Metro North WOH Rail Options Using the Tappan Zee Bridge TZB

I zipped the files on the CD and uploaded them to megaupload.com. I'm not sure exactly how one is supposed to find and retrieve the files there, but the upload process provided me with the following link, which seems to work:
http://www.megaupload.com/?d=FZ7PF015
If you use this and it doesn't work, please PM me. The zipfile is about 289 meg.

Thanks Joe

Two questions about commuter rail in the TZB corridor:

1) Have the planning documents made any mention of whether a commuter rail line across the Tappan Zee would be electrified? If they're talking about using tunneling to tie in to the Hudson Line (the relevant segment of which is electrified), then they're almost certainly thinking about laying third rail, but where is this specifically stated? And how far into Rockland are they thinking about extending electrification? Nyack? Suffern? Stewart Airport?

2) Would a TZB rail link be built with sufficient strength to support a freight move in the off-hours, in the event of an emergency detour? (I imagine that Metro-North would, rightly, say "get lost" to a proposal for regular freight movements, even in the overnight hours, but there might arise a situation where access to the NS Southern Tier might come in very handy.)

13 miles of TUNNEL!!! YEAH, well I'm going to go ahead and have dinner with Santa Clause and the Easter Bunny next week...

Sorry, only kidding around, but that would mean BILLIONS of dollars beyond the cost of new bridge and I don't see that happening.

A tunnel would be great. But there's so much difference in elevation on both sides of the river with the Plaisades on one side and the railroad so close to the water line on the other side, it would be quiet a task to construct.

L'mont wrote:13 miles of TUNNEL!!! YEAH, well I'm going to go ahead and have dinner with Santa Clause and the Easter Bunny next week...

Sorry, only kidding around, but that would mean BILLIONS of dollars beyond the cost of new bridge and I don't see that happening.

You misunderstood me; look back through this thread. The proposal is to run commuter rail over the new bridge, then build short tunnel segments through hills on the Tarrytown side to connect the bridge line to the Hudson Line, a fairly steep grade.

I guess my original questions aren't answerable at the present time?

It's all addressed in the study materials, tzbsite.org.

Some updated news:

http://www.thejournalnews.com/apps/pbcs ... 029/NEWS13

The joint West-Rock task force wants some options reconsidered and some concerns. I found of particular interest the lack of coordination between the THE project and the TZB project. The THE project is much further along, has funding identified, and powerful backing (the PA). The TZB on the other hand has no identified funding and the projects identified have costs beyond the pale.

It seems to me that the TZB project should stick to Rockland/West/CT and THE should bring Rockland commuters into the city.

I like this writer, by the way.

Some excerpts:

The task force also cited potential problems including:

- The increased length of tunneling in Rockland and Westchester for the commuter rail option, raising fears that the alternative might become too costly.

- Failure to incorporate the Tappan Zee Bridge study with the environmental review for the Access to the Region's Core project, which would add two rail tunnels under the Hudson River between New Jersey and Penn Station in Manhattan. The tunnel would offer a one-seat train ride to residents living west of the Hudson.

- No connections between the proposed east-west mass transit mode with the NJ Transit's Pascack Valley Line in Spring Valley.

- Including access to and from Stewart International Airport in Orange County within the study.

Task force members called on the project team to revisit several options that have been eliminated, if for no other reason than to make sure talk about them doesn't postpone completion of the study:

- Full-corridor light rail. The task force supports this option.

- A commuter rail connection to the Harlem Line in White Plains instead of a proposed connection to the Hudson Line in Tarrytown.

- A tunnel under the Hudson. Because the concept continues to have support among some residents, the task force wrote "independent technical review of the completed studies is required in order to end speculation that a tunnel would offer a better river crossing for rail transit, a rail transit/rail freight option or a rail transit/through truck service option."

- A double-deck bridge.

- Freight movement options.

In answer to a previous posters questions, freight was eliminated and the line would be electrified using third rail.

I like Khurram Saeed too. I have talked with him several times.
I have a few problems with the task force's attitude. The basic one is that the politicians are trying to weasel out of a rail link. They, for some reason, like light rail across Rockland better than the heavy rail that is proposed. I do not know why. The reason the project rejected light rail is that it would be too slow and not have enough capacity; thess seem like good reasons to me. The other problem with light rail is that it would preclude one-seat rides on MN. Then there is the idea of linking with the Harlem instead of the Hudson line. The Harlem line has less capacity, having 2-3 tracks instead of 4, and the Harlem has more traffic. Also, the ride would be slower.
The tunnel is just prohibitively expensive.
I believe that the motivation of the task force is to kill the rail project and probably kill the new bridge completely. I do not believe they are well-intentioned.

dThat's really interesting. I'm sure ulterior motives are involved, but kill the project entirely? That would seem like political suicide, particularly on the Rockland side. Maybe they just want a bridge replacement with no transit component, as you surmise, Joe.

And you're right it does seem that some of the proposals they want are clearly not feasible. You're 100% right on the light rail - I read the study and believe people would just stay in their cars. Initially I thought it would be the only way to access downtown WP, but I like the tunnel idea. I much prefer heavy rail now, since they address getting it into downtown WP.

As for tunnels, while they complain on the one hand about the expense, they advocate it on the other hand for a river crossing. Non-sensical. I'm not against a tunnel crossing, after all, it's what ARC is pursuing for THE. But including a river tunnel would make almost the entire length of the line a tunnel - definitely prohibitive.

Also agree on the Harlem connection - I haven't liked that idea since this started. Not sure I agree on capacity, though. While the Hudson may offer more capacity than the Harlem, the problem as I've learned on here is the slots into GCT. The advantage to a Harlem connection is it might obviate the need to tunnel through downtown WP if you connect at 287, and either use WP as an end station for the line, or, to preserve slots, continue it as the WP local on the lower Harlem. You could also run it to the present WP station, and then reverse move back to the cross-westchester line. I don't think that's efficient, though.

I think they need to pursue heavy rail, cross-corridor only, with no direct connection to NYC (only a connection to the New Haven for CT service), with transfers only to the Hudson/Harlem, and run it with Metropolitans (M-2's, 4's, and 6's), since they have DC/Cat capability, or push-pull. I don't see switching to cat for the line since it preclude future connections to the Hudson if capacity increases or they build a new terminal in Manhattan (west-side line to THE terminal?). For now, I'd leave NYC service to THE, which seems to be progressing well. Duplicating connections to NYC seems a waste. And add the Pascack and Stewart connections. That, they got right.

Don't forget that no matter what capacity you think the Hudson has its far less than the Harlem, due to bottleneck at SpuytenDuyvil thru te rock cut.
and after the rock cut its 3 tracks down to Motthaven.
The Harlem being 4 track to Vount Vernon West and 3 tracks all way up to Crestwood probably has more spare capacity than the Hudson line.
But how many train pairs are we currently talking about the Port Jervis service is not that many trains.

From Page 7 of 16 of Chapter 3 Part 3 pdf file of the study (page 3-23 of the full report): 2 trains originating at Port Jervis, last stop Harriman; 4 trains originating at Harriman, last stop Suffern "North", a new station; and 4 trains originating at Suffern "North", last stop Palisades Mall, a new station. That would be 10 trains into GCT peak with 15 minute headways, 30 minutes on the "shoulder" of the peak, whatever that means.

All would stop at 125th, the trains originating at Suffern N would also stop at Yonkers.

Service from Suffern is not MNCR service but NJT, they own that station despite it being in New York.
No NJT trains will go to GCT via the Tappan Zee bridge.

I'm not talking about the NJT service operated in NY under contract. This would be a new station, line, and service. Yes, they own Suffern, but the station would be relocated or additional.

Ok a make believe station and a make believe service with make believe trains , now I get it.