Metro North WOH Rail Options Using the Tappan Zee Bridge TZB

Josh Karpoff wrote:The single-seat ride into Manhattan from Rockland and Orange Counties is only one tiny part of the transit side of this project....The idea is to build a transit option, that allows for growth, for those folks to get to their [suburban] jobs.

Well put Josh.

Septa and Metra (to name two) have had plans for 'cross-county' commuter rail lines, here's one with the population and demographics that might really work.

Thanks to you Sarge for the link, though I got to be honest, I read the Journal-News at lunchtime everyday. Very interesting story, including drawings of what the various alternatives might look like. It looks and seems pretty feasible.

Thanks Mr. Meehan.

I think the reason people get so bent out of shape by hearing about projects like this, is for one, or a combination of several reasons:

1) They listen to the political spin some politician is putting on the project. If we don't trust politicians for most everything else (and polling shows that pretty much no one does), why should we believe their description of a capital improvement project. What we really need to do is actually read the planning documents from those that know what they're talking about. This takes time. Most people don't have time to do this, which is understandable, I'm tired after work too (though I do most of my infrastructure news reading during work hours as "strategic industry awareness" and then occasionally send off an email about how something I've read affects our work).

2) Sticker shock. Big projects cost big money. They don't always pay for themselves either. You plan as best as possible, you study everything to death to cover your ass and you build it. The biggest problem in NYS is that taxes on the top .05% of our state are dramatically lower, while those people have gotten dramatically wealthier and the rest of us have actually lost income in real dollars while seeing property, sales and lower income taxes increase. Basically we've been paying the rich interest to loan us money, instead of just taxing them for what we need and having their businesses benefit from the new and improved infrastructure.

3) People are tired of being disappointed. Our politicians usually promise a lot and deliver on nothing. It's pretty easy to get cynical about their latest pet projects. Folks who lived through the decline of the railroads are pretty pessimistic (rightfully so) about things ever turning around. They watched as one of the world's premiere rail systems, with such legends as the 20th Century Limited, was allowed to rot and fall to pieces. What remains and maybe even expanding today, still frequently shows the scars of decades of deferred maintenance.

4) Priorities. Many folks just want to see the system we had, restored to it's former glory. Instead of building all new stuff, they want to see the old stuff fixed up. While that's certainly necessary, not all of the old stuff, built around old priorities , will meet current priorities.

I found another article on this prior to the one I just posted. It gives a little more background:

http://www.lohud.com/article/20100625/N ... ge-project

Still, Anderson offered tantalizing morsels of information about the $16 billion project at the meeting, which was held at the Palisades Center.

A few examples:

• Depending on which one of six structural versions is selected to replace the Tappan Zee Bridge, the new span could have from 66 to 174 foundations in the Hudson River.

• Most people know that bus rapid transit would largely follow I-287 from Suffern to Port Chester. But Anderson said they are looking at 19 lines that would feed into it, with routes originating in Orange County, northern New Jersey and Connecticut.

• The team is leaning toward a tunnel to connect the train from the new bridge to the Hudson line in Tarrytown.

• Thruway Interchange 10 in South Nyack would be completely redesigned into a diamond configuration. One version uses roundabouts.

• There would be three train-bus rapid transit stations in Hillburn (near the existing rail yard); Nanuet (near the Garden State Parkway); and the park-and-ride lot at the Palisades Center. Four BRT-only stations would be built in Suffern, Airmont, Monsey and Nyack. Anderson said there would be 17 BRT stations in Westchester, but did not provide locations.

I'm not familiar with the rail yard in Hillburn; is that the PV line? I'm not sure if it's the same one as in Suffern. I'm guessing they only need a BRT station in Suffern since there's already a rail station.

http://www.lohud.com/article/20100629/N ... open-house

If this link works properly it has artist's drawings of what the various alternative bridges might look like. In the right-hand column.

I believe the Hillburn yard is the one just north of Suffern. EL used it to hold loads/empties for Ford Motor in Mahwah. The PV yard is Woodbine.

The planners don't want to be stuck without the option to run rail across this new bridge at a later date, like they did with the GW and the Verazano Narrows bridges.

********

Not so for the GWB, according to http://www.nycroads.com:

When constructing the George Washington Bridge, Ammann had foresight to allow for additional future growth. The median was reserved for either two additional lanes for vehicular traffic, or two light rail tracks. The Port Authority chose the former option, and in 1946, it increased the capacity of the bridge to eight lanes, and installed a movable median barrier to maximize peak-period flow during rush hours. (By 1970, as cross-Hudson traffic increased in both directions, the Port Authority replaced the moveable barrier with a permanent median barrier on the upper deck.)

Altho nycroads.com doesn't seem to mention it, the GWB was built strong enough to add on the future lower deck with a railroad running in the center.

I assume by the time the lower deck of the GWB was in design phase (as well as the VNB), the US was already well into it's love of cars, that railroad crossings were seen as "the past".

Heck, even the VNB was built without a ped crossing! Man, what views one could have standing at the center span of the VNB!

It's off topic, but if you want to be on the Verrazanno and not be in a car, do the NYC 5-borough bike tour. When I did it years ago, they put you on the lower level. It's a huge hill to climb, so you could probably take a two second breather up there, but I'm sure they'd want you to complete the crossing as soon as possible. And being at the end of the tour, it was the last thing on my mind...

One article I missed whilst at the beach:

http://www.lohud.com/article/20100703/N ... 60FchQY%3D

I have to say, this guy is a great reporter, very thourough, not at all what we used to get. The relevant portion:

Should this project all come together as envisioned, passenger trains would be the last piece of the puzzle. The project team provided a brief glimpse of the future by laying out proposed service plans for the trains.

For example, trains originating in Port Jervis, Harriman and Hillburn would run to Grand Central Terminal. During peak periods, the trains would run once every 15 minutes. The trip from Hillburn to midtown Manhattan would last 50 minutes, with only one extra stop east of the Hudson at 125th Street.

The trains would likely have to be dual mode since trains on the Port Jervis Line run on diesel, while the Hudson Line in Westchester is electrified. Alas, despite the proximity of the new rail line to Nanuet, there are no immediate plans to connect it to New Jersey's Transit's existing Pascack Valley Line.

I find that very interesting. Does that mean MNRR will cease service under the NJT contract on the main line? Will NJT and MNRR share the Suffern station, providing transfers? There's no mention of continuing the NJT service, except on the PV, which won't directly connect to this service anway (which I consider short-sighted).

If that's the case, NJT wil at least want to continue using the yard in NYS (not sure who owns it), and the station, I assume.

It also sounds as if MNRR would have to either divert or order more P32ACDM's. Diversion might be a problem since they're in pool service with CDOT. The BL20's can't go into GCT, right? So perhaps CDOT could just end the thru maxi-bombs on the Danbury line to GCT.

Can we assume that if any rail connection does happen, it is probably decades away? My guess would be that the new bridge will probably be built in about 10-15 years with the capacity to add rail later. After that, whenever it is that the state has money again... maybe they will look into a rail option. I think by the time this happens, P32's will be obsolete with another generation of engines running things.

Would this 50 minutes be using the same time estimations that said it would be 38 minutes from Rt 17 station to NYP earlier in the decade, when on the best times, its about 48-50 with the transfer? I'd say, it would probably still be faster than 50 minutes from Suffern to NYP via ARC when it opens.

I think that's a fair assumption.

HalMallon wrote:according to http://www.nycroads.com:

When constructing the George Washington Bridge, Ammann had foresight to allow for additional future growth. The median was reserved for either two additional lanes for vehicular traffic, or two light rail tracks. The Port Authority chose the former option, and in 1946, it increased the capacity of the bridge to eight lanes, and installed a movable median barrier to maximize peak-period flow during rush hours. (By 1970, as cross-Hudson traffic increased in both directions, the Port Authority replaced the moveable barrier with a permanent median barrier on the upper deck.)

EXACTLY why it's in any supporter's best interest to get the rails built with the bridge at the same time. Building a deck with the "option" to add rails later is risky, because that space reserved for railroad tracks could fall into the same fate: being used for extra vehicular lanes instead.

If you've ever played SimCity, it's basic pro/con. Roads are cheaper to build, a great short-term option, if you can deal with traffic and pollution. Railroads and subways have little or no pollution and they can eliminate traffic, providing long-term benefits -- but there's the higher up-front cost and higher maintenance costs. I haven't played in years, but I always went with rail... it cost more, but the benefits of reduced pollution and traffic are well worth the cost.

HalMallon wrote:Heck, even the VNB was built without a ped crossing! Man, what views one could have standing at the center span of the VNB!

As another poster said, yes, you can stand there and get that view by signing up for the Five Boro Bike Tour. There were police on the bridge encouraging people to keep moving along, but at the same time, I think they understood that it's the steepest climb of the 42-mile ride, and it's at the very end of that 42-mile course... so they weren't "sticklers" about making people move. I had time to enjoy the view and take several pictures of the harbor before moving on, and never had cops in my face. (But I wouldn't try to stop for more than 2-3 minutes, either.)

Back to topic, never really considered the need for people from Rockland to get into Westchester... always had the assumption it was mostly people going to NYC. Knowing there's a strong Rockland-to-Westchester demand certainly helps me to reshape my thoughts on the TZB project. A cross-county line makes sense. But people shouldn't expect direct connections from everywhere to everywhere else. It just isn't possible, nor efficient. Just like you can't get on the subway at 207th Street and expect a one-seat ride to Flushing, Coney Island or Canarsie. Certain connections just don't make sense. Some people will have to transfer, no matter what.

pnaw10 wrote:

HalMallon wrote:according to http://www.nycroads.com:

When constructing the George Washington Bridge, Ammann had foresight to allow for additional future growth. The median was reserved for either two additional lanes for vehicular traffic, or two light rail tracks. The Port Authority chose the former option, and in 1946, it increased the capacity of the bridge to eight lanes, and installed a movable median barrier to maximize peak-period flow during rush hours. (By 1970, as cross-Hudson traffic increased in both directions, the Port Authority replaced the moveable barrier with a permanent median barrier on the upper deck.)

EXACTLY why it's in any supporter's best interest to get the rails built with the bridge at the same time. Building a deck with the "option" to add rails later is risky, because that space reserved for railroad tracks could fall into the same fate: being used for extra vehicular lanes instead.

If you've ever played SimCity, it's basic pro/con. Roads are cheaper to build, a great short-term option, if you can deal with traffic and pollution. Railroads and subways have little or no pollution and they can eliminate traffic, providing long-term benefits -- but there's the higher up-front cost and higher maintenance costs. I haven't played in years, but I always went with rail... it cost more, but the benefits of reduced pollution and traffic are well worth the cost.

HalMallon wrote:Heck, even the VNB was built without a ped crossing! Man, what views one could have standing at the center span of the VNB!

As another poster said, yes, you can stand there and get that view by signing up for the Five Boro Bike Tour. There were police on the bridge encouraging people to keep moving along, but at the same time, I think they understood that it's the steepest climb of the 42-mile ride, and it's at the very end of that 42-mile course... so they weren't "sticklers" about making people move. I had time to enjoy the view and take several pictures of the harbor before moving on, and never had cops in my face. (But I wouldn't try to stop for more than 2-3 minutes, either.)

Back to topic, never really considered the need for people from Rockland to get into Westchester... always had the assumption it was mostly people going to NYC. Knowing there's a strong Rockland-to-Westchester demand certainly helps me to reshape my thoughts on the TZB project. A cross-county line makes sense. But people shouldn't expect direct connections from everywhere to everywhere else. It just isn't possible, nor efficient. Just like you can't get on the subway at 207th Street and expect a one-seat ride to Flushing, Coney Island or Canarsie. Certain connections just don't make sense. Some people will have to transfer, no matter what.

As it stands currently Rockland has pretty good access to Manhattan by the way of bus (Rockland Coaches). The train is always better than the bus because it eliminates all the traffic on the roads and weather related delays. An inch of snow can slow down the bus, but probably not the train. There is also a really bad bottleneck at the Lincoln Tunnel even with the bus only lane. They really need another bus only lane there.

The train option is good if the person works in lower Manhattan transferring at Hoboken to Path. Then there are the people who work in Westchester County,the Bronx, Southern CT from the Rockland. This mostly has to due with the fact relatively speaking Rockland is a tad cheaper (still very expensive though, which is why people many people are moving to Orange County to live than Southern CT or Westchester) Also add the fact Rockland has barely any jobs.

I apologize because I know this is off-topic-

I was very surprised when browsing the Bergen Record and the Passiac Herald in the year or two before the GW opened (1929-1930) to discover the light rail line planned for the bridge was all-systems-go until the very last minute. I think it was a casualty of the onset of the Depression actually. The bridge planners at Port Authority began to get cold feet, fearing the Depression would ruin their estimates on bridge vehicle traffic and turn the bridge into a huge white elephant. To reduce costs at the last minute, jettisoning the light rail line was one of the few options available.

Although at the time they assured rapid transit riders it was only a "delay" not a death knell. Around 1935 they opened the George Washington Bus Station instead.

Sarge wrote:
If that's the case, NJT wil at least want to continue using the yard in NYS (not sure who owns it), and the station, I assume.

To clarify, NJT owns outright Suffern Station and Suffern Yard. (And the entire PVL, including all Rockland county trackage, including Woodbine yard. Metro-North owns the 3 stations there.)

I'd say, it would probably still be faster than 50 minutes from Suffern to NYP via ARC when it opens.

I agree or at least it will have the same travel time. Currently the time travel on the Main line from Suffern to Secaucus Jnctn runs 30 minutes during express routes. So does Pearl River to Secaucus Jnctn on the PVL. Lets also consider that ARC will allow a one seat ride from the Main & PVL lines once it gets completed and you have another 10-15 of addtnl travel time added onto 30 minutes. 45 minutes to Penn is not too bad from either line.

One thing I do want to mention is that a new bridge is going to be constructed anyway and it would be a dumb decision not to retrofit a new TZB with rail capabilities. But does the rail line need to be connected to the Main line in Suffern/Hillburn from Tarrytown- I dont think so. I would much rather see a new "Hudson West" or "Hudson Valley" line simply terminate in West Nyack. I wonder how much money that would save in the overall project if the new rail line simply terminated at West Nyack??

So under that proposal you build a new bridge with rail and extend it only 3 miles into RoCo. Personally, I favor the sort tunnel to connect the rail line to the Hudson line with political manuevering to accomodate the Irving residents of Tarrytown (such as upzoning the residential neighborhood that will negatively be affected by the short tunnel proposal). BTW, that neighborhood in question is isolated from the the rest of the residential sections in town and it already borders the nusiances of I-287 to the immediate north and the Hudson line to the west.

Would also like to see commuter rail vs. light rail on the proposed Northern Branch which get extended and terminates at the Northvale/Tappan border. Travel times from Northvale/Tappan to Manhattan would be to looooong should it get extended from Tenafly and light rail is chosen.

web-site with the open house displays:

http://www.tzbsite.org/public-involveme ... 01006.html

My favorite bridge alternatives are either 4 or 6:

http://www.tzbsite.org/public-involveme ... Select.pdf