Travelsonic wrote:And even the parts not occupied by I-95... are limited on where you could actually have a 5th track. Sure, between Larchmont and Harrison some of the way is relatively preserved so far as the extra space, but Mamaroneck becomes an issue with the station layout, on top of trying to fit an extra track past the site of the Marval freight lead.
I don't want to wade into an argument with the gentleman who rides the train "a couple times a month" so I figured I'd reply to you clarifying what I said a few comments back about the wider ROW in ex-NYW&B territory. What I mean when I say "it would be easier/cheaper to add a 5th track Larchmont-Port Chester" is "it would be easier/cheaper than the alternatives
." And, by the alternatives, I mean things like wiring the LIRR Main Line, upgrading the track for 150mph operation and tunneling under The Race to Westerly, RI, or a new build up I-684 and across Connecticut on a Danbury-Waterbury-Hartford alignment (the "NY&NE TGV"
)-- all of which have been floated as actual possibilities in various studies.
Replicating the Boston Westchester trackage would require rebuilding every station, bridge and interlocking between Larchmont and Port Chester, and would probably cost $2-3 billion. It's just that any other
alternative would cost $20-30 billion, or more, and be tied up in environmental permitting, litigation, etc. for decades.