When the LIRR finished heavy work on the Ronkonkoma Branch Double Track project last month, most riders were happy that the delays and reliability issues that had been omnipresent during the summer months as crews worked out bugs and issues with the new equipment would subside. But while the promise of increased reliability was a welcome sign to some riders, those that were holding out for increased service have been rather disappointed.
While the LIRR now has two continuous tracks all the way to Ronkonkoma, the completion of the second track did not bring about any new service, or any real relief to those on crowded rush hour trains. All that we have seen is the extension of three existing reverse-peak trains that originally began/ended at Farmingdale and the addition of a couple of stops to already existing trains. There is no new peak service. Glaringly absent was the introduction of half-hourly off-peak service along the Ronkonkoma Branch, which was one of the MTA/LIRR’s main selling points for the project when they were seeking funding for it. The extension of two peak Farmingdale trains to Ronkonkoma, also promised as part of the project planning process, have not materialized either.
While the Ronkonkoma Branch Double Track project was still a good project, those that have to deal with crowded Ronkonkoma trains will clearly not be satisfied with the new service (or lack thereof) brought about by this nearly half-billion dollar investment. And with nothing else really being done in the short term to increase capacity and provide improved service or relief to those on crowded trains, there will still be questions about what is being done to actually improve service.
The response to those questions will likely be “when the third track is finished”…, and while a third track between Floral Park and Hicksville would be a big deal for reverse-peak service: it would enable two-way service on the Main Line for the entire rush hour period, it won’t do all that much else on its own—it won’t be a magic bullet, and it won’t solve all of the LIRR’s problems.
The third track won’t do much to improve service for peak-direction travelers, the railroad’s largest existing market. During the height of the rush hour now, the LIRR already uses both of the two existing Main Line tracks for service in the peak direction—if the new track is used for reverse-peak service, then there will still have just two tracks available for peak-direction service. And the Environmental Impact Statement for the project bears this out…according to tables 10-1 through 10-5 in the FEIS, the third track on its own will allow for just one additional peak-direction train during the entire 4-hour peak period:
Between now and 2040, the third track EIS projected a 67% increase in AM Peak ridership, yet the Ronkonkoma Branch Double Track Project, East Side Access, and the Third Main Line Track all together would allow for just a 18% increase in the number of AM Peak trains on the Main Line. Those numbers don’t quite equal out.
If the LIRR’s ridership projections prove true, and the average number of seats per train stays the same, we’re likely to have big crowding problems on peak-direction trains. In the 2040 Build scenario (which assumes the KO Double Track, ESA, and the third track—together over $15 billion worth of projects—are all up and running) the average load on trains will be 131%—which means there will likely be standees down the aisle on every peak train. There would be an average of more than 300 standees on every AM peak train, and more than 18,000 over the course of the four-hour peak period. Things would not be much better in the evening rush hours, with an average of 280 standees on every train and almost 15,000 in total—if their ridership projections bear out.
That means one of two things is going to happen: either the MTA inflated the projected ridership increases to help substantiate a $2.6+ billion project, and ridership will not increase that much after all, or the ridership increases will actually materialize and put us on a collision course for overcrowded trains.
When the huge disparity between the ridership projections and the amount of new trains that all of the projects will enable was brought up during the EIS public comment period, the answer from the project team was that peak direction capacity issues would be addressed through East Side Access “and other projects” (though the EIS’s service analysis included East Side Access already, see table 10-1). The MTA has not provide any further detail on what those “other projects” would be, how much they would cost, and how much extra service the LIRR would then be able to provide. The response to comments also tried to throw water on the ridership projections used throughout the EIS saying they are “subject to a number of factors” but that “the LIRR monitors and reviews train load data on an on-going basis” and that “the LIRR believes will enable it to adaptively respond to ridership growth”, which does not sound all that assuring.
While the LIRR may believe it could “adaptaively respond to ridership growth”, past experience does not inspire much confidence in that statement. Despite many changes in ridership demands and travel patterns over the last three decades, the LIRR’s rush hour service patterns have not seen any substantive changes since the late 1980’s when the Ronkonkoma Branch electrification project was completed. If you go back even further and compare the Babylon Branch timetable from 1978 with the one from today, there are relatively few differences (except all of the running times being several minutes longer). The LIRR has made peak service changes to reduce delays or better distribute riders extreemly sparingly over the years, even after the same trains are late or overcrowded year after year.
And even if the LIRR could think on their feet and “adaptively respond to ridership growth”, they would need to have the physical infrastructure in place to add trains where necessary. The on the next page shows the LIRR’s current Main Line morning rush hour schedule, broken down into four periods: first thing in the morning (period A), the roughly 1 hour, 20 minute period where both tracks are used in the peak direction (period B), the short period where the LIRR transitions back to two-direction service (period C), and the rest of the rush hour (period D).
So while the third track may enable some additional peak service, it would only allow a noteworthy increase in service outside of the peak of the rush hour. So if your Main Line commute brings you into a western terminal between 7:30a and 9:00a—prime commuting time, where more than half of the Main Line’s AM peak ridership is travelling—do not hold your breath for much relief from the third track.
That is not to say you can expect no added capacity during this rush hour period, but any additional trains from Huntington, Ronkonkoma, etc. will have to come at the expense at something else. For example, eliminating through diesel trains and cutting them back to Huntington or Babylon and using those slots to run longer MU trains would provide some additional capacity (as a 12 car MU can fit more people than a 4 or 6 car diesel train), or cutting Huntington trains could allow the LIRR to run extra service from Ronkonkoma. But that is not necessarily a service improvement, especially if you’re at the wrong end of those sacrificial cuts.
A third Main Line track would allow for continuous reverse-peak service throughout the entire rush hour period, without the nearly hour-and-a-half gap in service we see today. That will be a significant benefit on its own, and an issue that definitely needs to be addressed, but it is only solving part of the problem. The LIRR needs both reverse-peak and peak service improvements to not only add new service opportunities for reverse-peak service, but enable future growth in peak-direction and intra-Island travel as well.
