| NYC Transit Forum This forum is about using the transit system in New York City. It is not a general New York City forum. Please post only on-topic to transit here. |  |
10th December 2007, 12:13 PM
|
#1 (permalink)
| | Guest | New Pascack Valley Line Schedules >No.
Yes, if they go through with the new Tappan Zee bridge project, which
would use the "Piermont" branch of the former Erie RR to get Port Jervis
line trains across the Hudson and down to GCT. It'll probably take 20+
years of fighting, but it could still happen.
--
"Whatever you do, don't stick your head in the oven" - Keith Hernandez,
on how to end a batting slump | |
| |
10th December 2007, 03:58 PM
|
#2 (permalink)
| | Guest | New Pascack Valley Line Schedules
> Yes, if they go through with the new Tappan Zee bridge project, which
> would use the "Piermont" branch of the former Erie RR to get Port Jervis
> line trains across the Hudson and down to GCT.
You've got to be kidding. It would be a wild ride with all those
curves, and how does it get to Nyack? It's got to be a new route
following the Thruway, more or less. Maybe a couple of miles out of
Suffern, but not that loop to the south at Monsey, and maybe through
Spring Valley if they'll allow it to be raised or lowered off street
grade and on to Nanuet, but that's about all that could be used. | |
| |
13th December 2007, 11:57 AM
|
#3 (permalink)
| | Guest | New Pascack Valley Line Schedules >You've got to be kidding. It would be a
>wild ride with all those curves, and how
>does it get to Nyack? It's got to be a new
>route following the Thruway, more or less.
>Maybe a couple of miles out of Suffern,
>but not that loop to the south at Monsey,
>and maybe through Spring Valley if they'll
>allow it to be raised or lowered off street
>grade and on to Nanuet, but that's about
>all that could be used.
Not sure, but their current proposal, as stated in their draft EIS which
was on display at September's Harmon Shop tour had exactly that routing,
via Piermont through Spring Valley. Perhaps they decided to pick the one
routing sure to illicit the most NIMBY resistance so they can abandon
the idea altogether while looking as if they at least tried.
I actually would prefer the current alignment. While Grand Central is a
highly desirable destination, it doesn't offer the more convenient
options the NJT has at Secaucus or Hoboken, especially for Lower
Manhattan destinations.
--
"Whatever you do, don't stick your head in the oven" - Keith Hernandez,
on how to end a batting slump | |
| |
14th December 2007, 01:42 PM
|
#4 (permalink)
| | Guest | New Pascack Valley Line Schedules Michael Finfer wrote:
> For lower Manhattan, going to Manhattan and taking PATH to World Trade
Correction: Going to HOBOKEN and taking PATH to World Trade
Michael Finfer
Bridgewater, NJ | |
| |
14th December 2007, 01:51 PM
|
#5 (permalink)
| | Guest | New Pascack Valley Line Schedules >I would suggest GCT is more convenient,
>certainly more so than Secacus.
When compared directly, yes. I was noting that Secaucus and Hoboken
combined give a better choice of transfer options, including the HBLR to
Jersey City spots and ferries to lower Manhattan.
>Hoboken lower Manhattan. But GCT
>subways give more options.
Not just Lower Manhattan. PATH takes you directly to the Village and
Chelsea areas which have exploded in importance for commuters since
9/11, if you check out how the 33rd St line's ridership has increased
since then. Besides, the Lexington Ave subway is already overtaxed.
It'll only get worse when ESA opens up.
GCT may be the most desirable direct destination for commuters in Orange
County, but it's awful for the rest of them who want to go elsewhere.
--
"Whatever you do, don't stick your head in the oven" - Keith Hernandez,
on how to end a batting slump | |
| |
15th December 2007, 06:41 PM
|
#6 (permalink)
| | Guest | New Pascack Valley Line Schedules J.R.Guthrie wrote:
> One of the issues with Hoboken-WTC is that PATH does not run this service
> full time. And when you need to change at Grove Street on nights and
> weekends often becomes an odyssey. There's nothing like seeing the
> Hoboken-33rd Round Robin pull out of Grove as a WTC train pulls in, miss the
> connection and have to wait 18 minutes or more for another.
This is temporary to allow for construction at ground zero.
Unfortunately, in this case, temporary probably means at least several
more years. PATH should, at some point, resume direct weekend
Hoboken-World Trade service.
Michael Finfer
Bridgewater, NJ | |
| |
15th December 2007, 07:30 PM
|
#7 (permalink)
| | Guest | New Pascack Valley Line Schedules >As for where a Rockland/Orange
>connection should be routed, it should be
>noted that White Plains has become a
>commuting destination on its own --
Indeed, I believe White Plains is the 2nd busiest Metro North station
outside Manhattan, with Stamford being #1. Metro North, unlike the LIRR
charges peak fares for trains which leave Manhattan in the AM and end
there in the PM.
The Tappan Zee EIS also proposed a cross-Westchester light rail line
connecting Tarrytown to White Plains and Port Chester. If it ever gets
built in my lifetime, I will voluntarily ban myself from ever riding a
train again.
--
"Whatever you do, don't stick your head in the oven" - Keith Hernandez,
on how to end a batting slump | |
| |  |
Posting Rules
| You may not post new threads You may not post replies You may not post attachments You may not edit your posts HTML code is Off | | | All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:05 PM. | | |