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.
That's almost 5 miles of tunneling under communities from Syosset to the Oyster Bay (body of water, not community).
I think a Syosset - Port Chester tunnel would be about 16 miles long, or half the length of the Channel Tunnel (Chunnel) which opened about 25 years ago.
Does the United States still have the gumption for such construction projects, especially after the bitter taste of megaprojects like the "Big Dig"?
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.
I would favor a rail only tunnel, but not a car tunnel. 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.
Sort of--it's more like the LIRR and commuter rail in the Tri-State Area are balkanized and terribly mismanaged with accountability for construction and operations has been lacking, and in addition to mass transit in the United States being pretty meager.
New Jersey Transit Rail and Long Island Railroad should have been doing combined operations the whole time as the turnaround they do at Penn Station and Sunnyside Yards is wasted time and capacity due to the lack of cooperation among the agencies. If the Gateway Project or its equivalent ever happens, then even more slots across the Hudson River open up and the wasted time and operations (and with that, money) from the split operation they do will be even worse.
On top of that, the East Side Access plan was stupid, because while it does allow for more capacity, it's still a stupid terminal station with a massive interlocking where you have to negotiate different berths and trains taking turns in and out of the berths into the two tracks. The funding for that is mostly wasted on creating the cavernous amount of room needed for this massive interlocking and the many berths it serves which is far more expensive than just multiple smaller platforms and tunneling that it could have been. For less than that amount of money and with likewise unions and high wages, London gets a through-running efficient commuter rail service connecting the ends of different commuter rail lines and offering high-frequency service in its urban center which is the Tri-State Area equivalent of the East Side Access plan having been, instead of a terminal and interlocking at Grand Central, through-running LIRR tracks from Grand Central to downtown Manhattan and then across the East River to loop around to Atlantic Terminal in Brooklyn back out with a few stations along the way. Some real dumb planning.
If the terminals were changed into through-running stations, which can be done in what would be the likely ridiculous amount of time it'd take to create this cross-sound tunnel rail or otherwise, then the LIRR and Metro-North tracks this would be connecting and the terminals they would serve could certainly have more than enough capacity to run trains through.
Sort of--it's more like the LIRR and commuter rail in the Tri-State Area are balkanized and terribly mismanaged with accountability for construction and operations has been lacking, and in addition to mass transit in the United States being pretty meager.
New Jersey Transit Rail and Long Island Railroad should have been doing combined operations the whole time as the turnaround they do at Penn Station and Sunnyside Yards is wasted time and capacity due to the lack of cooperation among the agencies. If the Gateway Project or its equivalent ever happens, then even more slots across the Hudson River open up and the wasted time and operations (and with that, money) from the split operation they do will be even worse.
On top of that, the East Side Access plan was stupid, because while it does allow for more capacity, it's still a stupid terminal station with a massive interlocking where you have to negotiate different berths and trains taking turns in and out of the berths into the two tracks. The funding for that is mostly wasted on creating the cavernous amount of room needed for this massive interlocking and the many berths it serves which is far more expensive than just multiple smaller platforms and tunneling that it could have been. For less than that amount of money and with likewise unions and high wages, London gets a through-running efficient commuter rail service connecting the ends of different commuter rail lines and offering high-frequency service in its urban center which is the Tri-State Area equivalent of the East Side Access plan having been, instead of a terminal and interlocking at Grand Central, through-running LIRR tracks from Grand Central to downtown Manhattan and then across the East River to loop around to Atlantic Terminal in Brooklyn back out with a few stations along the way. Some real dumb planning.
If the terminals were changed into through-running stations, which can be done in what would be the likely ridiculous amount of time it'd take to create this cross-sound tunnel rail or otherwise, then the LIRR and Metro-North tracks this would be connecting and the terminals they would serve could certainly have more than enough capacity to run trains through.
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.
Hey I'll even take that rail tunnel. We usually only go up there as a family with a bit of gear, but we can make it work. Looking at about 15 trips this upcoming year. The time & headache savings alone is worth it (assuming the boarding station isn't a time-sucker in itself).
And there's the added benefit of less traffic on our west-east highways too.
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.
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.
