Discussion relating to the past and present operations of the NYC Subway, PATH, and Staten Island Railway (SIRT).

Moderator: GirlOnTheTrain

  by Jeff Smith
This was a new one on me, and concerned a potential alternative for WOH service to Manhattan:

http://pedestrianobservations.wordpress ... -widening/
Finally, to serve Bronx and Upper Manhattan jobs from both North Jersey and Rockland County, the trains should be combined with good bus service across the GWB. For example, bus lanes on Route 4 could be a strong start, especially if the trains are timed to connect to the buses. More speculatively, there’s a subway bellmouth allowing an extension of the C along the GWB, and relative to the cost of tunneling it should be inexpensive to extend the C as an elevated line toward Paterson over Route 4; the drawback is that the C is slow and would poorly serve the Bronx.
I found it interesting. Subways to NJ, like the 7 proposal. I don't really know how much sense this makes.
  by Paul1705
The bridge was designed to have the strength to handle trains. The problem is, no one has ever decided who would operate such a system.

I think the ridership would be there. But I doubt that Bergen County residents would accept a New York subway extension into their communities. However, it's possible they would be more receptive to a New Jersey Transit light rail line on the bridge - which of course would require a transfer in upper Manhattan.
  by BobLI
All these plans sound great but what about the political and financial support. The businesses in the greater MTA service area pay a MTA payroll tax. Private citizens also pay taxes and tolls to the MTA. Will NJ businesses pay that tax when the subway gets to there county? I dont think NY taxpayers will be too happy if NJ counties dont pay anything to the MTA.
  by R36 Combine Coach
It could probably run as a joint MTA/NJT through service, much like the Port Jervis Line.
  by Jeff Smith
With the PA owning the bridge, I'd say a PA line would be more likely (not that any of this is likely; I'd just never heard about this C bellmouth). They could license operation of an LR system out to NJT, of course.
  by keyboardkat
Passenger wrote:The Verrazano-Narrows Bridge is also sturdy enough to carry a few more decks, including heavy rail.
That idea was floated back in the '60s, when the bridge was being built. But old Robert Moses, who was so anti-rail, anti-mass transit, and pro private automobile, would not hear of it. And he had managed to finagle himself into a position of such power that his word was law, and no one dared oppose him.

He finally got his comuppance, though. The Verrazano was to be the first link in a highway that would run all the way to Montauk. Part of it was to run on Fire Island. The Fire Island property owners apparently had the clout, and the money, to finally put a stop to Moses' grandiose, megalomaniacal plans.
  by CarterB
The original plan for the GWB was to have a four line extension of the ("A" subway??) line over the bridge lower deck, and to loop around in NJ to Ft. Lee Palisades Park Leonia, etc. This was opposed by Moses and by some NJ officials. Eventually the plan was totally dropped and the lower deck was built for autos only. IIRC, there was some prelim tunneling done on the NYC end for the subway turnouts. http://www.subwaynut.com/ct/168a/index.php
  by nyrmetros
It's a shame that there is no cross hudson train system north of midtown. I was unaware that the GWB was designed to handle rail traffic.
  by Patrick Boylan
Sometime in the late 1960's I remember reading in a bridge building book that, yes, the George Washington Bridge designers had at least thought of handling rail.
Also, for whatever it's worth, Labor Day 2012 I took a Circle Line tour, the tourguide speech said there's still room for a 3rd deck intended for rail. I thought that was a bit farfetched, does anybody know how much room there'd be for this supposed 3rd deck?
  by CarterB
News to me that a 3rd deck for rail was ever considered. There is major construction work scheduled for the GWB including redoing the suspension cables and lower roadway, but I haven't heard anything about previous or current plans for a 3rd deck.
  by Paul1705
I believe the bridge was designed so that the second (lower) deck could handle trains; a third deck was not provided for. When the lower deck was added in the early 1960s, neither the Port Authority nor New York City Transit was interested in a rail extension, so only highway lanes were included.

Since the bridge is strong enough for rail, trains could be added at any time - although that would now require the removal of auto lanes.
  by Jeff Smith
No mention of a third deck here: http://www.nycroads.com/crossings/george-washington/
However, the bridge was designed to accommodate a second, truss-stiffened deck that could be added later.
  by Kamen Rider
There is no actual bellmouth.

The primary relay tracks at 174th street yard would have been the through line to the bridge.