Metro North WOH Rail Options Using the Tappan Zee Bridge TZB

[Adirondacker]

I like Wikipedia but in this case it's, I don't want say out-of-date, but it's not recent and it concerns mostly the tunnel not the carfloat.

Yeah, well, an article about tunnels, whether it's on Wikipedia or someplace else, would tend to focus on tunnels.

and I can guarantee you and everybody else they are going ahead with the enhanced and expanded rail-marine transfer plan.

The Port Authority can walk and chew gum at the same time. They can run tunnels, automobile and railroad, bridges, airports, seaports and car float operations all the while studying replacing the Bayonne Bridge and rebuilding the World Trade Center and wondering what to do with Stewart Airport. The Wikipedia article has links to Port Authority documents dated as recently as May of this year. Responses to the comments on the scoping documents and meetings. They are merrily figuring out ways to move NYC trash in the short term and building a railroad tunnel in the long term. ... improvements they make a Greenville will be useful when they open the tunnel...

[Tommy Meehan]

We're getting way off-topic here. I said in relation to the Tappan Zee Bridge being considered as a rail freight route there wasn't too much interest. As an example I cited the PA of NY/NJ choosing to upgrade the carfloat operation between Brooklyn and Jersey City.

You responded that the PA had rejected that.

Just for the record I was saying they obviously haven't.

The PA is building the rail-water-rail facilities in Brooklyn and in Jersey City right now. As for the cross-harbor freight tunnel getting built, I wouldn't hold my breathe. I'm not saying they have taken if off the boards but that plan goes back to the very founding of the Port Authority some ninety years ago.

[Train322]

Why was the Tap built in an area where the Hudson is wide?
Is a tunnel, with current technology, less expensive?

Would it make sense to locate a new crossing (tunnel or bridge) in another narrower location?

Not sure where since it would require $'s to build connections to expressways. - or many $'s to build/upgrade existing roads like upgrading the upper Palisades from Parkway to Expressway status. Also, the Palisades may be the obstacle.

[Ridgefielder]

Why was the Tap built in an area where the Hudson is wide?
Is a tunnel, with current technology, less expensive?

Would it make sense to locate a new crossing (tunnel or bridge) in another narrower location?

Not sure where since it would require $'s to build connections to expressways. - or many $'s to build/upgrade existing roads like upgrading the upper Palisades from Parkway to Expressway status. Also, the Palisades may be the obstacle.

It's my understanding that the location is the farthest south Robert Moses could build a bridge without having it fall under PA NY/NJ jurisdiction. As for relocating it now-- no way. You'd have to relocate I-287 which is a nonstarter: the real-estate acquisition cost alone would dwarf even the most expensive bridge proposal.

[F-line to Dudley via Park]

We're getting way off-topic here. I said in relation to the Tappan Zee Bridge being considered as a rail freight route there wasn't too much interest. As an example I cited the PA of NY/NJ choosing to upgrade the carfloat operation between Brooklyn and Jersey City.

You responded that the PA had rejected that.

Just for the record I was saying they obviously haven't.

The PA is building the rail-water-rail facilities in Brooklyn and in Jersey City right now. As for the cross-harbor freight tunnel getting built, I wouldn't hold my breathe. I'm not saying they have taken if off the boards but that plan goes back to the very founding of the Port Authority some ninety years ago.

I could see it not being a major freight route, but I can't imagine the interest would be so low that nobody would care about trying to milk usefully robust multimodal upside for the billions in total investment on this connection. The Selkirk hurdle is as much a problem as ever, the Cross-Harbor Rail Tunnel is as noted stuck at the drawing board, and the carfloats have been in decline for years and are mainly getting shored up to prevent further business erosion. And with Amtrak taking over all traffic priority in the Hudson Subdivision there's going to be a crying need to peel some more of the remaining freight on that line to west-of-Hudson and the River Line. Tappan Zee rail serves enough of a medium-term traffic re-route to fill that role until the political picture on the Tunnel gets a whole lot more congealed than it currently is. Huge double-stacks crossing the bridge...no. Nobody's going to force-fit traffic that have no reason to go on it, ban freights points north on the Hudson Line for some perfect passenger-only ideal when it's adequate enough to keep going to Albany for much/most of the routing needs, or invent grandiose plans of an east-of-Hudson freight revival like it's the second coming of the Pougheepsie Bridge's glory years. But not be interested in using it for freight? That would be silly. Connections like this don't drop out of the sky; it's a rare opportunity to gain some routing flex. Of course there's some freight runs where this is a hell of a lot better than running 100 miles out of the way, and enough schedule slots to be had between passenger trains to use it judiciously for that purpose. It helps justifies the rail component's existence on the bridge, and gets some added trucks off the road that would otherwise be more continuously pounding the bridge asphalt. Doesn't mean we're talking major freight main. But usefulness for some secondary freight diversions? Yeah, that should be self-evident.

[DutchRailnut]

can we drop the freight and get back to real world ? the Tappan zee bridge may not even have track, but if it does its commuter rail or light rail only

[F-line to Dudley via Park]

can we drop the freight and get back to real world ? the Tappan zee bridge may not even have track, but if it does its commuter rail or light rail only

What's not real world about that? Did you not see the giant underline in my post about not major route? If it's an FRA rail line presumably built to normal 263K weight spec and manageable grading on the approaches, tracks on the bridge can take freight and there's no reason other than state agency turf war to justify an outright prohibition. There has to be at least one or two jobs per day where a cut-over is going to be more useful than any current routing options, and if that yanks a freight slot or two off the balance of the Hudson Line then not banning has ultimately got more passenger utility than banning. It enhances the viability of doing the transit berth at all. If for no other reason than political platitudes for the value-added that sounds bigger than it actually is, but scores brownie points for getting the transit berth added. Not suggesting at all that the area freight carriers would view this as a strategic link. This is a "When in Rome..." mutually useful thing with specific situational upside. Nothing more, nothing less


Yes, it is relevant to this thread--entirely about potential rail of the TZ--if it's a small point in further favor of the build or future option.

[Tommy Meehan]

I like wide-ranging discussion but in this case I agree with Dutch.

There is currently no plan to add freight service to the new bridge. The earlier plan that mentioned it was just that. Mentioning the possibility. I hesitate to even call it a "plan."

Plus there are a whole range of problems with trying to route freight service over the bridge and it has nothing to do with Metro-North in any event.

I'd like to discuss it but not here. It should be in the NY State Forum.

[DutchRailnut]

at split-up of Conrail only CSX got acces to New york city and the Deleware & Hudson.
Norfolk Southern would have to prove new business and non competition to CSX to get surface transportation board ok, never gone happen.
notice D&H (CPrail) already gave up on NYC.

[Tommy Meehan]

The local leadership in Westchester and Rockland Counties seems to be making one final push to get some transit on the new bridge. Hate to tell you this but they seem to have given up on rail, they're asking for BRT.

Governor Cuomo had a fairly good response I thought. He said the bridge needs to be replaced now but if Westchester and Rockland can find the extra several billion dollars for the transit option the state will be very happy to build it.

He said other than that he can't imagine where the money would come from.

Dead in the water sounds like.

[TDowling]

I'm not really surprised. Buses are more efficient and less expensive to run.

[DutchRailnut]

The Unions may not want to lend Pension money unless full option bridge is built.

[Tommy Meehan]

Good for them!

[N4J]

I'm not really surprised. Buses are more efficient and less expensive to run.

Up intill a point , this Regions Bus network is cracking under the weight....theres no real cheap solution to fixing that....so Rail is a better option.

[SecaucusJunction]

It just makes more sense at this time and it is better than nothing at all. An express bus would work great for the people that want to beat the traffic or take mass transit for a fraction of the cost of using commuter rail... Especially when the commuter rail wouldn't save any time for people trying to commute to NYC. If the buses are a bust, it would be a much easier pill to swallow than spending billions and billions of dollars on rail and watching it fail, which it very well might.