Cross Harbor Tunnel (PATH / NYCT/Freight) Staten Island - Brooklyn

I would think that Access to Regions Core, speeding up the 2nd Ave subway completion, cross county rail links in Westchester County, Rockland, and Bergen/Passaic might have better chances than the Cross Harbor. But, with politicians the way they are...who knows!! Probably find they opt for high speed electrification line to the Hamptons!!

In the stimulus there is funding for a rail line from Las Vegas to Disneyland. Did anybody think because there is no cross harbor tunnel or a more direct route it killed off the the Brooklyn ports and industry in southern new england. The region is always growing, we cant build another LIE our bridges and hiways are crumbling how are we going to get stuff in(food) or out(trash). Thinking it should not be built you live in Disneyland, thats probaly why that project will be funded!

ex-tc driver wrote:how are we going to get stuff in(food) or out(trash).

In/out is efficiently handled seven days a week via the Hell Gate Bridge.

Not enough inter-modal ,ask anybody who travels on the BQE,Clearview,Van Wyck,Staten Island xway,LIE, NE Thruway stuck behind the parade of trucks coming and going. One or maybe two trains each way from Oak Point running at 15 MPH is efficient for this region ,I beg to differ.

Long Island is not set up for intermodal. Building a rail tunnel won't change a thing.

Blame Robert Moses and Long Island Sound environmentalists for traffic tie ups.

Before you can even think of a rail tunnel you had better get the track standards up so they can handle modern freight car weights, 286K is the number always being thrown around. Also have to fix all your railroad bridges/viaducts on the Island to take the weights. This way you have seamless point a to b usage of your freight cars. While at it, make sure those same cars can be interchanged freely. That means getting the clearance envelope out there too. Not only height, but width. So not only have to raise road bridges or lower track beds, but move that pesky third rail so that container cars can run out on the island to the available properties that could possibly be used as intermodal terminals. Once that is done, make sure the passenger trains make plenty of "windows" for the freight trains to run. This way those hot shot food shipments and just in time intermodal trains get to their locations without significant delays. (I'm sure that commuter from Ronkonkama will understand).

Sadly, transporting trash and aggregates, high volume, but low income and low priority, ain't going to make it worth anyone's while. Infrastructure is all set up on the west of Hudson. Wages are lower and real estate cheaper on the mainland. Consumers on the Island are paying for the "privilege" of living on the Island. Shippers who need too are making their truck runs late at night and early in the morning, the rest slug it out during the day. Sit in traffic a few hours, your drivers still get back to the railhead within the allotted service hours.

goodnightjohnwayne wrote:There's no commercial need for a freight link South of Selkirk? Why? Because there's precious little industry left to be served on the east side of the Hudson, and there hasn't been since the 1960s.

This is an example of a project that shouldn't even have been funded at the study level. Literally, this is the equivalent of the now famous Alaskan "Bridge to Nowhere," since there's absolutely no commercial necessity for a tunnel, let alone car floats, to bring rail freight from New Jersey to Brooklyn.

The Brooklyn waterfront is a better venue for residential development than for doomed schemes to develop container ports that no shipper would ever want to use.

A better use for stimulus money would be in finally completing the 2nd Avenue Subway. It is a disgrace that this project wasn't completed in the 1950s, or even in the the 1970s. Say what you want, but it was inexcusable to tear down the Elevated lines on the East Side of Manhattan without even a single subway line as a timely replacement. People still think of LaGuardia as being a great man of the people, but when he tore down the Els, he was only working on behalf of the landlords and property developers - the classic hallmark of a cheap politician.

There is limited railcar ferry service south of Selkirk, but aside from that no other way. And it would be a monumental waste of funds.

Trains now unload their cargo in NJ. They are transferred to trucks.

Trucks then go through NYC to deliver the cargo to Long Island.

With the tunnel, trains will go directly to Brooklyn/Long Island and unload the cargo to trucks.

The tunnel will take trucks off NYC bridges and away from the tunnels.

The Cross Harbor freight barge can only handle so many cars and shipping freight from NJ through Selkirk to Long Island is not economical.

The problem is that there wasn't enough freight business on the east side of the Hudson to justify the minimal expenditure of restoring the Poughkeepsie bridge back into service, and there's even less industry there today.

In short, there is absolutely no economic justification for this freight tunnel. Moreover, the freight needs of Long Island are best served by trucks, as there is very little industry there that requires rail service. Mostly, Long Island is residential, and the truck traffic services residential communities. Considering the minimal distances involved, you can justify the billions involved in building the tunnel, and the uneconomical proceedure of resorting to intermodal to move freight such short distances. Looking back, the Long Island Railroad was never a major freight line - and it never will be.

As previously stated, the decision to concentrate on Selkirk as the primary artery of freight was made back in the 1960s by the New York Central, and it was correct then, and continues to be correct today. Personally, I appreciate the sheer common sense to routing freight down the Westshore line while maintaining the Hudson line on the east shore primarily for passenger movements. The current system works, and there are plenty of economic justifications for why you don't need a freight connection south of Selkirk, and haven't needed one for the last 40 to 45 years.

I absolutely agree with this one, a tunnel would be a gross waste of money.
Noel Weaver

I beg to differ. The Cross-Harbor freight tunnel would be beneficial for LI and NYC. Right now only a small fraction of freight on LI is shipped by rail most of the rest is by truck. The freight trains must go up to Selkirk to go across the Hudson which takes makes it very time consuming. The trucks while much faster than rail freight, contribute to air pollution and also put a lot of wear on the roads in the metropolitan area, plus shipping goods by truck is much more expensive than goods that are shipped by rail. While industry on LI isn't what it used to be an intermodal terminal is being planned on the site of the Pilgrim State hospital in Edgewood LI.

Frank wrote: I beg to differ. The Cross-Harbor freight tunnel would be beneficial for LI and NYC.

The costs greatly outweigh any benefits.

Frank wrote: Right now only a small fraction of freight on LI is shipped by rail most of the rest is by truck.

Yes, and considering the nature of the freight and the quantity, it simply makes sense to employ trucking. Long Island doesn't have the heavy industry to justify a major investment in rail freight.

Frank wrote:The freight trains must go up to Selkirk to go across the Hudson which takes makes it very time consuming.

Considering the relatively minor volumes involved, Selkirk makes sense. Keep in mind that the decision to concentrate on Selkirk was made in the 1960s by the New York Central, when the new yard was built there. Even then, it was clear that there wasn't enough freight business on the east side of the Hudson to justify the Poughkeepsie Bridge, or the dying car float business. The writing was on the wall nearly half a century ago.

Frank wrote: plus shipping goods by truck is much more expensive than goods that are shipped by rail.

For the type of freight that's going to service the residential communities of Long Island, that is most definitely not the case.

Frank wrote:While industry on LI isn't what it used to be an intermodal terminal is being planned on the site of the Pilgrim State hospital in Edgewood LI.

I wish them the best of luck with that intermodal terminal, but quite frankly, it doesn't justify the tens of billions in taxpayer money it would potentially require for the freight tunnel. The same goes for the plans to revive freight on the Brooklyn waterfront. It's an impractical idea, and quite frankly, there's nothing wrong with the current system, where freight is primarily offloaded in New Jersey and goes up the Westshore line to Selkirk.

You can't turn back the clock, and even if you could, the taxpayers couldn't afford to pay the price. This freight tunnel is the New York equivalent of the Alaskan "Bridge to Nowhere."

It's time to put aside manufactured terms such as "Selkirk Hurdle" and look towards the future.

We should stop the water tunnel being built for thirty years. NYC has no trouble getting water now ! Why did they build the Alemeda freight corridor to the Ports in LA ,the trains still had access to the ports. They had the forsight to realise to cut down truck traffic(air pollution)the corridor had to be built.I wonder all the people who say its a waste money live on Long Island,NYC,Southern New England.

Sarcasm aside, it should be pointed out that the Alemeda freight corridor provides a connection with Long Beach, which is a very active port for the LA area. In comparison, you'll find that most of the port activity in the New York metropolitan area is on the west side of the Hudson, in New Jersey.

In other words, the Alemeda corridor had obvious merits, whereas the freight tunnel proposal doesn't have realistic commercial justification.

One thing I forgot to ask about is the effect tunnel(s) would have had on the shipping terminals in Brooklyn? Due to their locations I can see the E.River terminals still closing, but what about Bush & Army terminals? These two terminals are close to NYC harbor entrance and either tunnel alingment (thru Manhattan or Narrows) would have given direct access to NYC, NE & NJ - might either or both termianl still be in operation today? Converted to container (tunnel height restricts to COFC or single stacked well cars unless modified/rebuilt)?

Again, right or wrong this is assuming 1 or 2 (PRR or PA or PRR & PA) tunnels were built.

Thanks.