|
|
| Re: Staten Island rail tunnel. (1412979) | |
 |
|
| Home > SubChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
|
Page 2 of 4 |
||
|
| (1413519) | |
Re: Staten Island rail tunnel. |
|
|
Posted by R30A on Sat Oct 22 18:27:28 2016, in response to Re: Staten Island rail tunnel., posted by Joe V on Sat Oct 22 10:58:19 2016. Any properly done study would kill it, regardless of SBS. |
|
|
| (1413520) | |
Re: Staten Island rail tunnel. |
|
|
Posted by R30A on Sat Oct 22 18:28:50 2016, in response to Re: Staten Island rail tunnel., posted by Joe V on Sat Oct 22 06:33:34 2016. Of course not. Because IT ISN'T WORTHWHILE. When the current projects get done, perhaps we will see further meaningful expansion, but such will almost certainly never include the RBL. |
|
|
| (1413524) | |
Re: Staten Island rail tunnel. |
|
|
Posted by Elkeeper on Sat Oct 22 19:40:16 2016, in response to Re: Staten Island rail tunnel., posted by Elkeeper on Mon Oct 17 14:21:24 2016. If I remember correctly, Hylan actually supported a Staten Island subway tunnel and put it up for bids. Not one contractor responded. Whether or not this was due to the deep work involved under the Narrows or Gov Al Smith's opposition, might never be known. Smith was in the pocket of the Pensy, and the railroad did not want to see the B&O's Richmond passenger service benefit from the tunnel. |
|
|
(Sponsored) |
iPhone 6 (4.7 Inch) Premium PU Leather Wallet Case - Red w/ Floral Interior - by Notch-It |
|
| (1413527) | |
Re: Staten Island rail tunnel. |
|
|
Posted by TerrApin Station on Sat Oct 22 20:32:07 2016, in response to Re: Staten Island rail tunnel., posted by Joe V on Sat Oct 22 10:58:19 2016. Sucks for you, Joe-boo. |
|
|
| (1413529) | |
Re: Staten Island rail tunnel. |
|
|
Posted by TUNNELRAT on Sat Oct 22 21:00:37 2016, in response to Re: Staten Island rail tunnel., posted by Elkeeper on Sat Oct 22 19:40:16 2016. THE PROJECT WAS STARTED IN 1923 BY CITY ENGINEERS AND WORKERS.IT RAN OUT OF MONEY IN 1925. |
|
|
| (1413537) | |
Re: Staten Island rail tunnel. |
|
|
Posted by Andrew Saucci on Sat Oct 22 21:42:53 2016, in response to Re: Staten Island rail tunnel., posted by Dutchrailnut on Mon Oct 17 22:15:12 2016. Rail freight makes sense because it takes lots less labor to get a 200-car freight train somewhere than sending 200 trucks to do the same job. The 200 trucks each need at least a driver. The 200-car freight train might need just a very small crew. Around here, those 200 drivers are going to be paid to sit in traffic. If the infrastructure were there, it would get lots of use. When is the Port Authority going to build the project that it was created to build 95 years ago? |
|
|
| (1413540) | |
Re: Staten Island rail tunnel. |
|
|
Posted by Andrew Saucci on Sat Oct 22 21:47:39 2016, in response to Re: Staten Island rail tunnel., posted by Michael549 on Thu Oct 20 03:24:27 2016. I don't know-- even large multiscreen movie theaters seem to be disappearing. The one in Valley Stream and the one near the Bruckner interchange (soon, if not already) and I think the one in Commack are all gone. But I guess you can have your bus as long as they are still in Staten Island. After they become Home Depot or Lowes' stores, though, those bus routes will need to be reevaluated. |
|
|
| (1413541) | |
Re: Staten Island rail tunnel. |
|
|
Posted by Andrew Saucci on Sat Oct 22 21:51:42 2016, in response to Re: Staten Island rail tunnel., posted by Joe V on Sat Oct 22 07:30:11 2016. "If the North Shore Line were to come back, people will move to it."Only so many people can move near a ROW that runs so close to the water that parts of it actually fell in as I recall. A ROW further inland could be useful to lots more people-- assuming that such a ROW could be identified and successfully implemented (chances low though). |
|
|
| (1413543) | |
Re: Staten Island rail tunnel. |
|
|
Posted by TerrApin Station on Sat Oct 22 22:25:03 2016, in response to Re: Staten Island rail tunnel., posted by Andrew Saucci on Sat Oct 22 21:51:42 2016. Pwn3d |
|
|
| (1413552) | |
Re: Staten Island rail tunnel. |
|
|
Posted by Michael549 on Sun Oct 23 01:46:47 2016, in response to Re: Staten Island rail tunnel., posted by randyo on Sat Oct 22 15:22:00 2016. Here's the basic problem with the usage of expressways, or highways for rapid transit - usually such car-oriented transportation facilities are oriented to be AWAY from where large numbers of folks live, but also to be accessible by car. I make a distinction between rapid transit, and long-distance commuter transportation with fewer stops in the central city areas.Think of the Brooklyn Belt Parkway and similar roadways - the basic idea was to go around the urban area - not THROUGH it - many highways and major roads were designed under such principles. For a long period of time there have been major issues with building or installing highways directly within built-up city centers, and I do not mean roads that hug the waterways. Can one have transit down the median of an expressway - yeah sure - especially for routes that have a good degree of space (miles) between stations. The transit stations might have to be of the Park and Ride variety, and due to the distances of residential areas - few riders that could or would WALK to those stations. There is a group that has proposed the building of light-rail on Staten Island using the West Shore Highway - except has been noted - that roadway in major ways exists AWAY from the populated residential areas and job centers - which of course affects the amounts of riders. One of the benefits of subway rapid transit was the ability to exist in city business districts - delivering high numbers of folks without taking up huge amounts of space. Rapid transit exists to take large numbers of folks to where they want to go especially for centralized districts. Highways, expressways, major roads, etc. exist to distribute folks over vast areas and areas of low density of folks. Mike |
|
|
| (1413557) | |
Re: Staten Island rail tunnel. |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Sun Oct 23 09:09:24 2016, in response to Re: Staten Island rail tunnel., posted by Andrew Saucci on Sat Oct 22 21:51:42 2016. A few blocks back from the ROW is still walkable from new apartments. But given how nature has taken the ROW back, it would be difficult to put the line back. |
|
|
| (1413563) | |
Re: Staten Island rail tunnel |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Sun Oct 23 09:57:56 2016, in response to Re: Staten Island rail tunnel., posted by R30A on Sat Oct 22 18:28:50 2016. Because IT ISN'T WORTHWHILEStop posting opinion as fact, please. |
|
|
| (1413564) | |
Re: Staten Island rail tunnel |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Sun Oct 23 09:58:53 2016, in response to Re: Staten Island rail tunnel., posted by R30A on Sat Oct 22 18:27:28 2016. properly done studyLMAO‼ |
|
|
| (1413568) | |
Re: Staten Island rail tunnel |
|
|
Posted by Broadway Lion on Sun Oct 23 10:18:12 2016, in response to Re: Staten Island rail tunnel, posted by Olog-hai on Sun Oct 23 09:57:56 2016. FAKT: FAiry Boat is faster than a train that goes through Brooklyn.Only a Tunnel from St. George to South Fairy would run faster. But building a five mile tunnel under the widest part of the bay. How shallow or deep is the bay, how deep will they need to dig so as not to be clopped by heavy anchors falling on the top of the tunnels. LION does not know if is applicable but a train from Webster (Bronx via 3rd Ave) down Second Avenue to Toonerville seems to be a good routing. ROAR |
|
|
| (1413571) | |
Re: Staten Island rail tunnel. |
|
|
Posted by Terrapin Station on Sun Oct 23 10:34:20 2016, in response to Re: Staten Island rail tunnel., posted by Andrew Saucci on Sat Oct 22 21:42:53 2016. If you were surely and easily so correct then why would there be a need for million dollar feasibility studies? |
|
|
| (1413572) | |
Re: Staten Island rail tunnel. |
|
|
Posted by Terrapin Station on Sun Oct 23 10:36:24 2016, in response to Re: Staten Island rail tunnel., posted by Joe V on Sun Oct 23 09:09:24 2016. Nothing time, money, and heavy equipment couldn't solve. |
|
|
| (1413574) | |
Re: Staten Island rail tunnel |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Sun Oct 23 10:47:01 2016, in response to Re: Staten Island rail tunnel, posted by Broadway Lion on Sun Oct 23 10:18:12 2016. FAKT: FAiry Boat is faster than a train that goes through BrooklynNobody knows, since there isn't any such train. |
|
|
| (1413575) | |
Re: Staten Island rail tunnel. |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Sun Oct 23 10:47:30 2016, in response to Re: Staten Island rail tunnel., posted by Fisk Ave Jim on Wed Oct 19 19:30:26 2016. Day saved with tunnel, at least. Multiply that times thousands of carloads per year, time savings add up.No, thousands of carloads per year do not justify a multi-billion dollar tunnel. And consider the much cheaper alternative, which is to improve the trackage on both sides of the Hudson. Then assemble a daily train bound for LI somewhere in North Jersey and send it direct to a yard in LI. Get the same time savings for far less money. It comes down to three possibilities: 1. You don't have enough freight to justify 1 train per day from NJ to LI. Then a cross-harbor tunnel is incredibly expensive per ton sent. 2. You do have enough freight for one or a few trains per day. Then enhancing the up and down route is far cheaper than building a tunnel. 3. You have many trains per day of freight. OK, then a tunnel might be justifiable. But we're nowhere near that yet. |
|
|
| (1413580) | |
Re: Staten Island rail tunnel. |
|
|
Posted by Terrapin Station on Sun Oct 23 11:11:45 2016, in response to Re: Staten Island rail tunnel., posted by AlM on Sun Oct 23 10:47:30 2016. Good post. |
|
|
| (1413582) | |
Re: Staten Island rail tunnel. |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Sun Oct 23 11:28:59 2016, in response to Re: Staten Island rail tunnel., posted by Michael549 on Sun Oct 23 01:46:47 2016. Median rapid transit is not so good for the transit-dependent. They all too often rely on feeder buses.That's why the Chicago South Side "L" still has a following, even though they could all be conceivably be accommodated on the Dan Ryan Line, because it is over-served. The North Side of the Red line has double the ridership. |
|
|
| (1413583) | |
Re: Staten Island rail tunnel. |
|
|
Posted by NIMBYkiller on Sun Oct 23 11:29:27 2016, in response to Re: Staten Island rail tunnel., posted by R30A on Sat Oct 22 18:27:28 2016. I strongly disagree |
|
|
| (1413584) | |
Re: Staten Island rail tunnel. |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Sun Oct 23 11:31:58 2016, in response to Re: Staten Island rail tunnel., posted by AlM on Sun Oct 23 10:47:30 2016. Whoever runs it, the LIRR could never clear most modern inter-modal freight cars, like double stacks and piggybacks, because of height and 3rd rail. That limits what can be sent to LI. |
|
|
| (1413585) | |
Re: Staten Island rail tunnel. |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Sun Oct 23 11:36:49 2016, in response to Re: Staten Island rail tunnel., posted by NIMBYkiller on Sun Oct 23 11:29:27 2016. I am biased in favor of RBB, but I'll see what their study says. |
|
|
| (1413593) | |
Re: Staten Island rail tunnel. |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Sun Oct 23 12:24:40 2016, in response to Re: Staten Island rail tunnel., posted by Joe V on Sun Oct 23 11:31:58 2016. Is height an issue at many bridges?Third rail issues can be avoided by using offset rails for freight. Obviously, any heavy LIRR use for freight could only be late nights. |
|
|
| (1413594) | |
Re: Staten Island rail tunnel. |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Sun Oct 23 12:27:56 2016, in response to Re: Staten Island rail tunnel., posted by AlM on Sun Oct 23 12:24:40 2016. Gauntlet track ? Clearances from offset ? That would cost billions. |
|
|
| (1413595) | |
Re: Staten Island rail tunnel |
|
|
Posted by Michael549 on Sun Oct 23 12:43:06 2016, in response to Re: Staten Island rail tunnel, posted by Olog-hai on Sun Oct 23 10:47:01 2016. Of there has been the proposal to extend a route like the R-train into Staten Island, or at least some kind of train service from the 59th Street-Fourth Avenue station.The travel time of the Staten Island Ferry is a known quantity - about 22-minutes, usually in a 30-minute time slot. The travel time of the R-train from the 95th Street-Fourth Avenue terminal to Whitehall Street-South Ferry is a known quantity - about 32 minutes on the rush hour schedule. While many ferry riders may work within walking distance of the Manhattan Whitehall Ferry Terminal Building - many, many ferry riders make the daily trek to the nearby subway stations to complete their journeys. In addition very few ferry riders on the Staten island end daily walk to the ferry terminal building with most having to take a bus, the SIR or drive. Basically it appears that the creation of a subway tunnel connecting to/from Staten Island and Brooklyn is a "wash" time savings wise. Of course someone may propose a direct route via the N-train to/from Manhattan or other routing for such a tunnel. Mike |
|
|
| (1413599) | |
Re: Staten Island rail tunnel. |
|
|
Posted by Henry R32 #3730 on Sun Oct 23 14:42:16 2016, in response to Re: Staten Island rail tunnel., posted by AlM on Sun Oct 23 10:47:30 2016. What about the steady stream of trucks coming in over the Verrazano. How many of those shipments would have gone by rail, if it didn't require the trip up to Selkirk to cross the Hudson...Also, (and I'm putting my NIMBY hat on here) the residents along the CSX River Line *hate* the increased traffic, when they moved in there were 17 trains a day, over the past 20 years it's jumped to well over 50. If this tunnel cuts down on that traffic, it can be seen as a benefit to upstate. |
|
|
| (1413600) | |
Re: Staten Island rail tunnel. |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Sun Oct 23 14:54:27 2016, in response to Re: Staten Island rail tunnel., posted by Henry R32 #3730 on Sun Oct 23 14:42:16 2016. What about the steady stream of trucks coming in over the Verrazano. How many of those shipments would have gone by rail, if it didn't require the trip up to Selkirk to cross the Hudson...Maybe it's a chicken and egg problem. If the railroads could assemble a full train from north Jersey to LI every day, it wouldn't have to get reassembled in Selkirk and it could make the trip in 12 hours. Leave NJ in the late afternoon and get to LI before the rush starts at 5 AM there. |
|
|
| (1413601) | |
Re: Staten Island rail tunnel. |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Sun Oct 23 15:16:32 2016, in response to Re: Staten Island rail tunnel., posted by Henry R32 #3730 on Sun Oct 23 14:42:16 2016. They would have to go onto inter-modal freight cars, most of which cannot operate on the LIRR. |
|
|
| (1413602) | |
Re: Staten Island rail tunnel. |
|
|
Posted by Dutchrailnut on Sun Oct 23 15:42:35 2016, in response to Re: Staten Island rail tunnel., posted by Henry R32 #3730 on Sun Oct 23 14:42:16 2016. very few, cause destinations are not anywhere near rail access |
|
|
| (1413603) | |
Re: Staten Island rail tunnel. |
|
|
Posted by AEM-7AC #901 on Sun Oct 23 15:46:03 2016, in response to Re: Staten Island rail tunnel., posted by Henry R32 #3730 on Sun Oct 23 14:42:16 2016. How many of those shipments would have gone by railBecause, you know, Amtrak and Metro-North (and the LIRR) want more freight on their lines. |
|
|
| (1413604) | |
Re: Staten Island rail tunnel. |
|
|
Posted by AEM-7AC #901 on Sun Oct 23 15:52:30 2016, in response to Re: Staten Island rail tunnel., posted by Henry R32 #3730 on Sun Oct 23 14:42:16 2016. What about the steady stream of trucks coming in over the VerrazanoIIRC, larger and heavier tractors are limited to the Cross Bronx -> Clearview -> LIE routing to Long Island, or Cross Bronx -> Bruckner -> New England Thruway routing. I suspect that things would have been a bit easier for stuff going to New England had a crossing been built to connect to what's now the Cross County Parkway (along with appropriate connections), or had the New Jersey Turnpike extension to Nyack been built... |
|
|
| (1413605) | |
Re: Staten Island rail tunnel. |
|
|
Posted by Dutchrailnut on Sun Oct 23 15:53:03 2016, in response to Re: Staten Island rail tunnel., posted by AEM-7AC #901 on Sun Oct 23 15:46:03 2016. that is not even problem, today's rail cars are mostly over sized, and won't fit under catenary wire or under LI overpasses. not many freight cars left that will stay under 15 foot or so .add to that that destination wise not many options exist anymore and load would need to be transferred to truck, therefore defeating whole train purpose. |
|
|
| (1413606) | |
Re: Staten Island rail tunnel. |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Sun Oct 23 16:07:00 2016, in response to Re: Staten Island rail tunnel., posted by Dutchrailnut on Sun Oct 23 15:53:03 2016. Heh. Yeah, but there are those who will blame "government interference" instead of infrastructure for all that. :) |
|
|
| (1413608) | |
Re: Staten Island rail tunnel. |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Sun Oct 23 17:02:32 2016, in response to Re: Staten Island rail tunnel., posted by Michael549 on Sun Oct 23 01:46:47 2016. When I go the NJ for my gigs, I go to NJ via the SI Expwy and Wets shore Expwy. and return via the Richmond Pky, Richmond Av and the SI Expwy, and except for portions of the West Shore Expwy, I see plenty of homes along the other highways that would make rapid transit along those lines convenient for those residents. Maybe not all highways can be utilized for rapid transit, but the ones that can be should be. |
|
|
| (1413610) | |
Re: Staten Island rail tunnel. |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Sun Oct 23 17:07:19 2016, in response to Re: Staten Island rail tunnel., posted by Henry R32 #3730 on Sun Oct 23 14:42:16 2016. Look at the freight trains that are on the Class I's today.Unit trains of double stacks, piggyback, tri-level autoracks, oil trains, coal trains. Not a whole lot of old fashined box cars. That is not what NY&A freight look like, aside from an occasional tank car or hopper car |
|
|
| (1413613) | |
Re: Staten Island rail tunnel. |
|
|
Posted by Elkeeper on Sun Oct 23 17:10:39 2016, in response to Re: Staten Island rail tunnel., posted by TUNNELRAT on Sat Oct 22 21:00:37 2016. Steve, I believe that the City did the bulkheads and put the rest of the construction on bids- no takers! |
|
|
| (1413616) | |
Re: Staten Island rail tunnel. |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Sun Oct 23 17:13:37 2016, in response to Re: Staten Island rail tunnel., posted by R30A on Sat Oct 22 18:27:28 2016. Any RIGGED study will kill it, but a truly properly held study will affirm the need for it! |
|
|
| (1413620) | |
Re: Staten Island rail tunnel. |
|
|
Posted by TUNNELRAT on Sun Oct 23 17:23:51 2016, in response to Re: Staten Island rail tunnel., posted by Elkeeper on Sun Oct 23 17:10:39 2016. wrong!I have posted on this several times and spoke to 2 separate guys who have been in the tunnel.it extends under owls head park to at least senator st. and into the con ed.plant.I don`t know far into the con ed. plant the empty,2 track tunnel extends as it has water on the road bed and no one ventured beyond the water. I believe that al smith,who owned a substantial amount of PRR.put the word out that if anyone bid on it they would not see a thin dime of state money for any state project.the tunnel was for freight,not a BMT subway connection.it was to connect into the LIRR around 5th.ave. |
|
|
| (1413624) | |
Re: Staten Island rail tunnel. |
|
|
Posted by MainR3664 on Sun Oct 23 17:38:39 2016, in response to Re: Staten Island rail tunnel., posted by Joe V on Sat Oct 22 07:30:11 2016. That's my thought. I believe with good bus connections, and Park-and-Ride facilities, a revived North Shore line would do very well.One of the reasons population patterns have changed since the 1950s might well be the loss of the line itself. If the subway was only built in populated areas in the early 20th Century, it would never have reached the Bronx or even upper Manhattan.... |
|
|
| (1413626) | |
Re: Staten Island rail tunnel. |
|
|
Posted by MainR3664 on Sun Oct 23 17:39:45 2016, in response to Re: Staten Island rail tunnel., posted by Joe V on Sun Oct 23 09:09:24 2016. But certainly not beyond the capabilities of even existing construction technology. |
|
|
| (1413627) | |
Re: Staten Island rail tunnel. |
|
|
Posted by MainR3664 on Sun Oct 23 17:40:34 2016, in response to Re: Staten Island rail tunnel., posted by randyo on Sat Oct 22 15:22:00 2016. I think it would be a great idea. But I also believe NIMBYs would kill it quick.... |
|
|
| (1413628) | |
Re: Staten Island rail tunnel… |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Sun Oct 23 17:48:48 2016, in response to Re: Staten Island rail tunnel., posted by Henry R32 #3730 on Sun Oct 23 14:42:16 2016. IIRC, it's called the "River Subdivision" now, and do you mean NY or NJ NIMBYs? |
|
|
| (1413629) | |
Re: Staten Island rail tunnel. |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Sun Oct 23 17:49:19 2016, in response to Re: Staten Island rail tunnel., posted by randyo on Sun Oct 23 17:13:37 2016. Food for thought: What if a serious study projected not the slow, cantankerous R train, but a 4th Avenue - Bridge - Broadway Express. That might go after the express bus crowd and improve ridership projections. |
|
|
| (1413630) | |
Re: Staten Island rail tunnel. |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Sun Oct 23 17:51:56 2016, in response to Re: Staten Island rail tunnel., posted by randyo on Sun Oct 23 17:02:32 2016. Why avoid West Shore Expy northbound ? |
|
|
| (1413633) | |
Re: Staten Island rail tunnel. |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Sun Oct 23 17:58:24 2016, in response to Re: Staten Island rail tunnel., posted by MainR3664 on Sun Oct 23 17:38:39 2016. The Flushing Line would never have been built either. Ever see construction photos of it ? It looked like present day North Dakota from the Empire Builder.So the fundamental decision has to be made, restore the North Shore and hopefully attract housing, or run LRT down Victory Blvd. |
|
|
| (1413634) | |
Re: Staten Island rail tunnel |
|
|
Posted by Andrew Saucci on Sun Oct 23 18:11:45 2016, in response to Re: Staten Island rail tunnel, posted by Olog-hai on Sun Oct 23 09:57:56 2016. I have to disagree with the assertion that whether something is "worthwhile" or not is a fact. Whether something is worthwhile or not is a value judgment, not a fact. If he had said it was a fact, then we could disagree with that on the same basis as I am disagreeing here, but he did not say that. For that matter, what is "worthwhile" to me may be completely worthless to someone else. |
|
|
| (1413635) | |
Re: Staten Island rail tunnel. |
|
|
Posted by Broadway Lion on Sun Oct 23 18:35:06 2016, in response to Re: Staten Island rail tunnel., posted by Joe V on Sun Oct 23 17:58:24 2016. "It looked like present day North Dakota from the Empire Builder."Not Hardly. I took the Empire Builder this summer, and the horn never stopped blowing for all of the crossings. Dirt Roads to be sure, but they are horny nonetheless. |
|
|
| (1413638) | |
Re: Staten Island rail tunnel. |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Sun Oct 23 19:02:51 2016, in response to Re: Staten Island rail tunnel., posted by Broadway Lion on Sun Oct 23 18:35:06 2016. OK. Eastern Montana. You can't even get a cell phone signal between some of the towns. |
|
|
| (1413639) | |
Re: Staten Island rail tunnel. |
|
|
Posted by Fisk Ave Jim on Sun Oct 23 19:50:36 2016, in response to Re: Staten Island rail tunnel., posted by AlM on Sun Oct 23 10:47:30 2016. One more possibility. Ressurect the road railer concept. A train of road railers could travel from New Jersey, thru Penn Station (in the wee hours) out to a newly built Road Railer terminal on Long Island, say around Yaphank, or Calverton where the Mdse could be off loaded to a new RR facility & trucked locally to the consignees instead of thru NYC. No new tunnel, no new bridge,no clearence issues. no 3d rail issues. Everything is in place. A facility along The main line out there twoards Greenport wouldn't interfere much with the commuter traffic, when movements were made at night. On paper it could work. Just get it by the NIMBYS. I remember the road railer concept was intended to be the salvation for all the excess freight traffic in the NYC Metro area. There was at one time a road railer terminal in the Highbridge area of the Bronx. It was there from 1980-83. It failed a/c there wasn't enough reverse freight traffic westbound. IN other words, to many emptys going out. That killed the bottom line. That area now is the Highbridge MNR car appearance facility One plan was to have produce loads of RoadRailers go thru Penn Station to Hunts Point in the summer when the melons were running big time. If that worked out, most produce (in theory) could be shipped that way. With diesel fuel prices going thru the roof at the time, the thought was tempting. But that never worked out. But if at first you don't succeed... |
|
|
|
Page 2 of 4 |
||
