bobtehpanda Posted February 13, 2014 Share #101 Posted February 13, 2014 Don't tempt them. Knowing how politics are in this state, it may become so very soon. I can get naming a park or a major piece of infrastructure; you're using something with a grand public purpose. I am absolutely sure no dead person wants to be remembered as "that guy they named the crappy commuter buses after", Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qjtransitmaster Posted February 13, 2014 Share #102 Posted February 13, 2014 Doubt if they'll do that on the new Pete Seeger Bridge. No new public transportation West of Tappan Zee, the 680,000 residents of Rockland and Orange counties currently have very limited mass transit to New York City via the Port Jervis Line and Pascack Valley Line commuter rail services. However, the bridge plan includes as an objective merely, "Providing a crossing that does not preclude future trans-Hudson transit services."[9] A proposed bus rapid transit system using the new bridge was shelved as too expensive. The existing New York Metropolitan Transportation Authority Metro-North Hudson commuter rail line Tarrytown station is located about 2,000 feet (610 m) from the new bridge's eastern landing. In 2011, the state estimated that a bus connector to the station would add about $151 million, or about 3 percent to projected costs of the new bridge.[15] Responding to widespread concerns about the lack of new public transit service, bridge planners agreed only to a "dedicated express bus lane" in each direction for use during rush hour. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tappan_Zee_Bridge_Replacement The bridge has been a sprawl machine ever since it was completed in 1955, ushering in a wave of suburban building in formerly rural Rockland and Orange Counties. Transit activists are upset that the Cuomo administration ditched plans to add commuter rail on the bridge, but they should really be upset about the addition of any east-west travel capacity across this point on the Hudson. A rail crossing 20 miles north of Manhattan was questionable from the start. The New York counties west of the Hudson are irredeemably auto-oriented, and Westchester isn't much better. A rail link would have been expensive and would likely have done little to get suburbanites out of their cars. There is a better option for improving the lot of commuters from Rockland County. Instead of expanding east-west road capacity, the state should look at north-south rail options. The region has a number of old rail lines that could be returned to passenger service for a fraction of the cost of a new bridge. These north-south links between suburban Rockland County and more urbanized parts of northern New Jersey and ultimately Manhattan would serve commuters far better than a wider Tappan Zee. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-09-28/don-t-build-a-new-tappan-zee-bridge.html He meant for the old bridge. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TeeLow Posted February 13, 2014 Share #103 Posted February 13, 2014 He meant for the old bridge. I knew what he meant. That suggestion was so far around the curve I knew he was being a little sarcastic. Why would they spend money putting rail on an old, crumbling bridge when work has already begun on the new one. I added some info about the plans for the new (as yet unnamed) bridge, which doesn't include any mention of rail serve btn east and west. When he mentioned building a stand alone rail bridge right next to the new one I knew he understood. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vistausss Posted February 13, 2014 Share #104 Posted February 13, 2014 @qj: I meant a NEW stand-alone rail bridge, like TeeLow says in the post above. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cl94 Posted February 13, 2014 Share #105 Posted February 13, 2014 @qj: I meant a NEW stand-alone rail bridge, like TeeLow says in the post above. Per NYSDOT specs, the new bridge will open with 8 lanes. Provisions will exist for both commuter rail tracks and bus lanes on the lower deck (initially unused), so they could add tracks without another bridge. What killed it was that a very long tunnel is required on the west side which would have more than doubled the cost of the project. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qjtransitmaster Posted February 14, 2014 Share #106 Posted February 14, 2014 Per NYSDOT specs, the new bridge will open with 8 lanes. Provisions will exist for both commuter rail tracks and bus lanes on the lower deck (initially unused), so they could add tracks without another bridge. What killed it was that a very long tunnel is required on the west side which would have more than doubled the cost of the project. Why not run the train in the highway median instead of a tunnel? How did we get from triboro RX to tappanzee bridge? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eric B Posted February 14, 2014 Share #107 Posted February 14, 2014 The way those lines are positioned (like how it right toward the Thruway bridge approach on the Rockland side), it looks almost like they were made to be connected over the bridge. I just hope they could built the ramp on the Westchester side without destroying that beautiful Hudson Pl. cul de sac. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kamen Rider Posted February 14, 2014 Share #108 Posted February 14, 2014 For the record, Vis, the current bridge has been technically named after Gov. Malcolm Wilson since 1994. And the Thruway network is named after Gov. Thomas "Defeats Truman" Dewey. With the exception of the RFK/Triboro routine, the only time a renaming has really caught on is the Interboro Parkway being renamed The Jackie Robinson Parkway. This usually gets cut down to "the Jackie Robinson" or just "The Jackie." Most other named crossings and roads go by the name they have always been known as i.e., the George Washington Bridge has basically always been the George Washington Bridge. Actually they officially had the word "Memorial" as part of the name at first but pulled it, but it's been named after President Washington since before it opened. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobtehpanda Posted February 14, 2014 Share #109 Posted February 14, 2014 For the record, Vis, the current bridge has been technically named after Gov. Malcolm Wilson since 1994. And the Thruway network is named after Gov. Thomas "Defeats Truman" Dewey. With the exception of the RFK/Triboro routine, the only time a renaming has really caught on is the Interboro Parkway being renamed The Jackie Robinson Parkway. This usually gets cut down to "the Jackie Robinson" or just "The Jackie." Most other named crossings and roads go by the name they have always been known as i.e., the George Washington Bridge has basically always been the George Washington Bridge. Actually they officially had the word "Memorial" as part of the name at first but pulled it, but it's been named after President Washington since before it opened. You've also got JFK International (formerly Idlewild, then New York International) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vistausss Posted February 14, 2014 Share #110 Posted February 14, 2014 You've also got JFK International (formerly Idlewild, then New York International) And Rosa Parks Hempstead Transit Center, which everybody keeps calling Hempstead Transit Center or HTC. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cl94 Posted February 14, 2014 Share #111 Posted February 14, 2014 Why not run the train in the highway median instead of a tunnel? How did we get from triboro RX to tappanzee bridge? 4% grade in Rockland and no room. That's a little steep for rail service, especially if there's any chance of using locomotives (which there always is). Plus, the road runs through a narrow cut in a densely-populated area. Long-range plan is for a more direct tunnel to Palisades Center and in the median from there, where the room does exist. The way those lines are positioned (like how it right toward the Thruway bridge approach on the Rockland side), it looks almost like they were made to be connected over the bridge. I just hope they could built the ramp on the Westchester side without destroying that beautiful Hudson Pl. cul de sac. They are. Plan was to tie it into the Port Jervis line with a stop in Spring Valley at or near the existing station (in addition to others). The space exists, but there's no point in building anything if the stretch between Spring Valley and Tarrytown isn't built. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vistausss Posted February 14, 2014 Share #112 Posted February 14, 2014 Although I kinda initiated the idea in *this* topic, I can't help butt wonder what kind of service would run if the whole connection were to be built. Will it be Westchester --> Port Jervis, GC --> Port Jervis or even GC or Westchester --> Spring Valley and then a shuttle to Port Jervis? Or a shuttle from Westchester to Spring Valley? And what will serve the other end, still NJT? Or MNRR with a new kind of Jersey service? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T to Dyre Avenue Posted February 14, 2014 Share #113 Posted February 14, 2014 In that case, the Spring Valley service would probably become officially part of NJT, owned and operated. NJT would also probably continue to operate the Main and Bergen County Lines from Suffern to Hoboken, with a connection to the MNRR-owned and operated Port Jervis Line at Suffern. I still think it's penny-wise, pound foolish of the state to not include some sort of rail component in the new TZB project. The state will be making the same mistake twice. The state hasn't learned from its mistakes because it was a mistake to not include rail provisions when they built the current bridge. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cl94 Posted February 14, 2014 Share #114 Posted February 14, 2014 In that case, the Spring Valley service would probably become officially part of NJT, owned and operated. NJT would also probably continue to operate the Main and Bergen County Lines from Suffern to Hoboken, with a connection to the MNRR-owned and operated Port Jervis Line at Suffern. I still think it's penny-wise, pound foolish of the state to not include some sort of rail component in the new TZB project. The state will be making the same mistake twice. The state hasn't learned from its mistakes because it was a mistake to not include rail provisions when they built the current bridge. The feds wouldn't give the extra money up front and Rockland wasn't willing to help pay for it. Building commuter rail would have cost billions and nobody was willing to give the money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.