LGA Link N Train Posted November 4, 2017 Share #1 Posted November 4, 2017 Well I'm pretty sure that we should all know about the Lower Montauk branch at this point. I thought of a proposal for a loop service to Sunnyside and Port Morris transit hubs (refrence from RethinkNYC) Inteemidiate stops should be put in place. As for Long Island City station (which I'm looking directly at while I'm typing this), I'll propose it as the new NY Transit Museum. Hunters Point station becomes VERY redundant in my plan so I'll leave that up to you guys. Anyways, let me know what you think Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IAlam Posted November 10, 2017 Share #2 Posted November 10, 2017 On 11/4/2017 at 12:08 PM, LGA Link N train said: Well I'm pretty sure that we should all know about the Lower Montauk branch at this point. I thought of a proposal for a loop service to Sunnyside and Port Morris transit hubs (refrence from RethinkNYC) Inteemidiate stops should be put in place. As for Long Island City station (which I'm looking directly at while I'm typing this), I'll propose it as the new NY Transit Museum. Hunters Point station becomes VERY redundant in my plan so I'll leave that up to you guys. Anyways, let me know what you think Hunters Point shouldn't close due to the fact it can handle M7's and M3's and it's proxmity to the . But reactivating the old line would be great especially since it would serve a lot of neighborhoods in Queens without subway service. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LGA Link N Train Posted November 11, 2017 Author Share #3 Posted November 11, 2017 8 hours ago, IAlam said: Hunters Point shouldn't close due to the fact it can handle M7's and M3's and it's proxmity to the . But reactivating the old line would be great especially since it would serve a lot of neighborhoods in Queens without subway service. Well I never said that Hunter Point should close, I just said that it was redundant Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BreeddekalbL Posted November 11, 2017 Share #4 Posted November 11, 2017 Well since liz crowley is out the guy who won believes her study was a waste. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IAlam Posted November 11, 2017 Share #5 Posted November 11, 2017 On 11/10/2017 at 10:43 AM, IAlam said: Hunters Point shouldn't close due to the fact it can handle M7's and M3's and it's proxmity to the . But reactivating the old line would be great especially since it would serve a lot of neighborhoods in Queens without subway service. Well to to put it in better words then, it's redundancy is important Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LGA Link N Train Posted November 11, 2017 Author Share #6 Posted November 11, 2017 2 hours ago, IAlam said: Well to to put it in better words then, it's redundancy is important Guess you could say that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobtehpanda Posted November 12, 2017 Share #7 Posted November 12, 2017 On 11/10/2017 at 7:43 AM, IAlam said: Hunters Point shouldn't close due to the fact it can handle M7's and M3's and it's proxmity to the . But reactivating the old line would be great especially since it would serve a lot of neighborhoods in Queens without subway service. None of those neighborhoods are dense enough to justify a train. Reactivating Lower Montauk is a solution looking for a problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LGA Link N Train Posted November 13, 2017 Author Share #8 Posted November 13, 2017 22 hours ago, bobtehpanda said: None of those neighborhoods are dense enough to justify a train. Well, I am trying to serve better transportation to those people Reactivating Lower Montauk is a solution looking for a problem. That means that well just have to kill 2 birds with one stone Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobtehpanda Posted November 13, 2017 Share #9 Posted November 13, 2017 Things cost money. Some things are better to spend money on. Not all projects are created equal; some are more equals than others. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trainmaster5 Posted November 13, 2017 Share #10 Posted November 13, 2017 I hope that everyone realizes that the LIRR doesn't operate any service on the Lower Montauk. The remaining trackage is used exclusively by the NY&A for freight and the northern end, the cutoff, has been severed from the mainline at Sunnyside. The remains and the demolition equipment were still visible two weeks ago when I passed by. I think that would preclude any type of loop service. With the mainline focus on East Side Access and the nearby Arch Street shop I doubt the LIRR or NYCT wants to spend any money on this idea. Just my opinion though so carry on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BM5 via Woodhaven Posted November 13, 2017 Share #11 Posted November 13, 2017 17 hours ago, LGA Link N train said: I'd prefer more express bus service over reactivating the lower Montauk, which is what is needed (but ignored by local politicians until recently). Off-peak express bus service would be a much cheaper alternative to reactivating this whole line. Literally nobody is asking for this (that $500K Elizabeth Crowley spent on that Lower Montauk study was such a waste of time and money). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Union Tpke Posted November 14, 2017 Share #12 Posted November 14, 2017 The Triboro Rx would be a much better investment. If they really need to serve the Lower Montauk have some diesel shuttles run with short platforms. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nostalgia Posted December 1, 2017 Share #13 Posted December 1, 2017 I read somewhere, possibly here, that the sold the Lower Montauk to avoid installing PTC for very few trains. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trainmaster5 Posted December 2, 2017 Share #14 Posted December 2, 2017 8 hours ago, nostalgia said: I read somewhere, possibly here, that the sold the Lower Montauk to avoid installing PTC for very few trains. The LIRR stopped the regular service on the branch about 20 years ago. I think the railroad used the trackage for freight and deadheads after the regular service ceased. Then NY&A took over the route. I would guess the LIRR is still responsible for the upkeep. It's kinda hard to justify paying for and installing PTC on rarely used tracks. It always boils down to the Benjamins. Somewhere I can see some railfan or politician trying to justify spending $$$ on PTC on the Lower Montauk, Bay Ridge Branch and the Pilgrim State Spur calling it a "futureproofing" expenditure. BTW the Richmond Hill station on the Lower Montauk was the only one that actually had platforms. Every time I see that station I always think of the old Ozone Park station on the RBB branch and wonder if it's destined to suffer the same fate. Well built structures that, short of demolition, will stand for many more decades. Just compare that original construction to what the pays for new and renovated work today. It gets depressing, at least to me, when I stop and think about the woulda, coulda ,opportunities we (have/ or had) in years past. Carry on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nostalgia Posted December 2, 2017 Share #15 Posted December 2, 2017 Actually, two revenue Oyster Bay trains used the lower Montauk between Jamaica and Long Island City. The AM train left Jamaica around 8 AM and the PM train left LIC around 4:50 PM. By dumb luck, I rode the train to Jamaica the week before it was diverted to the Main Line. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
R68OnBroadway Posted December 2, 2017 Share #16 Posted December 2, 2017 14 hours ago, Trainmaster5 said: The LIRR stopped the regular service on the branch about 20 years ago. I think the railroad used the trackage for freight and deadheads after the regular service ceased. Then NY&A took over the route. I would guess the LIRR is still responsible for the upkeep. It's kinda hard to justify paying for and installing PTC on rarely used tracks. It always boils down to the Benjamins. Somewhere I can see some railfan or politician trying to justify spending $$$ on PTC on the Lower Montauk, Bay Ridge Branch and the Pilgrim State Spur calling it a "futureproofing" expenditure. BTW the Richmond Hill station on the Lower Montauk was the only one that actually had platforms. Every time I see that station I always think of the old Ozone Park station on the RBB branch and wonder if it's destined to suffer the same fate. Well built structures that, short of demolition, will stand for many more decades. Just compare that original construction to what the pays for new and renovated work today. It gets depressing, at least to me, when I stop and think about the woulda, coulda ,opportunities we (have/ or had) in years past. Carry on. Richmond Hill and Fresh Pond would probably be the only stations that would attract moderate ridership as they are both in mid-density, mixed use areas unlike the others which are low density industrial. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobtehpanda Posted December 2, 2017 Share #17 Posted December 2, 2017 2 hours ago, R68OnBroadway said: Richmond Hill and Fresh Pond would probably be the only stations that would attract moderate ridership as they are both in mid-density, mixed use areas unlike the others which are low density industrial. It's still not really a good enough reason to reactivate Lower Montauk. Richmond Hill already has a subway station. Fresh Pond would get more things out of extending the the short distance along the Triboro RX to Jackson Heights. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RR503 Posted December 2, 2017 Share #18 Posted December 2, 2017 I think the best argument for the reactivation of the line comes from a development standpoint. There is a massive number of low/medium density housing along the corridor, and many underutilized ex-industrial lots (especially in Fresh Pond and along Woodhaven Blvd) whose value could be unlocked with the placement of a rail line near them. This would also allow you to fully fund construction with TIF money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Interested Rider Posted December 2, 2017 Share #19 Posted December 2, 2017 I have to agree with RR503 on this one especially if the industrial buildings are being underutilized at this time then it presents a great opportunity for developers to start the process of renovating these buildings for residential purposes. What developers are always looking for is to find that undiscovered neighborhood and buy in to it before it becomes popular. Just the mention of some sort of mass transit service could start the process and then watch what happens. New York City government is quite friendly when it comes to developing properties in areas such as this so it quite possible that some sort of transit service would be provided on the rail line once the projects get rolling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IAlam Posted December 9, 2017 Share #20 Posted December 9, 2017 On 12/2/2017 at 3:02 PM, RR503 said: I think the best argument for the reactivation of the line comes from a development standpoint. There is a massive number of low/medium density housing along the corridor, and many underutilized ex-industrial lots (especially in Fresh Pond and along Woodhaven Blvd) whose value could be unlocked with the placement of a rail line near them. This would also allow you to fully fund construction with TIF money. Honestly if any neighborhood is going to be gentrified it should be an underutilized industrial neighborhood, and not an existing residential neighborhood. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trainmaster5 Posted December 9, 2017 Share #21 Posted December 9, 2017 I must have overlooked exactly where this reactivated Lower Montauk would terminate on the northern end. I’m guessing LIC because I don’t think it’s connected to any other terminal. Pennsylvania Station and Grand Central trackage are mainline only IIRC. Help me out here if I’m wrong. Carry on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RR503 Posted December 9, 2017 Share #22 Posted December 9, 2017 8 hours ago, Trainmaster5 said: I must have overlooked exactly where this reactivated Lower Montauk would terminate on the northern end. I’m guessing LIC because I don’t think it’s connected to any other terminal. Pennsylvania Station and Grand Central trackage are mainline only IIRC. Help me out here if I’m wrong. Carry on. Well, you could use the reversing loop to get into ESA/PSNY from the Montauk Cutoff.... The time penalty actually isn't a dealbreaker. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trainmaster5 Posted December 9, 2017 Share #23 Posted December 9, 2017 1 hour ago, RR503 said: Well, you could use the reversing loop to get into ESA/PSNY from the Montauk Cutoff.... The time penalty actually isn't a dealbreaker. Wasn't the Montauk Cutoff demolished recently? Maybe a month ago or so? I remember reading that the whole Sunnyside/Arch Street shop trackage was being reconfigured with the diesel fleet being relegated to the south side of the mainline, meaning LIC or HPA. For more than a generation the LIRR has been shedding assets within the city limits and I doubt that attitude is going to change no matter how viable this proposal may be. Remember the MTA funding is voted on by representatives of all the surrounding counties and this proposal, like the RBB, only benefits a small group of people in the long run. Just my opinion though. Carry on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RR503 Posted December 9, 2017 Share #24 Posted December 9, 2017 The end of the sunnyside ramp was destroyed, yes. However, that would cost just a pittance to rebuild. RBB — if built (I still don’t support it) — shouldn’t be run by the LIRR for the reasons you give above (+subway fare/service connectivity would make it more useful), but a LMB reactivation should be. It’d integrate into their network well, and provide a layer of resiliency for their mainline across Queens. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trainmaster5 Posted December 9, 2017 Share #25 Posted December 9, 2017 Let's face it. The doesn't want to spend money on PTC on the line which is why they gave the line to NY&A in the first place. The fact that there is only one station at Richmond Hill gives them another excuse to ignore the line IMO. Maybe the city, by way of NYCT, could acquire the line and repurpose it for something other than heavy rail ? Isn't the present administration simpatico with developers ? Just wondering. Carry on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.