Jump to content

  •  


  • You are viewing the forums as a guest. Register to gain access to all of our features.


    Photo
    - - - - -

    Is Penn Station via the MNRR Hudson Line a Possibility Again?


    • Please log in to reply
    100 replies to this topic

    #41 paulrivera

    paulrivera
    • Veteran Member
    • PipPipPip
    • 1,159 posts

    Posted 10 January 2017 - 06:07 PM

    The NEC Future proposal has a lot of unneeded scope including two more tunnels under the East River! For god's sake, there will be more capacity on the existing four tracks when ESA opens!

    That would probably benefit the LIRR more.

     

    How about 6 tracks between New Rochelle and Westport, more platforms at Stamford, and making Greens Farms an Amtrak station?


    • 1

    PACIS%20display%20D%20train%20smaller_zp

    Can't come soon enough...




    #42 checkmatechamp13

    checkmatechamp13
    • Veteran Member
    • PipPipPipPip
    • 9,623 posts
    • LocationPlanet Earth

    Posted 10 January 2017 - 10:25 PM

    1.  But but.... The fact that there will be additional costs associated to such a project has already been mentioned several times by me and other people, so I don't understand the point?  From my point of view, the trains should be the least of the issues.

     

    2.  Why do you insist on arguing about things that have already been clarified?  The title of this thread is about PENN STATION, so obviously it is about commuters going to the West Side.  

     

    3.  The topic of this thread is about Riverdale and Westchester accessing Penn Station, not East Bronx commuters, and given that, the reverse commuters are much smaller in comparison to those in the East Bronx.

     

    4. There are numerous reasons as to why the New Haven line receives more riders than the Hudson line, and some of them are for the reasons I mentioned.  There is no sounds like anything.  The reasons I provided are legitimate reasons which DO contribute to lower ridership numbers on the Hudson Line.  Yonkers is one the biggest cities in Westchester, and you have plenty of people from all over Yonkers that come down to the Bronx to use the subway, not just those on the Hudson line but also on the Harlem line as well.  

     

    1. Well of course from your point of view the trains should be the least of the issues: You're the one who stands to gain everything (the direct ride) while losing nothing (you're not affected by the extra time you're causing to be spent on the train by riders further north). 

     

    2. Alright, fair enough.

     

    3. If it makes stops on the UWS and Manhattanville, it's going to be attracting reverse-commuters from those areas in addition to whatever few it gets from Riverdale. And I was referring to your point that "What it comes down to is people move to places that provide transportation to where they need to go.  The point I made earlier in the thread was that this project could open up more possibilities for communities in Westchester and Riverdale to attract people who otherwise wouldn't consider these areas. The project isn't a must for the New Haven Line or the East Bronx communities either, but it makes sense to have it."

     

    In other words, it's not just about people living in those areas, but also people who need to travel to those areas for work, education, etc.

     

    4. It sounded like it because you said "Second, Riverdale has three express buses and the local bus to the subway, so obviously ridership won't be at the same levels as they are on the New Haven Line.", but now that you clarified it, I'll give you that. The (1), (4), and (D) are generally more reliable than the (2) and (5), and the bus service to those stations is generally more frequent.

     

    Relating it to this thread, if New Haven Line ridership is higher, then that's it, it's higher. If Hudson Line riders have more/better alternatives then if anything, it pushes it more in favor of doing the New Haven Line project first. So more people would benefit from Penn access from the New Haven Line (from New Rochelle heading east) versus the Hudson Line (from Riverdale heading north). But that doesn't imply that Hudson Line ridership is low, or that Penn Station access from the Hudson Line is unwarranted. AFAIC, both projects are needed and would be a good investment of money. 


    • 0

    1451087478156475.gif?1451087479

     

     


    #43 Around the Horn

    Around the Horn
    • Veteran Member
    • PipPipPipPip
    • 5,771 posts
    • LocationAcross the Verrazano from Shaolin Land...

    Posted 10 January 2017 - 11:05 PM

    I wonder, could you have some Harlem line trains use that wye near Mott Haven, stop at Yankees-153th and Spuyten Duyvil then wye again onto the Amtrak line? Maybe that could solve the Riverdale issue?

     

    I have absolutely no knowledge of the geography in that area whatsoever, so it might not even be possible but I thought I'd still put it out there [shrugs]


    • 1

    "Most surely in the creation of the heavens and the earth and the alteration of night and day, and the ships that run in the sea with that which profits men, and the changing of the winds and clouds made subservient between the heavens and the earth, there are signs for a people who understand"

     

    "We can disagree and still love each other unless your disagreement is rooted in oppression and denial of my right to exist." James Baldwin

    M%2096%20St_zps56dx2ako.gif

    "Mercury melted when the Sun rose,The storm struck when the heart sighed "I can't live without someone from the heart"-Dil Se

     


    #44 RailRunRob

    RailRunRob
    • Veteran Member
    • PipPipPip
    • 1,581 posts
    • LocationRiverdale/ Prospect Hts

    Posted 11 January 2017 - 01:22 AM

    I wonder, could you have some Harlem line trains use that wye near Mott Haven, stop at Yankees-153th and Spuyten Duyvil then wye again onto the Amtrak line? Maybe that could solve the Riverdale issue?

     

    I have absolutely no knowledge of the geography in that area whatsoever, so it might not even be possible but I thought I'd still put it out there [shrugs]

    Well, the Port Morris Branch could be another option. Now that I'm thinking about it the Old Port Morris Line started at Spuyten Duyvil ran along the Hudson/Putnam and used that wye and the wye to the Port Morris Branch.   The PMB is still intact for the most part. You might have to tunnel under one spot at a development. 


    • 0
    %20http://scaped.net/r160-649.png

    #45 Via Garibaldi 8

    Via Garibaldi 8
    • Veteran Member
    • PipPipPipPipPip
    • 27,009 posts
    • LocationRiverdale, NY & New York, NY

    Posted 11 January 2017 - 10:18 AM

    1. Well of course from your point of view the trains should be the least of the issues: You're the one who stands to gain everything (the direct ride) while losing nothing (you're not affected by the extra time you're causing to be spent on the train by riders further north). 

     

    2. Alright, fair enough.

     

    3. If it makes stops on the UWS and Manhattanville, it's going to be attracting reverse-commuters from those areas in addition to whatever few it gets from Riverdale. And I was referring to your point that "What it comes down to is people move to places that provide transportation to where they need to go.  The point I made earlier in the thread was that this project could open up more possibilities for communities in Westchester and Riverdale to attract people who otherwise wouldn't consider these areas. The project isn't a must for the New Haven Line or the East Bronx communities either, but it makes sense to have it."

     

    In other words, it's not just about people living in those areas, but also people who need to travel to those areas for work, education, etc.

     

    4. It sounded like it because you said "Second, Riverdale has three express buses and the local bus to the subway, so obviously ridership won't be at the same levels as they are on the New Haven Line.", but now that you clarified it, I'll give you that. The (1), (4), and (D) are generally more reliable than the (2) and (5), and the bus service to those stations is generally more frequent.

     

    Relating it to this thread, if New Haven Line ridership is higher, then that's it, it's higher. If Hudson Line riders have more/better alternatives then if anything, it pushes it more in favor of doing the New Haven Line project first. So more people would benefit from Penn access from the New Haven Line (from New Rochelle heading east) versus the Hudson Line (from Riverdale heading north). But that doesn't imply that Hudson Line ridership is low, or that Penn Station access from the Hudson Line is unwarranted. AFAIC, both projects are needed and would be a good investment of money. 

    1. This would be a NEW service, so whatever service ran wouldn't be siphoned off from elsewhere.  There are already LOCAL trains making all stops to and from Croton-Harmon, so what is your point?  I don't stand to gain anything since I rarely make any trips to Penn Station, so yet again your point is??

     

    3. Nobody said it wouldn't, so your point is?  As if reverse commuters are a new thing.... 

     

    4. Actually I still don't understand how such a conclusion is being made that just because one line has more ridership than the other, then that automatically means that there will be TONS of riders going to Penn Station.  Has there been any studies to show what sort of ridership is expected?  


    • 0

    BxM1-RIVERDALE1_zpsb9eeb015.gif

    MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN - BUY "MADE IN USA" PRODUCTS


    #46 RailRunRob

    RailRunRob
    • Veteran Member
    • PipPipPip
    • 1,581 posts
    • LocationRiverdale/ Prospect Hts

    Posted 11 January 2017 - 02:54 PM

    1. This would be a NEW service, so whatever service ran wouldn't be siphoned off from elsewhere.  There are already LOCAL trains making all stops to and from Croton-Harmon, so what is your point?  I don't stand to gain anything since I rarely make any trips to Penn Station, so yet again your point is??

     

    4. Actually I still don't understand how such a conclusion is being made that just because one line has more ridership than the other, then that automatically means that there will be TONS of riders going to Penn Station.  Has there been any studies to show what sort of ridership is expected?  

     Not so sure if those locals are going to be able to even go that way. Electrification is going to be quite costly especially DC what's that every Mile and a Half so for a substation? Plus these aren't going directly on the waterfront so locations have to be picked wisely it's a bit harder. So with a diesel service. Unless there buying some DMU's Yonkers is going to be the closest station to get direct Penn Service I think someone said that already which is correct. 

     

    Yes, there are some studies you can look at so you can make some general conclusions. You can safely say just off the sheer number different between the Hudson and New Haven your going to get more bang for your buck. Then factor in all the City Centers along the NEC, Bridgeport, Stamford ,New Rochelle, New Haven cheaper alternatives to Amtrak as well Plus the 80% of the infrastructure is already in place along the line.

     

     

    Here's the studies again for you to reference. I'm sure the demand has amplified over the last two decades.

     

    http://web.mta.info/...s/studydocs.htm


    Edited by RailRunRob, 11 January 2017 - 03:00 PM.

    • 0
    %20http://scaped.net/r160-649.png

    #47 bobtehpanda

    bobtehpanda
    • Veteran Member
    • PipPipPipPip
    • 5,099 posts
    • LocationStony Brook, NY

    Posted 12 January 2017 - 09:43 PM

     Not so sure if those locals are going to be able to even go that way. Electrification is going to be quite costly especially DC what's that every Mile and a Half so for a substation? Plus these aren't going directly on the waterfront so locations have to be picked wisely it's a bit harder. So with a diesel service. Unless there buying some DMU's Yonkers is going to be the closest station to get direct Penn Service I think someone said that already which is correct. 

     

    Yes, there are some studies you can look at so you can make some general conclusions. You can safely say just off the sheer number different between the Hudson and New Haven your going to get more bang for your buck. Then factor in all the City Centers along the NEC, Bridgeport, Stamford ,New Rochelle, New Haven cheaper alternatives to Amtrak as well Plus the 80% of the infrastructure is already in place along the line.

     

     

    Here's the studies again for you to reference. I'm sure the demand has amplified over the last two decades.

     

    http://web.mta.info/...s/studydocs.htm

     

    I'm going to speak about this from a LIRR perspective, but a lot of this also makes sense from the Metro-North perspective.

     

    Keep in mind that electric has high upfront cost, but diesel has higher ongoing cost; this was true when oil prices were low, and is only really going to get worse. With more electrification you achieve economies of scale; electrics accelerate faster and thus take less time to make the same trips, making it less expensive to run the same frequency of service. You also gain a whole host of other efficiencies as well; diesels can't go through the East River Tubes, so they often force transfers at Jamaica, or Mineola, Hicksville, Huntington, etc. to maintain adequate service. Diesels, in general, also have more reliability problems than electrics; the diesel and diesel-electric services have always had lower reliability levels than their electric counterparts. Finally, the biggest nail in the coffin is that the MTA does not adequately provision diesel services. Even if you were to replace the current fleet overnight with new diesel-electrics that were efficient, if you maintained the current spare factor there is not enough equipment to meet the LIRR's own headway guidelines; as an example of this, Stony Brook according to guidelines should see service every 60 minutes off-peak and on weekends, but actual services run every 90 minutes, a 50% increase in headway.


    • 1

    #48 Union Tpke

    Union Tpke
    • Veteran Member
    • PipPipPipPip
    • 5,161 posts
    • LocationNear a station in Central Queens where three (E) trains terminate late in the AM Rush Hour on weekdays (at 8:27, 9:02, 9:13 from WTC, arriving at my home station at 9:09, 9:44 and 9:56 respectively) and was the terminal for E and EE trains from its opening on December 31, 1936 to April 24, 1937. This station is also home to R160 or R46 layups during the evening and weekend hours.

    Posted 13 January 2017 - 07:06 AM

    This was alternative 3 in the planning for the line. It would attract less riders and would result in less time savings. I am not sure if this is the best idea. Look here for some maps. I can't screenshot right now.

    "Alternative 3: Weekday Harlem Line Service via Hudson Line and Empire Connection

    Compared to Alternatives 1 and 2, the Harlem Line alternative performs least favorably in terms of projected travel time savings, providing only about 8 percent of the annual travel time savings benefit projected for either the Hudson Line or New Haven Line weekday service alternatives, and less than 30 percent of the travel time savings with the off-peak/weekend service Alternatives 1A and 2A (see Table 4). The forecast travel time savings per benefiting trip would average just two minutes (see Table 5) compared to 12 and 9 minutes, respectively, with Penn Station access service via either the Hudson or New Haven Line alternative. The Harlem Line alternative’s modest travel time savings is due to its indirect route -- traveling northbound on the Hudson Line before connecting to the southbound Empire Connection -- and slower train operating speeds to make the necessary transitional movements. The travel time delay incurred to achieve these connections reduces the attractiveness of this alternative’s Penn Station-bound service, as indicated by its modest ridership potential, compared to either the Hudson or New Haven Line alternatives.

    As shown in Table 4, Alternative 3 performs poorly compared to the other alternatives for all ridership-related evaluation measures in the comparative screen. Forecasts for Alternative 3 show approximately half the ridership potential of Alternative 1 for Penn Station access service, and even lower potential compared to Alternative 2, for which Penn Station access ridership projections are the most robust. Metro-North’s net ridership gain with the Harlem Line alternative would be only 43 percent of the net Metro-North gain projected for the New Haven Line alternative and 32 percent of that for the Hudson Line alternative. In general, ridership potential of the Harlem Line alternative would be more comparable to that of the off- peak/weekend New Haven Line and Hudson Line service alternatives, 1A and 2A, respectively.

    Implementation of Alternative 3 would require reconstruction of the wye track (including track, third rail, and interlocking modifications) at Spuyten Duyvil to connect the Hudson Line and Empire Connection portions of the alternative’s alignment. The western segment of the wye alignment is owned by Amtrak; therefore, upgrades of the Amtrak and Metro-North interlockings – at the western and eastern ends, respectively, of the reconstructed wye track – would also require modifications to their controls. The construction cost of the Spuyten Duyvil connection is estimated at approximately $1.5 million, with no property acquisition required. As the property through which the wye would be reconstructed is railroad right-of-way, and the connection would be built between two rail lines, the site has moderate potential for contamination. Contaminants typically associated with former rail properties include PCBs, organic and inorganic pesticides/herbicides, and historic fill. 

     

    As summarized in Table 8, Alternative 3 performs least effectively among the intermediate alternatives for the evaluation measures that highlight the principal differences among them, namely, travel times savings, ridership potential, and construction cost. "

     

    I wonder, could you have some Harlem line trains use that wye near Mott Haven, stop at Yankees-153th and Spuyten Duyvil then wye again onto the Amtrak line? Maybe that could solve the Riverdale issue?

     

    I have absolutely no knowledge of the geography in that area whatsoever, so it might not even be possible but I thought I'd still put it out there [shrugs]


    • 1

    Long live R32s!

     

    24730276396_396ec512d2_z.jpgFotor0201132117 by spicker613, on Flickr


    #49 RailRunRob

    RailRunRob
    • Veteran Member
    • PipPipPip
    • 1,581 posts
    • LocationRiverdale/ Prospect Hts

    Posted 13 January 2017 - 08:21 AM

    You know what I missed as well?  I guess this depends on scheduling but it seems in the current form this seems like a 5-10 min process either way. I went through the study as well maybe I missed plans to upgrade on remedy the issue.  There's one track into the Penn via this line. Double trackage doesn't start until the 40's depending on headways at rush that could be a major bottleneck you don't have a lot of flexibility or redundancy would seem very pricey on top of the electrification this. A train every 30 mins maybe?

     

    MblWKUu.png 


    • 0
    %20http://scaped.net/r160-649.png

    #50 paulrivera

    paulrivera
    • Veteran Member
    • PipPipPip
    • 1,159 posts

    Posted 13 January 2017 - 09:01 AM

    For the Harlem Line, you might as well build a station at the Mott Haven junction and tell people to take the (2) train from there and you'd achieve the same benefit for less money. The problem is that the subway isn't attractive enough, and the VG8s of the world wouldn't be caught dead walking through the south Bronx to connect between the subway and a commuter train.

    For the Hudson line, you can have all the trains you want stop at Marble Hill and tell people to take the (1) train. Doesn't mean people will do it, especially when you have the (S) at GCT that will feed to 10 other subway lines at Times Square.

    The New Haven Line folks don't have a real option between Westchester/CT and the West side of Manhattan or the East Bronx. And from what I can see, in addition to the riders going to Penn, Morris Park in the Bronx is going to generate a *lot* of ridership with all the hospitals, schools and businesses in the area.

    Who's going to ride from Greystone to the UWS vs. between Harrison and Morris Park for instance?
    • 0

    PACIS%20display%20D%20train%20smaller_zp

    Can't come soon enough...