Metro North WOH Rail Options Using the Tappan Zee Bridge TZB

You ever notice that those who are not in the know are only once who claim GCT is under utilized ??
GCT has over 500 trains a day.

DutchRailnut wrote:You ever notice that those who are not in the know are only once who claim GCT is under utilized ??
GCT has over 500 trains a day.

How many trains did GCT have at its peak? I would think that it could handle more than 500 trains a day, even in its current configuration.

DutchRailnut wrote:You ever notice that those who are not in the know are only once who claim GCT is under utilized ??
GCT has over 500 trains a day.

...and room for less than a dozen more during the peak of the rush hour. GCT is pretty much perfectly balanced right now - a little room is available for rush hour service expansion, but not much. Start talking about major initiatives, and you have a problem on your hands.

To Nester's point - if you consider the off-peak hours, yes - you can get a lot more trains per day into GCT. But the need is during the peak, and at the peak of the peak, we're very close to capacity.

Jim

Erie-Lackawanna wrote: ...and room for less than a dozen more during the peak of the rush hour. GCT is pretty much perfectly balanced right now - a little room is available for rush hour service expansion, but not much. Start talking about major initiatives, and you have a problem on your hands.

When you consider that even now trains are crawling from 125th to 59th during peak hours, I think a dozen is fairly optimistic.

EL and DRN are correct in that most people who talk about GCT capacity are looking at the big picture ("Well gee, they ran 600 trains a day in 1949 or some other equally worthless benchmark") and not the window of providing service at specific points during the day or periods in the timetable.

My question wasn't in support of these arguments, but rather a general one to address the capacity of GCT (which E-L reasonably answered).

Any considerable increase in peak service would likely require some fairly extensive capital improvements to GCT.

Any cross-Hudson to GCT service would be the final straw. While in the early years of the service you could get away with a minimal amout of trains (something along the lines of 1-2 trains an hour during peak, and perhaps 1 an hour during most other daytime periods), anything beyond 5 years would have enough growth behind it to fully "lock up" the slots into GCT.

Since any cross-Hudson service is probably 10-15 years away at the earliest (assuming they choose a plan tomorrow), MNR and the MTA have more than enough time to consider this when developing a build option for the Tappan-Zee.

DutchRailnut wrote:You ever notice that those who are not in the know are only once who claim GCT is under utilized ??
GCT has over 500 trains a day.

DRN: OK, maybe under-utilized is the wrong word. Maybe I need to be more careful around people in the know. I'm certainly not an insider like a lot of folks on these threads, but I spend a good deal of time following the studies, news articles, histories, etc. This insider knowledge is great.

And I do respect the opinion of those in the know, so let's just say that compared to Penn, GCT is a resource. But if GCT is close to capacity, why is MTA building ESA? Are they adding capacity by converting yard storage to Highbridge to make room for ESA? My understanding of that project is that LIRR ops and terminal are going to be completely separate from the main MNRR terminal.

In context, I was comparing GCT to Penn, but used a poor choice of words. And in reading the thread, some others have called GCT "under-utilized". But I definitely appreciate and thank you for the inside scoop. I've always been curious, and appreciate you sharing your knowledge.

Thanks everyone for the insights. Looks like the future of NY west-of-Hudson is in ARC.

Sarge wrote:But if GCT is close to capacity, why is MTA building ESA?

The East Side Access project includes building an entirely new terminal underneath Park Avenue. It will NOT use existing terminal space, track capacity, or really, anything else that could impact existing capacity for Metro-North service. The need to move the Madison Ave Yard to Highbridge was because there will be a need for some space in that area of the GCT footprint, but it doesn't impinge on the revenue portion of the GCT trackage.

As such, ESA can be designed to whatever capacity they want, and it won't affect MNR's service levels.

Jim

i shudder to think of what would happen if they tried to put this proposed line through downtown white plains. articles i've read have even talked about the line ending (or at least stopping) at the port chester train station. if they are going to do that kind of construction, i'm definitely going to move away from port chester. that would be absurd. the only way i could see this working is if the line ran solely along 287 or at times 119. there is a large plot of land owned by the town of rye at the 287/95 junction which could be used as some sort of transportation hub, although i imagine rye citizens might object. regarding 287 though, sadly enough, the current renovations are being done without any consideration to possible rail expansion. so in a few years if this line becomes reality, they will have to destroy 287 all over again.

Fishtale- you're seriously worried about new railroad construction displacing your home? Maybe your grandchildren will be at the ribbon-cutting, but I wouldn't hold your breath.

-otto-

First off, I'd love to see this built as commuter rail, but where the hell are they going to put it. Looking at satelite pictures, the only way I can see is if they branch off 287 just west of the Harlem line, then run diagonal across the open land between the lanes of the Bronx River Parkway, connecting it to the Harlem line between N White Plains and White Plains. Have a connection north to access NWP Yard(not a hard thing to do. All open space. The other option is continuing what I assume will be an el structure to run down the median of 119. From what I can see, there are only two home with property lining 119 between White Plains and 287. This connection to the Harlem Line is the only way I see commuter rail happening along any part of this corridor.

As for the section remaining east of White Plains to Port Chester, short of a tunnel under downtown White Plains, it looks like like this section is destined for light rail, unless skipping White Plains on a cross Westchester corridor is an option(which I would NOT advocate).

As far as service into GCT from W of Hudson, I say have the trains running from W of Hudson replace trains originating at NWP or are extensions of trains originating in Hartsdale(trains like the 7:34 from Hartsdale, 7:34 from NWP, 7:58 from Hartsdale, 7:57 from NWP, and 8:26 from Hartsdale). Do those trains originate fresh out of the yard, or are they comming off another run? If this is a reasonable idea, then thats 5 potential slots open right there without taking away the little remaining GCT capacity.

Regarding ARC, I think the Secaucus Loop is a big joke and will be a horrible waste of time and money. You wanna get to NYP? Get off your lazy ass and transfer at Secaucus. Spend the money for that and this rediculous new NYP lower level on sending NJT and MN West of Hudson to downtown.

I agree ... the idea of a direct connection with the Hudson Line SOUNDS nice, but how would they pull it off? Getting the bridge down to the same level as the Hudson Line would almost definitely require the railroad span to "break away" from the highway span at some point halfway across the river, so it can descend down to track level (and turn the corner to match up with the Hudson Line alignment) before it reaches the shore.

Making that ascent/descent and turning that corner over valuable Westchester land just won't happen. It would be too costly, and people will outrage over what an eyesore it would create.

However... if the link to Stewart Airport is put in place -- and I believe it did get the OK when voters approved the big Transportation Bond Act -- it'll be just a matter of time until people on BOTH sides of the river start crying for that one-seat ride.

As much as the report whines about the higher costs of building a tunnel, that may be the best way to pull off a rail connection to Tarrytown without making it look ugly. Sure, there will be lots of commotion during the construction, but (a) that's the price of progress and (b) it's not going to last forever.

Most of this stuff is pure fantasy, where is the money going to come from
to do all of this stuff? Before one shovel ful of dirt is touched for any
projects like this one, millions will be spent or wasted.
The big draw for commuter transportation is NEW YORK CITY. Not White Plains, Stamford or somewhere in Rockland County or New Jersey.
This metropolitan area is HUGE and it is simply not possible to have direct
and through trains to every single point in this area. Connections are
available through New York and they will have to satisfy for the time
being.
This thread is about Metro-North and not about a new railroad in New
Jersey or a tunnel somewhere else.
Noel Weaver

Last couple of posts are gurgitated and regurgitated, but I guess imitation is a form of flattery, right? I guess rephrasing makes it original?

I think you underestimate the draw of White Plains and Stamford combined. I believe I was told commuters to those regions are who make up the majority of the traffic on the Cross Westchester and Tappan Zee. I may be wrong about the Tappan Zee, but Cross Westchester I believe is true. And Noel, who said anything about another railroad? I thought all this was supposed to be operated by MN. And connecting in Manhattan to get to White Plains when you're comming from Rockland is a huge waste of time. Might as well take the Tappan Zee Express to the I-Bus. And the only person mentioning a tunnel is talking about ways to connect this line to the Hudson(which I still think is a waste of money and effort), so he's on topic.

Noel Weaver wrote:where is the money going to come from
to do all of this stuff?

Fuel taxes, tolls, and income taxes. All which are significantly higher than most other states.

The I287 corridor is very crowded and getting more crowded every day. Apparently east-west traffic on that road is considered heavier than traffic to NYC. Actually, where 287 and 87 split just east of the TZ bridge, most traffic goes east; relatively little goes south on the Thruway.
The tunnel alternative seems to have been ruled out in the last round of decisions, because of high cost. At one of the meetings they had in Rockland I talked to one of the presenters, and it seems like they want to use the Thruway ROW, at least across Rockland. Could they do that in Westchester? I don't know. Could it be elevated over the Thruway? I don't know. Whether the rail would be light or heavy is still to be decided. The elevation difference between the bridge and the Hudson line has been noted by the planners. I don't know what solutions have been proposed. One idea is to connect with the Harlem instead of the Hudson line, although the Hudson has more extra capacity. I think it's possible that a station would be built on the grade of the bridge with escalators down to the Hudson line; no one-seat ride, but, as Members have pointed out, Grand Central has little room for more trains in rush hour.

Of course, there are two big problems with the whole project: NIMBYs and, obviously, money. Cost estimates keep rising; last I saw was $12 billion, and I don't think that was for the whole project. Consider that the new NJT Hudson tunnel, with stub-end station under 34 st, is now $7 billion and rising. At that rate, a Suffern-Port Chester line on a new bridge would, I'm sure, cost at least double the $7 billion, and that's if they could use the Thruway ROW.
As far as NIMBYs go, using the Thruway/I287 would placate them to some extent, but I spoke with a Rockland politician who is newly elected to the Rockland Legislature--Ellen Jaffee, if anyone cares. She opposes a heavy rail line because she doesn't want stations built, which she feels would mess up the quality of life in Rockland's villages. For some reason, she is less opposed to light rail. I spent a half hour talking with her and left not understanding her thinking, but she is a generally progressive politician and if she opposes the project, so do many others.

I would dearly love to see this project happen but I think it won't come for many decades.