|
|
| Re: Cuomo Reluctant To Dig Deep For New Hudson Rail Tunnel (1362895) | |
 |
|
| Home > SubChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
|
Page 6 of 7 |
||
|
| (1364751) | |
Re: Cuomo Reluctant To Dig Deep For New Hudson Rail Tunnel |
|
|
Posted by AEM-7AC #901 on Mon Aug 31 14:34:39 2015, in response to Re: Cuomo Reluctant To Dig Deep For New Hudson Rail Tunnel, posted by Jackson Park B Train on Mon Aug 31 13:54:35 2015. This is why we need a new political order starting with starving the five sided money pit in Virginia.Or we could also figure out how to get German prices for our transit operation and capital costs so we can have more transit. |
|
|
| (1364753) | |
Re: Cuomo Reluctant To Dig Deep For New Hudson Rail Tunnel |
|
|
Posted by Jackson Park B Train on Mon Aug 31 14:45:34 2015, in response to Re: Cuomo Reluctant To Dig Deep For New Hudson Rail Tunnel, posted by AEM-7AC #901 on Mon Aug 31 14:34:39 2015. well, liquidating the bribing class and the crony kleptocrats would be a start. |
|
|
| (1364760) | |
Re: Cuomo Reluctant To Dig Deep For New Hudson Rail Tunnel |
|
|
Posted by Stephen Bauman on Mon Aug 31 14:58:09 2015, in response to Re: Cuomo Reluctant To Dig Deep For New Hudson Rail Tunnel, posted by NIMBYkiller on Mon Aug 31 13:26:18 2015. TriboroRX could have a greater benefit in terms of cost/mileNobody has yet projected a realistic cost/mile figure for the TriboroRX or its operation. Remember, it's going to have to operate under FRA regulations. I have tried to get a handle on the benefit. As I noted, it's premise is to aid 2.4% of the workforce. That's only 80K workers. what are the benefits of ONE subway extension vs TriboroRX? It doesn't take much to reach that many workers with a single extension 2 to 4 mile extension in areas that are not currently served. |
|
|
(Sponsored) |
iPhone 6 (4.7 Inch) Premium PU Leather Wallet Case - Red w/ Floral Interior - by Notch-It |
|
| (1364768) | |
Re: Cuomo Reluctant To Dig Deep For New Hudson Rail Tunnel |
|
|
Posted by NIMBYkiller on Mon Aug 31 16:19:23 2015, in response to Re: Cuomo Reluctant To Dig Deep For New Hudson Rail Tunnel, posted by Stephen Bauman on Mon Aug 31 14:58:09 2015. I believe it was noted elsewhere that your 2.4% number is only counting those traveling between boros and did not include those traveling within their own boro. Is that correct? |
|
|
| (1364769) | |
Re: Cuomo Reluctant To Dig Deep For New Hudson Rail Tunnel |
|
|
Posted by NIMBYkiller on Mon Aug 31 16:21:41 2015, in response to Re: Cuomo Reluctant To Dig Deep For New Hudson Rail Tunnel, posted by Jackson Park B Train on Mon Aug 31 14:01:15 2015. Even if it was full time city ticket or express bus fare (IE, introducing a second zone for NYCT fare), as long as there's a free transfer to NYCT and, say, 20 min headways, it would be a massive improvement in mobility. I'd really like to learn more about scheduling on the LIRR to see if this is possible capacity wise. |
|
|
| (1364771) | |
Re: Cuomo Reluctant To Dig Deep For New Hudson Rail Tunnel |
|
|
Posted by Stephen Bauman on Mon Aug 31 16:30:01 2015, in response to Re: Cuomo Reluctant To Dig Deep For New Hudson Rail Tunnel, posted by NIMBYkiller on Mon Aug 31 16:19:23 2015. I believe it was noted elsewhere that your 2.4% number is only counting those traveling between boros and did not include those traveling within their own boro. Is that correct?That is correct. No data has been presented to show that the intraborough commute to work lies anywhere close to the projected route of the Triboro RX. |
|
|
| (1364783) | |
Re: Cuomo Reluctant To Dig Deep For New Hudson Rail Tunnel |
|
|
Posted by NIMBYkiller on Mon Aug 31 17:20:09 2015, in response to Re: Cuomo Reluctant To Dig Deep For New Hudson Rail Tunnel, posted by Stephen Bauman on Mon Aug 31 16:30:01 2015. Perhaps looking at ridership data of parallel bus routes would help to, a degree, identify at least a portion of potential ridership. A large portion of the benefit comes in knitting together the various subway and bus routes. Honestly, it's hard to argue which has the greater benefit (TriboroRX vs a subway extension), but I believe TriboroRX has a more widespread effect and it is certainly far easier to complete. Either way, all of the necessary additions to our transportation network should be done. |
|
|
| (1364802) | |
Re: Cuomo Reluctant To Dig Deep For New Hudson Rail Tunnel |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Mon Aug 31 18:36:25 2015, in response to Re: Cuomo Reluctant To Dig Deep For New Hudson Rail Tunnel, posted by NIMBYkiller on Mon Aug 31 16:21:41 2015. They do plan to do that with the Brooklyn service. It is under-utilzied.But rush hour New York trains, they are about every 2 minutes, mostly 10 or 12 cars. How do you add many Queens people to that ? |
|
|
| (1364803) | |
Re: Cuomo Reluctant To Dig Deep For New Hudson Rail Tunnel |
|
|
Posted by 3-9 on Mon Aug 31 19:19:21 2015, in response to Re: Cuomo Reluctant To Dig Deep For New Hudson Rail Tunnel, posted by NIMBYkiller on Mon Aug 31 17:20:09 2015. IMO, it seems Triboro RX is a bit more of a gamble but the payoff could be higher, considering how much area TRX covers. |
|
|
| (1364839) | |
Re: Cuomo Reluctant To Dig Deep For New Hudson Rail Tunnel |
|
|
Posted by ElectricTraction on Mon Aug 31 22:20:27 2015, in response to Re: Cuomo Reluctant To Dig Deep For New Hudson Rail Tunnel, posted by NIMBYkiller on Mon Aug 31 13:25:42 2015. They aren't mutually exclusive. In many ways, they are complementary. |
|
|
| (1364840) | |
Re: Cuomo Reluctant To Dig Deep For New Hudson Rail Tunnel |
|
|
Posted by ElectricTraction on Mon Aug 31 22:21:05 2015, in response to Re: Cuomo Reluctant To Dig Deep For New Hudson Rail Tunnel, posted by NIMBYkiller on Mon Aug 31 13:27:55 2015. Agreed. MN, and to an even bigger extent, LIRR, need to offer better service within the city itself. But that wouldn't negate the need for a number of the subway extensions, as well as TriboroRX. |
|
|
| (1364844) | |
Re: Cuomo Reluctant To Dig Deep For New Hudson Rail Tunnel |
|
|
Posted by ElectricTraction on Mon Aug 31 22:26:21 2015, in response to Re: Cuomo Reluctant To Dig Deep For New Hudson Rail Tunnel, posted by Joe V on Mon Aug 31 18:36:25 2015. How much of the ROW can support 6 tracks? It seems that there's plenty of capacity to have locals though... Or route more trains to Atlantic Ave? |
|
|
| (1364847) | |
Re: Cuomo Reluctant To Dig Deep For New Hudson Rail Tunnel |
|
|
Posted by NIMBYkiller on Mon Aug 31 23:13:21 2015, in response to Re: Cuomo Reluctant To Dig Deep For New Hudson Rail Tunnel, posted by ElectricTraction on Mon Aug 31 22:21:05 2015. It negates the need for subway expansion anywhere along the LIRR/MN and allows it to be done where not even the LIRR or MN exist |
|
|
| (1364848) | |
Re: Cuomo Reluctant To Dig Deep For New Hudson Rail Tunnel |
|
|
Posted by NIMBYkiller on Mon Aug 31 23:19:09 2015, in response to Re: Cuomo Reluctant To Dig Deep For New Hudson Rail Tunnel, posted by Joe V on Mon Aug 31 18:36:25 2015. Part of what I'm wondering is how much of it would be new service vs a modification of the existing schedules. How many trains on the PW originate at or west of Great Neck during the morning rush? Could they all be shifted to originate at Bayside and let the PW zone 4 expresses make Little Neck, Douglaston, and Bayside. The problem with scootifying the Atlantic Av branch is that they are eliminating west end terminal capacity without providing any benefit to parts of the city that don't currently have good transportation |
|
|
| (1364872) | |
Re: Cuomo Reluctant To Dig Deep For New Hudson Rail Tunnel |
|
|
Posted by shiznit1987 on Tue Sep 1 10:47:14 2015, in response to Re: Cuomo Reluctant To Dig Deep For New Hudson Rail Tunnel, posted by NIMBYkiller on Wed Aug 19 15:41:05 2015. Truth. Don't be surprised if Newark emerges as a office center in the coming years. |
|
|
| (1364880) | |
Re: Cuomo Reluctant To Dig Deep For New Hudson Rail Tunnel |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Tue Sep 1 11:04:57 2015, in response to Re: Cuomo Reluctant To Dig Deep For New Hudson Rail Tunnel, posted by NIMBYkiller on Wed Aug 19 15:41:05 2015. If workers from NJ can't get into Manhattan, then the companies have no choice but to move to NJ.TNHIW. Companies locate where they do for lots of reasons. A company will locate itself in Manhattan even though it's incredibly difficult to get workers from California to come to work there. Manhattan has good points and bad points; so does suburban NJ, or Newark, or Stamford, or anywhere else. |
|
|
| (1364899) | |
Re: Cuomo Reluctant To Dig Deep For New Hudson Rail Tunnel |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Tue Sep 1 15:28:00 2015, in response to Re: Cuomo Reluctant To Dig Deep For New Hudson Rail Tunnel, posted by shiznit1987 on Tue Sep 1 10:47:14 2015. It won't. |
|
|
| (1364918) | |
Re: Cuomo Reluctant To Dig Deep For New Hudson Rail Tunnel |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Tue Sep 1 18:33:00 2015, in response to Re: Cuomo Reluctant To Dig Deep For New Hudson Rail Tunnel, posted by ElectricTraction on Mon Aug 31 22:26:21 2015. For 6 tracks, Woodside is very tight, unless there is some taking of the Port Washington Branch, and track realignment. The Rockaway Beach line segment west of Whitepot in Rego Park was 6 tracks. They you have to get under all those high rise apartments through Kew Gardens, like Lefferts Blvd and Union Tpke. |
|
|
| (1364919) | |
Re: Cuomo Reluctant To Dig Deep For New Hudson Rail Tunnel |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Tue Sep 1 18:34:12 2015, in response to Re: Cuomo Reluctant To Dig Deep For New Hudson Rail Tunnel, posted by NIMBYkiller on Mon Aug 31 23:19:09 2015. You need layup facilities at Bayside. Don't know if there is room for there, just some old freight sidings I believe. |
|
|
| (1364921) | |
Re: Cuomo Reluctant To Dig Deep For New Hudson Rail Tunnel |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Tue Sep 1 18:50:52 2015, in response to Re: Cuomo Reluctant To Dig Deep For New Hudson Rail Tunnel, posted by shiznit1987 on Tue Sep 1 10:47:14 2015. I don't know if it rises to the level of office center, but Prudential is adding 140,000 square feet of a new building, consolidate some leased space other than the 2 main buildings they have now, and will totally leave Metropark. |
|
|
| (1364922) | |
Re: Cuomo Reluctant To Dig Deep For New Hudson Rail Tunnel |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Tue Sep 1 18:54:01 2015, in response to Re: Cuomo Reluctant To Dig Deep For New Hudson Rail Tunnel, posted by AlM on Tue Sep 1 11:04:57 2015. But what company in Manhattan is overwhelmed with NJ-residing employees ? Cradle-to-grave employment is gone, and nobody is indispensable. If you are in NJ and can't get in, the employer will be very happy to higher a younger, cheaper replacement who lives on the UWS or Brooklyn. |
|
|
| (1364924) | |
Re: Cuomo Reluctant To Dig Deep For New Hudson Rail Tunnel |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Tue Sep 1 18:56:23 2015, in response to Re: Cuomo Reluctant To Dig Deep For New Hudson Rail Tunnel, posted by Joe V on Tue Sep 1 18:54:01 2015. My point exactly. |
|
|
| (1364926) | |
Re: Cuomo Reluctant To Dig Deep For New Hudson Rail Tunnel |
|
|
Posted by NIMBYkiller on Tue Sep 1 19:21:02 2015, in response to Re: Cuomo Reluctant To Dig Deep For New Hudson Rail Tunnel, posted by Joe V on Tue Sep 1 18:34:12 2015. There's Bay interlocking and the MOW yard, that's partly why I suggest that over Great Neck. |
|
|
| (1364928) | |
Re: Cuomo Reluctant To Dig Deep For New Hudson Rail Tunnel |
|
|
Posted by NIMBYkiller on Tue Sep 1 19:27:23 2015, in response to Re: Cuomo Reluctant To Dig Deep For New Hudson Rail Tunnel, posted by Joe V on Tue Sep 1 18:50:52 2015. Newark has definitely become more and more corporate and it will continue to do so as long as this trend towards urban living continues. I know my mother, who's worked in midtown her whole life, has now been commuting from LI to Newark for over 5 years now |
|
|
| (1364931) | |
Re: Cuomo Reluctant To Dig Deep For New Hudson Rail Tunnel |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Tue Sep 1 19:46:42 2015, in response to Re: Cuomo Reluctant To Dig Deep For New Hudson Rail Tunnel, posted by NIMBYkiller on Tue Sep 1 19:27:23 2015. Panasonic, IDT, PSEG, Blue Cross - all are there. |
|
|
| (1364932) | |
Re: Cuomo Reluctant To Dig Deep For New Hudson Rail Tunnel |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Tue Sep 1 19:51:16 2015, in response to Re: Cuomo Reluctant To Dig Deep For New Hudson Rail Tunnel, posted by NIMBYkiller on Tue Sep 1 19:27:23 2015. Even people who live in suburban NJ might prefer to work in Newark. Unless you happen to live near Parsippany, it's probably easier to get to Newark than Parsippany. Ditto Piscataway, Route 1, or any of NJ's fine suburban office centers. |
|
|
| (1364933) | |
Re: Cuomo Reluctant To Dig Deep For New Hudson Rail Tunnel |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Tue Sep 1 20:07:43 2015, in response to Re: Cuomo Reluctant To Dig Deep For New Hudson Rail Tunnel, posted by AlM on Tue Sep 1 19:51:16 2015. I'd rather be on a train to Newark for an hour rather than an hour car/bus combo now to New Brunswick. I can't read on this commute. |
|
|
| (1364956) | |
Re: Cuomo Reluctant To Dig Deep For New Hudson Rail Tunnel |
|
|
Posted by ElectricTraction on Tue Sep 1 21:25:15 2015, in response to Re: Cuomo Reluctant To Dig Deep For New Hudson Rail Tunnel, posted by NIMBYkiller on Mon Aug 31 23:13:21 2015. It's a good idea, but what specifically would it negate the need for? |
|
|
| (1364962) | |
Re: Cuomo Reluctant To Dig Deep For New Hudson Rail Tunnel |
|
|
Posted by ElectricTraction on Tue Sep 1 21:39:52 2015, in response to Re: Cuomo Reluctant To Dig Deep For New Hudson Rail Tunnel, posted by Joe V on Tue Sep 1 18:33:00 2015. There are 6 tracks from the Port Wash Branch junction to CP Harold, and there is room for 6 from Rego Park to the Port Wash Branch junction. Restore the RBB loop with the Far Rockaway, max out the Atlantic Ave Branch with through trains, and the existing ROW should provide pretty awesome capacity. |
|
|
| (1364963) | |
Re: Cuomo Reluctant To Dig Deep For New Hudson Rail Tunnel |
|
|
Posted by ElectricTraction on Tue Sep 1 21:42:26 2015, in response to Re: Cuomo Reluctant To Dig Deep For New Hudson Rail Tunnel, posted by Joe V on Tue Sep 1 18:34:12 2015. Schedule a train outbound to turn at Bayside. Put in more crossovers if needed. |
|
|
| (1364973) | |
Re: Cuomo Reluctant To Dig Deep For New Hudson Rail Tunnel |
|
|
Posted by NIMBYkiller on Tue Sep 1 22:38:44 2015, in response to Re: Cuomo Reluctant To Dig Deep For New Hudson Rail Tunnel, posted by ElectricTraction on Tue Sep 1 21:42:26 2015. The crossover already exists; Bay Interlocking. Eastbound express trains are already catching up to the locals by Douglaston, so maybe turning the locals at Bayside instead of Great Neck would be better |
|
|
| (1364977) | |
Re: Cuomo Reluctant To Dig Deep For New Hudson Rail Tunnel |
|
|
Posted by NIMBYkiller on Tue Sep 1 22:52:00 2015, in response to Re: Cuomo Reluctant To Dig Deep For New Hudson Rail Tunnel, posted by ElectricTraction on Tue Sep 1 21:25:15 2015. 7 train along Northern Blvd, Archer Av extension along Jamaica Av or Merrick Blvd. It could possibly even allow some Jamaica Center QB Express service to be cut and make room for express service to the RBB or another new corridor through Queens between the PW and Main lines (IE Union Tpke or LIE). |
|
|
| (1365073) | |
Re: Cuomo Reluctant To Dig Deep For New Hudson Rail Tunnel |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Wed Sep 2 16:07:07 2015, in response to Re: Cuomo Reluctant To Dig Deep For New Hudson Rail Tunnel, posted by ElectricTraction on Tue Sep 1 21:39:52 2015. The RBB Beach Loop belongs to the TA now. So you would be mixing an FRA operation with them them. Can't do that. |
|
|
| (1365078) | |
Re: Cuomo Reluctant To Dig Deep For New Hudson Rail Tunnel |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Wed Sep 2 16:13:09 2015, in response to Re: Cuomo Reluctant To Dig Deep For New Hudson Rail Tunnel, posted by NIMBYkiller on Tue Sep 1 22:38:44 2015. How would the load balancing work out if we shift the zone express point from Great Neck to Bayside ?Don't forget the siding at Great Neck is to be extended, but then Port Washington yard will be retrofitted for 12 car trains. |
|
|
| (1365087) | |
Re: Cuomo Reluctant To Dig Deep For New Hudson Rail Tunnel |
|
|
Posted by ElectricTraction on Wed Sep 2 16:26:01 2015, in response to Re: Cuomo Reluctant To Dig Deep For New Hudson Rail Tunnel, posted by Joe V on Wed Sep 2 16:07:07 2015. My proposal involves giving it back to LIRR in exchange for actually operating it. |
|
|
| (1365091) | |
Re: Cuomo Reluctant To Dig Deep For New Hudson Rail Tunnel |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Wed Sep 2 16:29:46 2015, in response to Re: Cuomo Reluctant To Dig Deep For New Hudson Rail Tunnel, posted by ElectricTraction on Wed Sep 2 16:26:01 2015. OK.With City Ticket or just normal subway fare ? You would have to blow away a strip mall in Far Rockaway. |
|
|
| (1365153) | |
Re: Cuomo Reluctant To Dig Deep For New Hudson Rail Tunnel |
|
|
Posted by NIMBYkiller on Thu Sep 3 00:49:19 2015, in response to Re: Cuomo Reluctant To Dig Deep For New Hudson Rail Tunnel, posted by Joe V on Wed Sep 2 16:13:09 2015. That's something that would have to be looked into still. Most of the expresses, IIRC, are SRO to Great Neck and then thin out enough that there are more than enough seats. I'd assume the best way to operate the line would be for an EB local to arrive at Bayside, wait for a WB express to pass, cross over, and an EB express would arrive. I'm especially curious what that would do for the line E of Great Neck where it is single tracked (although double tracking could easily be done from PW to Plandome). I'd assume it would cause a problem since the turn around time at PW is currently 5 mins with the trains meeting usually at Little Neck. |
|
|
| (1365154) | |
Re: Cuomo Reluctant To Dig Deep For New Hudson Rail Tunnel |
|
|
Posted by NIMBYkiller on Thu Sep 3 00:49:58 2015, in response to Re: Cuomo Reluctant To Dig Deep For New Hudson Rail Tunnel, posted by Joe V on Wed Sep 2 16:29:46 2015. That doesn't sound like the worst thing in the world (not that I'm endorsing this proposal) |
|
|
| (1365220) | |
Re: Cuomo Reluctant To Dig Deep For New Hudson Rail Tunnel |
|
|
Posted by ElectricTraction on Thu Sep 3 16:22:01 2015, in response to Re: Cuomo Reluctant To Dig Deep For New Hudson Rail Tunnel, posted by Joe V on Wed Sep 2 16:29:46 2015. That strip mall would be no loss. Actually, it would probably be addition by subtraction from the looks of it. I'd also reconnect the Central Line and the two Hempstead branches together, so there would be two circular routes to offer better bidirectional and off-peak/weekend service. I'd think that maybe there should be a new variation on City Ticket, where the LIRR, Subway, and MN are $2.25 each within NYC, and all take Metrocard. Not sure what the logistics of that would be on MN and LIRR, but I'm sure they could figure it out. |
|
|
| (1365243) | |
Re: Cuomo Reluctant To Dig Deep For New Hudson Rail Tunnel |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Thu Sep 3 19:41:56 2015, in response to Re: Cuomo Reluctant To Dig Deep For New Hudson Rail Tunnel, posted by ElectricTraction on Thu Sep 3 16:22:01 2015. You would have to double track the West Hempstead branch too. |
|
|
| (1365252) | |
Re: Cuomo Reluctant To Dig Deep For New Hudson Rail Tunnel |
|
|
Posted by ElectricTraction on Thu Sep 3 21:21:02 2015, in response to Re: Cuomo Reluctant To Dig Deep For New Hudson Rail Tunnel, posted by Joe V on Thu Sep 3 19:41:56 2015. Correct. It was double track, the roadbed is clearly still there. |
|
|
| (1365272) | |
Re: Cuomo Reluctant To Dig Deep For New Hudson Rail Tunnel |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Fri Sep 4 07:14:15 2015, in response to Re: Cuomo Reluctant To Dig Deep For New Hudson Rail Tunnel, posted by ElectricTraction on Thu Sep 3 21:21:02 2015. Was never double track, only provision for it, including concrete 3rd rail conduits. Some station platforms are on top of it, have always been there on the same side. |
|
|
| (1365309) | |
Re: Cuomo Reluctant To Dig Deep For New Hudson Rail Tunnel |
|
|
Posted by NIMBYkiller on Fri Sep 4 14:08:48 2015, in response to Re: Cuomo Reluctant To Dig Deep For New Hudson Rail Tunnel, posted by ElectricTraction on Thu Sep 3 16:22:01 2015. I'm tempted to say that outter fringe of the city (E of Flushing and Jamaica) to anything in Manhattan should be charged express bus fare, but traveling within the outter boros would be at subway fare (IE, 2 zone system). $2.75 from Bayside when Great Neck is $8.25 is a bit much of a difference. |
|
|
| (1365315) | |
Re: Cuomo Reluctant To Dig Deep For New Hudson Rail Tunnel |
|
|
Posted by Jackson Park B Train on Fri Sep 4 14:18:43 2015, in response to Re: Cuomo Reluctant To Dig Deep For New Hudson Rail Tunnel, posted by NIMBYkiller on Fri Sep 4 14:08:48 2015. NO! a thousand times no. People trade commute time for less astronomical rents while still living in the city. Gouging them on fares for these long rides is evil IMHO. It was a ripoff when I lived in the East Village; MABSTOA and the then private Ave B & E B'way buses cost me a separate fare to get "out" to a subway line, and the same when the Rockaway line cost asecond fare. |
|
|
| (1365317) | |
Re: Cuomo Reluctant To Dig Deep For New Hudson Rail Tunnel |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Fri Sep 4 14:29:58 2015, in response to Re: Cuomo Reluctant To Dig Deep For New Hudson Rail Tunnel, posted by NIMBYkiller on Fri Sep 4 14:08:48 2015. One city - one fare.Anything else invites discrimination challenges. |
|
|
| (1365318) | |
Re: Cuomo Reluctant To Dig Deep For New Hudson Rail Tunnel |
|
|
Posted by JAzumah on Fri Sep 4 14:32:29 2015, in response to Re: Cuomo Reluctant To Dig Deep For New Hudson Rail Tunnel, posted by NIMBYkiller on Fri Sep 4 14:08:48 2015. The MTA was formed with the provision that a zone fare system was illegal. |
|
|
| (1365323) | |
Re: Cuomo Reluctant To Dig Deep For New Hudson Rail Tunnel |
|
|
Posted by Jackson Park B Train on Fri Sep 4 14:59:25 2015, in response to Re: Cuomo Reluctant To Dig Deep For New Hudson Rail Tunnel, posted by Joe V on Fri Sep 4 14:29:58 2015. As well it should. Next step, Metrocard good on LIRR and MN within the five boros. |
|
|
| (1365333) | |
Re: Cuomo Reluctant To Dig Deep For New Hudson Rail Tunnel |
|
|
Posted by ElectricTraction on Fri Sep 4 16:00:07 2015, in response to Re: Cuomo Reluctant To Dig Deep For New Hudson Rail Tunnel, posted by Joe V on Fri Sep 4 07:14:15 2015. Ok, then they made the ROW for double-track and never put it in. It's very clearly there, with the exception of some parking spots, signal bridges, and some other crap that could all be easily moved. |
|
|
| (1365334) | |
Re: Cuomo Reluctant To Dig Deep For New Hudson Rail Tunnel |
|
|
Posted by ElectricTraction on Fri Sep 4 16:00:21 2015, in response to Re: Cuomo Reluctant To Dig Deep For New Hudson Rail Tunnel, posted by Joe V on Fri Sep 4 07:14:15 2015. Ok, then they made the ROW for double-track and never put it in. It's very clearly there, with the exception of some parking spots, signal bridges, and some other crap that could all be easily moved. |
|
|
| (1365344) | |
Re: Cuomo Reluctant To Dig Deep For New Hudson Rail Tunnel |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Fri Sep 4 17:39:01 2015, in response to Re: Cuomo Reluctant To Dig Deep For New Hudson Rail Tunnel, posted by ElectricTraction on Fri Sep 4 16:00:07 2015. That is true. I have vague memories of the portion north of West Hempstead to Country Life Press of around 1962, seen from a Hempstead train. That abandoned portion was 2 tracks when I saw it. |
|
|
|
Page 6 of 7 |
||
