Riverduckexpress wrote: ↑Thu Jan 09, 2020 11:09 am
The ARC Summary Report suggested it was physically feasible, but that it would require disrupting and moving around a track of the Lexington Av subway and possibly underpinning nearby buildings (along with a compatible fleet, of course). Seems like it's really just a question of how much interagency cooperation and subway/surface disruption is politically feasible today. I think Cuomo has reaffirmed that any rail project can move forward, or at least have the ball start rolling, regardless of merits or cost, if it has the right people backing it.
Part of the issue here is that American rail engineers like to box themselves in insofar as the breadth of their changemaking purview is concerned. They just take things like a loco-hauled rail fleet incapable of ascending steeper (>3%) grades as given, rather than suggesting that involved railroads move to an EMU-dominated fleet that would allow steeper grades, and, in turn, avoidance of many (if not all) of these obstacles.
As for this Penn expansion project, it has little to no value in my opinion. These billions dollars would be an excellent down payment on the infrastructure and equipment required to implement schemes that do not scream of transportational sclerosis, for example through running, or improvements that would allow greater potential capacity in the core entrance where it is really needed: the Hudson crossing.