Cost of LIRR East Side Plan Pushes Debate

Maybe the public was right in suggesting the MTA should utilize the lower level of GCT for the LIRR ESA project: http://www.tstc.org/bulletin/20051219/mtr51603.html
Here is the actual report: http://irum.org/lirr_esa.htm
I find it interesting that the report claims the ULLA plan will save 1.2 billion to 2 billion, and it might reduce the contruction period of the ESA by 2 years.

There is no use debating something that has no merrit. this organisation has no study, no info just empty claptrap.

they should get the facts first.

the report wrote:There are 46 platform tracks used by 51 trains in the peak hour. Each platform is used, on average, by one train every 54 minutes. In contrast, Penn Station, as well as rail terminals in London and Paris, typically have one train every twelve to twenty minutes at each platform..

It is kinda interesting, the idea they could save a ton of money. The engineers who studied it seem pretty solid but I guess Dutch is right, they're not railroad people.

First, I counted about 60 trains peak hour, they didn't count outbounds I guess. Plus trains that turn and deadhead back to the suburbs.

I think the real problem is the interlockings, they probably couldn't handle a bunch of LIRR trains. Plus the different power systems.

I remember back in the 1960s when New Jersey was getting heavily involved in commuter rail transportation. They said they were going to run EL MU trains into Penn Station. All they had to do was build a connection. That both systems used overhead wire. They later admitted they had no idea there were different voltages, plus ac and dc. (They were mostly guys from the state Highway Dept.)

They also announced they were going to add a lot of service to Penn Station since it was only used at 50% capacity. Then they found out what that meant - at 5 AM the station was empty, at 5 PM it was at capacity. Average? 50%!!!!

tommy

Untill the 3rd rail issue is resolved and LIRR trains can run through MN trackage with out defaulting union agreements LIRR would be better off on there own level, yea is stinks that they only can go in unload/load and get out, hoe ever there not shareing any of MNs tracks witch does not arise needs for poilets and union violations.

there predicting 2012 is the year GCT opens to LIRR, lets holed them too if if it's not in 2012 the state has a to answer with out bullshitting why they only this state cant keep a budget and work on time. 30 years to do what the PRR or NYC would have done in 3 years, its pretty sad. (minus all the anti new construction and environmental infractions)

isnt it interesting how the MTA has all this money to throw around, but lets the transit workers strike rather then giving them 6-6-and 6 instead of 3-4-4? Astounding no?

I have to apologize for my first post...Please note the ULLA (Upper Level Loop Alternative) plan has nothing to do with the lower level of GCT. This was an error on my part.

Now where is the moderator in this forum? I think it is unfair and improper for LirrConductor to spread disinformation in this thread. Let's try to stick with the facts. The NYCTA TWU emplyees are on strike, not the LIRR. LirrConductor should know better than anyone else that capital construction funds cannot be used for paying wages and benefits. The ESA is a capital construction project.

If this thread is going to be about the NYCTA strike, the moderators should lock it or move it to the NYCT forum.

Herring wrote:LirrConductor should know better than anyone else that capital construction funds cannot be used for paying wages and benefits. The ESA is a capital construction project. .

It's not unheard of for capital funds to be used to cover operational costs; it happens with Amtrak and NJT, and I'll bet it's happened with the LIRR, too (I recall hearing that some of the funds from the last transportation bond ended up this way, but I'm not certain). So, in theory, the extra cash for wages and benefits could come from the operations budget, and the difference covered with money taken from the bond. But this is really off-topic here.

I do believe that it certainly seems to make more sense to do it that way. But, there are some serious technical issues that need to be resolved first, namely, operating LIRR trains on MN third-rail. I'm not sure how difficult this would be (to me, as a layperson, it doesn't seem too hard to simply support the third rail from behind, as opposed to above or below, and energize the top and bottom, but I'm sure if it were that easy, it would have been done), and a good chunk of the estimated savings could be eaten up with the solution (which, at worst, would require completely relaying third-rail on MN or the LIRR, and the equipment modifications that would accompany it).