• Study: Rail Freight Tunnel Would Reduce Traffic

  • Pertaining to all railroading subjects, past and present, in New Jersey
Pertaining to all railroading subjects, past and present, in New Jersey

Moderator: David

  by rvrrhs
 
Wouldn't it be simpler and considerably cheaper to fix up the drawbridge at Howland Hook, and build a much shorter tunnel from N.E. Staten Island to Brooklyn?

  by nick11a
 
Hah, really interesting. I never thought of that one. Could be a valuable asset.

  by JLo
 
Building a teleporter would reduce traffic too but it would also be too expensive--like this tunnel. Also, what happens when you build the tunnel between Bayonne and Brooklyn? There has to be some massive new infrastructure built between Bayonne and the mainland for this to work.

  by rvrrhs
 
JLo wrote:Building a teleporter would reduce traffic too but it would also be too expensive--like this tunnel.
How do you know a teleporter would be too expensive. Mine is downright cheap! :wink:

  by JLo
 
Let me guess, your teleporter is a dozen Rolling Rocks at your local bar. It transports you to time when you were virile, thin and had hair, and to place where all the chicks suddenly become beautiful.

  by rvrrhs
 
More like a 4-pack of Guinness, but you have the idea!

  by Mudvalve
 
Wasn't this tunnel idea brought up a while ago? Perhaps 10 years maybe? Seems like a waste of money.

All this talk of beer has made me thirsty.

  by JLo
 
Actually, one of the PA's first charges when it was formed in 1926 was to study the feasibility of a cross-harbor freight tunnel. Here it is, only 80 years later, and it is still being studied.

  by johnpbarlow
 
Building such a tunnel maybe a necessary but insufficent infrastructure investment to get trucks off the NYC bridges & highways. Where would these freight cars go to be unloaded once they're in Brooklyn? I doubt there are that many rail served industries in Brooklyn/Queens/LI these days. So inbound loads would have to be transloaded to trucks anyway to achieve their final destination. If the trucks that are targeted for removal are those running through NYC on I-95 to New England, the MN/Amtrak corridor to New Haven/Boston may not be prepared to handle intermodal, although NH did run piggyback trains..

  by Irish Chieftain
 
Hmm, would that $7 billion estimate include the ventilation? No freight railroad nowadays uses electrification; they're all diesel.
rvrrhs wrote:Wouldn't it be simpler and considerably cheaper to fix up the drawbridge at Howland Hook, and build a much shorter tunnel from N.E. Staten Island to Brooklyn?
Anything to keep the Morristown & Erie out of the game, it seems...
  by pdman
 
In the 60s the Port Authority actually unveiled a plan to extend the Fort Hamilton BMT line in Brooklyn under a tunnel to Staten Island, then go farther to Bayonne and up to Jersey City where it would parallel the PATH tunnel back into Manhattan.

  by rvrrhs
 
Irish Chieftain wrote:Hmm, would that $7 billion estimate include the ventilation? No freight railroad nowadays uses electrification; they're all diesel.
Unless they swtiched to an electric just for the tunnel leg of the trip....???

  by sodusbay
 
pdman,

Can you give details/ref. of the plan you mention? I have never heard of it. I do know that the 4th Ave. subway (dual contracts) had pockets, or at least plans, to extend to the SIRT. But that was back in the 20's.

  by Irish Chieftain
 
rvrrhs wrote:
Irish Chieftain wrote:Hmm, would that $7 billion estimate include the ventilation? No freight railroad nowadays uses electrification; they're all diesel.
Unless they swtiched to an electric just for the tunnel leg of the trip....???
No freight road will bother with dual-mode and certainly not with the inefficiency of changing engines. (All of the freight RRs have pretty much standardized on diesel-electric.) I reckon that this long tunnel will have some kind of ventilation system, like the tunnels in the mountains out west have. I'm just not sure that the $7 billion estimate includes the cost of such a system...