Department of Subways - Proposals/Ideas

[Deucey]

7 hours ago, engineerboy6561 said:

Setting up the PW line that way with additional stops at Junction Blvd and Broadway basically creates a bidirectional express and an extension for Flushing, with your only costs being the two new stations plus the passage from Elmhurst Av  to the new stop at Broadway and a fleet of Americanized Class 345s; that's the fairly low-cost option. 

You're ignore one important thing that may seem like a matter of paperwork but is actually a budget line item:

While NYS owns the railroads, NYC owns the subway - so for PW to be transferred, unless NYS is going to give away actual  property (with title and deeds and ish), NYC will actually have to pay NYS for it before the conversion begins (since it'd be pointless for NYS to actually pay to convert it to subway ops spec and then reconvert it if NYC ever withdrew  from the ).

[Caelestor]

Even though the paperwork will be complex, transferring PW to the MTA would be the faster and less expensive relief option for the  than a Northern Blvd line. Additional above-ground stations at 108 St, Junction Blvd, Broadway, and Queens Blvd would be less expensive to construct than full underground caverns under Northern Blvd itself. The PW line should continue to use longer platform lengths, allowing its underground stations to span Court Sq - 11 St, 2 - Lexington Aves, 5 - 6 Aves, 7 - 8 Aves, and 9 - 10 Aves. 

The main impediment would be the new East River tunnel - PW would probably get the 50 St tunnel and that forces the Northern Blvd line to find another route into Manhattan.  But realistically speaking, Northern Blvd is a two-decade long project at minimum, while PW could be done in 5 - 10 years with the right project management.

Also, taking PW off the LIRR main line would allow for additional capacity along all the remaining LIRR branches.

[mrsman]

On 11/3/2020 at 12:16 AM, Caelestor said:

Even though the paperwork will be complex, transferring PW to the MTA would be the faster and less expensive relief option for the  than a Northern Blvd line. Additional above-ground stations at 108 St, Junction Blvd, Broadway, and Queens Blvd would be less expensive to construct than full underground caverns under Northern Blvd itself. The PW line should continue to use longer platform lengths, allowing its underground stations to span Court Sq - 11 St, 2 - Lexington Aves, 5 - 6 Aves, 7 - 8 Aves, and 9 - 10 Aves. 

The main impediment would be the new East River tunnel - PW would probably get the 50 St tunnel and that forces the Northern Blvd line to find another route into Manhattan.  But realistically speaking, Northern Blvd is a two-decade long project at minimum, while PW could be done in 5 - 10 years with the right project management.

Also, taking PW off the LIRR main line would allow for additional capacity along all the remaining LIRR branches.

What type of costs are involved with converting the PW line to be compatible with IND/BMT lines?  Currently, we have some unused capacity on the 63rd street tunnel, but using that would require a new allocation of services on the Manhattan trunk lines.  While it would require more intermixing than I'm generally comfortable with, you can have the  run as a Broadway express and then join the  across the 63rd street line.   continues as QBL express and  will service the PW line.

 2nd Ave/96th - Broadway express (15 TPH)

 PW line - 63rd tunnel - Broadway express (15 TPH)

 QBL local - 60th tunnel - Broadway local (7 TPH)

 Astoria - 60th tunnel - Broadway local (14 TPH)

 QBL express - 53rd tunnel - 8th Ave (15 TPH)

 QBL express - 63rd tunnel - 6th Ave local (15 TPH)

 QBL local - 53rd tunnel - 6th Ave - Will Bridge - Metropolitan (7 TPH)

K  QBL local - 53rd tunnel - 6th Ave - Will Bridge - Broadway Juntion (7 TPH)

 will run all-stops east of Broadway Juntion, but rush hour express between Broadway Junction and the bridge, terminating at Broad Street.

To bring the off Astoria, we need to increase  service to Astoria, thereby decreasing service but providing other service to maintain service levels along the QBL local.  I propose a K train which is really a variant of the  heading to Broadway Junction instead of Metropolitan Ave.

 

[Lex]

23 minutes ago, mrsman said:

What type of costs are involved with converting the PW line to be compatible with IND/BMT lines? 

Aside from making all platforms wider (and locking out LIRR stock in the process), there's FRA regulations to consider (the subway is held to different regulations), as well as what should be done with everything east of Douglaston (Little Neck is the last stop in Queens and that station has a grade crossing) and especially Great Neck (first stop in Nassau and last stop before a single-tracked stretch that lasts until a short distance away from the Port Washington terminus).

[bobtehpanda]

4 hours ago, Lex said:

Aside from making all platforms wider (and locking out LIRR stock in the process), there's FRA regulations to consider (the subway is held to different regulations), as well as what should be done with everything east of Douglaston (Little Neck is the last stop in Queens and that station has a grade crossing) and especially Great Neck (first stop in Nassau and last stop before a single-tracked stretch that lasts until a short distance away from the Port Washington terminus).

To be honest I don't see why you would convert them; LIRR stock is physically larger and longer, which would be higher capacity. And there's not a line downstream capable of wholly handling the additional two tracks, so if we were to build a new line anyways we may as well go whole hog on LIRR-sized trains.

Grade crossings aren't that terrible. Chicago has some IIRC. And Japan has an insane amount of them on busy commuter lines, even on busy roads in the middle of office districts:

 

Edited November 4, 2020 by bobtehpanda

[bobtehpanda]

7 hours ago, Lex said:

Aside from making all platforms wider (and locking out LIRR stock in the process), there's FRA regulations to consider (the subway is held to different regulations), as well as what should be done with everything east of Douglaston (Little Neck is the last stop in Queens and that station has a grade crossing) and especially Great Neck (first stop in Nassau and last stop before a single-tracked stretch that lasts until a short distance away from the Port Washington terminus).

Also, this should go without saying, but separating one grade crossing, and building either additional turnback facilities at Great Neck or Bayside, is still a hell of a lot cheaper than building miles of new subway track.

[Vulturious]

9 hours ago, mrsman said:

What type of costs are involved with converting the PW line to be compatible with IND/BMT lines?  Currently, we have some unused capacity on the 63rd street tunnel, but using that would require a new allocation of services on the Manhattan trunk lines.  While it would require more intermixing than I'm generally comfortable with, you can have the  run as a Broadway express and then join the  across the 63rd street line.   continues as QBL express and  will service the PW line.

 2nd Ave/96th - Broadway express (15 TPH)

 PW line - 63rd tunnel - Broadway express (15 TPH)

 QBL local - 60th tunnel - Broadway local (7 TPH)

 Astoria - 60th tunnel - Broadway local (14 TPH)

 QBL express - 53rd tunnel - 8th Ave (15 TPH)

 QBL express - 63rd tunnel - 6th Ave local (15 TPH)

 QBL local - 53rd tunnel - 6th Ave - Will Bridge - Metropolitan (7 TPH)

K  QBL local - 53rd tunnel - 6th Ave - Will Bridge - Broadway Juntion (7 TPH)

 will run all-stops east of Broadway Juntion, but rush hour express between Broadway Junction and the bridge, terminating at Broad Street.

To bring the off Astoria, we need to increase  service to Astoria, thereby decreasing service but providing other service to maintain service levels along the QBL local.  I propose a K train which is really a variant of the  heading to Broadway Junction instead of Metropolitan Ave.

 

I'm going to start of with the  for this idea because this is really, really bad. You are forcing even less  trains to run per hour which does not make any sense whatsoever. This basically screws service along Broadway as well as 4th Av which now is running even less trains. Either the  or  must be running on 4th Av local all times because of this. I 100% disagree with doing this as the  right now is already trash because its an all local train, it carries dead air, and there isn't enough service for it as is. Brooklyn Riders get screwed in this scenario the most because of either 1 or both express trains forced to run local which the merging in this scenario would already be atrocious, but Bay Ridge is going to be in an even worse state. 

Now to move onto the problem with this K plan of yours. There is no reason to have this train run at all whatsoever. You're decreasing  trains running per hour just to bring back the service pattern when Myrtle Av was in reconstruction forcing  trains to terminate at Broadway Junction. Although, I see that you didn't include  trains in this scenario which is literally the only good thing I've seen in this whole proposal which allows for more  trains to run. I honestly don't think this idea is worth it because of so many unnecessary things you've brought about as well as made service so much worse than it already is. 

[mrsman]

14 hours ago, Vulturious said:

I'm going to start of with the  for this idea because this is really, really bad. You are forcing even less  trains to run per hour which does not make any sense whatsoever. This basically screws service along Broadway as well as 4th Av which now is running even less trains. Either the  or  must be running on 4th Av local all times because of this. I 100% disagree with doing this as the  right now is already trash because its an all local train, it carries dead air, and there isn't enough service for it as is. Brooklyn Riders get screwed in this scenario the most because of either 1 or both express trains forced to run local which the merging in this scenario would already be atrocious, but Bay Ridge is going to be in an even worse state. 

Now to move onto the problem with this K plan of yours. There is no reason to have this train run at all whatsoever. You're decreasing  trains running per hour just to bring back the service pattern when Myrtle Av was in reconstruction forcing  trains to terminate at Broadway Junction. Although, I see that you didn't include  trains in this scenario which is literally the only good thing I've seen in this whole proposal which allows for more  trains to run. I honestly don't think this idea is worth it because of so many unnecessary things you've brought about as well as made service so much worse than it already is. 

The K train is not really necessary.  Let all of the increased runs be M trains instead.  Decreased R trains on QBL will mean room for more M trains on QBL to maintain current service levels. 

In no way am I suggesting a cut to 4th Ave service.  SOme of the additional W trains could be extended there.  

THe goal is to have N service PW and utilize the unused capacity on 63rd street to avoid constructin a new East River Tunnel and to have N stay on the Broadway express tracks.  But doing that would mean the need to provide additional local W service to Astoria.  Could this be done by keeping levels the same?  Maybe yes.  

So let's propose something simpler with fewer changes.   PW-63rd-Bwy Express, no longer serving Astoria.  Increased service to meet Astoria's demand.  The additional  trains (above the capcaty of the City Hall curves) to terminate at City Hall.

 

[Armandito]

36 minutes ago, mrsman said:

So let's propose something simpler with fewer changes.   PW-63rd-Bwy Express, no longer serving Astoria.  Increased service to meet Astoria's demand.  The additional  trains (above the capcaty of the City Hall curves) to terminate at City Hall.

I personally wouldn't do that; the spare capacity on 63rd could be better utilized for a bypass along the Main Line ROW between Sunnyside Yard and Forest Hills-71 Av, which could also spare room for a subway line along the LIE to Fresh Meadows (as I outlined here: https://www.google.com/maps/d/edit?mid=18jFWx4hiotMYgqkD5i3yJtylRH_0EBa3&cid=mp&cv=50pJvT5O5ys.en.). This could also pave the way for a new SAS service from the Financial District to Queens.

Should the PW Branch ever be converted to subway use, it would be better off as its own service than as a trunk line serving multiple routes or an existing one. A tunnel extension under 50th Street would certainly be ideal for a potential subway route along the PW Branch.

 

[Lex]

At this point, any LIRR ROW-based bypass is nothing more than a pipe dream, which is in no small part due to FRA regulations.

[Armandito]

14 minutes ago, Lex said:

At this point, any LIRR ROW-based bypass is nothing more than a pipe dream, which is in no small part due to FRA regulations.

In the original 1968 plan, the QBL Bypass was to be relatively isolated from the Main Line on its own trackways. No need for FRA regulation compliance there.

[JeremiahC99]

1 hour ago, Armandito said:

In the original 1968 plan, the QBL Bypass was to be relatively isolated from the Main Line on its own trackways. No need for FRA regulation compliance there.

Wait I though the original plan was to put it on one of the two LIRR trackways once used by LIRR Rockaway Beach Line. Would’ve that also triggered FRA compliance or no?

[Lex]

2 hours ago, Armandito said:

In the original 1968 plan, the QBL Bypass was to be relatively isolated from the Main Line on its own trackways. No need for FRA regulation compliance there.

That came about less than a year after the FRA was formed.

Any proposal using that ROW in any fashion will be affected by the regulations. If they don't try to stack it (itself an expensive endeavor), they'll either need to give the bypass a wide berth or install barriers (mentioned in the Rockaway Beach Branch study).

[Armandito]

17 minutes ago, JeremiahC99 said:

Wait I though the original plan was to put it on one of the two LIRR trackways once used by LIRR Rockaway Beach Line. Would’ve that also triggered FRA compliance or no?

It did, but that was after the LIRR abandoned service on the Rockaway Beach Branch in 1962. Even so, that still wouldn't have triggered FRA compliance because the trackways of the bypass wouldn't be connecting to the Main Line in any way, even though they'd run parallel. Think of the layout of trackage along Sixth Avenue; the trains run adjacent to PATH between W 4 St and 34 St but neither of the two trunk lines connect with each other.

Edited November 5, 2020 by Armandito

[Trainmaster5]

2 hours ago, Lex said:

At this point, any LIRR ROW-based bypass is nothing more than a pipe dream, which is in no small part due to FRA regulations.

Some of these proposals are so far out of touch with reality that I wonder if I've been transported back to the 60's-70's era. Back when people smoked Gold or Blond. When they dropped Blotter and Purple Haze. Still trying to figure out how this Port Washington branch takeover is supposed to work. What type of equipment is used?  Where's the connection between it and Manhattan? Where's this equipment maintained?  Who operates the line ? I asked the last part because I haven't seen anyone mention it yet it's the most important thing,  IMO, to the whole PW idea. It's the NYCTA that owns and operates the subway system. Port Washington ain't in the city and I can't see Nassau agreeing with the idea. The bypass is one thing, legality aside. The other idea is foam, plain and simple. Just my opinion. YMMV. Carry on. 

[bobtehpanda]

21 minutes ago, Trainmaster5 said:

Some of these proposals are so far out of touch with reality that I wonder if I've been transported back to the 60's-70's era. Back when people smoked Gold or Blond. When they dropped Blotter and Purple Haze. Still trying to figure out how this Port Washington branch takeover is supposed to work. What type of equipment is used?  Where's the connection between it and Manhattan? Where's this equipment maintained?  Who operates the line ? I asked the last part because I haven't seen anyone mention it yet it's the most important thing,  IMO, to the whole PW idea. It's the NYCTA that owns and operates the subway system. Port Washington ain't in the city and I can't see Nassau agreeing with the idea. The bypass is one thing, legality aside. The other idea is foam, plain and simple. Just my opinion. YMMV. Carry on. 

Full takeover is very unrealistic.

That being said, some sort of arrangement isn't totally crazy; the State just paid for cutting zone 3 monthlies by 20%: https://www.qchron.com/editions/north/cost-cut-for-ne-qns-lirr-monthly-tix/article_da582bd2-c479-5375-97c7-a0206bba9195.html

[Deucey]

1 hour ago, Trainmaster5 said:

Who operates the line ? I asked the last part because I haven't seen anyone mention it yet it's the most important thing,  IMO, to the whole PW idea. It's the NYCTA that owns and operates the subway system

 

[Armandito]

3 hours ago, Lex said:

That came about less than a year after the FRA was formed.

Any proposal using that ROW in any fashion will be affected by the regulations. If they don't try to stack it (itself an expensive endeavor), they'll either need to give the bypass a wide berth or install barriers (mentioned in the Rockaway Beach Branch study).

The more feasible way to go would be to install barriers along the breadth of the bypass. I also recently suggested building the stop at Woodside as high elevated platforms right above the existing and LIRR stations, though I'm not so sure if this is the best idea.

Edited November 5, 2020 by Armandito

[LGA Link N Train]

3 hours ago, Armandito said:

It did, but that was after the LIRR abandoned service on the Rockaway Beach Branch in 1962. Even so, that still wouldn't have triggered FRA compliance because the trackways of the bypass wouldn't be connecting to the Main Line in any way, even though they'd run parallel. Think of the layout of trackage along Sixth Avenue; the trains run adjacent to PATH between W 4 St and 34 St but neither of the two trunk lines connect with each other.

@Lex was referring to the part of RBB that is south of Rockaway Blvd, where the line currently runs. So his point still stands.

[Infamous85]

I don’t really support the physical integration of any LIRR branch into the subway system, at least not before the SIR, which has been waiting to be linked for nearly 100 years now, followed by the abandoned RBB.

Imo it’d be better and cheaper to just make better use of the LIRR/MNRR. Increase service on the PW branch after ESA and integrate fares/transfers with the subway/buses via OMNY, the MTA needs to start acting like one agency and not several. Give some M7’s a rapid transit refurbishment (Crossrail-like or Subway-like) and run those exclusively on the Port Washington and Atlantic/Far Rockaway branches, adding infill stations where necessary. More ridership = more $$$ and less pressure on the subways and buses. If/when the (dumb) LGA AirTrain gets built that packed and the pricy + largely absent PW trains aren’t gonna cut it.

For the life of me I hope this pandemic + OMNY forces the railroads to reevaluate and make alterations to their operations.

Circling back to the SIR, I’d tie that into a fully completed SAS, Harlem to Tottenville. It’s 2020 and a Manhattan to Red Hook to Staten Island tunnel in the fairly shallow NY Harbor is neither impossible nor impractical, nor should it cost 10 billion and take 20 years. If possible I wouldn’t even TBM most of it, only where necessary, for the main stretch I’d sink pre-casted tunnel sections into a trench and cover them over and call it a day, the underwater version of a cut and cover operation.

Edited November 7, 2020 by Infamous85

[Deucey]

40 minutes ago, Infamous85 said:

Circling back to the SIR, I’d tie that into a fully completed SAS, Harlem to Tottenville. It’s 2020 and a Manhattan to Red Hook to Staten Island tunnel in the fairly shallow NY Harbor is neither impossible nor impractical, nor should it cost 10 billion and take 20 years. If possible I wouldn’t even TBM most of it, only where necessary, for the main stretch I’d sink pre-casted tunnel sections into a trench and cover them over and call it a day, the underwater version of a cut and cover operation.

I think the big concern now is that since Panamax boats are showing up more frequently, and when the next superbig cargo ship is designed, and the Corps of Engineers has to dredge NY Harbor again so the boats don't scrape the harbor floor, a pre-cast tube would need to be replaced again; and a TBM tube too shallow or too deep either has the same problem or increases costs and property takings to get trains ashore at the appropriate angle.

And a bridge would have to be raised or built as high as the VZ - which increases land takings for touchdown.

(FTR the whole idea of restarting the SI-Bay Ridge tunnel would make taking the train from SI to Manhattan the same amount of time as taking the yacht now.)

[JeremiahC99]

1 hour ago, Infamous85 said:

I don’t really support the physical integration of any LIRR branch into the subway system, at least not before the SIR, which has been waiting to be linked for nearly 100 years now, followed by the abandoned RBB.

Imo it’d be better and cheaper to just make better use of the LIRR/MNRR. Increase service on the PW branch after ESA and integrate fares/transfers with the subway/buses via OMNY, the MTA needs to start acting like one agency and not several. Give some M7’s a rapid transit refurbishment (Crossrail-like or Subway-like) and run those exclusively on the Port Washington and Atlantic/Far Rockaway branches, adding infill stations where necessary. More ridership = more $$$ and less pressure on the subways and buses. If/when the (dumb) LGA AirTrain gets built that packed and the pricy + largely absent PW trains aren’t gonna cut it.

For the life of me I hope this pandemic + OMNY forces the railroads to reevaluate and make alterations to their operations.

Circling back to the SIR, I’d tie that into a fully completed SAS, Harlem to Tottenville. It’s 2020 and a Manhattan to Red Hook to Staten Island tunnel in the fairly shallow NY Harbor is neither impossible nor impractical, nor should it cost 10 billion and take 20 years.

I was thinking of the same thing for the LIRR branches (except for RBB, as the southern portion is already used by subway service). However, there could be some issues with getting bus passengers to use some of the stations, specifically one on the PW line: Auburndale. That station sits at 192nd Street halfway between two major thoroughfares, Utopia Pkwy and Francis Lewis Blvd, the latter of which is served by the Q76. Since it's located hidden away from major areas like Francis Lewis, Utopia, and other areas, many residents and bus riders through the area don't even know that the station exists. This phenomenon also appears at some other LIRR stations, such as Laurelton on the Atlantic Branch, which also is hidden from major streets. In contrast, busier stations are located just off the main streets. For example, Bayside is located at 41st Avenue and 213th Street, which is just off Bell Blvd. Bell Blvd is service by two bus routes from other areas of Northeast Queens, and is easily walkable from the commercial and residential areas of the neighborhood. It is also one of the busier stations on the line.

If they really want to get more people on the LIRR, more will be needed than fare restructuring via OMNY and increased service. Another recommendation is to relocate stations to more accessible areas. The Auburndale station could be moved from its current location at 192nd Street to a better location at Francis Lewis Blvd, where bus riders on the Q76 could easily transfer to the LIRR. Other LIRR stations within the city limits could also be evaluated for such a move.

Speaking of fares, I also recommend completely restructuring the fare system. Under my plan, the base fare for the subway and bus is $1.50, with free transfers maintained. LIRR and Metro North fares would also be restructured. New zones for the LIRR would be as follows (all fares would be counted as one way):

• Zone 1: All New York City stations, including Bellerose and Floral Park on the Hempstead Branch. Fare: $1.50
• Zone 2: All Nassau County stations except Bellerose and Floral Park. Fare: $3.00
• Zone 3: All Suffolk County stations. Fare: $4.50

Metro North zones would be as follows:

• Zone 1: All New York City stations. Fare: $1.50
• Zone 2: All Westchester County stations. Fare: $3.00
• Zone 3: All Putnam County and Fairfield County, CT stations. Fare: $4.50
• Zone 4: All Duchess County and New Haven County, CT stations. Fare: $6.00

Free transfers would be available between the LIRR/MNRR and the subway/bus system. There could either be fare capping or unlimited passes like today, with One-day passes at $3.00, 7-day passes at $21, 14-day passes at $42, and one month passes at $84, though I think fare capping could be more fairer.

As for the SAS to Tottenville, I would rather have this line go along the Fulton IND local to eliminate the merge at Hoyt-Schermerhorn and allow for more frequent service east of Hoyt-Schermerhorn. I may have other plans for SI.

Note: the $1.50 value came from finding the value of $0.05, the fare in 1904, in 2020 money. The fare could rise in line with inflation, but not faster than that.

Edited November 7, 2020 by JeremiahC99

[JeremiahC99]

19 minutes ago, Deucey said:

(FTR the whole idea of restarting the SI-Bay Ridge tunnel would make taking the train from SI to Manhattan the same amount of time as taking the yacht now.)

Even if service were to operate as frequent as 15 trains per hour?

[Infamous85]

20 minutes ago, Deucey said:

I think the big concern now is that since Panamax boats are showing up more frequently, and when the next superbig cargo ship is designed, and the Corps of Engineers has to dredge NY Harbor again so the boats don't scrape the harbor floor, a pre-cast tube would need to be replaced again; and a TBM tube too shallow or too deep either has the same problem or increases costs and property takings to get trains ashore at the appropriate angle.

And a bridge would have to be raised or built as high as the VZ - which increases land takings for touchdown.

(FTR the whole idea of restarting the SI-Bay Ridge tunnel would make taking the train from SI to Manhattan the same amount of time as taking the yacht now.)

Where there’s a will there’s a way lol. There has to be a theoretical max size for these ships, there’s only so much you can dredge before these ships are scraping the bottom of the Verrazano/Bayonne. Even if some section of these tunnels had to be partially replaced in the very distant future to accommodate newer classes of jumbo ships it’d still be worth it, especially at non-MTA construction costs. Other countries are tunneling through dozens of miles of mountainous terrain, we should be able to manage 5 miles of puddle + mega boats. Saint George station would have to have a lower level added for Manhattan-bound service.

I dislike the SI to Bay Ridge tunnel since it’d be slower and circuitous, it’d almost defeat the purpose of linking the two at all. I also don’t like the idea of splitting the current SIR into two lines. A straight shot to Manhattan (or Red Hook) from Saint George is more expensive but worth it in my opinion. But if it absolutely had to go through Bay Ridge I wouldn’t hesitate to dedicate part of the Verrazano lower level to it, even as a one track segment if the weight is too much of a concern. It’s a 13 lane span serving 8 lanes of traffic on either side, doing away with 1 or 2 lanes won’t hurt. 

[Deucey]

46 minutes ago, JeremiahC99 said:

Even if service were to operate as frequent as 15 trains per hour?

20 minutes from St George to the VZ to 86th St  - or wherever it was supposed to connect. 30 minutes on  to Whitehall.

The yacht takes 25 minutes from St George to Whitehall.

50 minutes on a train vs 25 minutes on the yacht.

32 minutes from Tottenville to Grasmere; add 5 minutes to get to 86th St or wherever, then 30 minutes on  to Whitehall.

42 minutes total to St George, 25 minutes on the yacht. Only time saved is the 10 minutes waiting in the St George lobby - and oftentimes the wait is less than 5 .

Direct line from St George to Red Hook to Manhattan makes more sense, but the tunnel depth could mess that up.

6 minutes ago, Infamous85 said:

There has to be a theoretical max size for these ships, there’s only so much you can dredge before these ships are scraping the bottom of the Verrazano/Bayonne.

The dredging is so when these boats take on water for ballast to get under the VZ, it doesn't scrape the seafloor or hit the bridge. The alternative would be to move the port from Elizabeth to somewhere the VZ isn't an obstacle but land's expensive and transportation to/fro just raises prices on us.