Comments on: On Long Island’s East End, a move toward secession

By: Andrew

Andrew — Sun, 07 Feb 2010 00:00:02 +0000

In other words – the third track won’t help peak direction commuters at all, since they get service on both tracks. There’s little reason for peak direction commuters to support it.

If the LIRR wants it built, perhaps it needs to make the decision to use one track to serve the reverse-peak market, even if that means a severe service cut in the peak direction.

By: Alon Levy

Alon Levy — Sat, 06 Feb 2010 21:17:20 +0000

The third track isn’t there to increase commute speeds from Ronkonkoma to New York. It’s there to increase capacity. Right now, there are 26 tph in the peak direction, which is beyond the capacity of the signaling used on the LIRR; this forces the LIRR to run trains in the peak direction on both tracks, which means that for two hours each day, there’s no reverse peak service.

By: Marc Shepherd

Marc Shepherd — Sat, 06 Feb 2010 16:50:58 +0000

Realistically, there is a long list of projects that would be done before a huge investment in the Greenport Branch would make it to the top of the queue.

There are only six stations past Ronkonkoma. Which ones would you close?

By: pete

pete — Sat, 06 Feb 2010 03:35:15 +0000

Perhaps investing in the tracks, electrification, and upgrading speeds, and closing a few stations will bring the Greenport and Ronkonkoma branch into commuting distance of NYC. Theres that “third track” on the main line project thats been floating around for years as a proposal by the MTA.

By: Jerrold

Jerrold — Fri, 05 Feb 2010 21:33:02 +0000

Scott, that link is available only to paying Newsday subscribers.

By: Marc Shepherd

Marc Shepherd — Fri, 05 Feb 2010 18:32:38 +0000

Part of the reason the Greenport branch is underused is because there are so few trains.

I don’t think that is the reason. Those distant stations are too far away for any sane daily commuter. Both the Montauk Branch (which is keeping its service) and the Greenport Branch (which is losing it) have just one morning train at the most distant stations. Montauk, of course, does have more service overall, simply because it is the more popular destination.

By: Scott E

Scott E — Fri, 05 Feb 2010 16:59:32 +0000

Marc – to take your last comment even further, every PART of every county is hit with the same tax. If those five towns secede from the Metropolitan Commuter Transportation District, they’d still be in Suffolk county (along with Huntington and Islip, for instance, who are served somewhat decently) so they couldn’t break away from the tax. They’d pretty much need to form their own county, or change the definition of MCTD.

Part of the reason the Greenport branch is underused is because there are so few trains. Commuters in many east-end towns drive to a more western station which has more frequent service. It’s the whole chicken-and-the-egg mystery.

By: Marc Shepherd

Marc Shepherd — Fri, 05 Feb 2010 16:20:58 +0000

Pardon for posting a second comment, but why would weekend service be preserved if weekday service is axed? I guess for the ferry connections for vacationers?

The summer weekend service (which I have used) is packed, not just with vacationers, but with folks who have second homes out there. There are also a ton of folks who go out for wine tours.

Do the day-trippers really outweigh the residents’ westbound commuting by that much?

The Greenport Branch is not heavily used for commuting, which is why the MTA feels it can cancel the whole service.

Is there a technical capability to run 1-2 car shuttles between Montauk and Ronkonkoma (w/ a timed transfer) to generate more frequent service at a lower cost?

The issue is not the Montauk service, which is being retained, but the Greenport service, which is being cut back to summer weekends.

It does indeed seem like MTA would lose in the end in this, if the service costs $45m to run but the East End pays $60m into the system.

Right: because the payroll tax that the legislature enacted did not discriminate between well-served and poorly-served areas. Every county in the MTA service area was hit with the identical tax.

By: Aaron

Aaron — Fri, 05 Feb 2010 15:58:25 +0000

(replying on my iPhone, hope it threaded properly…)

@Russell: I can’t imagine either Suffolk or RI wanting each other, they may be close as the crow flies, but there’s no real community ties b/t the two… RI is actually a fairly poor state and Providence is in what seems to be a perpetual state of decay.

By: Russell Warshay

Russell Warshay — Fri, 05 Feb 2010 13:55:11 +0000

Suffolk County would so dominate Rhode Island politics that I could see the original part of Rhode Island starting a secession movement from Suffolk County.