high line is the viaduct strong enough for trains to be ran, is still intace from Penn sta to lower mannhattan. if so why can that be used as a down town stop for the LIRR.
(i dont know much bout the condition of the highline today, tho i think its not so good. )

I don't think the actual count is 100 tracks, but the numbering goes over 100. A lot are OOS because they're passageways, etc. DRN should know.

Ok - now, isn't there also a super secret power station lower level of GCT that we all know about but aren't supposed to know about and nobody really knows about it anyway? I'm wondering if that is really where the MTA wants to stick the LIRR terminal, in which case , it would actually make sense. But the MTA is really tight about details about anything...

The high line is effectively a gonner. There's quite a few legal issues surrounding use of it for ANYTHING, letalone a rail line. Among other things, Conrail never abandoned it (they thought they did, though), yet the line got built over. Because Conrail never contested this construction, and it was in place a long time, I believe a lot of it actually is legal (effectively, Conrail never protected their assets, thus they gave them up in a sense. This is why companies go bonkers over trademark issues - they can lose their trademark if it is not enforced).

And, it's falling apart.

As for LIRR to downtown via 2nd ave? They're going to have to tunnel anyway, and if it's cut and cover, the extra cost of another 2 tracks might not be much at all. Even if it's a 40mph line (and if it's straight, there's really no reason it can't be 60 or even 80), the time to get from 42nd street to Wall Street by train wouldn't be much, and it'd be faster than getting off at GCT and taking a subway. I bet you could relieve a LOT of traffic on the subway, which would mean also that local traffic would be better served by the east side lines - ever try using the east side IRT durring rush hour?

Besides, it'd be funky to see LIRR trains running on the 'express' tracks of a subway line

BTW, I believe the MTA did in fact consider mixed operations when the M-1s were ordered, I recall reading that they were considering a plan where the LIRR would go to Wall Street via the A/C/E trackage.

"also, whats the condition of the old NYC high line is the viaduct strong enough for trains to be ran, is still intace from Penn sta to lower mannhattan"

I've been told it is actually strong enough to hold trains. And it makes sense. Think about what the thing was built for.

Also, it runs to about Chirstopher St. From there they could probably build a new elevated section along or above West Side Highway.

I always thought though that the high line should be used as a 7 extension to downtown, and LIRR(along with MN and NJT) could go downtown via a tunnel under West Side Highway.

The High line is so tangled in legal potholes due to Conrail's bumbling of it, that there's really no way you'll see rail service on it ever again. Heck, I don't even think the linear park proposed will happen. my guess is sooner or later, it will in fact be torn down, and probbably after a chunk collapses and kills someone, at which point it'll be pretty hard to convince anyone that it's useful for *anything*

The two weekly newspapers here on the North Fork covered the issue about possible closing of the Greenport Branch.

The Traveler-Watchman has the story on their front page.

Here is the link.

www.travelerwatchman.com


Ken

Hey Nas: As usual your ideas are very interesting. But a couple of questions:

First you said something about LIRR and NYC Subway not sharing trackage because of FRA. What's the story there? Similar sharing is done in Chicago where Metra Electric shares tracks with the Chicago,South Shore & South Bend RR.

Second: re: the idea of LIRR trains using NYC Subway express tracks. Well, LIRR electric cars are 85 feet long. And you mentioned earlier that those 75 ft. cars just barely fit in the tunnels. So to do this, LIRR would have to order a small fleet of shorter (60 ft?) cars just for the subway service.

You're probably right about the Manhattan bridge; the engineering community has said it's a destructive structural design. And does anyone actually know why MTA doesn't want to use the existing lower level of GCT for LIRR? Your right; excavating yet another lower level for tracks would be an expensive nightmare. This from an agency talking about cutting service and shutting down branches?

Yet, despite it all, I still think MTA runs a better operation than NJ Transit, SEPTA, or MBTA.

Thumbing through the LIRR's 2006 - 2009 operating plan, the abandonments are listed.

The Montauk is NOT elimanation of service to on the east end of the island, but rather the redundant and disused connection between Jamacia and LI City.

For the remaining lines: I calculated the last collumn, it is simply the cost saved in dollars divided by the number of riders.

GP = Ronkonkoma -> Greenport, with the disclaimer: "This proposal would result in the suspension of all service on the Greenport to Ronkonkoma Branch and abandonment of the branch line. Infrastructure material would be removed and salvaged. The exception is that track material between Ronkonkoma and Yaphank will remain in order to permit future expansion of MU service."

I don't get why the heck they think extending electric service to Yaphank is such a great idea - the Port Jefferson line would be a MUCH better place to start!

At the cost of the Greenport scoot, Vs the ridership, it's not hard to see what the outcome will be - there's just no riders. 1.7 million a year to run a line with 200 daily riders just isn't cost effective.

West Hempstead? It's almost the same amount of money, but moves more than 10X as many people. But it's a bizzare line and ripe for killing too, though it's actually the most cost effective of all three lines, on a dollars per passenger bassis.

Oyster Bay? I've said it before and I'll say it again - this line is WAY under it's potential ridership, mostly because it sucks. It's considerably more expensive than West Hempstead is to run (50% more), but it also has much more track and many more stations.