Passenger Trains > NYNJ Gateway Bridge multi-modal proposal

http://www.nj.com/traffic/index.ssf/2016/05/could_this_futuristic_bridge_across_the_hudson_solve_njs_transit_woes.html

Interesting idea, but I wonder how many objections they would get for the visual impact.  

elu34ch Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> http://www.nj.com/traffic/index.ssf/2016/05/could_
> this_futuristic_bridge_across_the_hudson_solve_njs
> _transit_woes.html

I like the silly idea of building a station 210 feet above ground. Or maybe they will just issue parachutes to passengers to float down into New York LOL!

There was a proposal to build a massive highway and rail bridge into New York City from Jersey City circa 1900. Enormously high, enough to allow sailing ships to pass under it.  Like this one, it had a "sky terminal" for trains, and a looping ramp down to street.

Pennsylvania Railroad decided they'd be better off with the new fangled electric power and a tunnel...

Take a look at Berlin HBF.  210-feet is not unrealistic.

JL

Jishnu Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I like the silly idea of building a station 210
> feet above ground. Or maybe they will just issue
> parachutes to passengers to float down into New
> York LOL!

Well, according to the article, the designer proposes a station 100' above the street (the 212' is over the navigable waters.)  The escalators for one of the DC Metro stations have a 115 vertical rise, and the already mentioned Berlin central station has an 80+' difference in platforms.  Plus if the station is put in the most logical location, between 8th Ave and Ave of the Americas (to serve 4 N-S subway lines), there is only room for 2 tracks each way plus patforms, so it would probably only serve commuter rail trains, and just a portion of those (Amtrak staying in Penn Station, along with some NJT and LIRR service.)  I also initially questioned if they could build enough elevator and escalator capacity, but perhaps limited to 4 tracks makes it possible (though there's also bus and light-rail....)

Interesting proposals, though I expect NIMBYism to kill it.  Lots of residences in the towers along those streets that would have their values drop and deserve buyout offers.  On the flip side, you could price that in and then partially offset it with converting them to affordable housing.  But that can sometimes bring too many problem tenants and usually will be strongly opposed by current and neighboring residents.  Then again, 'affordable' in Manhattan is unlike anywhere else in the US, so those fronting the bridge would probably still be professionals, not welfare slackers and the all too often associated 'impacts'.

 

Lackawanna484 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> There was a proposal to build a massive highway
> and rail bridge into New York City from Jersey
> City circa 1900. Enormously high, enough to allow
> sailing ships to pass under it.  Like this one,
> it had a "sky terminal" for trains, and a looping
> ramp down to street.
>
> Pennsylvania Railroad decided they'd be better off
> with the new fangled electric power and a
> tunnel...

I recall reading about that bridge in the book "Conquer-
ing Gotham: Building Penn Station and its Tunnels" by
Jill Jones.  A great read.  It's been some time since I
read it - thought I recalled that the PRR could not con-
vince enough railroads to join in, or perhaps, pay for
trackage rights.

Apparently, by 1890, congress had approved the plan,
and the cornerstone was in fact laid in Hoboken on June
18, 1895.

The Cornerstone for This Huge Hudson Bridge Was Laid in 1895
Curbed New York:  1-22-2013:

http://ny.curbed.com/2013/1/22/10282878/the-cornerstone-for-this-huge-hudson-bridge-was-laid-in-1895

/Mitch

Intersting idea but I didn't see anything in the article about leads coming off the four tracks in Manhattan so it looks like this bridge would be suitable only for through trains (eg, Amtrak and Meadowlands football trains) and not terminating / originating trains unless the trains either originate/terminate at Sunnyside Yard or other off-Manhattan location or immediately reverse direction in Manhattan (eg, trains to/from DC). Not sure how Amtrak's Albany trains could be accommodated. But there's also the opportunity for Metro North and NJT to get together on regularly scheduled through trains between NJ and Ct.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/26/16 02:31 by JPB.

MetroNorth, NJ Transit and CT could do through trains from NJ to CT this afternoon if they wanted to.  The agreements are in place for the football etc trains, the unions are fully engaged.

It was suggested the use of NJT equipment as run through to the East Bronx could address the apparent lack of equipment to handle Governor Cuomo's promise of service.

There are no East River tunnel slots in the peak direction of LIRR service. So if an NJT train would head to the Bronx in the AM rush, it could not return until after 930am. Likewise, no MN train could enter NYPS from the Hell Gate line either until 2023.

I am juyst hoping that this will be killed and buried as spurious nonsense in the EIS process before too much money is spent on it. ;)

Jishnu Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I like the silly idea of building a station 210
> feet above ground. Or maybe they will just issue
> parachutes to passengers to float down into New
> York LOL!

The deck height of the Poughkeepsie Bridge is 212' over the water, and the walkway has an elevator to access it from a point near the east bank of the Hudson.

Ray

Nobody asked rail passengers to change train there. Try those elevators with 1,000 passengers arriving per 3 minute slot from either NJ or LI.

joemvcnj Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> There are no East River tunnel slots in the peak
> direction of LIRR service. So if an NJT train
> would head to the Bronx in the AM rush, it could
> not return until after 930am. Likewise, no MN
> train could enter NYPS from the Hell Gate line
> either until 2023.

They are going to install high density signalling in the East River Tunnels to create 8 slots per hour for Metro North (4 per tunnel).

An additional 8 slots per hour is a significant improvement.  LIRR also has the advantage of a place to put the recently unloaded trains near NYP

MN will use slots released by LIRR after ESA opens. That's why MN service to NYPS will wait until 2023.
Whatever high density signalling still does ot address the issue of station slots.
LIRR and Amtrak are arguing as to which tunnels and station tracks MN will use. Each railroad controls the Penn Station Control center. Amtrak regards these MN trains as de facto LIRR trains, but LIRR regards MN as de facto Amtrak trains.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 05/27/16 07:24 by joemvcnj.