Jump to content

Attention: In order to reply to messages, create topics, have access to other features of the community you must sign up for an account.
Sign in to follow this  
GojiMet86

Lower Montauk Branch Passenger Rail Study Final Report 2018

Recommended Posts

I'd like to note that with all the new reports on corruption, construction firms inflating costs, etc., that AECOM did the study. Same guys who did the Red Hook subway, and Cuomo's favorite.

 

 

http://www.nyc.gov/html/dot/downloads/pdf/lower-montauk-final-report-jan2018.pdf
 

Quote

 

Lower Montauk Branch Rail Study

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Introduction

This study, conducted by the engineering firm AECOM on behalf of New York City Department of Transportation (NYCDOT) and sponsored by New York City District 30 Council Member Elizabeth Crowley, examines the feasibility of returning passenger service to the Lower Montauk Branch rail corridor (“the Branch”). With the City of New York’s population having grown 4.4% and the Borough of Queens’ population having grown 4.6% since 2010, 1 city leaders and planners must begin to plan for the city’s next generation of residents and how they will travel to work, to school, and to the city’s vast cultural destinations. As outlined in OneNYC: The Plan for a Strong and Just City, the expansion of the city’s transit through network expansion and the introduction of new modes helps build an equitable and sustainable city that ensures, “New York City will continue to be the world's most dynamic urban economy, where families, businesses, and neighborhoods thrive.”2

From Greenpoint, Williamsburg, and Bushwick in Brooklyn to Long Island City, Ridgewood, and Jamaica in Queens, many neighborhoods adjacent to the Branch have seen tremendous growth in recent years. At the same time, most of the areas along this former rail passenger line have yet to see significant new development and remains at a low-to-moderate density. Overall, it is important to consider infrastructure changes that would be needed to support growth if and when that time comes.

It is also important to recognize that the Branch carries an active rail freight line that serves Long Island and provides support to many Queens-based industries along the line. These businesses are located in some of the few remaining industrial areas left in the city, and are a critical component to the city and region’s growth. As such, the Branch has been identified as an important component of the Cross Harbor Freight Program.3

This report has been developed with these competing interests for the Branch in mind. AECOM and NYC DOT have developed a passenger service concept that would maintain freight access while also developing a new, modern passenger rail service along the Branch. The ridership and other development findings, as well as capital costs to upgrade the Branch’s infrastructure, mostly reflect this shared corridor approach. This report adds substance to the vision of returning passenger service to the Branch. It is ultimately the job of policy makers, the MTA Long Island Rail Road (LIRR – which owns the Branch), neighborhood residents, business owners and other stakeholders to collectively determine how the Branch may be best utilized in the future. As it was not part of this study’s scope, any effort to reintroduce passenger service and eliminate freight from the Branch would require additional refinement and analysis beyond what is presented in this study......

 

 

Edited by GojiMet86
  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And they’re recommending DMUs? 

Every time I ride the River Line/Camden LRT, the DMUs are so noisy it’s barely enjoyable. And setting this up to do a time share between passenger and freight in a 24 hour train-using city doesn’t seem feasible.

I’d like to see them study double-decking the corridor - an EL for LRT or heavy, if relocating the freight ops to somewhere else more conducive to shipping isn’t an option.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Deucey said:

Every time I ride the River Line/Camden LRT, the DMUs are so noisy it’s barely enjoyable.

Not looking forward to E-Bart huh? :D I saw that.. I skimmed the report this afternoon going to take a look in more detail in the morning. The numbers (Riders) seemed okay. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, RailRunRob said:

Not looking forward to E-Bart huh? :D I saw that.. I skimmed the report this afternoon going to take a look in more detail in the morning. The numbers (Riders) seemed okay. 

Nope. E-Bart will be just as useless as Altamont Commuter Express.

The numbers on Lower Montauk seem sound, but I doubt noisy trains with black plumes coming every 5-10 minutes is going to endear neighbors to become riders. It’s already got me reconsidering whether Ridgewood is where I’m moving to next.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, Deucey said:

but I doubt noisy trains with black plumes coming every 5-10 minutes is going to endear neighbors to become riders

Some of the new Diesel Electic units are a little easier on the noise..  DMU with AC traction... think SC44/R156's.. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Deucey said:

And they’re recommending DMUs? 

Every time I ride the River Line/Camden LRT, the DMUs are so noisy it’s barely enjoyable. And setting this up to do a time share between passenger and freight in a 24 hour train-using city doesn’t seem feasible.

I’d like to see them study double-decking the corridor - an EL for LRT or heavy, if relocating the freight ops to somewhere else more conducive to shipping isn’t an option.

What I kinda got out off the report is the upgrades to get the lineup to Electrified snuff over 30 Mph may or may not be worth it.. Seems like to many pinch points for double decking. I think phase it. Seems like quite a bit of information around okay ridership and new zoning to test the waters. DMU's are so old school why not Battery or hydro battery.. BMU's.. With charging stations at Jamaica and LIC ? You could literally have a 2 car M8 type unit with a quick charge pantograph or even 3rd rail. A few min charge could run a train for 25 miles.. at about 40Mph a 200kWh battery should do it.. It's a 8.5-mile line.  You start there and if the line proves popular then you upgrade if needed in IMO.

Edited by RailRunRob
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, RailRunRob said:

What I kinda got out off the report is the upgrades to get the lineup to Electrified snuff over 30 Mph may or may not be worth it.. Seems like to many pinch points for double decking. I think phase it. Seems like quite a bit of information around okay ridership and new zoning to test the waters. DMU's are so old school why not Battery or hydro battery.. BMU's.. With charging stations at Jamaica and LIC ? You could literally have a 2 car M8 type unit with a quick charge pantograph or even 3rd rail. A few min charge could run a train for 25 miles.. at about 40Mph a 200kWh battery should do it.. It's a 8.5-mile line.  You start there and if the line proves popular then you upgrade if needed in IMO.

That's kinda the problem - proposing to do something beneficial but halfassing it.

I know a lot of transport ships sail between LIC and Elizabeth, but I don't think LIC is destined to continue being a container port or a freight train set station because of the zoning. So why not study - as part of this, where those facilities could be relocated to and still be able to connect to a cross-harbor rail tunnel economically from Manhattan? (Or even smarter, to the Bronx so it connects via abandoned MNRR tracks to the national rail system with need of only one bridge or tunnel project that won't need NJ's approval.)

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Deucey said:

Nope. E-Bart will be just as useless as Altamont Commuter Express.

The numbers on Lower Montauk seem sound, but I doubt noisy trains with black plumes coming every 5-10 minutes is going to endear neighbors to become riders. It’s already got me reconsidering whether Ridgewood is where I’m moving to next.

Should have extended regular bart instead of this ridiculous dinky

And i agree also they would nimby this stuff on smoke alone 

 

This study was a waste (crowley rightfully lost and says yoy can connect this to a controversal row that we all know all to well) and yet melinda(queens bp) wants to waste money on this

Edited by BreeddekalbL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, BreeddekalbL said:

This study was a waste (crowley rightfully lost and says yoy can connect this to a controversal row that we all know all to well) and yet melinda(queens bp) wants to waste money on this

Wouldnt say it's a waste. It's a solid base to make some logical decisions on whether this is even worthwhile at least. I'm not too sure if sharing trackage would work. No service from 10-5 am is kinda steep for NYC standards. Again not worried about emissions. You have ACCUM and VivaRail fully green without electrification.  

Edited by RailRunRob

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/12/2018 at 12:50 AM, Deucey said:

That's kinda the problem - proposing to do something beneficial but halfassing it.

I know a lot of transport ships sail between LIC and Elizabeth, but I don't think LIC is destined to continue being a container port or a freight train set station because of the zoning. So why not study - as part of this, where those facilities could be relocated to and still be able to connect to a cross-harbor rail tunnel economically from Manhattan? (Or even smarter, to the Bronx so it connects via abandoned MNRR tracks to the national rail system with need of only one bridge or tunnel project that won't need NJ's approval.)

Maspeth and LIC have industrial vacancy rates these days below 1 percent. Every last square inch of space in those areas is being sought after like Cinderella. Those areas+SBX have NYC’s only passably modern, transportationally well connected industrial space. Any plan to change that would get pitchforks from everyone from Young Shing food to UPS. Not an easy sell IMO.

As for the CHFT, given that such a tunnel would feed into the Bay Ridge Branch, areas along the Western LMB would be perfectly situated to use the line — indeed the track config at Fresh Pond without any rebuilding allows trains to thru run from South Brooklyn to Maspeth/LIC. (I honestly don’t think the tunnel is necessary though — 65th Street was once able to deconstruct hot NH freights and float them over to the Pennsy at Greenville in just an hour or two.)

Now, for the study. I haven’t done a detailed, in depth read yet, but that may be the fault of my preconceptions. This was done on a 500k budget — hardly a proper sum to do this sort of research with — and therefore I take its conclusions with a light garnishing of salt. Aside from the fact that its numbers for cost seem patently fishy, it fails to look at any connectivity outside of the corridor in its most narrow sense — a major drawback. I think that for any LMB service to work, it’d have to connect to manhattan. Yes, outer boroughs are growing, but the money, employment and clout still lie in the core. 

Also, FWIW, this seems like a perfect service to be put together in tandem with Freedom Ticket. 

Edited by RR503
Autocorrect is a tad racist it seems...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.