|
|
| Schumer Backs Second LIRR Track in Farmingdale (1144837) | |
 |
|
| Home > SubChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
|
|
Page 1 of 3 |
|
|
|
| (1144842) | |
Re: Schumer Backs Second LIRR Track in Farmingdale |
|
|
Posted by Forest Glen on Thu Mar 15 17:58:41 2012, in response to Schumer Backs Second LIRR Track in Farmingdale, posted by Gold_12th on Thu Mar 15 17:50:03 2012. I wonder which Republican will oppose this |
|
|
| (1144845) | |
Re: Schumer Backs Second LIRR Track in Farmingdale |
|
|
Posted by Train Dude on Thu Mar 15 18:08:01 2012, in response to Re: Schumer Backs Second LIRR Track in Farmingdale, posted by Forest Glen on Thu Mar 15 17:58:41 2012. Actually there is a demoncrat in Farmingdale opposing it because of the new station East of Rt.110 and the new bus service that was proposed along with it. |
|
|
(Sponsored) |
iPhone 6 (4.7 Inch) Premium PU Leather Wallet Case - Red w/ Floral Interior - by Notch-It |
|
| (1144855) | |
Re: Schumer Backs Second LIRR Track in Farmingdale |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Thu Mar 15 18:38:13 2012, in response to Re: Schumer Backs Second LIRR Track in Farmingdale, posted by Forest Glen on Thu Mar 15 17:58:41 2012. While I can't stand most Republicans, a Republican from Shirley is all for it and it was Democrat Tom Suozzi, former Nassau County leader, who lined up with the NIMBY's to oppose 3rd track west of Hicksville.I think that should take precedence over the 2nd track to Hicksville. |
|
|
| (1144856) | |
Re: Schumer Backs Second LIRR Track in Farmingdale |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Thu Mar 15 18:46:40 2012, in response to Re: Schumer Backs Second LIRR Track in Farmingdale, posted by Forest Glen on Thu Mar 15 17:58:41 2012. Keep looking. |
|
|
| (1144857) | |
Re: Schumer Backs Second LIRR Track in Farmingdale |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Thu Mar 15 18:47:28 2012, in response to Schumer Backs Second LIRR Track in Farmingdale, posted by Gold_12th on Thu Mar 15 17:50:03 2012. So when will Schumer ride Amtrak from NYC to DC instead of flying out of LGA and cursing at flight attendants, eh . . . ? |
|
|
| (1144869) | |
Re: Schumer Backs Second LIRR Track in Farmingdale |
|
|
Posted by grand concourse on Thu Mar 15 19:30:45 2012, in response to Re: Schumer Backs Second LIRR Track in Farmingdale, posted by Olog-hai on Thu Mar 15 18:47:28 2012. lol |
|
|
| (1144886) | |
Re: Schumer Backs Second LIRR Track in Farmingdale |
|
|
Posted by Newkirk Images on Thu Mar 15 20:38:18 2012, in response to Re: Schumer Backs Second LIRR Track in Farmingdale, posted by Joe V on Thu Mar 15 18:38:13 2012. I think that should take precedence over the 2nd track to Hicksville.Third tracking from Floral Park to Hicksville should come first. Double tracking the Ronkonkoma Line east of Farmingdale will only add to the congestion of that double tracked line west of Hicksville. We also have freight traffic too. Bill Newkirk |
|
|
| (1144893) | |
Re: Schumer Backs Second LIRR Track in Farmingdale |
|
|
Posted by grand concourse on Thu Mar 15 20:57:04 2012, in response to Re: Schumer Backs Second LIRR Track in Farmingdale, posted by Newkirk Images on Thu Mar 15 20:38:18 2012. I think they should double track the Port Jeff line up to Smithtown or Stony Brook. 1.5 hr headways is ridiculous. |
|
|
| (1144896) | |
Re: Schumer Backs Second LIRR Track in Farmingdale |
|
|
Posted by SUBWAYMAN on Thu Mar 15 21:11:24 2012, in response to Schumer Backs Second LIRR Track in Farmingdale, posted by Gold_12th on Thu Mar 15 17:50:03 2012. Excellent! |
|
|
| (1144961) | |
Re: Schumer Backs Second LIRR Track in Farmingdale |
|
|
Posted by Charles G on Fri Mar 16 12:31:26 2012, in response to Schumer Backs Second LIRR Track in Farmingdale, posted by Gold_12th on Thu Mar 15 17:50:03 2012. The second track between Farmingdale and Ronkonkoma is useless without at third track on the Main Line between Floral Park and Hicksville.If Senator Schumer had any cajones, he'd stand up for that. |
|
|
| (1144966) | |
Re: Schumer Backs Second LIRR Track in Farmingdale |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Fri Mar 16 12:39:46 2012, in response to Re: Schumer Backs Second LIRR Track in Farmingdale, posted by Charles G on Fri Mar 16 12:31:26 2012. Schumer is a poseur. He'd rather curse at flight attendants while flying out of LGA than actually support anything in a real sense . . . |
|
|
| (1144967) | |
Re: Schumer Backs Second LIRR Track in Farmingdale |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Fri Mar 16 12:40:26 2012, in response to Re: Schumer Backs Second LIRR Track in Farmingdale, posted by SUBWAYMAN on Thu Mar 15 21:11:24 2012. Hilarious that you actually believe anything Schumer says. |
|
|
| (1144969) | |
Re: Schumer Backs Second LIRR Track in Farmingdale |
|
|
Posted by caine515 on Fri Mar 16 12:54:13 2012, in response to Schumer Backs Second LIRR Track in Farmingdale, posted by Gold_12th on Thu Mar 15 17:50:03 2012. As someone who used to live along the line, a second track is required. Would this mean new platforms to be set up at Wyandach for instance?? And would Replublic station reopen?? |
|
|
| (1145016) | |
Re: Schumer Backs Second LIRR Track in Farmingdale |
|
|
Posted by SUBWAYMAN on Fri Mar 16 19:17:27 2012, in response to Re: Schumer Backs Second LIRR Track in Farmingdale, posted by Olog-hai on Fri Mar 16 12:40:26 2012. Hey! If he is getting results, he has to be doing his job! |
|
|
| (1145042) | |
Re: Schumer Backs Second LIRR Track in Farmingdale |
|
|
Posted by gp38/r42 chris on Fri Mar 16 22:46:23 2012, in response to Schumer Backs Second LIRR Track in Farmingdale, posted by Gold_12th on Thu Mar 15 17:50:03 2012. Unless they get the third track in on the mainline the second track on the ronk branch is almost useless. |
|
|
| (1145051) | |
Re: Schumer Backs Second LIRR Track in Farmingdale |
|
|
Posted by Wado MP73 on Fri Mar 16 23:56:34 2012, in response to Re: Schumer Backs Second LIRR Track in Farmingdale, posted by gp38/r42 chris on Fri Mar 16 22:46:23 2012. I'm not sure but this article and others don't seem to mention any inbound service increase. Just more reliability for inbound traffic and possibility for more reverse peak service, neither of which require the third track on the main line.I don't think it's too bad of an idea if it's easier to do than the third track and the second track will be ready and right there when the third track is finally done and electrification extended to Yaphank or Riverhead. Sometimes, it's easier to start working at the end of the demand and deal with the increased mid-point demand later. Some of the commuter lines and HSLs in Japan were built in that order. I'd hate to see this project stalled just because the third main line track isn't there yet. If somehow, the funds for this are available before the third track, let it happen and it might kind of force the third track to become a necessity. |
|
|
| (1145053) | |
Re: Schumer Backs Second LIRR Track in Farmingdale |
|
|
Posted by Henry R32 #3730 on Sat Mar 17 00:17:18 2012, in response to Re: Schumer Backs Second LIRR Track in Farmingdale, posted by Wado MP73 on Fri Mar 16 23:56:34 2012. If somehow, the funds for this are available before the third track, let it happen and it might kind of force the third track to become a necessity.I don't suppose there's some way to schedule the line such that the gates never get a chance to up during rush hour... that alone would probably get the NIMBYs in line, as the third track could be part of a grade crossing elimination project (add 2 new elevated tracks, switch to that, build third elevated track over old ROW). |
|
|
| (1145057) | |
Re: Schumer Backs Second LIRR Track in Farmingdale |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Sat Mar 17 00:40:00 2012, in response to Re: Schumer Backs Second LIRR Track in Farmingdale, posted by Henry R32 #3730 on Sat Mar 17 00:17:18 2012. That'll certainly jack up costs. |
|
|
| (1145060) | |
Re: Schumer Backs Second LIRR Track in Farmingdale |
|
|
Posted by Wado MP73 on Sat Mar 17 01:20:19 2012, in response to Re: Schumer Backs Second LIRR Track in Farmingdale, posted by Henry R32 #3730 on Sat Mar 17 00:17:18 2012. My high school in Tokyo was in between the Chuo Line and the Keio line. Both of them had 30+ minute gate down times around 8:00 am and 5:00 pm.30+ years later, the Chuo is now grade separated but the Keio is still on the ground. I still feel like cursing at every grade crossing on the Keio. |
|
|
| (1145063) | |
Re: Schumer Backs Second LIRR Track in Farmingdale |
|
|
Posted by Train Dude on Sat Mar 17 01:53:51 2012, in response to Re: Schumer Backs Second LIRR Track in Farmingdale, posted by Newkirk Images on Thu Mar 15 20:38:18 2012. The double tracking from Ronkonkoma to Farmingdale is needed first for 2 reasons. First, as the Brookhaven Rail Terminal takes on more and more car loads, the freight traffic between that facility and queens will increase. In addition, the reverse commute east of the Rt 110 corridor is becoming more important to the Long Island economy. Neither can be improved without the 2nd track or without reducing peak flow traffic. Once the Ronkonkoma line traffic is boosted significantly, then the 3rd track to Hicksville will be an absolute necessity. |
|
|
| (1145075) | |
Re: Schumer Backs Second LIRR Track in Farmingdale |
|
|
Posted by Charles G on Sat Mar 17 05:56:11 2012, in response to Re: Schumer Backs Second LIRR Track in Farmingdale, posted by Wado MP73 on Fri Mar 16 23:56:34 2012. Just more reliability for inbound traffic and possibility for more reverse peak service, neither of which require the third track on the main line.We've discussed this quite a bit on this forum over the past few years and I think the consensus is that the 3rd track is an absolute necessity for increased reverse peak service. |
|
|
| (1145078) | |
Re: Schumer Backs Second LIRR Track in Farmingdale |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Sat Mar 17 07:35:21 2012, in response to Re: Schumer Backs Second LIRR Track in Farmingdale, posted by Train Dude on Sat Mar 17 01:53:51 2012. There will be very little opportunity for any more reverse peak service east of Farmingdale until west of Hicksville is triple-tracked.The off-peak schedule pattern needs to change so that transfers to the Scoot can be made cross-platform, not one train crawling in behind the other only to have people walk from one to the other - all takes too much time. |
|
|
| (1145084) | |
Re: Schumer Backs Second LIRR Track in Farmingdale |
|
|
Posted by Train Dude on Sat Mar 17 09:54:02 2012, in response to Re: Schumer Backs Second LIRR Track in Farmingdale, posted by Joe V on Sat Mar 17 07:35:21 2012. "There will be very little opportunity for any more reverse peak service east of Farmingdale until west of Hicksville is triple-tracked.This is true too since the LIRR is running westbound on tracks 1 & 2 for a portion of the AM rush. This would have to be done less often until the 3rd track is completed. It's fairly obvious that the LIRR has the rest of the infrastructure in place through Mineola to do it rather quickly if given the okay. It's also time to eliminate the Scoot between Ronkonkoma and Riverhead. |
|
|
| (1145089) | |
Re: Schumer Backs Second LIRR Track in Farmingdale |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Sat Mar 17 11:12:27 2012, in response to Re: Schumer Backs Second LIRR Track in Farmingdale, posted by Train Dude on Sat Mar 17 09:54:02 2012. < It's also time to eliminate the Scoot between Ronkonkoma and Riverhead.>That would accomplish nothing financially and further enrage politicians against the MTA. |
|
|
| (1145091) | |
Re: Schumer Backs Second LIRR Track in Farmingdale |
|
|
Posted by Avid Reader on Sat Mar 17 11:36:08 2012, in response to Re: Schumer Backs Second LIRR Track in Farmingdale, posted by Olog-hai on Sat Mar 17 00:40:00 2012. Yeah, you are right, to go up would bring the cost up.So, instead of going up, go down. Get a soft soil boring machine, and go under with the additional track. This will avoid grade crossing, with an additional track. |
|
|
| (1145092) | |
Re: Schumer Backs Second LIRR Track in Farmingdale |
|
|
Posted by Train Dude on Sat Mar 17 11:42:31 2012, in response to Re: Schumer Backs Second LIRR Track in Farmingdale, posted by Joe V on Sat Mar 17 11:12:27 2012. Apologies. When I said eliminate the scoot, I meant electrify out to Riverhead. Growth in population out east warrants the expansion of electrified service, |
|
|
| (1145102) | |
Re: Schumer Backs Second LIRR Track in Farmingdale |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Sat Mar 17 12:43:59 2012, in response to Re: Schumer Backs Second LIRR Track in Farmingdale, posted by Train Dude on Sat Mar 17 11:42:31 2012. Oh, ok.I was going to say killing service means essentially kissing goodbye more dedicate tax subsidies. The MTA capital budget is in trouble in the NYS Senate because "Syracuse doesn't get much MTA service". |
|
|
| (1145135) | |
Re: Schumer Backs Second LIRR Track in Farmingdale |
|
|
Posted by Avid Reader on Sat Mar 17 17:31:11 2012, in response to Re: Schumer Backs Second LIRR Track in Farmingdale, posted by Train Dude on Sat Mar 17 11:42:31 2012. Go from Ronkonkoma to Riviera Head with catonary,use a modified M-8 with Penn Station Canary Current and LIRR third rail pick-ups, but only if it is cheaper installation and running. |
|
|
| (1145146) | |
Re: Schumer Backs Second LIRR Track in Farmingdale |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Sat Mar 17 19:25:47 2012, in response to Re: Schumer Backs Second LIRR Track in Farmingdale, posted by Avid Reader on Sat Mar 17 17:31:11 2012. First you better build a rail market with more Scoots. |
|
|
| (1145210) | |
Re: Schumer Backs Second LIRR Track in Farmingdale |
|
|
Posted by Train Dude on Sun Mar 18 00:24:45 2012, in response to Re: Schumer Backs Second LIRR Track in Farmingdale, posted by Avid Reader on Sat Mar 17 17:31:11 2012. I think not. The idea is to have a unified system - not a bastardized line. |
|
|
| (1145214) | |
Re: Schumer Backs Second LIRR Track in Farmingdale |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Sun Mar 18 01:23:12 2012, in response to Re: Schumer Backs Second LIRR Track in Farmingdale, posted by Avid Reader on Sat Mar 17 17:31:11 2012. use a modified M-8 with Penn Station Canary CurrentSay what . . . ?  |
|
|
| (1145225) | |
Re: Schumer Backs Second LIRR Track in Farmingdale |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Sun Mar 18 07:35:59 2012, in response to Re: Schumer Backs Second LIRR Track in Farmingdale, posted by Train Dude on Sun Mar 18 00:24:45 2012. I don't see how you get ever justify to politicians that a line deserves electrification that has crappy service almost no patronage , and simply state population density determines it. |
|
|
| (1145226) | |
Re: Schumer Backs Second LIRR Track in Farmingdale |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Sun Mar 18 07:36:54 2012, in response to Re: Schumer Backs Second LIRR Track in Farmingdale, posted by Train Dude on Sun Mar 18 00:24:45 2012. There is nothing wrong with having a "bastardized line". There are examples of shuttle trains all over the MTA. |
|
|
| (1145242) | |
Re: Schumer Backs Second LIRR Track in Farmingdale |
|
|
Posted by Avid Reader on Sun Mar 18 11:02:00 2012, in response to Re: Schumer Backs Second LIRR Track in Farmingdale, posted by Avid Reader on Sat Mar 17 17:31:11 2012. BUT ONLY IF IT IS CHEAPER TO INSTALL AND TO RUN!Catenary should be safer than third rail, because it is elevated beyond easy reach. The Bastard modified M-8 would not be excluded from the rest of the electrified LIRR or Penn Station, but would be denied use on the METRO NORTH, NEW HAVEN BRANCH. The region beyond Ronkonkoma to Riverhead is sparse when compared to Nassau and Queens. Just like areas of the Bronx and Queens where at the time when the IRT and the IND were built in those locations. What happened in the Bronx and Queens? What happened along the Ronkonkomo Branch? The north fork has surged over the last few decades, but is still some what vacant. Maybe, just maybe a catalyst is needed to spark growth and use, that may be self generating. |
|
|
| (1145247) | |
Re: Schumer Backs Second LIRR Track in Farmingdale |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Sun Mar 18 11:59:59 2012, in response to Re: Schumer Backs Second LIRR Track in Farmingdale, posted by Avid Reader on Sun Mar 18 11:02:00 2012. No, it's not cheaper. And operations would certainly not be cheaper.And why are you suggesting using rail to create urban sprawl? |
|
|
| (1145253) | |
Re: Schumer Backs Second LIRR Track in Farmingdale |
|
|
Posted by Wado MP73 on Sun Mar 18 12:18:48 2012, in response to Re: Schumer Backs Second LIRR Track in Farmingdale, posted by Charles G on Sat Mar 17 05:56:11 2012. Isn't there at least some reverse peak service west of Hicksville while there is none on the Ronkonkoma branch east of Bethpage? |
|
|
| (1145255) | |
Re: Schumer Backs Second LIRR Track in Farmingdale |
|
|
Posted by Avid Reader on Sun Mar 18 12:55:23 2012, in response to Re: Schumer Backs Second LIRR Track in Farmingdale, posted by Olog-hai on Sun Mar 18 11:59:59 2012. Encontre!To create an elite, rural paradise, on the tax back, of the unwashed masses! |
|
|
| (1145258) | |
Re: Schumer Backs Second LIRR Track in Farmingdale |
|
|
Posted by NIMBYkiller on Sun Mar 18 14:28:37 2012, in response to Re: Schumer Backs Second LIRR Track in Farmingdale, posted by Joe V on Sun Mar 18 07:35:59 2012. The reason patronage sucks ass is b/c the service sucks ass. Electrify to Riverhead and boost service out there, you'll see the numbers go up |
|
|
| (1145260) | |
Re: Schumer Backs Second LIRR Track in Farmingdale |
|
|
Posted by NIMBYkiller on Sun Mar 18 14:30:04 2012, in response to Re: Schumer Backs Second LIRR Track in Farmingdale, posted by Avid Reader on Sun Mar 18 11:02:00 2012. Keep the north fork rural! |
|
|
| (1145261) | |
Re: Schumer Backs Second LIRR Track in Farmingdale |
|
|
Posted by NIMBYkiller on Sun Mar 18 14:33:38 2012, in response to Re: Schumer Backs Second LIRR Track in Farmingdale, posted by gp38/r42 chris on Fri Mar 16 22:46:23 2012. Screw the 3rd track, rebuild the central! 2 tracks and an entirely new service area! |
|
|
| (1145290) | |
Re: Schumer Backs Second LIRR Track in Farmingdale |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Sun Mar 18 17:25:43 2012, in response to Re: Schumer Backs Second LIRR Track in Farmingdale, posted by NIMBYkiller on Sun Mar 18 14:28:37 2012. OK, then imagine the reaction by the north shore and south shore constituency.Beyond Ronkonokoma to Riverhead is pine barrons, post-war, suburban sprawl, strip malls and sub-divisions spawned by the LIE. The poulation is more centeredon Highway 25, which is a separate set of towns than along the LIRR. OTOH, the Port Jeff and south Shore to Patchogue or Mastic are traditional and older dense villages, far easier to serve by public transit. You can probably make a better commercial case running some service to Wading River than electrifying to Riverhead. |
|
|
| (1145292) | |
Re: Schumer Backs Second LIRR Track in Farmingdale |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Sun Mar 18 17:27:02 2012, in response to Re: Schumer Backs Second LIRR Track in Farmingdale, posted by Avid Reader on Sun Mar 18 11:02:00 2012. " The Bastard modified M-8 would not be excluded from the rest of the electrified LIRR or Penn Station"Yes it would, No 63rd St/ESA nor Brooklyn |
|
|
| (1145293) | |
Re: Schumer Backs Second LIRR Track in Farmingdale |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Sun Mar 18 17:27:48 2012, in response to Re: Schumer Backs Second LIRR Track in Farmingdale, posted by NIMBYkiller on Sun Mar 18 14:30:04 2012. It ain't rural anymore. |
|
|
| (1145311) | |
Re: Schumer Backs Second LIRR Track in Farmingdale |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Sun Mar 18 20:00:09 2012, in response to Re: Schumer Backs Second LIRR Track in Farmingdale, posted by Joe V on Sun Mar 18 17:27:48 2012. It's pretty rural. |
|
|
| (1145312) | |
Re: Schumer Backs Second LIRR Track in Farmingdale |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Sun Mar 18 20:01:29 2012, in response to Re: Schumer Backs Second LIRR Track in Farmingdale, posted by NIMBYkiller on Sun Mar 18 14:33:38 2012. Totally agreed, but pigs have a better chance of flying. |
|
|
| (1145313) | |
Re: Schumer Backs Second LIRR Track in Farmingdale |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Sun Mar 18 20:02:13 2012, in response to Re: Schumer Backs Second LIRR Track in Farmingdale, posted by Wado MP73 on Sun Mar 18 12:18:48 2012. Not much, as most of the trains use both tracks to travel one direction. |
|
|
| (1145317) | |
Re: Schumer Backs Second LIRR Track in Farmingdale |
|
|
Posted by Train Dude on Sun Mar 18 20:06:30 2012, in response to Re: Schumer Backs Second LIRR Track in Farmingdale, posted by Joe V on Sun Mar 18 07:36:54 2012. But those are standard trains running on standard tracks with standard 3rd rail. He was talking about a new class of car on the LIRR with overhead wires instead of 3rd rail. I don't see the advantage. |
|
|
| (1145318) | |
Re: Schumer Backs Second LIRR Track in Farmingdale |
|
|
Posted by Avid Reader on Sun Mar 18 20:13:49 2012, in response to Re: Schumer Backs Second LIRR Track in Farmingdale, posted by NIMBYkiller on Sun Mar 18 14:30:04 2012. The thundering hoards are slowly discovering where the eternal sun comes from.Now they will come like moths to a flame. The East is on TV, on Cable, and on the internet. The Outlets draw the lemmings already. The hoards tweet, and facebook, the wonders that the elitists have had greedily feasted on for years , and years. Now they want their fair share, level the playing field, take from the rich, and those of the middle that earned theirs. Forget the modified M-8's, use something grungy with pants. Say good bye, east-end. |
|
|
| (1145319) | |
Re: Schumer Backs Second LIRR Track in Farmingdale |
|
|
Posted by Avid Reader on Sun Mar 18 20:14:42 2012, in response to Re: Schumer Backs Second LIRR Track in Farmingdale, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Sun Mar 18 20:01:29 2012. Maxwell has his pinwheel. |
|
|
|
|
Page 1 of 3 |
|
