LIRR Mainline Third Track Project

Midday one track outages at Hicksville Station for rehab start with the new GO March 7.

With the revised project scope consisting of a third track from Floral Park to Hicksville, what is the railroad's plan for the current Hempstead Line between Queens Interlocking and Floral Park?

At the very least, it appears that Bellerose station would have to be reconstructed as the island platform as it's current configuration could only service eastbound trains if the current westbound Hempstead track is converted to mainline service. At first glance, it looks that this can be done by the addition of a platform on the current westbound mainline track but that would effectively cut Bellerose off from Hempstead traffic and make it a mainline station. Thoughts?

I believe the plan was scaled back from the original proposal so that the 3rd track won't begin 'til east of Floral Park Station. Anyone have update on that?

I don't think the MTA or the Governor's office have released detailed plans for this version yet.

From The Island Now: Floral Park board passes anti-3rd track resolution

Floral Park board passes anti-3rd track resolution

Floral Park’s Village Board made its opposition to plans for a third track on the Long Island Rail Road official Tuesday, stating its stance against the project in a resolution.
...
The Village Board decided to adopt the measure because Floral Park’s concerns about the project Gov. Andrew Cuomo and the Metropolitan Transportation Authority proposed in January have not yet been sufficiently addressed, Mayor Thomas Tweedy said.
“I think it’s important that we demonstrate to the MTA, as well as to the state decision-makers, that there is a coalition, that we’re speaking not just as individuals, but as communities,” Tweedy said.
...
It also says the LIRR could implement “less intrusive” fixes to existing infrastructure, including eliminating street-level crossings, building a train yard in Huntington and finishing a second track into Ronkonkoma.

There was a meeting some time last week. The mayors from the villages along the planned third track were invited to a meeting where Governor Cuomo said that the purpose of the third track was to give the route redundancy. It would allow trains to bypass delayed trains and also allow reverse commuting during rush hour. The project would be a "design and build" project and would be completed in 3-5 years. Grade level crossings would also be eliminated. Freight trains are not the reason for this project. He said that there would be little taking of property for the third track project itself.

REM3Night wrote:There was a meeting some time last week. The mayors from the villages along the planned third track were invited to a meeting where Governor Cuomo said that the purpose of the third track was to give the route redundancy. It would allow trains to bypass delayed trains and also allow reverse commuting during rush hour. The project would be a "design and build" project and would be completed in 3-5 years. Grade level crossings would also be eliminated. Freight trains are not the reason for this project. He said that there would be little taking of property for the third track project itself.

So it was confirmed at this meeting that the project will include grade-crossing eliminations? I assumed there would be none, because the MTA didn't mention eliminating any grade crossings in its press release (only mentioning undergoing "safety studies" at the grade crossings), and I assumed the lack of grade-crossing eliminations was part of why this most recent proposal would need a lot less land than past proposals. But I guess it's not good to assume.

Not exactly. Cuomo said that he will try to get funds from the Feds to remove all of the grade crossings on that line

Ahhh, here we go: Cuomo seeks Nassau villages’ support for LIRR third track from Newsday

Cuomo seeks Nassau villages’ support for LIRR third track

Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo is considering eliminating seven LIRR at-grade crossings as part of his $1 billion proposal to build a third track on the railroad’s Main Line.
...
Last month, at a surprise meeting with representatives of four villages along the Main Line, Cuomo offered what Westbury Mayor Peter Cavallaro called a “carrot for the communities” — the possibility of eliminating seven LIRR at-grade crossings. Communities along the route have sought for years to get rid of the crossings, which are dangerous and cause significant traffic backups during rush hours as motorists wait for trains to pass.
...
In part because of the high price tag and the necessity to build on private property, the DOT and LIRR have eliminated just two crossings on Long Island since 1998, both in Mineola. The LIRR previously has said each elimination could cost $100 million.
....
“There are existing, terrible impacts on those communities. And if we had a third track it would only get worse,” said Nowakowski, adding that the LIRR will “explore grade crossing elimination” as part of the project’s environmental study, expected to begin this year.

Cuomo’s description of the renewed effort has differed from the LIRR’s original proposal. The governor has said it would have relatively minimal impact on neighboring communities and reduced the number of private properties that would be encroached upon from about 200 to approximately 50.

Full article is paywalled, but the gist is that Cuomo/the MTA is indeed looking into eliminating the grade crossings. But doing that would require more land than the small amount of land Cuomo has promised to take. MTA/Cuomo really need to come out with a concrete, detailed plan. I don't want to legitimize NIMBYs but I can at least agree that the powers that be haven't been very forthcoming with the hard facts.
...

So Cuomo is trying to soften up the opposition from the villages by saying to them, "if you'll stop fighting us re: a third track, we'll eliminate all your grade crossings for you." Yeah, great marketing strategy, but where is all the funding coming from, that up 'til now has been so scarce? And what if the money from the feds is not forthcoming? Then what?

And anyway, what is the big problem with grade crossings on a 3-track railroad? In Chicago's west suburbs, the former Burlington Route, (now METRA) has 3 tracks and many grade crossings and a mix of commuter and freight trains and they seem to manage okay.

http://www.mta.info/press-release/lirr/ ... eeded-long
Cuomo now says that no residential property will be taken for this project. One thing's for sure, the engineering will be a challenge.
How they will eliminate the crossings, along with installing the third track, while working while the railroad is running. And I wonder how they will install the third track (which I assume will be on the south side of the ROW) and managing the eastbound platforms.
I assume each new bridge will require a weekend shutdown of service.
With the project gaining support, hopefully this "train of progress" will be able to roll through unstopped by the narrow minded obstructionists in all these villages (including my own).

PWM:

From what I have noticed adding the third track with a minimum of disturbing private properties along the line is
going to be a challenge - but is very doable if tracks are shifted and retaining walls are built in spots.

The problem is getting the message out about the positives of the Third Track Project and not letting the negative
NIMBY and BANANA opponents get the upper hand to stop the progress of this badly needed LIRR addition.

H-EV:

I am familiar with the BNSF Aurora Line from riding the route (relatives once lived near Westmont) and noting the
variety of train traffic from METRA and Amtrak service running along with BNSF freight trains. This route not only
has many grade crossings - they also have quiet zones enforced for most if not all of the route.

I believe what makes the LIRR different is the presence of the third rails along with 80mph trains. I don't think that
train speeds are a problem - the trouble is with the added third track along with increased train service crossings
could be blocked for added periods of time even going as far as to gates being down for longer periods then they
are up to safely allow trains to maintain train speeds and station stops on the Main Line.

Eliminating these Main Line grade crossings is a good move and makes sense as part of the Third Track Project.

MACTRAXX

For some reason, I recall the reason for a lot of property acquisition in the original (c2005) plan was because of the grade crossing elimination - the area around the crossings like New Hyde Park Road are rather flat. Think about the reconfiguration needed to obtain the grade separation for Roslyn Rd - they had to purchase and demolish a building on the SW corner of Roslyn & 2nd in Mineola for the ROW (I think it's a sump now).
Has anyone know where these updated plans are posted - the MTA Press release linked above doesn't link to anything.

Does the "we will not have to take any residential land at all" refer only to the 3rd track or does it include the grade-crossing eliminations? It's it the latter I'd love to see what kind of magical engineering the MTA/Cuomo have planned to do all that without needing any land (I admit, I'm not an engineer). If it's the former, what's the game plan here? Are the MTA/Cuomo going to say to the villages "Yeah we won't need any residential land for the 3rd track, but if you want us to get rid of those grade crossings we are going to need some land after all."? Although I don't know how many residential properties are in the vicinities of the 7 grade crossings.

Sir Ray wrote:For some reason, I recall the reason for a lot of property acquisition in the original (c2005) plan was because of the grade crossing elimination - the area around the crossings like New Hyde Park Road are rather flat. Think about the reconfiguration needed to obtain the grade separation for Roslyn Rd - they had to purchase and demolish a building on the SW corner of Roslyn & 2nd in Mineola for the ROW (I think it's a sump now).
Has anyone know where these updated plans are posted - the MTA Press release linked above doesn't link to anything.

As far as I know the MTA/Cuomo has posted almost nothing in terms of technical documents, site plans, etc. for this latest (2016) plan. Hopefully I'm wrong and haven't looked hard enough and somebody can point to something that has been posted. At least, I haven't seen anything online. I don't know if they've shown anything to the villagers at local meetings. Actually, looking at the Newsday article I linked to yesterday, some opponents of the plan have argued that the MTA/Cuomo haven't been forthcoming enough and haven't been giving the details they've been asking for. I can't say I disagree with them on that front.

Riverduckexpress wrote:Are the MTA/Cuomo going to say to the villages "Yeah we won't need any residential land for the 3rd track, but if you want us to get rid of those grade crossings we are going to need some land after all."? Although I don't know how many residential properties are in the vicinities of the 7 grade crossings\.

Well, upon reflection, a three track version of the Rockville Centre, Valley Stream, or Amityville elevated trestles would readily fit within the current ROW limits while resolving all the area's grade crossings issues at the same time.
Just sayin'

Someone said above that 3 tracks will fit the right-of-way easily if the existing 2 tracks are shifted slightly. Doing that would make the whole job much more complicated and expensive. My guess is the 3rd track will be built on the south side as someone else suggested.

Mactraxx, I agree with most of your reasoning re: the crossing elimination. But I don't understand how the lack of a third-rail makes the same configuration more acceptable in the Chicago suburbs than here. Can you explain that a little more? Also, I'm surprised the railroads out there agreed to quiet zones in those towns. Do they have 80mph speeds there too?