|
|
| Re: LIRR East Side Access (256237) | |
 |
|
| Home > SubChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
|
Page 5 of 9 |
||
|
| (256755) | |
Re: LIRR East Side Access |
|
|
Posted by ALSTOM R160A on Tue May 23 00:24:50 2006, in response to Re: LIRR East Side Access, posted by J trainloco on Mon May 22 23:37:52 2006. MTA now owns those slots. Meaning that they could put whatever they wanted there.First off, they don't own them, they're leased to the MTA from Amtrak, specifically for LIRR. And let's say they could put MNRR in there...that in turn would reduce the number of LIRR slots. |
|
|
| (256756) | |
Re: NYP GAPS (Was: Re: LIRR East Side Access |
|
|
Posted by Nilet on Tue May 23 00:25:31 2006, in response to Re: NYP GAPS (Was: Re: LIRR East Side Access, posted by J trainloco on Tue May 23 00:22:57 2006. Not really. Are there any gaps the length of an entire married pair? Couldn't one supply the other? |
|
|
| (256757) | |
Re: LIRR East Side Access |
|
|
Posted by WillD on Tue May 23 00:26:04 2006, in response to Re: LIRR East Side Access, posted by Olog-hai on Tue May 23 00:02:28 2006. No it doesn't. Here's the whole passage from page 52 of the Second Edition:"Its transportation capacity was enormous. In the 1920's, when the long haul passenger train was at its zenith and the Twentieth Century Limited often ran in three to six sections, New York Central and New Haven Traffic in and out of the terminal averaged almost 500 daily trains and 134,000 passngers. On one record day 800 trains, aggregating over 6000 cars and carrying more than 166,000 passengers, arrived or left Grand Central. |
|
|
(Sponsored) |
iPhone 6 (4.7 Inch) Premium PU Leather Wallet Case - Red w/ Floral Interior - by Notch-It |
|
| (256758) | |
Re: LIRR East Side Access |
|
|
Posted by WillD on Tue May 23 00:29:15 2006, in response to Re: LIRR East Side Access, posted by J trainloco on Tue May 23 00:10:30 2006. You don't need a new east river tunnel.Yes, yes you do. Those tunnels are used by NJT, LIRR, and Amtrak and despite there being four of them they're nearly as crowded as the Hudson Tubes are. |
|
|
| (256759) | |
Re: LIRR East Side Access |
|
|
Posted by ALSTOM R160A on Tue May 23 00:30:40 2006, in response to Re: LIRR East Side Access, posted by J trainloco on Tue May 23 00:22:05 2006. Why is it billions more than necessary? They need to expand LIRR capacity in Manhattan. It costs money to do things, but ESA will certainly be appreciated by many. On a side note, MNRR already has the capacity it needs. |
|
|
| (256760) | |
Re: LIRR East Side Access |
|
|
Posted by J trainloco on Tue May 23 00:31:57 2006, in response to Re: LIRR East Side Access, posted by ALSTOM R160A on Tue May 23 00:20:39 2006. Building more capacity at NYP? How would that be far cheaper?The lack of an expensive tunnel. I thought that was a given. First off, Amtrak owns Penn Station so you can't just build on that. Ugh. Yes, you can. You can get permission to build on Amtrak's property. It is not a law of physics that you can't build on property you do not own. I believe that the Chrysler Building and the land under the Chrysler Building are owned by 2 different entities. That's just one example of building on someone else's property. They could construct a new adjacent station like NJT is doing for ARC, Exactly! and the whole point of ESA is: 1) Add LIRR Capacity in Manhattan Which is done far more cheaply by expanding NYP 2) Bring LIRR passengers directly to the East Side. Why should money be wasted on this? At the same time, trackage exists to do the same for MNRR, thus doing it cheaper and you are against it! There's no reason to spend billions to bring LIRR to the east side if you don't think there's a reason to bring MNRR to NYP for a fraction of the cost. All of this is exacerbated by the fact that now the governor wants to bring LIRR to Lower Manhattan as well. If that does happen, ESA will be the biggest waste of money on a rail transit project we've ever seen. |
|
|
| (256761) | |
Re: LIRR East Side Access |
|
|
Posted by J trainloco on Tue May 23 00:35:07 2006, in response to Re: LIRR East Side Access, posted by ALSTOM R160A on Tue May 23 00:23:41 2006. You can't exactly do that...Amtrak owns those tunnels.I addressed that in another post. They're not going to allow MTA to disrupt their service to build an extension like that when they have a viable alternative such as ESA which doesn't disturb Amtrak operations. You can build a diverge without disruption to Amtrak ops. MTA build a diverge from a tunnel that required relocation of tracks without total disruption of their service on QB. You could do the same here (and here, we only need to build a diverge from one set of tunnels). |
|
|
| (256762) | |
Re: LIRR East Side Access |
|
|
Posted by J trainloco on Tue May 23 00:36:51 2006, in response to Re: LIRR East Side Access, posted by ALSTOM R160A on Tue May 23 00:24:50 2006. First off, they don't own them, they're leased to the MTA from Amtrak, specifically for LIRR. And let's say they could put MNRR in there...that in turn would reduce the number of LIRR slots.Which should be done. I've also stated in another post that if MNRR can send more trains down the West Side and over Hell-Gate then maybe they could add another track against Peak direction on Park Avenue, freeing up more space in GCT and giving some of their GCT berths to LIRR. |
|
|
| (256763) | |
Re: NYP GAPS (Was: Re: LIRR East Side Access |
|
|
Posted by J trainloco on Tue May 23 00:37:17 2006, in response to Re: NYP GAPS (Was: Re: LIRR East Side Access, posted by Nilet on Tue May 23 00:25:31 2006. I've been told gaps are as much as 600'. |
|
|
| (256764) | |
Re: LIRR East Side Access |
|
|
Posted by KLCS on Tue May 23 00:38:18 2006, in response to Re: LIRR East Side Access, posted by J trainloco on Mon May 22 23:35:32 2006. You talk about expanding Penn Station tracks and platforms . If you expand it, you run into the problem of the TUNNELS running at capacity (East River tunnels is maxed out with LIRR, Amtrak, Amtrak deadhead, NJT deadhead runs), North River(Hudson tubes) with NJT and Amtrak.So, the most cost efficient way to get more trains into Manhattan was to use the already built 63rd Street tunnels and extend the tunnels to a third level of Grand Central. There was a mention of dwell times in Penn. Although many trains, during the Peak) go to the yard for midday storage, many trains during the peak enter Penn, reverse and leave (both LIRR and NJT). I guess the term is many trains do not (in subway terms) relay past Penn. If NJT more NJT trains during the Peak "relayed" past Penn, it would eat into LIRR slots under the East River. Trains can't just enter and leave. They must have seats turned around (NJT), and FRA brake tests (takes some time) and other routines that must be done by the crew before departure. Plus, there are hordes of people getting on and off. The LIRR is the largest commuter line in the states and I'm not saying ESA will be cheap, it will cost a lot of money (quite a few billion), and I'm not saying that it should have been the highest priority (thought SAS should have), but you've got mostly 10-12 car 85 foot trains carrying hundreds of thouands of people daily on the LIRR into Penn. So since the island is growing, unless telecommuting becomes big, I think expansion is necessary through ESA, and other means. |
|
|
| (256765) | |
Re: LIRR East Side Access |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Tue May 23 00:39:13 2006, in response to Re: LIRR East Side Access, posted by J trainloco on Mon May 22 23:48:10 2006. Actually, it does. LIRR could not expect to sunbstantially increase service with only four total tracks coming into Manhattan. With all due respect to the Lion, LIRR is responding to customer demands for an East Side connection. So in that sense, yes LIRR does care where the customers end up.Your alternative is not realistic. |
|
|
| (256766) | |
Re: LIRR East Side Access |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Tue May 23 00:41:24 2006, in response to Re: LIRR East Side Access, posted by J trainloco on Tue May 23 00:31:57 2006. "Ugh. Yes, you can. You can get permission to build on Amtrak's property. It is not a law of physics that you can't build on property you do not own"That opinion comes from your having zero experience in interagency politics (not to mention federal-state-city relations). Physics isn't the issue here - politics, turf and legal liability are. |
|
|
| (256767) | |
Re: LIRR East Side Access |
|
|
Posted by J trainloco on Tue May 23 00:42:00 2006, in response to Re: LIRR East Side Access, posted by WillD on Tue May 23 00:29:15 2006. Yes, yes you do. Those tunnels are used by NJT, LIRR, and Amtrak and despite there being four of them they're nearly as crowded as the Hudson Tubes are.If LIRR has space on the 4 tracks between Jamaica and Woodside, what peak direction traffic joins in that cuts capacity? NJT is running against the peak. Hom many trains is Amtrak putting through at that time of the morning going into Penn from points north? And in the afternoon? |
|
|
| (256768) | |
Re: LIRR East Side Access |
|
|
Posted by J trainloco on Tue May 23 00:43:44 2006, in response to Re: LIRR East Side Access, posted by ALSTOM R160A on Tue May 23 00:30:40 2006. Why is it billions more than necessary?Because if all this project is doing is adding terminal capacity, you can do that by just adding extra space at NYP and not waste money digging new tunnels. Money is not plentiful at MTA, in case you haven't heard. |
|
|
| (256769) | |
Re: LIRR East Side Access |
|
|
Posted by ALSTOM R160A on Tue May 23 00:44:47 2006, in response to Re: LIRR East Side Access, posted by J trainloco on Tue May 23 00:31:57 2006. The lack of an expensive tunnel. I thought that was a given.It isn't a given...the West of Hudson tunnels are at capacity as well! Ugh. Yes, you can. You can get permission to build on Amtrak's property. It is not a law of physics that you can't build on property you do not own. I believe that the Chrysler Building and the land under the Chrysler Building are owned by 2 different entities. That's just one example of building on someone else's property. That didn't involve massive delays in train service to unrelated lines that have no financial gain from one another. Why should money be wasted on this? At the same time, trackage exists to do the same for MNRR, thus doing it cheaper and you are against it! There's no reason to spend billions to bring LIRR to the east side if you don't think there's a reason to bring MNRR to NYP for a fraction of the cost. I'm against it because it doesn't increase capacity of MNRR in Manhattan. ESA increases LIRR capacity without having to modify a station owned by another entity, build a new tunnel to get to those new tracks/adjacent station, and has the added advantage of bringing some LIRR riders to the east side of Manhattan. It's an added advantage...one of its two main purposes, probably the more important one being the added capacity. |
|
|
| (256771) | |
Re: LIRR East Side Access |
|
|
Posted by KLCS on Tue May 23 00:45:20 2006, in response to Re: LIRR East Side Access, posted by J trainloco on Mon May 22 23:31:20 2006. MNCR seems to run trains with 10 car MU's max. Possible to have maybe 12 car MU sets? Will there be enough power? |
|
|
| (256772) | |
Re: LIRR East Side Access |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Tue May 23 00:45:35 2006, in response to Re: LIRR East Side Access, posted by J trainloco on Tue May 23 00:35:07 2006. "You can build a diverge without disruption to Amtrak ops"I think Amtrak gets a vote on that. Guess which way they'd vote? Besides, you'd end up spending more money on your diverging tunnel than by connecting the existing 63rd St tunnel, already paid for, to Grand Central. Right now the cost of that tunnel from Sunnyside Yard (not counting route connection costs in the Yard) all the way to 2nd Av (not including tracks, signaling and power) is zero. |
|
|
| (256773) | |
Re: LIRR East Side Access |
|
|
Posted by ALSTOM R160A on Tue May 23 00:46:33 2006, in response to Re: LIRR East Side Access, posted by J trainloco on Tue May 23 00:35:07 2006. If you're going to modify railroad tunnels built years and years ago, you're going to need to disrupt service. This isn't the subway...there's FRA regs involved. And this all requires Amtrak to have their own engineers there (more $$$) to protect their current property, if they let this happen in the first place. |
|
|
| (256774) | |
Re: LIRR East Side Access |
|
|
Posted by ALSTOM R160A on Tue May 23 00:47:59 2006, in response to Re: LIRR East Side Access, posted by J trainloco on Tue May 23 00:36:51 2006. So now you want to put MNRR in Penn and also put LIRR in GCT? And why do we need to free up space in GCT, there's enough space for MNRR there. And you can't exactly run LIRR trains to the current GCT tracks...let's not get started on the incompatible third rail types. |
|
|
| (256776) | |
Re: LIRR East Side Access |
|
|
Posted by KLCS on Tue May 23 00:49:15 2006, in response to Re: LIRR East Side Access, posted by Olog-hai on Tue May 23 00:00:26 2006. Yeah, it's a completely stupid mess. |
|
|
| (256777) | |
Re: LIRR East Side Access |
|
|
Posted by ALSTOM R160A on Tue May 23 00:50:46 2006, in response to Re: LIRR East Side Access, posted by J trainloco on Tue May 23 00:42:00 2006. Sunnyside yard traffic from NJT and Amtrak, Amtrak trains from the NEC, LIRR trains, etc. |
|
|
| (256778) | |
Re: LIRR East Side Access |
|
|
Posted by ALSTOM R160A on Tue May 23 00:52:40 2006, in response to Re: LIRR East Side Access, posted by J trainloco on Tue May 23 00:43:44 2006. We've already negated adding terminal capacity by adding extra space at NYP, because:1) Penn Station is Amtrak (Federally Owned) and city-state-federal relationships aren't exactly the easiest thing to deal with. I'm not saying it's not possible to gain permission, but it's a lot easier when you own the property you're building on.....MUCH easier. and 2) The current tunnels are already at capacity so you'd have to add additional tunnels anyway. |
|
|
| (256779) | |
Re: LIRR East Side Access |
|
|
Posted by WillD on Tue May 23 00:56:15 2006, in response to Re: LIRR East Side Access, posted by J trainloco on Tue May 23 00:31:57 2006. The lack of an expensive tunnel. I thought that was a given.You're not going to get around that at NYP. The LIRR needs a new tunnel under the East River if they are to increase terminal space and thus trains per hour into Manhattan. Ugh. Yes, you can. You can get permission to build on Amtrak's property. It is not a law of physics that you can't build on property you do not own. In addition to the bureaucratic hurdles which Dan laid out and which as you note are not insurmountable it would be difficult from a structural engineering approach to add platforms at NYP. You'd be doing a fairly shallow excavation next to a 100 year old structure which may well have an unknown weakness or problem which could lead to a structural failure. As you say they could add platforms in a separate deep bored cavern under or adjacent to NYP as NJT plans to do, but you really wouldn't see any savings there. You'd be paying for the tunneling in Queens, a new tunnel under the East River, and then the boring across Manhattan to reach that terminal cavern, which itself would have to be constructed. This is likely almost the same thing that'd be done for the ESA terminal, but in that case there is no tunnel under the river to build since that was done in the late 1960s. So not only is it cheaper to build to GCT it also provides those commuters with a separate terminal and a choice in destinations. Thus: Why should money be wasted on this? At the same time, trackage exists to do the same for MNRR, thus doing it cheaper and you are against it! There's no reason to spend billions to bring LIRR to the east side if you don't think there's a reason to bring MNRR to NYP for a fraction of the cost. It isn't wasted money, it is money saved when compared to building a station adjacent to NYP. And while it'd be nice for the MTA to bring MN into NYP it's very possible that the incompatibilities and the scarcity platform slots (remember, I said I think NJT and Amtrak are constrained by the Hudson tubes) would make the service too difficult to run for what benefit it'd provide. I'd imagine you'd only be looking at maybe 4 to 5 peak hour trains a day into NYP, and does that really justify the cost to bring the MTA into Amtrak and NJT's side of NYP? Maybe after ESA is implemented the MTA will lean on the LIRR to give up a half dozen peak hour slots and they'll work with Amtrak to implement through service into NYP via Coop City and such on an all day basis (presuming that during peak hours NH line trains could fit into NYP with few problems), but until then we're pretty well SOL. That or else pull off a railroading hat-trick and get the MTA, ConnDOT, Amtrak, and NJT to agree to NJT's operation of the ConnDOT Shoreline East service. NJT has the slots through the East River tunnels and NYP, and if ConnDOT were to put up a few more cars and locomotives NJT could simply have a few trains run past Sunnyside to Old Saybrook or New London. All of this is exacerbated by the fact that now the governor wants to bring LIRR to Lower Manhattan as well. If that does happen, ESA will be the biggest waste of money on a rail transit project we've ever seen. Paturkey isn't going to get his choo-choo and Spitzer has come out against it. However, the LIRR into Downtown, along with NJT and MN is a very good idea. Maybe if we can actually find the 10 or so billion dollars to build something like Elias has suggested, but with a tunnel for LIRR to Flatbush of course, then we could get everything (other than the Hudson line, which could now use NYP if NJT withdrew a bit) into Manhattan at one point. The Harlem and New Haven Lines could come across the Hell Gate with dual voltage equipment and run right into either NYP or this Downtown Transit Terminal. |
|
|
| (256780) | |
Re: LIRR East Side Access |
|
|
Posted by KLCS on Tue May 23 00:57:44 2006, in response to Re: LIRR East Side Access, posted by J trainloco on Tue May 23 00:42:00 2006. The Port Washington Branch trains come in at HAROLD. It's about 7 tph peak from that branch. Also Amtrak (there is service about every two hours from north, haven't hecked schedule) and Amtrak deadheads from Sunnyside yard (don't know the number, but just to give you a picture, there is one or more regional and one express to south every hour, plus you have keystones, Empire, and long distance)and possibly some NJT deadheads. But many NJT and Amtrak deadheads take capacity from the reverse peak direction, thus probabaly only letting Peak Direction service have two tunnels into Manhattan.ESA will also allow more reverse peak service to keep up with demand. |
|
|
| (256781) | |
Re: LIRR East Side Access |
|
|
Posted by KLCS on Tue May 23 00:59:35 2006, in response to Re: LIRR East Side Access, posted by WillD on Tue May 23 00:26:04 2006. Will, I've been trying to find this book, second edition. Any chance where i can find it new (but not from publisher)? |
|
|
| (256783) | |
Re: LIRR East Side Access |
|
|
Posted by J trainloco on Tue May 23 01:14:23 2006, in response to Re: LIRR East Side Access, posted by KLCS on Tue May 23 00:38:18 2006. You talk about expanding Penn Station tracks and platforms . If you expand it, you run into the problem of the TUNNELS running at capacity (East River tunnels is maxed out with LIRR, Amtrak, Amtrak deadhead, NJT deadhead runs), North River(Hudson tubes) with NJT and Amtrak.This continues to be brought up. I don't have a full train schedule sitting in front of me, and I can't see what's dead heading into Queens on the part of NJT and Amtrak. Looking at Amtrak, I can see the following trains that could impact AM service into NYP from queens: Acela Express 2151, arriving at NYP at 845am. Regional 141, arriving at NYP at 920am. The schedule I found lists only these 2 trains heading southbound into Penn at peak time. Even if there are 2 more I missed, that's 4 trains, and both of the trains that I found were at the tail end of the rush hour period. NJT trains should be going against the peak, so they shouldn't factor into what can go into NYP (unless the east river tunnels are operated like MNRR's Park ave tunnel. Are they?) from the East side. How much space does that leave? My look at LIRR tables indicates that there are 14 trains into NYP between 6-7, 20 between 7-8, 15 between 8 and 9 (16 if you count the Amtrak train I listed above) & between 9 and 10 (ditto for the 16 again). Assuming that you could run trains every 4 minutes on a stretch of track that means 15tph, and a total of 30 tph on 2 tracks. LIRR runs no more than 20 tph, at a time when there shouldn't be too many other trains competing for eastbound space. So, you could add an extra 5-6 trains during that time period, and I'm leaving allowance for any trains I may have not accounted for. There should be room in the East River tubes, unless my anaylsis is wrong somewhere (if so, please enlighten me.) The LIRR is the largest commuter line in the states and I'm not saying ESA will be cheap, it will cost a lot of money (quite a few billion), and I'm not saying that it should have been the highest priority (thought SAS should have), but you've got mostly 10-12 car 85 foot trains carrying hundreds of thouands of people daily on the LIRR into Penn. So since the island is growing, unless telecommuting becomes big, I think expansion is necessary through ESA, and other means. ESA will cost a lot of money at a time when there's need to expand subway routes. The best parts of ESA are this: 1. it will add crowds to the Lexington Av line when sending money to SAS instead would have had the opposite effect. 2. With talk of building a commuter rail tunnel from brooklyn to Lower manhattan, MTA should've sat tight, and tried to use the funds provided for such a link to send trains to Lower manhattan instead of rushing ahead with ESA. |
|
|
| (256784) | |
Re: LIRR East Side Access |
|
|
Posted by J trainloco on Tue May 23 01:15:59 2006, in response to Re: LIRR East Side Access, posted by RonInBayside on Tue May 23 00:41:24 2006. That opinion comes from your having zero experience in interagency politics (not to mention federal-state-city relations). Physics isn't the issue here - politics, turf and legal liability are.Ron, you're saying that the ineptitude of government agencies to work together is a reason to justify the unnecessary spending of billions. That's unacceptable. |
|
|
| (256785) | |
Re: LIRR East Side Access |
|
|
Posted by ALSTOM R160A on Tue May 23 01:20:51 2006, in response to Re: LIRR East Side Access, posted by J trainloco on Tue May 23 01:14:23 2006. With regards to using the money for SAS, that wasn't even considered. There's plenty of money going to SAS.With regards to tunnel capacity, there are plenty of deadheads and other trains that you don't see on the schedule. Just looking at a recent MNRR Hudson line employee schedule, there are a ton of trains that go into GCT during the day that aren't listed on your normal timetable. |
|
|
| (256786) | |
Re: LIRR East Side Access |
|
|
Posted by WillD on Tue May 23 01:22:17 2006, in response to Re: LIRR East Side Access, posted by KLCS on Tue May 23 00:59:35 2006. Amazon.com has a few copies for sale at a very low price. I bought my copy two years back at the SEPTA gift shop for something around 50 dollars, but had seen it a few weeks before that at a hobby store in Doylestown, PA. I guess you might be able to find it at a hobby shop, or maybe a first edition copy at a used bookstore, but beyond that I really don't know. |
|
|
| (256787) | |
Re: LIRR East Side Access |
|
|
Posted by J trainloco on Tue May 23 01:22:29 2006, in response to Re: LIRR East Side Access, posted by ALSTOM R160A on Tue May 23 00:44:47 2006. ...It isn't a given...The given in question is that boring tunnel is more expensive than just adding a new terminal space. That didn't involve massive delays in train service to unrelated lines that have no financial gain from one another. Who said anything about massive delays? The work can be done without massive delays. I'm against it because it doesn't increase capacity of MNRR in Manhattan. ESA increases LIRR capacity without having to modify a station owned by another entity, build a new tunnel to get to those new tracks/adjacent station, and has the added advantage of bringing some LIRR riders to the east side of Manhattan. It's an added advantage...one of its two main purposes, probably the more important one being the added capacity. You're stance on the matter still baffles me. Capacity can be increased with permission to expand on Amtrak property for far less. Additionally, building a new terminal structure at NYP could increase Capacity for MNRR if MNRR used that new track space (Much as NJT wants to), and this could also be done for a fraction of the cost. Money does not grow on trees. If you need to add capacity, so so with the cheapest possible alternative and then use your savings to contribute toward other necessary projects. |
|
|
| (256788) | |
Re: LIRR East Side Access |
|
|
Posted by J trainloco on Tue May 23 01:23:57 2006, in response to Re: LIRR East Side Access, posted by RonInBayside on Tue May 23 00:45:35 2006. Besides, you'd end up spending more money on your diverging tunnel than by connecting the existing 63rd St tunnel, already paid for, to Grand Central.No, you wouldnt. |
|
|
| (256789) | |
Re: LIRR East Side Access |
|
|
Posted by ALSTOM R160A on Tue May 23 01:24:19 2006, in response to Re: LIRR East Side Access, posted by J trainloco on Tue May 23 01:15:59 2006. Ron, you're saying that the ineptitude of government agencies to work together is a reason to justify the unnecessary spending of billions. That's unacceptable.No, he's saying that it's physically possible to make your proposed extension, but political and legal hurdles make it practically impossible, and makes much more sense to go to GCT than do nothing at all. And in addition you're getting people to the east side and adding capacity to the LIRR. All very worthwhile. |
|
|
| (256790) | |
Re: LIRR East Side Access |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Tue May 23 01:24:58 2006, in response to Re: LIRR East Side Access, posted by WillD on Tue May 23 00:26:04 2006. Metro-North has 250,000 daily riders . . . and are you sure they ain't counting the West-of-Hudsdon trips that go to Hoboken? They're counted as Metro-North too. The page on the MTA website doesn't say 250K into GCT in particular. |
|
|
| (256791) | |
Re: LIRR East Side Access |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Tue May 23 01:27:02 2006, in response to Re: LIRR East Side Access, posted by Terrapin Station on Mon May 22 22:56:02 2006. S GCT-TSQ pwnz yu0 |
|
|
| (256792) | |
Re: LIRR East Side Access |
|
|
Posted by KLCS on Tue May 23 01:27:35 2006, in response to Re: LIRR East Side Access, posted by WillD on Tue May 23 00:56:15 2006. Will brought up a very good point about the platforms being very shallow and close to a 100 year old structure. The structural engineering will be difficult and the construction disruptive. |
|
|
| (256793) | |
Re: LIRR East Side Access |
|
|
Posted by ALSTOM R160A on Tue May 23 01:28:07 2006, in response to Re: LIRR East Side Access, posted by J trainloco on Tue May 23 01:22:29 2006. Who said anything about massive delays? The work can be done without massive delays. Oh really, you're going to make holes in tunnels, connect tracks, etc. in already at-capacity tunnels without disrupting service? Sure. You're stance on the matter still baffles me. Capacity can be increased with permission to expand on Amtrak property for far less. Additionally, building a new terminal structure at NYP could increase Capacity for MNRR if MNRR used that new track space (Much as NJT wants to), and this could also be done for a fraction of the cost. Money does not grow on trees. If you need to add capacity, so so with the cheapest possible alternative and then use your savings to contribute toward other necessary projects. You still don't get it, the tunnels leading into Penn are already at capacity, so new tunnels will have to be built costing more than boring through an already existing tunnel at 63rd street! |
|
|
| (256794) | |
Re: LIRR East Side Access |
|
|
Posted by ALSTOM R160A on Tue May 23 01:28:58 2006, in response to Re: LIRR East Side Access, posted by J trainloco on Tue May 23 01:23:57 2006. And how is that? Do you know the costs of digging in one are of Manhattan versus another or different utility requirements and such? |
|
|
| (256795) | |
Re: LIRR East Side Access |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Tue May 23 01:29:44 2006, in response to Re: LIRR East Side Access, posted by J trainloco on Mon May 22 23:19:31 2006. Why do any LIRR trips need to go to GCT?Silly rabbit; they ain't taking away any Metro-North station platforms for that.  |
|
|
| (256796) | |
Re: LIRR East Side Access |
|
|
Posted by ALSTOM R160A on Tue May 23 01:29:58 2006, in response to Re: LIRR East Side Access, posted by KLCS on Tue May 23 01:27:35 2006. Gotta agree here. And even though GCT is old, the new caverns do not disrupt the current structure by going underneath it. |
|
|
| (256797) | |
Re: LIRR East Side Access |
|
|
Posted by ALSTOM R160A on Tue May 23 01:30:39 2006, in response to Re: LIRR East Side Access, posted by Olog-hai on Tue May 23 01:29:44 2006. I don't think he was thinking that. |
|
|
| (256798) | |
Re: LIRR East Side Access |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Tue May 23 01:31:26 2006, in response to Re: LIRR East Side Access, posted by ALSTOM R160A on Tue May 23 01:30:39 2006. How so? It's cheaper to do the sixty-thurd street thingy than try and build new East River tunnels and double-expand Penn. |
|
|
| (256799) | |
Re: LIRR East Side Access |
|
|
Posted by KLCS on Tue May 23 01:33:04 2006, in response to Re: LIRR East Side Access, posted by J trainloco on Tue May 23 01:14:23 2006. If you used the city terminal schedule, it does not show express trains that do not stop at Jamaica.The NJT reverse deadheads are a substantial number. Also, I'm not looking at it now, but take a look at the south of New York to Washington Amtrak schedule (may include south long distance trains)and the Empire service. All these trains deadhead too and from Sunnyside. |
|
|
| (256800) | |
Re: LIRR East Side Access |
|
|
Posted by ALSTOM R160A on Tue May 23 01:33:09 2006, in response to Re: LIRR East Side Access, posted by Olog-hai on Tue May 23 01:31:26 2006. You're not getting what I said at all. He didn't understand the need to bring LIRR to GCT at all when he thinks its just easier to expand to Penn. Then you said that it wouldnt be taking anything away from MNRR. But he already understood that. |
|
|
| (256801) | |
Re: LIRR East Side Access |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Tue May 23 01:33:44 2006, in response to Re: LIRR East Side Access, posted by KLCS on Mon May 22 23:39:16 2006. It's a heavyweight. Most of 'em had six axles . . .And if the FRA keeps making passenger diesels heavier and heavier, we'll need to bring back the A1A-A1A wheel arrangement too . . . |
|
|
| (256802) | |
Re: LIRR East Side Access |
|
|
Posted by J trainloco on Tue May 23 01:33:48 2006, in response to Re: LIRR East Side Access, posted by WillD on Tue May 23 00:56:15 2006. The LIRR needs a new tunnel under the East River if they are to increase terminal space and thus trains per hour into Manhattan.In another post, I provided my basic analysis of the East River tunnels. Until someone provides facts, I will not merely accept that the East River tunnels are 'at capacity'. As such: You don't need a new tunnel under the east River. If someone can Prove otherwise, I will retract my statements. Without that tunnel from queens and under the east River, the project would be substantially cheaper. Paturkey isn't going to get his choo-choo and Spitzer has come out against it. However, the LIRR into Downtown, along with NJT and MN is a very good idea. Maybe if we can actually find the 10 or so billion dollars to build something like Elias has suggested, but with a tunnel for LIRR to Flatbush of course, then we could get everything (other than the Hudson line, which could now use NYP if NJT withdrew a bit) into Manhattan at one point. The Harlem and New Haven Lines could come across the Hell Gate with dual voltage equipment and run right into either NYP or this Downtown Transit Terminal. Most of what I suggest is taking into consideration that we have limited financial resources. I'm just wondering if we can't do a better job allocating these resources. Since some people want a LIRR Flatbush to Lower manhattan link, why not save some ducats by eliminating ESA and just building the Lower Manhattan link. Elias' plan, OTOH is not a fiscal reality. |
|
|
| (256803) | |
Re: LIRR East Side Access |
|
|
Posted by J trainloco on Tue May 23 01:36:37 2006, in response to Re: LIRR East Side Access, posted by ALSTOM R160A on Tue May 23 01:24:19 2006. No, he's saying that it's physically possible to make your proposed extension, but political and legal hurdles make it practically impossible, and makes much more sense to go to GCT than do nothing at all. And in addition you're getting people to the east side and adding capacity to the LIRR. All very worthwhile.Both of you are saying that a cheaper alternative should be accepted because government agencies can't work together. That's a backwards way of thinking. 2 government agencies should be able to work together for the good of the people. |
|
|
| (256804) | |
Re: LIRR East Side Access |
|
|
Posted by ALSTOM R160A on Tue May 23 01:38:43 2006, in response to Re: LIRR East Side Access, posted by J trainloco on Tue May 23 01:33:48 2006. In another post, I provided my basic analysis of the East River tunnels. Until someone provides facts, I will not merely accept that the East River tunnels are 'at capacity'. As such: You don't need a new tunnel under the east River. If someone can Prove otherwise, I will retract my statements.Without that tunnel from queens and under the east River, the project would be substantially cheaper. First off, let's take a look at this post: http://subchat.com/read.asp?Id=256799 Look, none of us here can give you concrete evidence that they are at capacity. Most here do not have access to Penn Station tunnel slots and even if we did we sure as hell wouldn't divulge all that info to the public as it isn't exactly public information. But you can pretty much see that with all the Amtrak, LIRR, NJT trains that use the tunnel in passenger service, as well as all the deadheads that need the tunnels, especially during the peak hours, it's pretty damn close to capacity. And we avoid having to deal with Amtrak's time slots with ESA since we don't have to use Amtrak's tunnels, nor modify old Amtrak tunnels that would require significant structural engineering. It's not so easy to modify something so old without risks, and I doubt Amtrak is willing to take them, especially since it doesn't benefit them at all. |
|
|
| (256805) | |
Re: LIRR East Side Access |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Tue May 23 01:38:57 2006, in response to Re: LIRR East Side Access, posted by ALSTOM R160A on Tue May 23 01:33:09 2006. But he didn't understand that expanding Metro-North to Penn is utterly impossible, nor is expanding LIRR service already there. Does he understand it now?And when LIRR does go into GCT, that will result in 72 tracks to load trains at, over the present-day 67. |
|
|
| (256806) | |
Re: LIRR East Side Access |
|
|
Posted by ALSTOM R160A on Tue May 23 01:41:21 2006, in response to Re: LIRR East Side Access, posted by J trainloco on Tue May 23 01:36:37 2006. Both of you are saying that a cheaper alternative should be accepted because government agencies can't work together. That's a backwards way of thinking. 2 government agencies should be able to work together for the good of the people.I'm not saying that at all. I think it should go to GCT because for one, it increases capacity and two, it brings some riders to the east side. As for it being a backwards way of thinking, sorry, but this is America, and in our capitalist democratic nature, you have to think that way. In a perfect world, yes, government agencies should be able to work together for the good of the people, but that doesn't always happen, and is extremely unlikely in this case. Also, the modification of the very old Penn Station puts forward many structural risks on someone else's property (that being Amtrak), and that wouldn't happen with ESA. |
|
|
| (256807) | |
Re: LIRR East Side Access |
|
|
Posted by ALSTOM R160A on Tue May 23 01:42:24 2006, in response to Re: LIRR East Side Access, posted by Olog-hai on Tue May 23 01:38:57 2006. Actually I think it would be 67 + 8 = 75. And the MNRR tracks would be inaccessible to LIRR and vice versa. |
|
|
|
Page 5 of 9 |
||
