|
|
| Re: Hudson River rail tunnel project has new name, but same concerns over funding (1162157) | |||
 |
|||
| Home > SubChat | |||
|
[ Read Responses | Post a New Response | Return to the Index ] |
|
||
|
Re: Hudson River rail tunnel project has new name, but same concerns over funding |
|
|
Posted by WillD on Sat Jun 16 17:26:34 2012, in response to Re: Hudson River rail tunnel project has new name, but same concerns over funding, posted by Dutchrailnut on Sat Jun 16 08:27:25 2012. reason 1 Water tunnel no 1 would need to be passed at over 220 feet down as tunneling is not allowed within 100 feet of water bore.... while it remains in service. Once Water Tunnel 3 is completed there will be periods in which Water Tunnels 1 and 2 are to be taken out of service for inspection, maintenance, and modernization. During the period in which Water Tunnel #1 is taken out of service it will apparently be possible to build well within the NYDEP's current envelope without the risk of leaving half of NYC high and dry. reason 2 as Alt-G is based on through service all 3 MNCR lines would need to be electrified with Catenary or NJT would need to go third rail. as there is no clearance for catenary in park avenue tunnels or bronx, I would assume you want NJT to change. Which is why Amtrak's proposal would more than likely call for a new-build cavern terminal next to the LIRR ESA terminal. If this is being done as part of a high speed rail line then saddling those trainsets with third rail equipment and tossing them into the MNCR morass would be a bigger nightmare than the Eurostar's crawl into Waterloo. Admittedly the M42 Substation and ESA escalator shafts get in the way, but there's probably room under there for a 6 track terminal station as described on page 14 of Amtrak's Vision for High-Speed Rail in the Northeast Corridor. But how that terminal would integrate with the Park Avenue tunnel/el, and how it'd be any faster than the Hell Gate would remain to be seen. If it's being done for commuters then, again, Grand Central cannot help NJ commuters without royally screwing up MNCR service. It would be better (and probably cheaper) to avoid deep station caverns altogether and just mine stations out like TBM-built subway lines under Manhattan. There is a way to do just this without sacrificing the capacity a large, inordinately expensive terminal would confer. |
|
|
|