Cross Harbor Tunnel (PATH / NYCT/Freight) Staten Island - Brooklyn

And since clearances preclude intermodal terminals to far on island the traffic will remain minimal with 80% endiung up on same highways for delivery.
Use of double stacks or Trailervan trains won't be happening due to clearances for example.

On another forum, there were posts of container traffic in SI's Arlington Yards. If I am not mistaken, it is operated by one of the Class 1s or subsiduary via bridge over Arthur Kill. What I was not sure if the containers were coming into or out of SI. In either case, if the SI/Bklyn tunnel project were implemented, then there is no redundantancy and that Class 1 or NY&A could move the containers to a Brooklyn/Queens intermodal/transloading site right from SI with no extra time sitting at an interchange. Costs could be shared with MTA if tunnel includes subway level for SI to Brooklyn connection.

The point of clearance still stands for LI and I do not know if that could be solved, but that still reduces the trucks entering NYC.

Don't hold your breath for that tunnel, as it may never materialize.

The politicians and planners of the project talk a good talk, but none of their actions show a commitment to upgrading the track standards on Long Island to what track loadings these trains will need. The real estate needed for the facilities to handle these trains on Long Island are slowly being parceled off and sold to developers for non-rail use.

The MTA has its project budget maxed out with big projects like the ESA, Second Avenue Subway and the Seven Line Extension. And those projects are fighting for every penny available. Not to mention those projects the MTA needs to do just to keep what is already in service working.

Maybe if the MTA stopped looking at each of its divisions as seperate entities fighting for $ and combined projects/needs where feasable, then it wouldn't be maxed out. Now I am not saying that LIRR & MNRR have to be one organization, but they have similar goals and could have similar equipment.

For example, the MTA should have forced LIRR & MN to share a diesel design. Even it this lead to DE30s for both, there would have been more of them so costs and problems would have been shared and maybe driven costs down and a solution found.

Another example is ESA - only benefits LIRR. MNRR would like access to Penn Station, so why not shared tunnel or tunnels (1 level/tunnel LIRR, 1 level/tunnel MNRR) under Park Ave with station stop at Grand Central then continuing south until under E.River access tunnels where it would turn west to a new 16-20 track shared MTA level at Penn Station. This would would increase the overall capacity at Penn Station (the real problem), give ESA for LIRR, give WSA for MNRR and interest NJT $ to project, with use of vacated LIRR upper level tracks.

But in all cases with MTA, why should they care - its rider & tax payer $ they are using with no consequences.

Now I bring the above up after reading a post in MTA NYC Subway forum (railroad.net/forums/viewtopic.php?t=42212) where NJT had an idea to use AK bridge & N.Shore SIRR ROW for access to SI Ferry in attempt to relieve congestion on its systems. While this seems a silly idea now, if the Cross Harbor Tunnel connected SI subway to Brooklyn subway, that idea might not seem so bad and add a possible $ source to at least share cost of restoring N.Shore ROW and some to actual tunnel (of course diesels would have to be use to avoid clearance issue with freight). A really extreme idea would be to let NJT continue on Bayridge branch to LIC ferries. Furthing this very extreme idea would then include a shared tunnel between for Midtown Tunnel (3rd tube), LIRR & NJT (dual mode diesels for both) from LIC to Manhattan/Penn Station (old & new level).

Of couse none of this, including the cross harbor tunnel, will happen in my life time, if ever!

Were getting way of topic, this is not about MTA as they were never planned to be part of cross harbor tunnel .

My point is the lack of coordination of projects for NYC and its surrounding area, so each entity and divisions of an entity are forced to fight over funds! The Cross Harbor tunnel would gain more support if it helped connect SI subway to rest of NYC subways.

The Legacy of Robert Moses Lives On

Kill the railroads and build highways all over Manhattan, Queens, and Brooklyn. The unbuilt highways, antiquated railway system of low bridges, and stations, have left us with roads clogged with trucks, and rails that can't do the job.

With that said, I guess the bottom line is NYA can't really grow any bigger than it is. That means no new equipment ever, and at some point does it become too expensive to be worth the effort?

Big promises of a big freight yard in Brentwood. How could that work if no containers can be carried double high?

We all talk of big modern engines, we'll never see 'em here, Hope there is enough business here to keep them in the black. Enjoy one train a day or less in Suffolk, Main or Montauk branches, only.

TOP OFFICIALS AND STAKEHOLDERS MEET TO LAUNCH PROJECT THAT WILL STUDY REGIONAL FREIGHT MOVEMENT ISSUES
Date: November 13, 2008
Press Release Number: 131-2008

Port Authority to Resume Environmental Impact Statement To Address Regional Freight Challenges

With freight movements around the New York-New Jersey region expected to rise by 70 percent in the next 20 years, the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey convened a meeting today with key government and transportation leaders to develop solutions to the issue of how to continue to move billions of dollars in freight - including food, furniture, clothing and other household items - throughout an already congested bistate region.

At the meeting, Port Authority Executive Director Chris Ward discussed long- and short-term strategies to address the freight movement issue in the region where 95 percent of goods are now moved by truck, resulting in severe congestion on bridges and highways, and in air quality issues for those who live and work in the region. The meeting included New York State Transportation Commissioner Astrid Glynn, New York City Transportation Commissioner Janette Sadik-Khan, and Congressman Jerrold Nadler.

As part of a long-term initiative, Mr. Ward announced that the Port Authority will begin an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Cross Harbor Freight Movement Project, which was initially identified as a major regional issue 15 years ago. Mr. Ward outlined three goals of the EIS, which will be completed by the end of 2010: to increase the region's economic competitiveness, decrease traffic congestion, and reduce pollution and greenhouse gas emissions.

As one of the first steps toward addressing the current challenges with cross harbor freight movement, the Port Authority announced the acquisition and planned rehabilitation of the Jersey City, N.J.-based New York New Jersey Rail Corporation, which operates a rail float barge facility that transports cargo-filled rail cars between the two states. As part of the purchase, the agency assumed the existing lease for approximately 27 acres of land at Greenville Yard in Jersey City in connection with the rail float barge operation. The total acquisition cost is estimated at $16 million.

The rail freight barge allows rail cars to be put directly on a barge and floated across the harbor, docking at terminals at either 51st or 65th streets in Bay Ridge, Brooklyn, where connections are made with businesses either locally in Brooklyn or further east on Long Island. Rail cars also are transported back across the harbor to connect to the national rail freight network via the Greenville Yard in Jersey City. Currently, a majority of the cargo transported between the two states is moved by truck.

More at;
http://www.panynj.gov/AboutthePortAutho ... hp?id=1151

Eh... only 83 years too late!! The Port Authority was supposed to spearhead this project when they were chartered in 1925. They have done everything but.

Anyone notice this part? The acquisition of the New York New Jersey Regional Rail, the former New York Cross Harbor?

As one of the first steps toward addressing the current challenges with cross harbor freight movement, the Port Authority announced the acquisition and planned rehabilitation of the Jersey City, N.J.-based New York New Jersey Rail Corporation, which operates a rail float barge facility that transports cargo-filled rail cars between the two states. As part of the purchase, the agency assumed the existing lease for approximately 27 acres of land at Greenville Yard in Jersey City in connection with the rail float barge operation. The total acquisition cost is estimated at $16 million.

If the Port Authority wants to move a significant amount of rail traffic by barge, then it seems a substantial increase in the size of the dock facilities (or more of them) would be necessary. Given the tremendous land value in the NYC area (okay, maybe not Brooklyn ), one wonders if it would be cost effective to move freight cars by water.

Also, why Brooklyn? Are there more rail customers (or potential rail customers) in that area?

RailKevin wrote:Also, why Brooklyn? Are there more rail customers (or potential rail customers) in that area?

Brooklyn is where the float bridges are- the Bay Ridge section of Brooklyn has the surviving facilities.

-otto-

RailKevin wrote:If the Port Authority wants to move a significant amount of rail traffic by barge, then it seems a substantial increase in the size of the dock facilities (or more of them) would be necessary.

Well, the 65th St. yard has relatively modern transfer bridges that have stood unused for a decade, so using them & the current 50th St yard float bridge would greatly increase capacity on the Brooklyn side.

Lets hope they do use those 65st float bridges. Then we would get something in return for money that was spent 10 years ago!

Wonder why the PA is taking an interest in the former NYCH operation now?