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.
The real sad thing is that rail as part of GWB was killed off in favor of adding more motor vehicle capacity.
There needs to be not just another crossing under (or over) Hudson River, but another approach besides the packed PATH and former PRR mainline to the tunnels.
Out of curiosity to someone in the know, are bridges about on par or significantly less time-consuming and expensive to build than tunnels? Could it potentially be less expensive to expand the A, C or 1 line into NJ on an expanded or parallel GWB instead of digging another rail tunnel which would be required for the other options being floated? From my layman's perspective, it seems like the new Tappan Zee was built within a reasonable timeframe. That might only benefit Bergen and Rockland county commuters, but it would at least relieve some stress. Even expanding the #7 train to Secaucus would require the need for another tunnel.
Unless a crisis occurs such as one or both of the tunnels into Penn failing it seems like the inaction will continue and the can will be kicked further down the road. Now Washington is playing silly politics with funding for the Gateway project which is a shame. By the time a real solution is put into place, most people enduring the commute will be retired. It is predicted that there will be a 40% increase in commuters from NJ to NYC in the next 20 years and all options (bus/car, NJ Transit train and PATH) are already bursting at the seams. And as noted by the title of this thread, the PATH is already over-capacity.
Out of curiosity to someone in the know, are bridges about on par or significantly less time-consuming and expensive to build than tunnels? Could it potentially be less expensive to expand the A, C or 1 line into NJ on an expanded or parallel GWB instead of digging another rail tunnel which would be required for the other options being floated? From my layman's perspective, it seems like the new Tappan Zee was built within a reasonable timeframe. That might only benefit Bergen and Rockland county commuters, but it would at least relieve some stress. Even expanding the #7 train to Secaucus would require the need for another tunnel.
Unless a crisis occurs such as one or both of the tunnels into Penn failing it seems like the inaction will continue and the can will be kicked further down the road. Now Washington is playing silly politics with funding for the Gateway project which is a shame. By the time a real solution is put into place, most people enduring the commute will be retired. It is predicted that there will be a 40% increase in commuters from NJ to NYC in the next 20 years and all options (bus/car, NJ Transit train and PATH) are already bursting at the seams. And as noted by the title of this thread, the PATH is already over-capacity.
Expanding NYC subway system into New Jersey has been talked about on and off for decades. Originally then mayor Bloomberg was pushing or whatever the idea of the #7 train extension (to Hudson Yards) going all the way into New Jersey.
Bridges bring with them certain problems, especially when they cross navigable bodies of water such as North River, mouth of New York harbor, New York harbor in general....
For one thing the bridge must be high enough to allow shipping to pass underneath. That or as with the Portal Bridge be able to swing, draw up or otherwise get out of the way so ships can pass underneath.
Problem is when you make a bridge high enough (like the Verrazano) for large ships to get under, you also increase the grade (including approaches) that a train must climb. Today's locomotives have more power for such work, but still.
Then there is fact bridges clutter up people's views.
Before plans were finally settled to build the GWB uptown there were a few plans to build a bridge across the Hudson roughly in the West Village area. Can you imagine what that would have done.
Tunneling is a huge expense, especially for railroads. That is why PRR lone among the other railroads that ended at New Jersey side of Hudson bothered. Some say the expense of those tunnels, Penn Station, tunnel to and Sunnyside yards is what began the fiscal end of Pennsylvania Railroad. Others say because of that one up over the Lackawanna, CNJ and others, PRR was in better shape and lasted longer than it otherwise would have.
Main issue today is that a one seat ride into and out of NYP is what people have come to expect.
Considering how much success New York City has had with their new ferry service across East River from points in Brooklyn and Queens to Manhattan, you'd think there would be interest in reviving some sort of rail to ferry terminal service. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pavonia_Terminal
Another means of crossing the Hudson would be to take a page from New York Central RR, and go north instead of directly east. Sadly the only other RR bridge below Albany has long been abandoned and turned into a "rail trail". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walkway_over_the_Hudson
Considering how much success New York City has had with their new ferry service across East River from points in Brooklyn and Queens to Manhattan, you'd think there would be interest in reviving some sort of rail to ferry terminal service. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pavonia_Terminal
Another means of crossing the Hudson would be to take a page from New York Central RR, and go north instead of directly east. Sadly the only other RR bridge below Albany has long been abandoned and turned into a "rail trail". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walkway_over_the_Hudson
There was at one point talk of turning the old Tappan Zee into a rail-only bridge and that would have been a big win for Rockland County commuters plus it probably would have dramatically increased property values. Too bad that idea didn't come to fruition.
How frequent are the NY Waterway ferries to ice closures during the winter? Half-serious, but at this point maybe even a high-capacity cable car like Roosevelt Island needs to be explored although probably even the highest capacity cable car could not meet the crushing demand.
There was at one point talk of turning the old Tappan Zee into a rail-only bridge and that would have been a big win for Rockland County commuters plus it probably would have dramatically increased property values. Too bad that idea didn't come to fruition.
How frequent are the NY Waterway ferries to ice closures during the winter? Half-serious, but at this point maybe even a high-capacity cable car like Roosevelt Island needs to be explored although probably even the highest capacity cable car could not meet the crushing demand.
That do not know. Past winter was rather mild overall so danger of ice forming largely was avoided. In any event given the importance of Hudson River for shipping (heating oil and other goods are shipped upstate to points north, and vice versa), Coast Guard actively works to keep it flowing even in severe cold snap weather.
Tappan Zee didn't get rail because what it always comes down to: money. Though like the GWB new span is designed and built for possibility of adding rail at a later date. We can only hope as with the George Washington that does not give way to adding lanes for motor vehicles instead.
The TZB is where it is because that location lies outside of the Port Authority's jurisdiction, thus all toll revenue goes to NYS. Any new rail service between NJ and NYS would directly compete with (then planned) rail for TZB, so NYS didn't play ball when Chris Christie/Port Authority asked for help with the Gateway project. The rest of both those sad stories we know; CC killed Gateway and the TZB didn't get rail after all.
Both H&M RR and PATH had chances or whatever to expand service into Manhattan. Each dithered, delayed or whatever and thus nothing really ever came of the plans.
But think of the possibilities if H&M (later PATH) had gone into Grand Central Terminal, especially now that LIRR will have "East Side Access" if that project is ever completed.
Out of curiosity to someone in the know, are bridges about on par or significantly less time-consuming and expensive to build than tunnels? Could it potentially be less expensive to expand the A, C or 1 line into NJ on an expanded or parallel GWB instead of digging another rail tunnel which would be required for the other options being floated? From my layman's perspective, it seems like the new Tappan Zee was built within a reasonable timeframe. That might only benefit Bergen and Rockland county commuters, but it would at least relieve some stress. Even expanding the #7 train to Secaucus would require the need for another tunnel.
Unless a crisis occurs such as one or both of the tunnels into Penn failing it seems like the inaction will continue and the can will be kicked further down the road. Now Washington is playing silly politics with funding for the Gateway project which is a shame. By the time a real solution is put into place, most people enduring the commute will be retired. It is predicted that there will be a 40% increase in commuters from NJ to NYC in the next 20 years and all options (bus/car, NJ Transit train and PATH) are already bursting at the seams. And as noted by the title of this thread, the PATH is already over-capacity.
They just built the Goethals for about $1.5B, but that's a much shorter bridge than you would need to span the Hudson. It took years to do the EIS, obtain the property, get the funding, etc. Where would you suggest putting another bridge?
Another consideration is that you would want the bridge for mass transit, not new cars, and with the congestion pricing in Manhattan going into effect next year, more cars will not be encouraged.
Expanding NYC subway system into New Jersey has been talked about on and off for decades. Originally then mayor Bloomberg was pushing or whatever the idea of the #7 train extension (to Hudson Yards) going all the way into New Jersey.
Bridges bring with them certain problems, especially when they cross navigable bodies of water such as North River, mouth of New York harbor, New York harbor in general....
For one thing the bridge must be high enough to allow shipping to pass underneath. That or as with the Portal Bridge be able to swing, draw up or otherwise get out of the way so ships can pass underneath.
Problem is when you make a bridge high enough (like the Verrazano) for large ships to get under, you also increase the grade (including approaches) that a train must climb. Today's locomotives have more power for such work, but still.
Then there is fact bridges clutter up people's views.
Before plans were finally settled to build the GWB uptown there were a few plans to build a bridge across the Hudson roughly in the West Village area. Can you imagine what that would have done.
Tunneling is a huge expense, especially for railroads. That is why PRR lone among the other railroads that ended at New Jersey side of Hudson bothered. Some say the expense of those tunnels, Penn Station, tunnel to and Sunnyside yards is what began the fiscal end of Pennsylvania Railroad. Others say because of that one up over the Lackawanna, CNJ and others, PRR was in better shape and lasted longer than it otherwise would have.
Main issue today is that a one seat ride into and out of NYP is what people have come to expect.
Considering how much success New York City has had with their new ferry service across East River from points in Brooklyn and Queens to Manhattan, you'd think there would be interest in reviving some sort of rail to ferry terminal service. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pavonia_Terminal
Another means of crossing the Hudson would be to take a page from New York Central RR, and go north instead of directly east. Sadly the only other RR bridge below Albany has long been abandoned and turned into a "rail trail". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walkway_over_the_Hudson
Bridges also have an impact on fish life that tunnels under the riverbed don't have. Ever hear of "light spill"? That's in the EIS for the Goethals. Too much light at night coming from the bridge affects the fish in the Arthur Kill. Too much shadow thrown by the bridge during the day does, too.
What, you didn't think there were fish in the Arthur Kill, huh? Fiddler crabs, too. When they had to build the caissons to construct the piers for the new Goethals, the contractor had to cordon off the area, then they applied a mild electrical current to the water that stunned the marine life but did not kill them, then they collected and relocated them.
Bridges also have an impact on fish life that tunnels under the riverbed don't have. Ever hear of "light spill"? That's in the EIS for the Goethals. Too much light at night coming from the bridge affects the fish in the Arthur Kill. Too much shadow thrown by the bridge during the day does, too.
What, you didn't think there were fish in the Arthur Kill, huh? Fiddler crabs, too. When they had to build the caissons to construct the piers for the new Goethals, the contractor had to cordon off the area, then they applied a mild electrical current to the water that stunned the marine life but did not kill them, then they collected and relocated them.
Bet ya didn't know THAT.
Hey lady, I grew up on Staten Island, but you knew *that* didn't cha?
Likely have forgotten more about the Arthur Kill than many on this board know.
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.
