Comments on: A Warning From the Past on Hudson River Crossings http://blog.tstc.org/2008/02/12/a-warning-from-the-past-on-hudson-river-crossings/ News and opinion from the Tri-State Transportation Campaign Sat, 11 Feb 2012 20:36:55 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1.3 By: Douglas Willinger http://blog.tstc.org/2008/02/12/a-warning-from-the-past-on-hudson-river-crossings/comment-page-1/#comment-247 Douglas Willinger Fri, 30 May 2008 23:53:31 +0000 http://blog.tstc.org/?p=179#comment-247 New tunnel drilling technologies should make adding a hi speed rail component to the I-287 corridor more not less feasible. However, the western portion would be best routed via the Route 119 corridor which could accommodate new TOD. And then, increase the diameter of the proposed Cross Sound Link tunnel from 55" to 60" bore to allow a lower deck to accommodate a 2 track extension, continuing along the Route 135/future LI I-287 corridor to the Sunrise Highway/future I-287/I-78 corridor, with a spur to the beach. Alas, so many are conditioned to think of things as rail versus highway rather than infrastructure versus the pentagon-pentagram! New tunnel drilling technologies should make adding a hi speed rail component to the I-287 corridor more not less feasible.

However, the western portion would be best routed via the Route 119 corridor which could accommodate new TOD.

And then, increase the diameter of the proposed Cross Sound Link tunnel from 55″ to 60″ bore to allow a lower deck to accommodate a 2 track extension, continuing along the Route 135/future LI I-287 corridor to the Sunrise Highway/future I-287/I-78 corridor, with a spur to the beach.

Alas, so many are conditioned to think of things as rail versus highway rather than infrastructure versus the pentagon-pentagram!

]]> By: Tappan Zee Team Studying New BRT Alignments, High Ridership Option « Mobilizing the Region http://blog.tstc.org/2008/02/12/a-warning-from-the-past-on-hudson-river-crossings/comment-page-1/#comment-246 Tappan Zee Team Studying New BRT Alignments, High Ridership Option « Mobilizing the Region Fri, 22 Feb 2008 15:24:55 +0000 http://blog.tstc.org/?p=179#comment-246 [...] into separate phases was surprising enough (MTR ran stories on the announcement of the split and on an ominous precedent). But a scoping update document (PDF), made public by the study team last week, contains additional [...] [...] into separate phases was surprising enough (MTR ran stories on the announcement of the split and on an ominous precedent). But a scoping update document (PDF), made public by the study team last week, contains additional [...]

]]> By: George Sherman http://blog.tstc.org/2008/02/12/a-warning-from-the-past-on-hudson-river-crossings/comment-page-1/#comment-245 George Sherman Sat, 16 Feb 2008 07:33:12 +0000 http://blog.tstc.org/?p=179#comment-245 The likelihood of commuter rail on the TZ bridge is more remote than it ever was on the GW for the following reasons: (1)Funds are extremely limited due to the economy, our deficit, the war and other projects that have a much greater ridership potential, ie. the Second Ave. subway and the LIRR connection to the East Side. (2)According to the DOT's consulting engineers, in order to have a commuter rail in the 87/287 corridor, tunnels are needed to level the terrain to allow trains to negotiate the various elevations. About 20 miles between Rockland & Westchester. Costs have not yet been estimated for this. Yet the State agencies have rejected any tunnel crossing under the Hudson that could accommodate rail, bus and possibly trucks. Removing these elements could add many years to the life of the bridge. Our fear has always been that they will build a bridge large enough to have rail, but that it would not happen, leaving us with lanes for additional traffic in this overburdened area. The separation of the bridge cconstruction and the transit positions the DOT to do exactly this. George Sherman President, Rockland Branch Concerned Citizens for Resonsible Development(CCRD) 845-358-8364 The likelihood of commuter rail on the TZ bridge is more remote than it ever was on the GW for the following reasons: (1)Funds are extremely limited due to the economy, our deficit, the war and other projects that have a much greater ridership potential, ie. the Second Ave. subway and the LIRR connection to the East Side. (2)According to the DOT’s consulting engineers, in order to have a commuter rail in the 87/287 corridor, tunnels are needed to level the terrain to allow trains to negotiate the various elevations. About 20 miles between Rockland & Westchester. Costs have not yet been estimated for this. Yet the State agencies have rejected any tunnel crossing under the Hudson that could accommodate rail, bus and possibly trucks. Removing these elements could add many years to the life of the bridge. Our fear has always been that they will build a bridge large enough to have rail, but that it would not happen, leaving us with lanes for additional traffic in this overburdened area. The separation of the bridge cconstruction and the transit positions the DOT to do exactly this.

George Sherman
President, Rockland Branch
Concerned Citizens for Resonsible Development(CCRD)
845-358-8364

]]> By: Cap'n Transit http://blog.tstc.org/2008/02/12/a-warning-from-the-past-on-hudson-river-crossings/comment-page-1/#comment-244 Cap'n Transit Wed, 13 Feb 2008 04:00:55 +0000 http://blog.tstc.org/?p=179#comment-244 Thanks for this, Paul! In order to make up for the disaster of the George Washington and Tappan Zee Bridges' transit-less designs (and the subsequent sprawlification of Bergen, Orange and Rockland Counties), I think they should build the <b>transit</b> portion first, and then add the roadways later ... if they have the money. Or maybe they could put trains on the GWB after all. Thanks for this, Paul! In order to make up for the disaster of the George Washington and Tappan Zee Bridges’ transit-less designs (and the subsequent sprawlification of Bergen, Orange and Rockland Counties), I think they should build the transit portion first, and then add the roadways later … if they have the money.

Or maybe they could put trains on the GWB after all.

]]>