U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Covid-19 Information Page
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > New York > Long Island
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 06-12-2018, 06:56 AM
 
2,293 posts, read 2,386,063 times
Reputation: 1642

Advertisements

A rail tunnel would not address the LI truck/car congestion issue. A truck/car tunnel would.

The cross channel tunnel (France/England) does not address that issue but, of course, that was not the issue that was addressed.

As an FYI, a relatively small number of cars do travel through the chunnel - aboard specially designed trains.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 06-12-2018, 07:12 AM
 
Location: Long Island
9,297 posts, read 13,490,940 times
Reputation: 5617
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quick Commenter View Post
A rail tunnel would not address the LI truck/car congestion issue. A truck/car tunnel would.
Why not for cars? Say someone going from Port Jeff to Bridgeport (or even west of Rye) no longer has to traverse the NSP/LIE and bridges to get there anymore. Straight drive to the rail station and you'll never see them west of LIE exit 42.

Last edited by ovi8; 06-12-2018 at 07:31 AM..
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-12-2018, 08:23 AM
Status: "Rough start to 2021 I was hoping it would be better" (set 9 days ago)
 
Location: Where my bills arrive
11,787 posts, read 11,490,987 times
Reputation: 10928
Perhaps a quicker form of ferries such as those used in Europe would make the sound crossings more palatable.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-12-2018, 10:01 AM
 
Location: Inis Fada
16,966 posts, read 31,002,538 times
Reputation: 7619
Quote:
Originally Posted by OyCrumbler View Post
I would favor a rail only tunnel, but not a car tunnel though this should be a low priority. There's a large and well-trafficked commuter rail network on both sides of the sound that can easily handle the increased rail traffic. The streets on Long Island, especially when going into the city, are choked as is.
Early on, there were proposals in the Northeast Corridor project to improve rail service on LI and create Sound tunnel crossing somewhere in the vicinity of Port Jefferson. That appears to have been scrapped.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-12-2018, 10:06 AM
 
Location: Inis Fada
16,966 posts, read 31,002,538 times
Reputation: 7619
Quote:
Originally Posted by VA Yankee View Post
Perhaps a quicker form of ferries such as those used in Europe would make the sound crossings more palatable.
The pedestrian only SeaJet (Cross Sound Ferry) makes the crossing in 40 minutes, while the auto ferries take 80 minutes.

If each ferry company invested in a high speed auto ferry, or if the municipalities on both ends (cough, cough PJV) had better shuttle service to the trains, more people might be inclined to use it. I would pay extra to get across in half the time.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-12-2018, 12:03 PM
 
Location: Huntington Station
215 posts, read 182,158 times
Reputation: 169
Quote:
Originally Posted by VA Yankee View Post
Perhaps a quicker form of ferries such as those used in Europe would make the sound crossings more palatable.
Quote:
Originally Posted by OhBeeHave View Post
I would pay extra to get across in half the time.
Considering the current ferry is just about $60 for a car and driver, how much would be reasonable for a faster service?

It's nice to take the ferry once in a while, but when you factor in the time it takes to drive to Port Jeff and the time to load and unload a vehicle, I'm not sure it (currently) saves much time at all.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-12-2018, 05:58 PM
 
Location: In the heights
28,422 posts, read 27,689,644 times
Reputation: 15227
Quote:
Originally Posted by exm View Post
I think you're making a lot of valid points, but we have to deal with the situation as-is. First of all, I don't see (union) politics change. Secondly, taking the train up North sounds great but I think most of us are looking for an easier way out - by car. I would be totally open for a combined solution, although that will be way too expensive.


The easiest way out is this: put forward a proposal acceptable to all parties (including most local communities) and make this a privately funded tunnel. If the toll is $25/$30 each way it will be up to the people if it's worth it. I feel this tunnel can be constructed for 40% of the cost or less compared to NY-unionized labor.
I don't see union politics changing without the drive to do so, and there's definitely a lot of kvetching about unions. I'm not against unions at all nor do I think kneecapping unions are a good or necessary solution (as if peer countries like the UK and France don't have unions), but I think some of the excesses that are immediately visible as waste like the two to three times crew size needed for tunnel boring machines in NYC as opposed to the crews needed in developed European countries or the hundreds that were found in an audit of payroll for East Side Access who had no discernible job can be turned into a political instrument. I've heard that Swiss civil engineers have a phrase that's "organization before electronics before concrete." Tackling how we organize our commuter rail system and procurement system is organization and needs to be dealt with in order to make the concrete things like this tunnel better. Reconfiguring the agencies and their procurement system IS part of improving transit.

I think a lot of people probably do want a car, but then you're talking more about leisure than you are about commuting where a tunnel for trains can be far more efficient overall. This also means having fewer necessary precautions in place for venting that tunnel since an electric rail line doesn't have nearly the same issue and can have a massive capacity load.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Quick Commenter View Post
A rail tunnel would not address the LI truck/car congestion issue. A truck/car tunnel would.

The cross channel tunnel (France/England) does not address that issue but, of course, that was not the issue that was addressed.

As an FYI, a relatively small number of cars do travel through the chunnel - aboard specially designed trains.
Yes, I think the chunnel version where there are potentially points for cars to be loaded onto trains at certain times could work out if there's enough demand for it. Then again, car ferries that exist or can be expanded can fulfill that purpose as well. Additionally, unlike the chunnel, there is actually a car route, roundabout as it might be, for people who really, really need their vehicles to come with them.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ovi8 View Post
Why not for cars? Say someone going from Port Jeff to Bridgeport (or even west of Rye) no longer has to traverse the NSP/LIE and bridges to get there anymore. Straight drive to the rail station and you'll never see them west of LIE exit 42.
Certainly that can work and will take cars away from that, but you're going to have a pretty hard sell to people in the municipalities in each landing point who will see their neighborhoods swamped by cars. Additionally, cars are not all electric and you'll have to vent that exhaust somewhere and exhaust as well as the relatively high frequency of automobile traffic accidents and the difficulty of managing those in a narrow underground space is why the chunnel does not have cars running through them.

Basically, I think a tunnel linkage for these points is horrible unless we're banking on a very, very near future of ubiquitous electric self-driving car fleets. Otherwise, the closest well-working analogue is the chunnel and there are good reasons for why they did that which makes even more sense for us since there is ultimately an alternative (i.e. existing) route to move cars.

Last edited by OyCrumbler; 06-12-2018 at 06:59 PM..
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-12-2018, 09:42 PM
 
Location: Long Island
9,297 posts, read 13,490,940 times
Reputation: 5617
^ I was referring to a rail tunnel.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-13-2018, 12:42 AM
 
1,251 posts, read 1,576,688 times
Reputation: 2221
You all have these proposals for a tunnel,or bridge across LI sound, but where are you getting the money ? Plus all the libs in LI would cry about the pollution of the sound ( they have a point), plus once Andy Cuomo gets embarrassed on the national stage when he starts his pipe dream of becoming President, he will be obsolete and his ideas will be put back on the back burner, just like this idea was squashed in the 70s
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-13-2018, 08:33 AM
 
Location: Inis Fada
16,966 posts, read 31,002,538 times
Reputation: 7619
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1174Sixer View Post
Considering the current ferry is just about $60 for a car and driver, how much would be reasonable for a faster service?

It's nice to take the ferry once in a while, but when you factor in the time it takes to drive to Port Jeff and the time to load and unload a vehicle, I'm not sure it (currently) saves much time at all.
I f your screen name is your zip, I can understand your view on the ferry vs. time vs. value given the time it would take you to get to PJ for the ferry.

It takes me 8-10 minutes to drive to the PJ ferry, so for me, the ferry headed to New England works well. It is 100 miles from my home to the Bridgeport ferry (exit 27) on I-95. On a good day, that's a 2 hour ride for me -- on a bad day, it has taken 3.5 hours.

I'm at $30+ for gas and tolls and wear and tear to get from my home to the ferry if I choose to drive around. If I take the ferry: 30 min wait , 75 min crossing, 15 min unload = 2 hours. (Truth be told, I usually roll up at PJ 15 mins instead of 30 mins before departure.)

The question I asked myself was this: how much is my time worth? Do I save $30 driving for 2 hours (or possibly sitting in traffic even longer) or do I spend $30 and work, nap, or relax on the ferry? With that figure in mind, to answer your question: I would pay $30 more (car and driver) for high speed ferry on the Bridgeport-PJ ferry.

My little OBH is in college near Albany. I drive up there, but leave early in the am to avoid the rush hour. Same day trips to Albany (move in day, move out day at school) I will use the ferry to come home as I am usually tired. Taking the ferry home shaves 60 miles off of the trip and keeps me off the Taconic when I am weary.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:



Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > New York > Long Island

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2021, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top