Northern NJT / MNRR Long Term plans and Proposals 2050 plans

although i do agree: there is room for 2 tracks most of the way up the river line, it is still highly unlikly MN would do that, however there is one possibly reasonable way people could think: MN can build it themselves. that is still unlikly

bigK wrote:
the OFFicial MTA 20 year plan

as one can see from this MTA document the MTA/MNCRR does indeed have plans for revenue pasenger service on the BD line much sooner than 2050 -

I may be missing it, but I don't find anything on Beacon in here. Can you point me to the page where they discuss revenue passenger service?

Jeff Smith wrote:

bigK wrote:
the OFFicial MTA 20 year plan

as one can see from this MTA document the MTA/MNCRR does indeed have plans for revenue pasenger service on the BD line much sooner than 2050 -

I may be missing it, but I don't find anything on Beacon in here. Can you point me to the page where they discuss revenue passenger service?

This is the same document that I linked to the page before bigK liked it. The whole point of doing so was to show that MNR has more realistic goals for the next 20 years than rapid expansion of service outside of the current the territory. Increasing capacity and improving infrastructure on the current MNR lines is more of a priority. Once the current three lines and GCT can handle a substantial increase in rail traffic then we'll be seeing expansion.

ROS, absolutely. While I wish we could have Beacon service, it's not in the foreseeable future. I was just looking for where in the doc it mentions Beacon; couldn't find it.

Regarding the New Haven Line Danbury Branch, the tunnel-Wall Street-Commerce Street location is uptown Norwalk. Downtown is South Norwalk.
H.F.C.

Jeff Smith wrote:ROS, absolutely. While I wish we could have Beacon service, it's not in the foreseeable future. I was just looking for where in the doc it mentions Beacon; couldn't find it.

also the Document is over two years old and outdated and no funding, it still mentions ARC as a valid project.

Nexis4Jersey wrote:http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?msid=215 ... 1,2.469177
- Pascack Valley line / Old Erie Main line restoration from Spring Valley to Suffern , this would be very easy to do , the ROW is relativy intact and NYSDOT decided not to block the ROW when they reconstructed Route 59 a few years ago. I think this project should go first before the I-287 Rail Project. It should cost more then 80 Million $$ to restore the 6 mile long section.

So what are your opinions on my map?

-

In 1983, when Metro-North was taking over the operation, they held a public forum on opening the line from Spring Valley to Sufferen. Peter Stangl told me that there was soo much local opposition that it would never happen. 28 years later, I don't think much has changed.

Penn Central wrote:

Nexis4Jersey wrote:http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?msid=215 ... 1,2.469177
- Pascack Valley line / Old Erie Main line restoration from Spring Valley to Suffern , this would be very easy to do , the ROW is relativy intact and NYSDOT decided not to block the ROW when they reconstructed Route 59 a few years ago. I think this project should go first before the I-287 Rail Project. It should cost more then 80 Million $$ to restore the 6 mile long section.

So what are your opinions on my map?

-

In 1983, when Metro-North was taking over the operation, they held a public forum on opening the line from Spring Valley to Sufferen. Peter Stangl told me that there was soo much local opposition that it would never happen. 28 years later, I don't think much has changed.

Nothing has changed at all. Plus the line is NOT relatively intact; it's been encroached in many places.

More importantly, there's really no point. At all. At most one station would be constructed (in an area that really doesn't want one), and all it does is send trains down the slower, far more limited PVL (single track and all, which is NOT changing, as the PVL doesn't have the room). It would do nothing to enhance service to the Rockland PVL stations, and would be worse service for the Port Jervis. Its the most pointless thing I've ever heard.

actually it is relitivly intact, just under mud and grass and trees. NS still uses it from suffern to tallman, and NJT uses it as a MOW yard(although not always used) sometimes in Spring Valley. and yes, i did see this just the other day.

and also it is not pointless, he was sharing his opinion and i also heard that same story a long time ago. but very little has changed(please see the above paragraph)

As heavy rail/commuter rail there is no point to connecting Spring Valley and Suffern. However, that doesn't mean there is no point to rehabilitating the line. Just as the northerly east-west routes are maintained EOH for training and equipment moves between lines this connection would allow equipment to be moved between the Suffern yard and Spring Valley yard without having to go to Hoboken. In a pinch service could be run over the line instead of bussing if there are washouts below Suffern. More useful would be a diesel light rail line between Harriman and Pearl River. These tracks go right through or immediately adjacent to: Woodbury Commons, downtown Tuxedo, downtown Sloatsburg, downtown Suffern, a senior citizens residence in Suffern, industrial/commercial workplaces in Suffern, high density residential communities in Tallman, downtow Spring Valley, Spring Valley Marketplace, the Nanuet Mall, Nanuet and Pearl River. I cannot imagine how such a service wouldn't double, triple, or more the ridership on the currently existing TOR (is that still the agency?) bus routes.