Jump to content

Attention: In order to reply to messages, create topics, have access to other features of the community you must sign up for an account.
Sign in to follow this  
Via Garibaldi 8

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

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

But isn't that the point? At least for the forum, we all come here to be able to talk and go back and forth on ideas. You know all the stuff normal people don't look twice at.  (Shrugs) We talk about all the plans that never made it second system. Impact statements from 1998,2004 so on so. never stopped anyone else from talking and planning. Six years is nothing.   

 

Quite frankly, with the MTA shoveling money into the giant fire pit that is East Side Access, the suburban-oriented parts of the MTA need to refocus their energies on serving their customers and keeping costs down instead of building giant, flashy new projects. For example, money that could be going to this could also be going to replacing the LIRR and MNR's ridiculously unreliable diesel fleets, for which there is no timeline for replacing; yet replacing and expanding them would be a easy way to fix and improve services for a lot of people. And this is before we talk about all the electrification expansions that got mothballed in favor of the diesel electric fleet in the first place.

 

It's also not absolutely necessary, given that 1) GCT is not at capacity, and 2) there's nothing really that convenient to Penn Station in the first place. Something like 75% of jobs in Midtown are a 15-minute walk from GCT, which is the entire reason why East Side Access is happening in the first place.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quite frankly, with the MTA shoveling money into the giant fire pit that is East Side Access, the suburban-oriented parts of the MTA need to refocus their energies on serving their customers and keeping costs down instead of building giant, flashy new projects. For example, money that could be going to this could also be going to replacing the LIRR and MNR's ridiculously unreliable diesel fleets, for which there is no timeline for replacing; yet replacing and expanding them would be a easy way to fix and improve services for a lot of people. And this is before we talk about all the electrification expansions that got mothballed in favor of the diesel electric fleet in the first place.

 

It's also not absolutely necessary, given that 1) GCT is not at capacity, and 2) there's nothing really that convenient to Penn Station in the first place. Something like 75% of jobs in Midtown are a 15-minute walk from GCT, which is the entire reason why East Side Access is happening in the first place.

Exactly, and aside from that reaching Penn Station from GCT isn't that big of a deal for the people that need it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Quite frankly, with the MTA shoveling money into the giant fire pit that is East Side Access, the suburban-oriented parts of the MTA need to refocus their energies on serving their customers and keeping costs down instead of building giant, flashy new projects. For example, money that could be going to this could also be going to replacing the LIRR and MNR's ridiculously unreliable diesel fleets, for which there is no timeline for replacing; yet replacing and expanding them would be a easy way to fix and improve services for a lot of people. And this is before we talk about all the electrification expansions that got mothballed in favor of the diesel electric fleet in the first place.

 

It's also not absolutely necessary, given that 1) GCT is not at capacity, and 2) there's nothing really that convenient to Penn Station in the first place. Something like 75% of jobs in Midtown are a 15-minute walk from GCT, which is the entire reason why East Side Access is happening in the first place.

Not saying I disagree everything you just said makes perfect sense. My point was if was if were going to play Transit planner and Engineer let's do it right. Let's make sure were asking the right questions and looking at the right numbers. Myself included if I'm wrong by all means. You crunch the numbers if doesn't make sense you reallocate it where it does. Reasonable.

Exactly, and aside from that reaching Penn Station from GCT isn't that big of a deal for the people that need it.

I hear you but what was the point of this discussion if the conclusion is it's not really necessary? I just felt like I just detoured through Queens to get to New Jersey from Manhattan. (Scratches head) :huh:

Edited by RailRunRob

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hear you but what was the point of this discussion if the conclusion is it's not really necessary? I just felt like I just detoured through Queens to get to New Jersey from Manhattan. (Scratches head) :huh:

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. For example, people that do work in West Midtown and live in Riverdale, currently either have to take the express bus (subject to delays) and or take Metro-North and back track from Grand Central.  For neighborhoods without subway access, more commuter rail service seems like a no brainer.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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. For example, people that do work in West Midtown and live in Riverdale, currently either have to take the express bus (subject to delays) and or take Metro-North and back track from Grand Central.  For neighborhoods without subway access, more commuter rail service seems like a no brainer.  

You have a point it's not a must for either. But once you establish that you have to ask what's easier to bring make a reality? You don't have to do much on the New Haven just add the Stations, Substations and a mile of 3rd rail. On the Hudson side, you have to possibly rebuild a swing bridge, Electrify the line from the Bronx to the 40's then add the stations. That's my point. The New Haven carries 3x the passengers as the Hudson 125k people a day the justification is there for Penn Access.  Riverdale, The Westside, and the Hudson line not so much IMO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The ROW Can't be widened to 4 tracks. It can and should be 2 tracks wide. The line would have to be electrified and the connection to Penn Station would have to be rebuilt. This should happen. Then, trains from the Hudson Line should be through-run with LIRR trains to Huntington.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You have a point it's not a must for either. But once you establish that you have to ask what's easier to bring make a reality? You don't have to do much on the New Haven just add the Stations, Substations and a mile of 3rd rail. On the Hudson side, you have to possibly rebuild a swing bridge, Electrify the line from the Bronx to the 40's then add the stations. That's my point. The New Haven carries 3x the passengers as the Hudson 125k people a day the justification is there for Penn Access.  Riverdale, The Westside, and the Hudson line not so much IMO.

I don't agree with that assessment.  For starters, New Haven will naturally have more riders because there is no subway option.  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.  Nevertheless just because New Haven carries lots of passengers doesn't mean that there is demand for Penn Station.

 

The same could be said about the East Bronx.  For what it's worth, Riverdale does see a good amount of Upper West Side residents that move to the area, so there's that to consider.  The rivertowns in Westchester have been centered around traveling into GCT because well, what other option has there been previously?  That's why I said earlier that such a project could open up both Riverdale and Westchester to residents that wouldn't have considered moving there before.  Additionally, you have a lot of development occurring on the West Side, which could make this project even more attractive. The West Side is only a 15-20 minute ride by car from Riverdale, so you could attract people who want to use mass transit to the area but don't want to deal with the express bus or the local bus to the subway, and believe me there are riders that stick solely to Metro-North in Riverdale either because of where they live or because they don't care for the other options.  Some riders however do alternate between the various services.  As for Westchester and the Hudson line, ridership has continued to grow, so in 6 years who knows what things will look like?  If it's worth considering on the New Haven Line, then the same should be true on the Hudson Line.  I would do a study first to see what ridership could look like and what scenarios could play out and go from there.  The study could probably be done in a year or so, then you examine the different cost options and how feasible such costs are with the potential ridership.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think that's an issue. The (MTA) already opened up trains to Riverdale that previously didn't serve the community. Given the service increases here, and seeing more people use the service, the question is how to make that one station work given how isolated it is, especially on weekends when the Hudson Rail link doesn't run. A lack of access can deter ridership which is one reason Spuyten Duyvil sees more riders. If more people drive to the Riverdale station then changes have to be made to accommodate more cars parking there, so assuming Riverdale - Wave Hill is the station for the entire community, those are the issues that have to be addressed. Because of Riverdale's location, lack of subway and suburban layout, it has more in common with Westchester in terms of usage.

 

It's like parts of Staten Island that have more in common with suburban New Jersey.

Going back to this how about a push for weekend service? It would make sense to have a shuttle between Spuyten Duyvil for weekend and off peak service. 

 

 

I don't agree with that assessment.  For starters, New Haven will naturally have more riders because there is no subway option.  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.  Nevertheless just because New Haven carries lots of passengers doesn't mean that there is demand for Penn Station.

 

The same could be said about the East Bronx.  For what it's worth, Riverdale does see a good amount of Upper West Side residents that move to the area, so there's that to consider.  The rivertowns in Westchester have been centered around traveling into GCT because well, what other option has there been previously?  That's why I said earlier that such a project could open up both Riverdale and Westchester to residents that wouldn't have considered moving there before.  Additionally, you have a lot of development occurring on the West Side, which could make this project even more attractive. The West Side is only a 15-20 minute ride by car from Riverdale, so you could attract people who want to use mass transit to the area but don't want to deal with the express bus or the local bus to the subway, and believe me there are riders that stick solely to Metro-North in Riverdale either because of where they live or because they don't care for the other options.  Some riders however do alternate between the various services.  As for Westchester and the Hudson line, ridership has continued to grow, so in 6 years who knows what things will look like?  If it's worth considering on the New Haven Line, then the same should be true on the Hudson Line.  I would do a study first to see what ridership could look like and what scenarios could play out and go from there.  The study could probably be done in a year or so, then you examine the different cost options and how feasible such costs are with the potential ridership.  

This I agree with this 100% there is a lot of growth occurring along the hudson with new infrastructure project like the Tappan Zee Bridge and all the new buildings being made it makes sense to expand the Hudson line as well. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Going back to this how about a push for weekend service? It would make sense to have a shuttle between Spuyten Duyvil for weekend and off peak service. 

 

 

 

This I agree with this 100% there is a lot of growth occurring along the hudson with new infrastructure project like the Tappan Zee Bridge and all the new buildings being made it makes sense to expand the Hudson line as well.

 

The Hudson Raillink does run off-peak. I don't think there's enough ridership on weekends yet for the bus to run, but I will say that I think more people would use the train if the station was more accessible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Hudson Raillink does run off-peak. I don't think there's enough ridership on weekends yet for the bus to run, but I will say that I think more people would use the train if the station was more accessible.

if the run a shuttle that runs between the two station for off peak service, I think ridership would be ok, it a type of service that can be run by 2 buses every 20min-30min maybe. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't agree with that assessment.  For starters, New Haven will naturally have more riders because there is no subway option.  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.  Nevertheless just because New Haven carries lots of passengers doesn't mean that there is demand for Penn Station.

 

The same could be said about the East Bronx.  For what it's worth, Riverdale does see a good amount of Upper West Side residents that move to the area, so there's that to consider.  The rivertowns in Westchester have been centered around traveling into GCT because well, what other option has there been previously?  That's why I said earlier that such a project could open up both Riverdale and Westchester to residents that wouldn't have considered moving there before.  Additionally, you have a lot of development occurring on the West Side, which could make this project even more attractive. The West Side is only a 15-20 minute ride by car from Riverdale, so you could attract people who want to use mass transit to the area but don't want to deal with the express bus or the local bus to the subway, and believe me there are riders that stick solely to Metro-North in Riverdale either because of where they live or because they don't care for the other options.  Some riders however do alternate between the various services.  As for Westchester and the Hudson line, ridership has continued to grow, so in 6 years who knows what things will look like?  If it's worth considering on the New Haven Line, then the same should be true on the Hudson Line.  I would do a study first to see what ridership could look like and what scenarios could play out and go from there.  The study could probably be done in a year or so, then you examine the different cost options and how feasible such costs are with the potential ridership.  

Indeed. Some of that information is covered here  http://web.mta.info/mta/planning/psas/studydocs.htm fair point the numbers seem solid I'm sure it's prob more now almost 15-17 years later. I understand your growth point on the Hudson as well but even at double the ridership, it's no contest. 38k to 125k The Westside option seems to be set as a phase 2. After Penn is opened up to New Haven trains I guess we'll see. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think that's an issue. The (MTA) already opened up trains to Riverdale that previously didn't serve the community. Given the service increases here, and seeing more people use the service, the question is how to make that one station work given how isolated it is, especially on weekends when the Hudson Rail link doesn't run. A lack of access can deter ridership which is one reason Spuyten Duyvil sees more riders. If more people drive to the Riverdale station then changes have to be made to accommodate more cars parking there, so assuming Riverdale - Wave Hill is the station for the entire community, those are the issues that have to be addressed. Because of Riverdale's location, lack of subway and suburban layout, it has more in common with Westchester in terms of usage.

 

It's like parts of Staten Island that have more in common with suburban New Jersey.

 

Yeah, but that was using existing infrastructure, and it was a straight shot for through-riders. Completely different scenario. And Grand Central trains would continue to stop in Spuyten Duyvil, so it's not like you're eliminating Metro-North service from South/Central Riverdale. 

 

I have no idea why you're talking about that when that was already discussed.  What we're talking about now is the logistics of using just the Riverdale station to accommodate ALL commuters that live in Riverdale, and since most of the MNRR ridership in Riverdale comes from the Spuyten Duyvil station, you can't just ignore those riders.  They have to be accommodated.  

 

No, we're talking about the logistics of using the Riverdale station to accommodate all West Side-bound Riverdale riders. There's a difference. 

 

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. For example, people that do work in West Midtown and live in Riverdale, currently either have to take the express bus (subject to delays) and or take Metro-North and back track from Grand Central.  For neighborhoods without subway access, more commuter rail service seems like a no brainer.  

 

It's not just about Manhattan-bound riders. For those East Bronx communities, it also helps reverse-commuters reach points in Westchester & Connecticut (and helps Westchester/Connecticut residents reach jobs in The Bronx at places like Jacobi Hospital). The same thing for those extra stations in Manhattanville & the UWS. 

 

You have a point it's not a must for either. But once you establish that you have to ask what's easier to bring make a reality? You don't have to do much on the New Haven just add the Stations, Substations and a mile of 3rd rail. On the Hudson side, you have to possibly rebuild a swing bridge, Electrify the line from the Bronx to the 40's then add the stations. That's my point. The New Haven carries 3x the passengers as the Hudson 125k people a day the justification is there for Penn Access.  Riverdale, The Westside, and the Hudson line not so much IMO.

 

One of the TSM options is to just have Amtrak charge a commuter fare between Hudson Valley points (or maybe just Yonkers) and NYC. 

 

I don't agree with that assessment.  For starters, New Haven will naturally have more riders because there is no subway option.  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.  Nevertheless just because New Haven carries lots of passengers doesn't mean that there is demand for Penn Station.

 

The vast majority of passengers on both the New Haven Line & Hudson Line come from outside the city limits. It sounds like you're making a comparison between Hudson Line ridership within The Bronx and the New Haven Line in its entirety or something. There's no subway line to Stamford, Norwalk, Bridgeport, or New Haven, but there's no subway line to Yonkers, Tarrytown, Ossining, or Poughkeepsie either.

 

New Haven Line ridership is higher because the catchment area around the stations is larger. Hudson Line stations tend to be built right next to the river itself, whereas New Haven Line stations tend to be build a few blocks inland, so you have people able to access it from both sides. Not to mention that areas like Stamford have more businesses and intermediate/reverse commuters (depending on which direction they're coming from). 

 

Going back to this how about a push for weekend service? It would make sense to have a shuttle between Spuyten Duyvil for weekend and off peak service. 

 

This I agree with this 100% there is a lot of growth occurring along the hudson with new infrastructure project like the Tappan Zee Bridge and all the new buildings being made it makes sense to expand the Hudson line as well. 

 

I would agree as well.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. Yeah, but that was using existing infrastructure, and it was a straight shot for through-riders. Completely different scenario. And Grand Central trains would continue to stop in Spuyten Duyvil, so it's not like you're eliminating Metro-North service from South/Central Riverdale. 

 

 

2. No, we're talking about the logistics of using the Riverdale station to accommodate all West Side-bound Riverdale riders. There's a difference. 

 

 

3. It's not just about Manhattan-bound riders. For those East Bronx communities, it also helps reverse-commuters reach points in Westchester & Connecticut (and helps Westchester/Connecticut residents reach jobs in The Bronx at places like Jacobi Hospital). The same thing for those extra stations in Manhattanville & the UWS. 

 

 

One of the TSM options is to just have Amtrak charge a commuter fare between Hudson Valley points (or maybe just Yonkers) and NYC. 

 

 

4. The vast majority of passengers on both the New Haven Line & Hudson Line come from outside the city limits. It sounds like you're making a comparison between Hudson Line ridership within The Bronx and the New Haven Line in its entirety or something. There's no subway line to Stamford, Norwalk, Bridgeport, or New Haven, but there's no subway line to Yonkers, Tarrytown, Ossining, or Poughkeepsie either.

 

New Haven Line ridership is higher because the catchment area around the stations is larger. Hudson Line stations tend to be built right next to the river itself, whereas New Haven Line stations tend to be build a few blocks inland, so you have people able to access it from both sides. Not to mention that areas like Stamford have more businesses and intermediate/reverse commuters (depending on which direction they're coming from). 

 

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.  

Edited by Via Garibaldi 8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe the state should look into subsidizing Amtrak fares between NYP and points along the Hudson Line. I know it won't help Riverdale much but it can help riders in the suburbs get to West Midtown.

 

I'm not completely sure why Hudson Line access to Penn isn't being actively looked at, but I do know New Haven Line access to Penn will help more than just the people going to Manhattan. If all the agencies involved can fund the NH Line to Penn along with the other NEC repairs and improvements (read up on the updated "NEC Future" proposal), the NEC commuting experience will be hands down superior. Hopefully they'll make the same kind of investment between New York and Albany as well...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe the state should look into subsidizing Amtrak fares between NYP and points along the Hudson Line. I know it won't help Riverdale much but it can help riders in the suburbs get to West Midtown.

 

I'm not completely sure why Hudson Line access to Penn isn't being actively looked at, but I do know New Haven Line access to Penn will help more than just the people going to Manhattan. If all the agencies involved can fund the NH Line to Penn along with the other NEC repairs and improvements (read up on the updated "NEC Future" proposal), the NEC commuting experience will be hands down superior. Hopefully they'll make the same kind of investment between New York and Albany as well...

 

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!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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]

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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/mta/planning/psas/studydocs.htm

Edited by RailRunRob

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 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/mta/planning/psas/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.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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]

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.