| This is a Wikipedia user page. This is not an encyclopedia article or the talk page for an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user in whose space this page is located may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia. The original page is located at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Kew_Gardens_613/sandbox_3. |
 |
 |
 |
NYC Subway History Post-Unification  |
 |
User:Epicgenius/sandbox/Metropolitan Transportation Authority
User:Epicgenius/sandbox/article-draft1 — Manhattan Bridge subway closure
User:Kew Gardens 613/Subways70s80s
User:Kew Gardens 613/NYSTC Annual Reports
User:Tdorante10/sandbox3 – Includes draft bus articles
User:ItzWindowsME/sandbox – Q29 draft
Queens Bus Routes and lines – A list of bus article projects
User:Epicgenius/sandbox/1 – Interesting track map drafts
User:Epicgenius/sandbox/3 – Includes draft bus articles
User:Epicgenius/sandbox/5 – Includes a draft split of Technology of the New York City Subway that I have been wanting to work on This sandbox is going to be used for projects concerning Metro-North Railroad and its predecessor railroads, including the New York Central. The goal is to transfer this material to the mainspace. Other users should feel free to add information that is fit, improve, and add references to the work that is here.
Football train pilot
edithttps://nysl.ptfs.com/awweb/pdfopener?md=1&did=107989#page=121
Shell Flyover/CP216
edithttps://nysl.ptfs.com/awweb/pdfopener?md=1&did=47600#page=63
https://nysl.ptfs.com/awweb/pdfopener?md=1&did=108984#page=129
Tri-State Transportation Commission studies
editStation Consolidation - Survey Report, Off-Peak Passenger Count
editAn off-peak period "on and off" passenger count was taken by Tri-State Transportation Committee personnel on the Harlem Division of the New York Central Railroad at all stations between north white plains and Brewster for use in assisting the evaluation of patronage changes resulting from the suburban service adjustment experiment. A summary of the average daily count for each of the thirteen stations, followed by a tabulation by train showing the total "on and off" passenger count for each station, is presented.
"Commuter station consolidation in order to accelerate running time and reduce operating costs "
Test Of A Gas Turbine Car: A Summary Report On Part Of The Mass Transportation Demonstration Grant Project
editTests are described of a railroad passenger car, propelled by two gas turbines driving through mechanical transmissions, conducted in a simulated suburban railroad environment. The tests, devised to evaluated the capabilities and limitations of the propulsion system, explored as many facets of 2 suburban rail operations as possible, including performance, riding-and general-public acceptance, reliability, maintainability, and overall economy. These tests indicate that there are no insuperable or basic obstacles to applying the turbine power concept to suburban service. The car demonstrated satisfactory acceleration, speed, braking, and ride characteristics. Noise and air pollution were socially acceptable. The car made no special demands on its railroad environment in the areas of rail wear, signal actuation or operator skill, but, in burning jet fuel, imposed an unusual supply requirement that could be eliminated by using a gas turbine engine capable of burning diesel fuel. While the economic evidence available from the test program is far from conclusive, the results encourage confidence that additional testing will show that an economically viable system can be developed.
Suburban Service Adjustment Experiment
editA mass transportation demonstration project was conducted on the Harlem Division of the New York Central Railroad. This study was conducted to determine if improved suburban rail service - faster schedules, more frequent service, and expanded parking facilities - will attract a substantial number of additional journey-to-work and midday users in an outer ring suburban area. A speed-up in services was attained by adopting a skip/stop type of scheduling: 6 of the smaller stations north of White Plains were removed from the schedules of most trains. Initially, hourly off-peak service was provided by adding 10 new Brewster/New York trains - 5 in each direction. Parking facilities at 6 stations were expanded by more than 1,000 spaces. Principal conclusions of the suburban service adjustment experiment were: (1) more frequent service and expanded parking facilities will attract a substantial increase in journey- to-work and midday traffic, (2) public reaction to a reduced number of stops at minor or non-express stations is likely to be adverse, (3) adequate parking facilities are a prerequisite for attracting rail passengers in substantial numbers in low-density suburban areas, (4) off-peak improvements will attract peak-period riders, (5) a trial period of service is suggested before a new service becomes sufficiently established to begin to evidence patronage growth, (6) the coordination of feeder-bus and rail service in an area with high automobile ownership will not attract riders in sufficient numbers to support such bus service, and (7) capital improvements are necessary to produce significant travel time reductions.
Park And Ride Rail Service - Jersey Avenue Station, New Brunswick, N.J.
editA mass transportation demonstration project at New Brunswick, N.J. was designed to test whether a new railroad station at the outskirts of a developed suburban community, would attract new patrons to an existing carrier and, at the same time, divert passengers from the suburban city center station, thereby relieving local vehicular traffic congestion. Results of the experiment revealed that an outlying station with ample parking space will attract new patrons to rail service, but its attraction will be limited by the availability of direct, convenient auto access routes from surrounding residential areas. The extent to which an outlying station, even with free parking, will attract passengers away from the suburban city center station is conditioned by the frequency of train service at the outlying station as contrasted with the center station.
Coordinated Bus-Rail Service: Rockland County, Westchester County, New York
editAs it is thought that provision of feeder bus service to rapid rail transit is the best means to divert suburbanites from the automobile, especially for journeys to the CBD, a demonstration project was conducted to provide this service for Rockland County, an area on the west side of the Hudson River 35 air miles from the Manhattan CBD. The county lacked fast, convenient rail service, and either the bus or the private auto supplied most of the transportation to the city. A feeder bus route was designed to connect the county seat with the Tarrytown commuter rail station on the other side of the river. The 24 daily trips---half during the peak hours and half during off-peak hours---represented an expansion of existing service provided by the same operator. During the first year, patronage grew from an initial 200 riders in both directions to a high of 467, with most of the diversion occuring from the automobile. Although the feeder line proved a success for the unidirectional peaks, low patronage both on return trips during the peak and in general during off-peak trips proved a strain. Various unsuccessful attempts were made during the project to improve the adverse cost--revenue ratio. It is concluded that a short-haul feeder bus system must find substantial off-peak use or be subsidized if it is to provide peak-hour shuttle service at a reasonable cost to the commuter.
New Haven Railroad Station And Line Improvements: Preliminary Plans And Cost Estimates
editRecommendations are made for providing faster, more attractive commuter service on the New Haven Railroad (N.H.R.R.) by upgrading station and line facilities. Most stations on the New York commuter route are obsolete and badly deteriorated. Additional inconveniences to passengers are created by inadequate station parking, and by curves and interlockings in the track which impede speed. Recommendations include substantial rebuilding of existing facilities or construction of new stations, and emphasize the need for high-level platforms at all stations to accomodate proposed new high-speed cars. Several passenger- comfort considerations in station design are also suggested, including improved pedestrian access. Five station consolidations are proposed where waranted by proximity of the stations or by low ridership. Particular attention is devoted to the need for expanded parking facilities and for bus feeder service at urban stations along the N.H.R.R. route. Suggested line improvements are designed primarily to eliminate the sharp curves and interlockings which presently limit speed. Although the report is concerned primarily with immediate improvements, some discussion is included on future proposals. A description is given of the existing conditions and proposed improvements for each individual station and for line improvements on specified track segments. Data for each station are broken down by: (1) specific recommendations and estimated cost; (2) existing parking capacity, costs, and utilization; and (3) present N.H.R.R. schedule, number of trains, and passengers generated. Data for each station is supplemented with photographs of the present physical plant and an area map. In addition, cost estimates on selected line segments are calculated for suggested improvements.
New Haven Railroad Commuter Service: West End Passenger Volume Analysis And 1985 Traffic Potential
editThe report is a compilation of detailed passenger volume data on New Haven Railroad (N.H.R.R.) commuters to New York City. Current passenger volume is analyzed in four areas: (1) total flow into New York; (2) peak service proportions, broken down by time of day; (3) passenger volume at each station on the route; and (4) local ridership volume between cities along the route. The report also analyzes the journey to work in Manhattan from suburban points on the new haven railroad. Work trips are broken down by mode and area of origin, and by mode and area of destination in Manhattan. The analysis is extended to identify areas that might benefit from more direct N.H.R.R. access in New York. Specifically, access at grand central station and the possibility of utilizing another terminal is discussed. Overall ridership between 1929 and 1965 is examined, broken down by total passengers and riders with commutation tickets. The visible trend in N.H.R.R. commuter volume is used to project the demand potential estimated for 1985. Appended documentation includes an analysis of sources of data for the study, a comparison of the different sources, the number of trains in West End passenger service, and the complete N.H.R.R. passenger volume statistics showing the number of passengers generated for each train at each station on the line.
Station Fare Collection, Kew Gardens-Forest Hills, Queens County, New York
editThis report deals with a demonstration project designed to test and evaluate newly developed automatic ticket encoding and concellation equipment under actual operating conditions. This demonstration marked the first time automatic station fare collection, a system of validating and collecting passenger fares at stations rather than on trains, was tested in the united states in suburban rail service. Mechanically and electronically, there were no problems in operating which were not or could not be solved. The ability of the test equipment to perform was proved; the punched tape recorder stored required information that could be readily processed by standard electronic data processing equipment. In addition to operating the turnstiles, the ticket readers, connected to recording devices, automatically collect information on passenger origin, destination, and traffic density with respect to time, the demonstration was well received by the riding public. The fare collection concept applied in this experiment would not seem to provide significant economic advantages if a uniform fare and token system were already in existence; equipment must be designed to make its record keeping system compatible with that of the carrier. It is doubtful at this time whether an automated system could be readily adapted to an unmanned station operation without providing for alternate means of manual operation of the ticket handler in the event of partial or complete equipment failure.
Suburban Service Adjustment Experiment: Report Of FL-9 Evaluation Group
editThe purposes of this study were to determine: (1) the cost and performance associated with the use of dual-powered locomotives in through service on a partially electrified suburban line; (2) the extent that the use of this type of locomotive will provide an effective reduction in running time; (3) if faster travel would, in turn, attract additional patrons to dual-powered through-running trains; and (4) the operating problems resulting from the use of this type of equipment. The locomotives utilized for the purpose of the experiment performed well over the four-month period. The failure rate during the experiment was greater than that experienced by the new haven, which uses the same type of locomotive; it is felt that this difference can be explained by several factors, including the limited number of units involved, the limited train mileage operated, and the unfamiliarity of operating personnel with this type of locomotive. The performance of FL-9 dual-powered locomotives, as revealed by the new haven's mechanical department records, compared favorably with that of the other type locomotives employed on the railroad. The reduction of running time resulting from the elimination of an engine change and station stop ranged between six and seven minutes. On many mornings, however, this time saving was nullified by operating problems encountered by the trains as they entered the traffic build-up approaching Grand Central Terminal. The elimination of engine change delay was well received by commuters. Passenger count surveys revealed total patronage increased.
Suburban Service Adjustment Experiment - Report Of Commuter Opinion Survey
editThe purpose of this project was to determine whether faster schedules, more frequent service, and expanded parking facilities on a suburban railroad would attract substantial journey-to-work and off-peak traffic. The experiment was made possible by the employment of dual- powered locomotives, FL-9 locomotives which operated as diesel-electric locomotives. Consumer response to the FL-9 experiment was generally positive. On-time performance was excellent during the experiment; patron response reflects this performance. Passenger counts revealed gains in patronage when compared with counts made during the same period in the previous year. A high proportion of the respondents (98%) gave "journey-to-work" or "return home" as their trip purpose. Ninety-five percent stated that they made the trip almost every day, and over 84 percent indicated that they used the same trains every day. When asked to rank those factors most important with regard to their satisfaction or dissatisfaction with train service, train on-time performance and length of commuting time ranked one and two, respectively, among eight items considered. Parking at the station ranked low on the list which, the author mentions, indicates that new lots provided at six of the express stations reduced the commuter parking problem to a minimum. Numerous comments were received concerning the train service.
Suburban Service Adjustment Experiment - Survey Report, Off- Peak Passenger Count
editThe survey represents one of a series of passenger counts being conducted on the New York Central Railroad and is being used to assist in the evaluation of patronage changes resulting from the suburban service adjustment experiment. This report is a summary of the average daily count for each of the thirteen stations, followed by a tabulation by train showing the total "on and off" passenger count for each station.
Coordinated Bus-Rail Service Project - Survey Report
editDuring the final months of the coordinated bus -rail project demonstration period, it was evident that the bus service would terminate due to insufficient passenger revenue to offset costs under private operation. Immediately prior to service discontinuance, self- administered mail-back questionnaires were distributed to all east bound passengers. A survey was made of riders in order to learn the changes in travel mode after suspension of project service; in addition, questions were asked relating to destination, trip purpose, frequency, and other modes used in their journey (with space for open-end comments). It was found that 96% used the service to travel to and/or from work. A vast majority of the respondents, 89 percent, noted that they used the service each day; 59 percent indicated that their residences were withing walking distance of the bus route; those who used auto transportation to the bus route accounted for 38 percent. Results of the surveys indicated that more than three- quarters of the former bus riders continued to use mass transit facilities in their travels to their destinations.
Station Fare Collection, Kew Gardens-Forest Hills; Queens County, New York - Report Of The Technical Evaluation Committee
editThe purpose of the station fare collection project was to test and evaluate newly-developed automatic railroad ticket encoding and cancellation equipment under actual operating conditions in suburban railroad stations. Capacity data, recorded at the test site, indicates that the turnstile equipment is capable of passing people at the rate of 30 per minute maximum and at the rate of 18 to 22 per minute for design average and minimum complaint due to delays. The author suggests the need for a large variety of ticket types which should be carefully appraised as the ticket variety contained in the specifications for the equipment may well be an unwarranted requirement. The author explains that an alternative system using the mileage book principle would cut down the equipment requirements through encoding much simpler data on the ticket, subtracting as used, and simplifying accounting functions. After six weeks of project operation, 49% of those persons responding to questions declared the system "satisfactory"; 34% found "some inconvenience"; 17% said it was "very inconvenient". Subsequent frequent observations and conversations with regular patrons indicate that most passengers accept the station fare collection equipment and that they experience neither difficulties nor long delays in using it. Some, who were critical at first, later stated that it was satisfactory. The author relates that there is no indication that customer relations were harmed by use of the station fare equipment.
Coordinated Bus-Rail Service Project - Auto User-Survey Report
editThe Rockland County coordinated bus-rail experiment was a test of the willingness of people to use a feeder bus service that provided regular and reliable connections with a railroad going into Manhattan. Many new riders were attracted to the service option; however, a considerable number of trips were either lightly patronized or empty. Response to survey indicated that the users, for the most part, reverted to use of private auto as they felt it was to their advantage to drive their own cars or participate in car pools to the station and commute by train from there. Among the reasons given were the additional time required to use the bus, the inconvenient schedules if the trip or part of it was off-peak hours, the fact that it was too far from the house to a bus stop, or that the personal convenience of using a car was more attractive. In addition, some riders were able to develop car pools with a sufficient number of riders to provide a per capita cost lower than the bus. Ninety-nine percent of the respondents gave "journey-to- work" as their trip purpose with New York City the destination of ninety-five percent of the travellers. On the basis of the survey examination, the author concludes that the ability to attract people away from their private automobile depends upon the quality of a bus service to meet special requirements: walking distance from home to bus, frequent bus service, and reliable bus service (dense and regular bus schedules and accessible parking at bus stops).
Coordinated Bus-Rail Service - Progress Report No 1
editA coordinated bus-rail service demonstration project was initiated on September 16, 1963, to determine whether a completely coordinated feeder bus service from an "outer ring" suburban area to a major suburban railroad station could be developed which would attract sufficient journey- to-work and midday traffic to warrant continuation. The service consisted of runs in both directions between new city and the tarrytown station. At the end of the fourth week of operation, the average daily patronage for the new service was 306 passengers. After six months of operation, the daily average had increased 37% to 420 passengers, with a high peak day of 466; on most days, patronage exceeded 400. The original demonstration bus schedule was developed to speed up and improve the existing feeder bus service from new city to tarrytown, providing all day service. The route was later revised for better passenger access, faster travel time, and better coordination between rail and bus schedules. Prior to and after the improved service was initiated, advertisements appeared in the newspapers. During december a promotion campaign was developed and started.
Zone scheduling
editThe People of the State of New York against Penn Central Company October 1969[2]
Penalties imposed by Section 56(1) of the Public Service Law for failure to comply with a portion of an order of the Public Service Commission adopted on June 5, 1969
On June 5, 1969, after public hearings, it adopted an order designed to improve Penn Central commuter service. The Penn Central refused to comply with the order. On June 5, the PSC ordered the Penn Central to purchase or lease at least 80 new MU cars to replace 42 class 1250 and 1269 MUs within two years, with the remainder to substitute heavyweight cars in use in electrified territory. It also directed the Penn Central to replace 24 existing Class P and T engines used in road haul service with more efficient ones, to increase its track surfacing program from 69 miles per year to 100 miles per year for three years, to continue its present program of rehabilitating tracks through interlockings, to rehabilitate existing heavyweight cars, to install and operate public address systems at suburban stations without them, to continue rehabilitating MU trucks, stabilizers, and shock absorbers, and maintain its right-of-way in the commuter zone to ensure safe train operation.
Evening zone schedules were implemented on the Harlem Division in February 1965, and full zone scheduling was established for all rush hour trains in April 1969. The Penn Central received 34 new MU cars since 1965, allowing 50 older coaches to be retired. In addition, 40 lightweight main line coaches were refurbished for $1.6 million, replacing 60 heavyweight low capacity coaches. It was also in the process of renovating 12 additional light weight coaches, which would be delivered by the end of 1969.
Reverse signaling was installed between North White Plains and Mount Vernon, an additional crossover was added at Crestwood, and Crestwood Interlocking became remote controlled from Woodlawn.
An off-board fare collection system was established in Grand Central to increase the efficiency of fare collection.
Background
editOn July 2, 1973, the Penn Central Railroad eliminated 34 trips on its Harlem, New Haven, and Hudson Divisions, and close Grand Central Terminal overnight between 1:30 and 5:30 a.m. to reduce its deficit. In addition, seven stations were closed: 138th Street, Morrisania, 183rd Street, Oscawana, Manitou, Chelsea, and New Hamburg. These stations were only used by 54 riders. Nine of the trains eliminated arrived at Grand Central overnight-including two trains on the New Haven Line, four trains on the Harlem Line, and three trains on the Hudson Line. 25 additional trips were discontinued, of which 12 were on the Hudson Line, and 13 were on the Harlem Line.[3]
In July 1962, the PSC blocked a request by the Central to increase fares within the New York City suburban zone-the Hudson Division from New York City to Poughkeepsie, and the Harlem Division from New York City to Pawling-by $1,129 a year as of August 1. The increase would have increased the cost of monthly commutation ticket from Poughkeepsie to New York City by an additional $3.04 a ticket, or eight cents a ride. The PSC ordered a public hearing to determine whether the railroad was entitled to increase fares.[4]
On January 12, 1966, the PSC approved a Central plan to sell monthly tickets with an unlimited number of riders. On January 31, students with commutation tickets in the Central's suburban zone began being able to take an unlimited amount of trips; previously the railroad sold 46-ride student tickets.[5]
Harlem Division Demonstration Project
editThe general solicitor of the Central admitted that the fare increases, with the experimental fare zones, set to take effect on February 1 were designed to significantly reduce the number of short-haul riders south of Tarrytown and White Plains. The sharp fare increases in fares between nearby stations were intended to encourage short-haul riders to use buses, subways, or their private cars. Since local traffic would be reduced, express service could be sped up, allowing for more efficient use of staff and rolling stock. Rush hour trains would only make stops at stations in a fare zone and then travel express to Grand Central, where riders would show tickets or pay fares. The general solicitor said "We can't run a subway service under railroad rules...The short-haul rider costs more than the long-haul rider." At the time, about 20 percent of the Central's revenue from single rides came from short-haul trips-trips excluding Grand Central, and about five percent of commutation revenue came from short-haul trips.[6]
The experimental fare zone system would replace the existing fare system based on milage. The greatest fare increases would occur for riders traveling the shortest distance. For instance, the minimum fare for a one-way ticket in Westchester, even between stops next to each other, would be 50 cents, and the minimum fare for a one-way ticket in the Bronx would be 75 cents. Trips between Fordham and Mount Vernon would increase from 43 to 75 cents, trips from Fordham to White Plains would increase from 77 cents to $1, and trips from Yonkers to Tarrytown would increase from 59 to 75 cents. The cost of monthly tickets for short-distance trips were also significantly increased. For instance, a monthly for the 1.1 miles (1.8 km)-long trip from Yonkers to Glenwood would be increased from $8.19 to $13. Fares would be in multiples of 25 cents to make it possible to develop ticket vending machines that could accept coins. The simplified fare structure was expected to speed up ticket collection as locals making 11 stops from Grand Central to Mount Vernon require twice as many ticket collectors as expresses for the same number of fares collected.[6]
The demonstration project on the Harlem Division was set to begin in January 1964, but was delayed until the spring due to delays in finishing new parking lots.[6]
On January 10, 1964, the PSC approved plans by the New York Central to implement zoned fares in the southern part of the New York commutation area (north to North White Plains). The plan went into effect on January 22. Five fare zones were set up on the Harlem Division to White Plains, and five fare zones were set up on the Hudson Division to Tarrytown. Three ten-trip ticket and three one-way coach fare zones were set up on both divisions. Though it was meant to be experimental, and to last one year, this was kept in place.[7] On November 26, 1964, the New York Central received permission by the PSC to continue the experimental zone fare structure for an additional year. The Central wanted to extend the pilot to complete a study it was doing, and as it believed it would allow for the improvement of train schedules.[8]
On April 20, 1963, the Tri-State Transportation Committee filed an application with the Housing and Home Finance Agency for financial aid for a two-year pilot program to improve service on the Harlem Division to increase ridership. The project was estimated to cost $2,330,000, with the federal government covering two thirds of the cost, and the state paying the remainder.[9]
On July 1, 1964, the New York Central, with funding from New York State and the Federal Housing and Home Finance Agency, and the assistance of the Tri-State Transportation Committee inaugurated a two-year pilot project on the Harlem Division to expand off-peak local and express service. The program, which cost $1.9 million, was intended to determine whether modern rail practices could increase off-peak ridership on the line, and whether significant public transit improvements could reduce highway congestion. If the pilot program was deemed a success, it was hoped that it would be duplicated by other railroads in the metropolitan area.[10] The Central hoped to improve non-commuter service as existing service made complete use of the existing rail lines, and adding capacity would be cost-prohibitive.[11]
The project area was the section of the Harlem Division in unelectrified territory from White Plains to Brewster, which was largely served by all-stop locals that required an engine change as they passed into or out of electrified territory. In this section of the line, fewer than 1,800 riders per day traveled in the area in off-peak hours. Off-peak service to this area, prior to the pilot, varied in frequency, running from every 1 to 3 hours without any regular headways in the timetable. Trains made as many as 23 stops and took almost two hours to get to Grand Central Terminal.[12]
As part of the pilot, three strategies to increase ridership were tested: designating half of stations as express stops and others as local stops, the improvement of parking facilities at express stations, and the implementation of additional service. Stops chosen to be express stops had high ridership, good highway access, and had adequate parking facilities. The express stops chosen were Brewster, Katonah, Mount Kisco, Chappaqua, Pleasantville, Hawthorne, White Plains-North Station and White Plains. At some express stops, new parking lots were constructed, while, at others, existing facilities were expanded. At all of the express stations except Mount Kisco had parking lots built, each accommodating 1,100 cars, except for the North White Plains lot, which would fit 500 cars. The lot at North White Plains was not expected to open until at least July 6. In addition, the White Plains and Plesantville Bus Company provided a coordinated bus service between the North White Plains express stop and Valhalla and the Westlake section of Thornwood. Buses also met trains at Holland Avenue, and made connections with New York-bound express stations.[10][12]
Off-peak service was nearly doubled, with service running hourly on a clockface schedule to make it easy for train riders to memorize. Travel times were reduced from 1 hour 50 minutes to 1 hour 28 minutes by reducing the number of stops on trains from Brewster from 23 to 7. Ten daily express trains were added to the schedule, making use of personnel and trains, which are idle during the off-peak.[12]
Following the introduction of the changed service, many riders saying they used the local stations, sent letters and telephone calls to complain to people associated with the project's implementation. Surveys completed during the first six months of the project found that it merely moved riders from local to express stations instead of increasing ridership overall. In response to the complaints of local station passengers, in April 1965, the New York State Public Service Commission held a public hearing to restore the local stops. Given that express service would be eliminated, the Tri-State Transportation Commission planned to call of the project, but ended up agreeing to continue the project, but with revised goals. The Industrial Engineering Department of the New York Central completed several studies during the project's first nine months to determine whether additional service could be provided at lower costs, and found that it could be done in some cases. As such, a goal of the project became determining whether savings could be made to allow the New York Central could continue operating the high level of service following the completion of the project, when government funding would no longer be available.[12]
On April 25, 1965, since the PSC ordered the restoration of a number of local stops, the design of the pilot was modified to include a four-month test with two diesel-electric locomotives powering a peak-hour train in each direction to eliminate the need for an engine change.[13]
The project's cost was reduced from $43,000 a month to $28,500 month, without reducing service, largely by using self-propelled Budd Rail Diesel Cars (RDCs) in unelectrified territory instead of using two coaches and a diesel locomotive. More efficient equipment cycles and crew scheduling also cut down on costs. Off-peak service began to increase by summer 1965. Additional RDCs were put in service, and began being used for through-running, eliminating the need for passengers to change trains at North White Plains. A single RDC would run to North White Plains, and then be coupled to an electric multiple-unit train to New York. Off-peak ridership increased by 30 percent by March 1966, and the cost of operating the additional service was reduced to $21,500. However, the cost of the additional service was still greater than the revenue gained from the additional ridership. The pilot program was extended to April 30, 1967, at the request of the New York Central, which believed that with additional time, the additional service would be self-sustaining. As part of the agreement, the New York Central would receive a subsidy for losses for six additional months, and would have to cover its own losses for the remaining months. After three years, off-peak ridership was 60 percent greater than it was before the start of the pilot project, and riders saved up to 22 minutes.[12]
On April 24, 1966, the Central added four additional trips on its Harlem Division and extended the experimental service on both the Harlem and Hudson Divisions. The addition of the four trains on the Harlem Division and adjustments in two other trains allowed for half-hourly weekday service between North White Plains and Grand Central northbound from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m. and from 6:30 p.m. to 10:30 p.m. and southbound from 9:16 a.m. into the afternoon. 24 of the 26 additional experimental off-peak trains between Yonkers and Grand Central were extended for an additional eight weeks to June 24, and the 22 additional trains on the experimental Harlem Division service were extended, with hourly express service leaving Grand Central from 8:15 a.m. to 3:15 p.m. and from 7:15 p.m. to 12:15 a.m. Trains from Brewster continued to leave hourly from 9:24 a.m. to 6:24 p.m., and from 8:24 p.m. to 10:24 p.m.. The 11:24 p.m.. train was dropped daily, except for Saturdays, due to low ridership.[14]
On October 28, 1966, the Central announced that experimental off-peak trains for Bronx riders, which enabled off-peak trains to Westchester to run express, would be extended to April 30, 1967. In addition, it set up a service in cooperation with the Westchester County police to inform people waiting at various local stations of delays. If there was a delay, the railroad would call the Westchester Parkway Police, who would create teletype messages to transmit to police departments in areas where there are delays in service. The messages would describe the reason for the delay, and the anticipated time that service would be restored.[15]
On February 5, 1967, the Central added five night trains on the Harlem Division, leaving Grand Central at 3, 4 and 5 a.m., and leaving North White Plains at 3 a.m. and 4 a.m., making service run 24 hours, on an experimental basis. Previously, the last commuter train leaving Grand Central left at 2 a.m., and the last inbound train from North White Plains left at 1:16 a.m.. These trips were termed "Night Owl" trains, and made all stops from White Plains and Mount Vernon, and then ran non-stop to Grand Central. The return portion of discounted round-trip tickets to Manhattan was extended to 5 a.m.. The pilot would be reevaluated in April 1967. The pilot was initially scheduled to begin on February 1.[16]
On March 29, 1967, the Central announced that the experimental service, including the additional rush hour trains and "Night Owl" service, would continue indefinitely at the railroad's cost, instead of ending on April 30.[17] The "Night Owl" service was extended through October 1. On October 1, 1967, the pilot was extended again, but with an extra fare to cover an average loss of 77 cents for each rider carried on the service. Adults would pay an additional 50 cents, while children 5 through 11 would pay an extra 25 cents.[18] The Harlem Division pilot ended in April 1968. There was no large ridership increase during the initial 14 months of the pilot, but ridership increased by over 16 percent over pre-project levels by the middle of the third year. 58.4 percent of ridership gains were made in the off-peak. The experimental bus service that connected with express trains had low ridership.[19]
In April 1967, the government subsidies for the demonstration project ended. In three years, the new service increased ridership by 60 percent. The additional service continued.[20]
The main conclusions of the experiment were that improvements to off-peak service will attract peak riders, a trial period should be used before a new service is more established to see if there is ridership growth, that major travel time savings require capital improvements, that sufficient parking facilities are needed to attract a large number of riders in low-density suburbs, that increasing the frequency of service and expanding parking will lead to a significant increase in commuting and midday trips, that coordinating rail and feeder bus service in areas with high car ownership will not attract ridership high enough to support the cost of the bus service, and that the public will likely adversely react to reductions in the number of stops at local stations.[21]
On February 1, 1965, the New York Central began operating zone schedules for some outbound evening rush hour trains. It expanded this to some inbound morning rush hour trains to Grand Central on June 28, 1965. The implementation of zone scheduling was intended to speed trains service and reduce delays. Three additional morning inbound trains were added to facilitate the new zone schedule. Four zones were set up: Fleetwood and Mount Vernon were in Zone A, Crestwood, Tuckahoe and Bronxville were in Zone B, Hartsdale and Scarsdale were in Zone C, and White Plains-North and White Plains were in Zone D. Zone schedules operated as follows: the first train ran non-stop to Grand Central from the closest zone-Zone A. The second train would serve Zone B stops and run non-stop to Grand Central, the third would run non-stop to Grand Central after making Zone C stops, and the fourth would do the same, but for Zone D stops.[22]
From June 28 to October 31, 1965, train 908 leaving Brewster at 7:23 a.m. and train 945 leaving Grand Central at 5:39, on a pilot basis, began running as through trains, without the need to change locomotives at White Plains-North Station using a pair of dual-power locomotives leased from the New York, New Haven and Hartford Railroad.[22]
Zone service
editZone scheduling sought to make timetables easier for riders to understand-with more consistent stopping patterns, and increase the efficiency of rolling stock and crewing by reducing the number of trains that run the whole length of lines. Moving to zoned fares reduced the cost of ticket collection by eliminating odd fares. Having fewer stops allowed fewer train crew to be needed to collect tickets as traditional schedules had short time intervals between points where fares change. Having express service available every 20 minutes was considered to be more desirable than local service every 2 minutes that took 20 minutes longer.
Zone service was implemented on the Hudson Division in the morning rush hour on June 28, 1965, and in the evening rush hour on June 27, 1966. Implementing the change in the evening rush hour increased the total number of trains operated by 9-three more inbound trains and 6 more outbound trains, but reduced the number of cars required by 21, and the number of car miles operated per evening by 352. Power demand would decrease as fewer trains would be accelerating so close to one another, reducing simultaneous demands on a single substation.
The expansion of zone scheduling allowed the Penn Central to make better use of its suburban fleet to handle increased ridership.[20]
Ridership on the Hudson and Harlem Lines decreased from 22,377,840 to 22,124,496 from 1962 to 1969.
After Penn Central took control of New Haven Division service in January 1969, it undertook track repairs, and restricted train speeds over worn track until repairs could be made. It found that the poor conditions on the line were the results of years of deferred capital improvements and deferred maintenance. Penn Central found structures and track in "pretty good" condition. It rated the condition of the 304 locomotives used for service as "only fair". 25 locomotives not used for some time were retired as obsolete, and a few additional locomotives were subsequently retired. Many others were sent out for heavy repair. Additional spare parts for 60 FL-9 locomotives had to be obtained. FL-9 locomotives were used on both the Harlem Division and New Haven Division, and 24 Penn Central locomotives were used on the New Haven. Passenger equipment was considered to be "not good" by Penn Centra. Of the 550 available cars, 123 coaches and 87 MUs were 30-40 years old and were expected to last or about five more years. 50 cars in bad shape were retired. A new car repair shop was built at New Haven, allowing many of the cars to be repaired until they could be replaced. Repairs were also done on the 100 newer stainless steel coaches and 97 new MUs. The remaining lives of the MUs was estimated to be fifteen years. Penn Central found the New Haven power supply to be fair, but the Cos Cob plant was found to be no longer reliable, requiring major conversions to allow the line to use power from commercial sources. It also found that the communication and signal equipment on the line needed to be redesigned for modern and converted for MU equipment, as they were designed for trains using locomotives.
On July 17, 1969, and MTA spokesman said that the MTA was proceeding with its plans to upgrade the commuter rail services of Penn Central, including taking over New Haven service. The MTA would pay Penn Central to operate the line, but the MTA would retain revenues and make capital investments. It was expected that the takeover could occur in a month of two. There was no plan to take control of the Hudson and Harlem Divisions at the time. On July 16, 1969, thirty riders in Grand Central protested against the Penn Centrals planned increases in fares on the New Haven Division. The fare increase, if approved, was scheduled to take effect on July 26. The protesters complained against the almost doubling of the cost of ten-trip tickets, which were used by 60 percent of New Haven Division riders. A spokesman for Penn Central said that "It's not nice to talk about your customers this way, but they have been getting away with murder.", noting that the discount was instituted by the New Haven Railroad before the Penn Central takeover. The Penn Central proposal would implement zone schedules and fares, similar to what was done on the Hudson and Harlem Divisions, give monthly ticket purchases greater discounts, and provide nonstop service from a zone to Grand Central. The spokesman said that zone scheduling and zone fares needed each other to work.[23] As part of the changes, all through trains, except Turbo Service trains, would operate into Penn Station instead of Grand Central, only stopping at New haven, Bridgeport, and Stamford in the West End suburban service area. As part of the fare changes, fares would be rounded to the nearest 10 or 25 cents.
The existing fare structure carried over from the New Haven Railroad allowed for 20 cents per fare to cover constant costs of operating service, plus just under 5 cents per mile for the distance involved. For instance, for Norwalk, the one-way fare of $2.21 consisted of the 20 cents plus 4.9 cents per mile for 41 miles to Grand Central. The fare restructuring would change the constant and milage cost factors, increasing the cost constant to 75 cents, and reducing the mileage factor to about 4.5 cents-progressing downward from 5 cents at Greenwich to 4 cents at New Haven. Mileage would be approximately the middle point of each fare zone, and the total would be rounded to the nearest 10- or 15-cent figures. The fare would be $2.60 for Norwalk, rounded up from $2.59 with the constant of 75 cents and 4.5 cents per mile added. The fare structure for the New Haven Division was designed to be similar to the fare structure on the Harlem and Hudson Divisions, but were slightly higher, according to the Penn Central, due to higher operating costs on the New Haven Line. The ICC, did not find any sufficient evidence to justify allocating the higher costs of operations on the New Haven Line to riders. The change in fares was expected to increase revenues by three percent. Fares on the New Haven Line had not increased in the previous seven years while costs continued to increase.
Zone scheduling in place on the Harlem Division and proposed on the New Haven Division was expected to improve operations between Grand Central and Woodlawn, and reduce delays at JO Tower. Zone scheduling was expected to reduce the use of locomotive-powered trains in commuter service, increase utilization of multiple-unit cars, provide increased clearance between trains, allowing for the improved ability to deal with delays, the elimination of many all-stop trains, the more effective cycling of rolling stock in peak hours so more cars can be used for a second trip in the peak direction, and the development of schedules to handle passenger loads at stations served.
On November 25, 1969, a Memorandum of Intent was executed by the Connecticut Transportation Authority and the Metropolitan Transportation Authority. Implementing zoned schedules and zoned fares was part of the MOU. In early 1970, they were in the process of negotiating the acquisition of the New Haven Division and the creation of an operating agreement for the service. As part of the agreement, $80 million would have been spent to purchase 144 new MUs, rehab 100 existing cars, modernize signal and electrical systems, and stations, abandon the obsolete Cos Cob power station, improve maintenance facilities, install modern train control systems, and upgrade track. Twelve zones were planned on the main line, with two one the New Canaan branch, 3 on the Danbury Branch, and 4 on the Waterbury Branch. Many all-stop trains from Stamford to Grand Central would be eliminated.
Zoned schedules were designed to include enough suburban stops to insure a sufficient amount of riders to justify operating the length of trains that Grand Central an efficiently handle during peak hours on 20 minute headways. In addition, the station in the zone closest to Grand Central would be the largest volume station to provide the most amount of people with express service. The last station in the zone closest to Grand Central, whenever possible, would be located close to crossovers to allow trains to be quickly turned back in the other direction. Each zone would be designed to have the fewest number of stops to provide the number of riders needed for efficient operations. The ridership of each zone would comparable to allow trains of fixed consists to be rapidly turned without switching during rush hours and provide service to more than one zone.
Fares for trips not involving Grand Central would be set to be a minimum of 60 cents, as opposed the existing 34 cent intrastate fare, and the 40 cent interstate fare, and the minimum monthly commutation fare would be $12, the same minimum fares on the Hudson and Harlem Divisions. No off-peak and ten-trip fares would be provided for these trips. The highest intrastate New York fare would be between Port Chester and Prospect Avenue, and would be $1 one-way, and $21 monthly. The rates were set to be modeled off the Hudson and Harlem Division fare structure.
The Board of Suspension of the Interstate Commerce Commission suspended the implementation of zoned fares and schedules until February 25, 1970, and began an investigation into the changes to see if they were reasonable. On January 14, 1970, it decided that some
On April 6, 1970, the Penn Central planned to implement zone scheduling on the New Haven Line. However, due to the opposition of many riders, the PSC withheld the implementation of the changes. The commission found that the changes would not improve service and would decrease service at several stations. It noted that New Rochelle would have only two evening commuter trains instead of the two proposed. The plan would have increased evening service overall from 29 to 34 trains.[24] The plan would have accompanied restructured fares with identical rates for all stations in the same zone. Monthly commutation fares would have decreased while ten-ticket fares would have been increased.[25]
On September 21, 1970, the Penn Central implemented zone scheduling on the New Haven Line between 4 p.m. and 7 p.m., even though it was not able to win PSC approval of higher fares as part of the zone system due to the opposition of many commuters.As part of the change, evening rush hour trains were increased to 37 from 29, and 20 additional daily trains were added during late evenings, middays, and mornings. The New Haven Line was divided into seven service zones. At Greenwich, instead of their being six locals from 5 to 7 p.m, there would be seven trains, including two 42-minute non-stop trains. Instead of their being eight locals from New Rochelle with two 33-minute expresses, there would be seven trains, with two 29-minute non-stop trips.[25] In addition, as part of the changes, most through-service trains from Boston were switched to Penn Station from Grand Central to provide more space for commuter trains at Grand Central.[26]
First years
editStrike
editJanuary 1983 Dutchess Pull Out Threat
HARLEM AND HUDSON LINES ADD CARS BUT NEED POWER
1986 capital needs
https://www.newspapers.com/clip/82588753/
https://www.newspapers.com/clip/82588767/
Growth
editWorried by Ridership Figures, Metro-North Is Trying Harder
1994 Rail Line Renting Cars for New Riders
Strike
editExpansion
edit1995 Metro-North Buys A Line for Future
Restoring Grand Central
editStruggles: 2011-2018
editComputing in Civil Engineering and Geographic Information Systems Symposium
New York State Session Laws, Volume 2
Proceedings of the Transportation Research Forum, Volumes 7-8
Consolidated Rail Corp.—Operation Exemption—A Line of the State of New York
Environmental cleanup of abandoned NY railroad yard enables development of intermodal facility
The Viability of the Oak Point Link and Harlem River Yard Projects
Exploring The Bronx Waterfront As Redevelopment Looms
METROPOLITAN RAIL FREIGHT COUNCILACTION PLAN
South Bronx-Oak Point Link: Environmental Impact Statement, Issue 7, Volume 2
OAK POINT SAGA: TIFF DERAILS BRONX FREIGHT SHORTCUT: CONRAIL, STATE SQUABBLE DELAYS OPENING OF LINK
AFTER 20 YEARS, RAILROAD LINKS BRONX, UPSTATE
NY NEARS COMPLETION OF OAK POINT FREIGHT LINK
20 Years in the Making, Rail Freight Link Opens in Bronx
SOUTH BRONX - OAK POINT LINK ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT TECHNICAL SUPPORT DOCUMENT NO. 3
South Bronx-Oak Point Link: Environmental Impact Statement, Issue 7, Volume 2
Metro-North Capital Projects
editMott Haven Reconfiguration Project
High-speed turnouts
Park Avenue
editThe story of the Park Avenue Tunnel
https://www.newspapers.com/clip/82723304/
Bronx rumors 1899
https://www.newspapers.com/clip/82588139/
1893 drawbridge
https://www.newspapers.com/clip/82588012/
https://www.newspapers.com/clip/82588025/
Rivet record
https://www.newspapers.com/clip/82588030/
Open air rapid transit
https://www.newspapers.com/clip/82588059/
1897 viaduct
https://www.newspapers.com/clip/82588071/
https://www.newspapers.com/clip/82588085/
https://www.newspapers.com/clip/82588092/
https://www.newspapers.com/clip/82588104/
Reduction in speed of trains on viaduct to reduce noise
https://www.newspapers.com/clip/82588118/
https://www.newspapers.com/clip/82588126/
https://www.newspapers.com/clip/82588146/
https://www.newspapers.com/clip/82588158/
1904 another crash
https://www.newspapers.com/clip/82729317/
1901 sue RR for damages from viaduct
https://www.newspapers.com/clip/82588174/
https://www.newspapers.com/clip/82588186/
Property owners sue over assessment to pay for viaduct
https://www.newspapers.com/clip/82588190/
https://www.newspapers.com/clip/82588207/
https://www.newspapers.com/clip/82588230/
Depress tracks, enlarge terminal
https://www.newspapers.com/clip/82588230/
https://www.newspapers.com/clip/82588252/
https://www.newspapers.com/clip/82588266/
https://www.newspapers.com/clip/82588285/
https://www.newspapers.com/clip/82588293/
RRs not responsible for damages, state is
https://www.newspapers.com/clip/82588305/
https://www.newspapers.com/clip/82588353/
https://www.newspapers.com/clip/82588382/
https://www.newspapers.com/clip/82588487/
Design GCT
https://www.newspapers.com/clip/82588331/
https://www.newspapers.com/clip/82588343/
1902 accident
https://www.newspapers.com/clip/82728274/
Law providing for NYC upgrades
https://www.newspapers.com/clip/82588369/
Powering with DC, not AC
https://www.newspapers.com/clip/82588402/
https://www.newspapers.com/clip/82724520/
https://www.newspapers.com/clip/82725024/
1905 accident
https://www.newspapers.com/clip/82727945/
https://www.newspapers.com/clip/82727969/
https://www.newspapers.com/clip/82727996/
https://www.newspapers.com/clip/82727909/
https://www.newspapers.com/clip/82588480/
https://www.newspapers.com/clip/82727752/
GCT improvements; provision for subway connection
https://www.newspapers.com/clip/82728065/
Failure to merge Putnam with IRT
https://www.newspapers.com/clip/82728216/
1903 closing of cross streets between 45th and 57th to enlarge terminal yard and improve Park Avenue Tunnel
https://www.newspapers.com/clip/82729436/
https://www.newspapers.com/clip/82729469/
https://www.newspapers.com/clip/82729515/
https://www.newspapers.com/clip/82729536/
Bill to ban steam
https://www.newspapers.com/clip/82729617/
Improvements; elimination of Bronx grade crossings; buy Bronx real estate
https://www.newspapers.com/clip/82729694/
https://www.newspapers.com/clip/82729673/
https://www.newspapers.com/clip/82729638/
https://www.newspapers.com/clip/82729562/
https://www.newspapers.com/clip/82729593/
Signal system
https://www.newspapers.com/clip/82728145/
Electrification; increase in Park Avenue property values
https://www.newspapers.com/clip/82724492/
https://www.newspapers.com/clip/82724570/
Implementation of electrification
https://www.newspapers.com/clip/82729317/
https://www.newspapers.com/clip/82728167/
https://www.newspapers.com/clip/82728196/
https://www.newspapers.com/clip/82728105/
https://www.newspapers.com/clip/82727209/
https://www.newspapers.com/clip/82725048/
https://www.newspapers.com/clip/82725092/
https://www.newspapers.com/clip/82725102/
https://www.newspapers.com/clip/82725355/
https://www.newspapers.com/clip/82725377/
https://www.newspapers.com/clip/82725377/
https://www.newspapers.com/clip/82725553/
https://www.newspapers.com/clip/82725647/
https://www.newspapers.com/clip/82725743/
https://www.newspapers.com/clip/82726189/
https://www.newspapers.com/clip/82726209/
https://www.newspapers.com/clip/82726233/
https://www.newspapers.com/clip/82726247/
https://www.newspapers.com/clip/82726260/
https://www.newspapers.com/clip/82726270/
https://www.newspapers.com/clip/82726288/
https://www.newspapers.com/clip/82726307/
https://www.newspapers.com/clip/82727287/
https://www.newspapers.com/clip/82727296/
Divert traffic to West Side-53rd Street Subway
https://www.newspapers.com/clip/82725720/
https://www.newspapers.com/clip/82725709/
https://www.newspapers.com/clip/82725680/
Construction of train shed
https://www.newspapers.com/clip/82724835/
https://www.newspapers.com/clip/82725624/
Capacity Tunnel
https://www.newspapers.com/clip/82724674/
Expanding tunnel; raising Park Avenue improvements
https://www.newspapers.com/clip/82727262/
https://www.newspapers.com/clip/82724063/
https://www.newspapers.com/clip/2456227/
https://www.newspapers.com/clip/82724638/
Change in GCT plans
https://www.newspapers.com/clip/82588417/
https://www.newspapers.com/clip/82588504/
1912 new interlocking system
https://www.newspapers.com/clip/82723368/
1902 electrification
https://www.newspapers.com/clip/82723049/
https://www.newspapers.com/clip/82723265/
https://www.newspapers.com/clip/82723285/
Fatal train crash Park Avenue viaduct 1905
https://www.newspapers.com/clip/82588430/fatal-train-crash-park-avenue-viaduct-19/
https://www.newspapers.com/clip/82588448/
https://www.newspapers.com/clip/82588458/
https://www.newspapers.com/clip/82588471/
https://www.newspapers.com/clip/82588480/
Subway for the Central
https://www.newspapers.com/clip/82588521/
Park Avenue Promenade
https://www.newspapers.com/clip/82588555/
1922 train fire
https://www.newspapers.com/clip/82723174/
1929 crash
https://www.newspapers.com/clip/82723124/
RR built with public funds
https://www.newspapers.com/clip/82722994/
1931 call to widen exits-narrowed with narrowing of median
https://www.newspapers.com/clip/82722895/
https://www.newspapers.com/clip/82722933/
1932 ban wooden cars
https://www.newspapers.com/clip/82723011/
https://www.newspapers.com/clip/82722799/
https://www.newspapers.com/clip/82722853/
1958 abandon terminal, park avenue tunnel
https://www.newspapers.com/clip/26752834/
https://www.newspapers.com/clip/82589023/
https://www.newspapers.com/clip/82589034/
1970 Tunnel fire
https://www.newspapers.com/clip/82589081/
Diesel health tunnel
https://www.newspapers.com/clip/82589121/
Safety tunnel
https://www.newspapers.com/clip/82589144/
https://www.newspapers.com/clip/82589154/
https://www.newspapers.com/clip/82589183/
https://www.newspapers.com/clip/82589211/
1971 funding
https://www.newspapers.com/clip/82589169/
1973 viaduct safety
https://www.newspapers.com/clip/82588650/
https://www.newspapers.com/clip/82588664/
https://www.newspapers.com/clip/82588674/
1975 Repair/reinforce viaduct
https://www.newspapers.com/clip/82588703/
https://www.newspapers.com/clip/82588710/
1979 loss funding proposal-cut viaduct maintenance
https://www.newspapers.com/clip/22797157/
1980 signals obsolete
https://www.newspapers.com/clip/82589270/
GC North; tunnel repairs 1983
https://www.newspapers.com/clip/82589298/
1984 tunnel improvements
https://www.newspapers.com/clip/82589345/
1984 repairs needed/configuration
https://www.newspapers.com/clip/82589385/
https://www.newspapers.com/clip/82589393/
https://www.newspapers.com/clip/82589408/
https://www.newspapers.com/clip/82589416/
https://www.newspapers.com/clip/82589424/
https://www.newspapers.com/clip/82589433/
https://www.newspapers.com/clip/82589473/the-daily-times/
https://www.newspapers.com/clip/82589806/
https://www.newspapers.com/clip/82589815/
https://www.newspapers.com/clip/82589828/
https://www.newspapers.com/clip/82589848/
https://www.newspapers.com/clip/82589865/
https://www.newspapers.com/clip/82589878/
https://www.newspapers.com/clip/82589888/
1986 tunnel grant https://www.newspapers.com/clip/82719203/the-herald-statesman/
https://www.newspapers.com/clip/82719238/
https://www.newspapers.com/clip/72651703/
https://www.newspapers.com/clip/82719376/
https://www.newspapers.com/clip/72652218/
https://www.newspapers.com/clip/82719464/
https://www.newspapers.com/clip/72651674/
https://www.newspapers.com/clip/82719497/
https://www.newspapers.com/clip/82719573/
https://www.newspapers.com/clip/82719680/
Interlocking 1989
https://www.newspapers.com/clip/82719699/
Concrete ties
https://www.newspapers.com/clip/82719717/
https://www.newspapers.com/clip/82719731/
https://www.newspapers.com/clip/82719825/
https://www.newspapers.com/clip/82720116/
1986 funding need repair viaduct
https://www.newspapers.com/clip/82588767/
$100 million project, capital program 1991
https://www.newspapers.com/clip/82588780/
https://www.newspapers.com/clip/82588794/
1991 safety emergency - ventilation
https://www.newspapers.com/clip/82719975/
https://www.newspapers.com/clip/82720180/
https://www.newspapers.com/clip/82720755/
1992 speeding interlocking GCT
https://www.newspapers.com/clip/82720288/
1993 125th renovation
https://www.newspapers.com/clip/82721295/
1993 contract awarded
https://www.newspapers.com/clip/82588002/
https://www.newspapers.com/clip/26748951/
https://www.newspapers.com/clip/82588862/
https://www.newspapers.com/clip/26748938/
1994 GCT asbestos
https://www.newspapers.com/clip/82721303/
1999 completion
https://www.newspapers.com/clip/72650032/
2005 Anti-intrusion tunnel
https://www.newspapers.com/clip/82721361/
2010 flat spot detector
https://www.newspapers.com/clip/82721390/
https://www.newspapers.com/clip/82721420/
2012 cell service
https://www.newspapers.com/clip/82721412/
Bi-level modifications
https://www.newspapers.com/clip/82721467/
9077 was awarded to the firm Nab Construction Corp. to perform the rehabilitation of the Park Avenue Viaduct . ... In the second phase it was found that the center girders over the 125th Street Station building were beyond repair and 2
Strengthen Park Avenue Viaduct
https://casetext.com/case/mccoy-v-metro-transp-auth-1
https://trid.trb.org/view/485921
DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION INNOVATIONS DURING THE REHABILITATION OF THE PARK AVENUE VIADUCT
This paper describes the design and construction innovations of the $120 million rehabilitation of the Park Avenue Viaduct. Opened to rail traffic in 1897, the one mile long viaduct extends from 110th Street north to the Harlem River in New York City. The viaduct carries four tracks and is operated by Metro-North Railroad, the second largest commuter railroad in the nation. It provides the only rail link between Grand Central Terminal and the rest of the nation. The principal structural element which directly supports the four tracks (2 tracks/span) consists of a trough deck (riveted plates and angles). The 28' wide deck spans between side and center girders. It is severely corroded, and needs replacement. The other structural elements are deemed repairable. The criteria which dictated design and construction included: availability of three out of four tracks for revenue service; community concerns; safety and environmental requirements; and cost. This ruled out the replacement of the existing structure in its entirety. The rehabilitated structure uses new 28' long floorbeams (spanning between the existing side and center girders) spaced every 5' and topped with a concrete slab as replacement for the deck. Each floorbeam supports two tracks as did the original deck. The rails are attached to the concrete slab by Direct Fixation Fasteners versus a conventional tie and ballast approach. This system is not subjected to degradation of its geometry, had long life, and provides smoother ride comfort. Each track is reconstructed within a one year period with the adjacent track out of service during off-peak hours. Before floorbeams are erected, the side and center girders are reinforced. Concrete pours are scheduled during weekends with the adjacent track out of service so that the concrete can gain enough strength before service is restored on the adjacent track on Monday morning.
https://ur.booksc.eu/book/58479929/31e8e9
http://web.mta.info/capitaldashboard/allframenew_head.html?PROJNUM=m6030214&PLTYPE=5
This project will pilot test and evaluate a new fastener design on a limited stretch of the Park Avenue Viaduct as Metro-North assesses and designs a method to rehabilitate the direct fixation system that supports the running rails and the third rails atop the Park Avenue Viaduct from East 110th Street to East 131st Street.
https://www.google.com/books/edition/Railroad_Gazette/FeP0YPGYrKAC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22Park+Avenue+Viaduct%22+%22110th+street%22&pg=PA73&printsec=frontcover "The Park Avenue Viaduct Improvement, New York City"
"New York Central Track Elevation in Park Avenue, New York"
"Erection of the Park Avenue Viaduct"
"FOUR - TRACK STEEL VIADUCT IN NEW YORK CITY ;"
Max height shall not exceed 14 ft.10 in. while traveling on rails in accordance with Metro North Park Avenue Tunnel diagram.
29. Maxwidthshallnotexceed10ft.6in.whiletravelingonrailsinaccordancewithMetro North Park Avenue Tunnel diagram.
Safety recommendations-1902 accident
http://web.mta.info/mta/news/books/archive/181113_0830_MNR.pdf
Metro-North has an ongoing project to install emergency signage and improve lighting in the Park Avenue Tunnel and in GCT, including the use of LED lighting, installation of battery backup at Emergency Exits, a communication link between fire alarm boxes in the Park Avenue Tunnel and the GCT Fire Brigade, and replacement of the aluminum third rail in the Park Avenue Tunnel on all four tracks. Beginning this winter, the Railroad will also be installing glow-in-the-dark signs in the Park Avenue Tunnel.
furnish design and engineering services for the replacement of the existing DC traction power equipment at 59th and 72nd Streets and to replace the existing Life Safety Alarm System within the Park Avenue Tunnel and Park Avenue Viaduct
CENTRAL'S $1.2 million project to repair Park Avenue viaduct included inspection and replacement of corroded and worn structural members and installation of reinforcing plates and angles.
Rehabilitation of the Park Avenue viaduct between 110th and 132th Streets began in June 1976. The $ 5,859,500 contract includes structural repairs to the viaduct deck , repairs to stringers and replacement of all outside columns . The project
A few projects , such as replacement of the 138th Street Viaduct and repairs to the Park Avenue Viaduct , are handled by the Commuter Service Contracts Department .
York Central Railroad on the beefing - up of the mile long four - track main line Park Avenue viaduct in New York City . ... involved cutting , welding and bolting ; inspection and replacement of corroded and worn structural members ; and the
The restrictions on the Park Avenue viaduct . ment felt that the existing electrification Mechanical Engineering Department of the Next , Electro - Motive Division of General power supply ... By modify was obsolete and in need of replacement .
tion of the Park Avenue Viaduct and $ 1.3
Rehabilitate Park Avenue Viaduct
This program will include the continued upgrading of the Park Avenue Viaduct , including strengthening of columns and girders
New York , N. Y. The 80 - year - old Park Avenue viaduct , an elevated railroad structure running 22 blocks in Manhattan ... this week , includes structural repairs to the viaduct deck , repairs to stringers and replacement of all outside columns .
Tunnel safety
https://railroads.dot.gov/sites/fra.dot.gov/files/fra_net/15038/Tunnel_Safety_Analysis.pdf
Tunnel lighting
Wheel detector
https://www.pcac.org/meeting-minutes/meeting-minutes-nov-10-2010/
Improve emergency signs and lighting in the Park Avenue Tunnel and Grand Central Terminal’s track and platform areas.
https://new.mta.info/document/15571
Park Avenue Tunnel Power Initiatives
http://web.mta.info/capitaldashboard/allframenew_head.html?PROJNUM=m7050110&PLTYPE=1
Harlem and Hudson Power Improvements
86th Street substation
http://web.mta.info/mta/news/books/archive/150323_0830_MNR.pdf
Park Avenue Tunnel Rehabilitation and Priority Repairs in the Grand Central Terminal Train Shed
https://new.mta-hq.info/document/37936
Structures - $573 million. The Structures program includes the start of the multi-program, multi-phased replacement of the deteriorated Park Avenue Viaduct. The 2020-2024 Capital Program will advance the first phase to replace critical sections of the existing viaduct that will improve its reliability and lower the risk of service disruptions.
Grand Central Terminal Renewal Projects - $651 million. The 2020-2024 MTA Capital Program includes priority repairs to the Grand Central Terminal trainshed to preserve safe operations, as well as initial phases of trainshed replacement, with critical construction work undertaken in the first section while design work prepares MTA Metro-North Railroad for construction of the next section to be completed as part of the 2025-2029 Capital Program. The Park Avenue Tunnel project will construct four additional emergency exits in two new locations, improving egress from six to ten exits along in this critical tunnel running under the streets of Manhattan.
Grand Central Terminal Trainshed/Tunnel Structure (including Roof Expansion Joints) - $68 million. The project will increase the level of investment needed following an in-depth inspection and assessment of the 75 acre trainshed condition completed in 2013 under the 2010-2014 Capital Program. MTA Metro-North Railroad will begin a systematic block by block reconstruction of the trainshed as well as continue the spot priority repair program. Work in this capital program includes the design and superstructure replacement under Park Avenue Northbound and Southbound in the locations determined to be the highest priority.
Design of Park Avenue Tunnel Power Initiatives - $4 million. This project will do design for power investment, including third rail component work, tunnel lighting and the tunnel alarm, to be constructed in another program.
Harlem/Hudson Power at 86 St and 110 St - $10 million. This is a new project to complete power substation construction already ongoing. It addresses constructability issues which have delayed the overall project completion.
72nd Street substation
Replace Park Avenue Tunnel Emergency Exit Hatches and Stairs
The replacement of emergency exit hatches and stairs in the Park Avenue Tunnel will consist of a condition assessment, design, prioritization of procurement of a total of 12 emergency exit hatches and stairs. Along with construction under four (4) separate Tier II third-party mentoring contracts. The existing hatches and stairs are painted with lead-based paint, requiring lead contaminated waste disposal. The existing deteriorated hatches and stairs will be replaced with new ones that are more robust and durable, and deteriorated structural elements will be repaired or replaced.
Park Avenue Tunnel Improvements
The purpose is to make improvements to the Park Avenue Tunnel (PAT) to improve a safe means of egress out of the tunnel in the event of system emergency.
This project will consist of the design and construction of Two (2) Emergency Exits at locations to be determined by Engineering Consultant. Metro-North Railroad tentative locations are at: E 65th Street and E 79th Street. The work includes the following:
•Structural Improvements
•Mechanical Improvements
•Electrical Improvements
•Safety: Fire and Life Safety Improvements, and •Security System Improvements
GCT Mentoring- Park Avenue Tunnel Emergency Exit Hatches & Stairs Replacement
Park Avenue Viaduct Replacement
The purpose of this project is to perform repairs/replacement of large portions of the Park Avenue Viaduct – located on the Hudson Line in northern Manhattan. The first phase of the Viaduct replacement program, a design-build contractor will be engaged to design and replace the steel Viaduct starting from East 115th Street and continuing north. Sections of the Viaduct not scheduled for replacement will be rehabilitated
This project will progress the repair/replacement of the 127-year-old viaduct with inspection, design and construction of the repair package and with the first phase of the replacement package to assure that this critical major structure remains in service and trains can continue to serves Manhattan and Grand Central Terminal.
http://www.cb11m.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/MNR-PAV-CB-11-20210607.pdf
http://www.cb11m.org/park-avenue-viaduct-reconstruction/
Metropolitan Transportation Authority Construction & Development and Metro-North Railroad plan to replace major segments of the Park Avenue Viaduct between 115th Street and
132nd Street. The Park Avenue Viaduct is an elevated steel structure that was built in 1893 and carries four Metro-North Railroad tracks above Park Avenue in East Harlem. 98% of all Metro-North trains use the viaduct; 750 trains and 220,000 customers use the viaduct on a typical (Pre-Covid) weekday; the viaduct is a 1.25-mile-long steel structure (5 track
miles). The viaduct is the main artery that carries all riders to and from Grand Central Terminal and Harlem-125th Street Station.
The will be a state of good repair project which will completely replace the viaduct in two sections, 115th-123rd Streets and 128th-131st Streets.
All MNR East of Hudson trains must pass over the Viaduct to reach Harlem-125th Street Station and Grand Central Terminal – there are no alternate routes. The PAV is not in a state of good repair and current usage is well above the original design. The PAV is a single point of failure for East-of Hudson service without which the MNR cannot serve The Bronx, Manhattan, Westchester, Putnam, Dutchess, or Connecticut.
It is currently estimated that work could begin sometime in 2023 and would complete by 2025.
https://new.mta.info/document/10511
GCT Renewal Projects - $651 million
The GCT complex consists of two underground train platform levels with 47 platform tracks between East 45th Street and East 51st Street, along with a 10-track approach area between East 51st and East 57th Streets. These two platform levels constitute what is called the upper level and the lower level of the GCT trainshed. The upper level’s roof structure makes up the deck of Park Avenue and the adjoining side streets. The lower level’s roof structure makes up the structural support for the upper level tracks.
The less visible GCT trainshed is the operational backbone of Metro-North’s train service, with more than 700 daily trains carrying over 200,000 riders in and out of Midtown Manhattan. Metro- North is planning aggressive investments to address critical SGR needs of the GCT trainshed. A recent study identified areas of significant degradation of the GCT trainshed roof and its supports due to water and salt intrusion from Park Avenue and other areas over decades. Addressing the deteriorating condition of the trainshed is critical to operating one of the busiest passenger railroads in the country. Priority repairs continue to preserve safe operations, but the deteriorating condition of the trainshed has reached the point where critical elements of this over 100-year-old structure needs to be replaced. To minimize the impact on train service, the trainshed will be replaced in sections over several phases, with critical construction work undertaken in the first section while design work prepares Metro-North for construction of the next section to be completed as part of the 2025-2029 Capital Program. Investments in the trainshed address structural integrity and help to lower the risk of train service disruptions. The Park Avenue Tunnel project will construct four additional emergency exits in two new locations,
116
improving egress from six to ten exits along in this critical tunnel running under the streets of Manhattan.
A critical investment in the Structures element is the project to begin the multi-program, multi- phased replacement of the deteriorated 125-year old Park Avenue Viaduct, which carries all East of Hudson service into Midtown Manhattan. Following a fire in May 2016 which caused the viaduct to be severely damaged resulting in significant delays to service, Metro-North completed a thorough condition assessment of the entire structure which identified areas in urgent need of replacement. The 2020-2024 Capital Program will advance the first phase to replace critical sections of the existing viaduct that will improve its reliability and lower the risk of service disruptions. Replacement of the Park Avenue Viaduct will continue in subsequent capital programs.
Harlem Line Information Goodies
editThis information will be used to provide information on the Park Avenue Viaduct, and now closed stations, including 59th Street, 72nd Street, 86th Street, 110th Street, 138th Street, Morrisania, Claremont Park, and 183rd Street.
Timetables and contemporaneous accounts
edithttp://newyorktoursbygary.blogspot.com/2013/12/what-is-this-looks-like-wine-cellar-it.html
http://www.railroad.net/forums/viewtopic.php?f=67&t=16194&p=153907&hilit=marble+hill#p153907
http://www.railroad.net/forums/viewtopic.php?f=67&t=16262&p=154557&hilit=marble+hill#p154557
http://www.railroad.net/forums/viewtopic.php?f=93&t=78914&p=947571&hilit=marble+hill#p947571
Employee Timetables New York Central
1873 Timetable + Flushing and North Side RR
1891 reference to Central Morrisania
1893 Description of Mott Haven and Melrose Stations + mention of a Central Morrisania Station Harlem Depression
1894 Park Avenue Improvement Page 1
1894 Park Avenue Improvement Page 2
1900 Manhattan Elevated Map Pages 150-152
1901 Timetable not showing 86th Street
1905 four-tracking to White Plains
1906 Electrification of the New York Central and Hudson River Railroad.
1910 Harlem Line Rapid Transit
1917 New York Central/New Haven local station conflict
1918 - Possible increase in capacity, additional history Pages 69-80
1995 Park Avenue Viaduct Rebuild
Description of surrounding area
Description of 30th Street Branch and of Park Avenue local stations
Projects
editList of sources of projects Pages 623 and 624
Histories
editThe Bronx in the Innocent Years
History of the New York & Harlem Railroad
Grand Central's Engineer: William J. Wilgus and the Planning of Modern Manhattan
Joseph Brennan
edit1882 accident
1891 accident
https://www.loc.gov/resource/sn83030313/1891-02-21/ed-1/?sp=3&st=text
1893 lighting
1892 rapid transit plan
Studies
edithttp://www.ct.gov/dot/lib/dot/New_Haven_Line_Capacity_and_Speed_Analysis_Draft_Scope.pdf
Penn Station Access is a public works project planned by the Metropolitan Transportation Authority in New York City. The goal of the project is to allow Metro-North Railroad commuter trains to access Penn Station on Manhattan's West Side, using existing trackage owned by Amtrak. Metro North trains currently terminate exclusively at Grand Central on Manhattan's East Side.
The project would complement the ongoing East Side Access project, and would commence in two separate phases. The first phase, which is in the planning station, would add four new stations on the Northeast Corridor line in the Bronx and route some New Haven Line trains to Penn Station, while the second phase, which is unfunded, would add two more stations on Manhattan's West Side on the Empire Connection, which would be served by the Hudson Line.
History
editBackground
editHell Gate Line
editCONSOLIDATE
- New Rochelle-Port Morris: Harlem River and Port Chester Railroad opened 1873.[citation needed]
- Port Morris-Sunnyside Yard: New York Connecting Railroad (joint venture between NYNH&H and PRR): opened 1917.[citation needed]
The NH announced in 1905 that it would electrify its main line from New York to Stamford, Connecticut.[citation needed] Along with the construction of the new Grand Central Terminal, opened in 1912, the NYC electrified its lines, beginning on December 11, 1906 with suburban multiple unit service to High Bridge on the Hudson Line.[citation needed] Electric locomotives began serving Grand Central on February 13, 1907, and all NYC passenger service into Grand Central was electrified on July 1.[citation needed] NH electrification began on July 24 to New Rochelle, August 5 to Port Chester and October 6, 1907 the rest of the way to Stamford.[citation needed]
The Harlem River and Port Chester Railroad was chartered April 23, 1866 as a branch line from the Harlem River at the north end of the Harlem Bridge (now the Third Avenue Bridge) in New York City to the Village of Port Chester in Westchester County, New York at the Connecticut state border. Only the southern portion was completed, terminating instead about five towns southwest of Port Chester in New Rochelle. At the time, New Rochelle was the final railroad station when traveling from Connecticut before entering New York City.
The New York and New Haven Railroad and the Hartford and New Haven Railroad merged to create the larger New York, New Haven and Hartford Railroad in 1872. The HR&PC was leased by the New Haven Railroad in 1873 and opened later that year, running from the New Haven at New Rochelle south into the Bronx.[27] Leasing the line enabled the New Haven to establish a continuous line of service from Connecticut to Manhattan. The HR&PC provided freight service between New York City and the Harlem River Yard. Commuter service ran along the line from the Harlem River Terminal up to main-line New Haven in New Rochelle until 1931.
The New York, Westchester and Boston Railway commuter rail line opened in 1912, paralleling the HR&PC just to the west, south of the crossing of the Bronx River. Until 1924, when a new combined station was built, the short Willis Avenue Spur of the elevated IRT Third Avenue Line ran to the Harlem River terminal of the HR&PC and the NYW&B.
In 1917 the New York Connecting Railroad opened for passenger service between the HR&PC at Port Morris and the Pennsylvania Tunnel and Terminal Railroad at Sunnyside Yard. This allowed NYNH&H trains to run over the HR&PC and into New York Penn Station, though most continued to serve Grand Central Terminal until Amtrak took over intercity operations in 1971.
On January 1, 1927 the HR&PC was merged into the New York, New Haven and Hartford Railroad. The NYNH&H was merged into Penn Central in 1969, and Penn Central became part of Conrail in 1976. The HR&PC was ultimately sold to Amtrak and is now part of their Northeast Corridor used by its high-speed Acela Express.
Empire Connection
editCONSOLIDATE
http://myinwood.net/happy-150th-birthday-inwood/
The West Side Line was built by the Hudson River Railroad, which completed the forty miles (64 km) to Peekskill on September 29, 1849, opened to Poughkeepsie by the end of that year, and extended to Albany in 1851. The city terminus was at the junction of Chambers and Hudson Streets; the track was laid along Hudson, Canal, and West Streets, to Tenth Avenue, which it followed to the upper city station at 34th Street. Over this part of the right-of-way, the rails were laid at grade along the streets, and since by the corporation regulations locomotives were not allowed, the cars were drawn by a dummy engine, which, according to an 1851 description, consumed its own smoke. While passing through the city the train of cars was preceded by a man on horseback known as a "West Side cowboy" or "Tenth Avenue cowboy" who gave notice of its approach by blowing a horn.[29][30]
At 34th Street the right-of-way curved into Eleventh Avenue, the dummy engine was detached, and the regular locomotive took the train. As far as 60th Street, the track was at street level. The first cut was at Fort Washington Point. The railroad crossed Spuyten Duyvil Creek on a drawbridge; a fatal wreck occurred there January 13, 1882 when the Atlantic Express, stopped on the line, was rear-ended by a local train, telescoping the last two palace cars, where the stoves and lamps were upset and ignited the woodwork and upholstery.[31]
In 1867 the New York Central Railroad and Hudson River Railroad were united by Cornelius Vanderbilt, being merged in 1869 to form the New York Central and Hudson River Railroad. The railroad acquired the former Episcopal church's St. John's Park property and built a large freight depot at Beach and Varick streets which opened in 1868. The tracks south to Chambers Street were then removed.[32] In 1871, the Spuyten Duyvil and Port Morris Railroad opened, and most passenger trains were rerouted into the new Grand Central Depot via that line along the northeast bank of the Harlem River and the New York and Harlem Rail Road, also part of the New York Central system. The old line south of Spuyten Duyvil remained for freight to the docks along Manhattan's west side and minimal passenger service to the West Side Station on Chambers Street (used until 1916).
The Empire Connection allows Amtrak's passenger trains traveling on the Empire Corridor from Albany in upstate New York, and beyond, to enter Penn Station. Before its construction, Empire Corridor trains came into Grand Central Terminal, requiring passengers bound for Northeast Corridor trains to transfer to Penn Station via shuttle bus, taxicab or subway.[33]
When the West Side Yard for the Long Island Rail Road was built on the west side of Manhattan in 1986, a tunnel was built under it connecting Penn Station to the West Side Line just west of Eleventh Avenue, near the Javits Center. The project severed the southern portion of the West Side Line, whose viaduct was later repurposed as the High Line.[34] When additional funding later became available, one track along the northern part of the West Side Line was rebuilt for passenger service and named the Empire Connection. A short section of single track into Penn Station was electrified using third rail and overhead catenary, since diesel locomotives are not allowed in Penn Station's tunnels. North of 41st Street, the single track expands into two tracks and electrification on the line ends. A wye was constructed next to Track 2 (the westernmost track) to allow diesels to turn around. South of 49th Street, there is a crossover from Track 1 (the easternmost track) to Track 2, and another siding splits off Track 2 at 49th Street. The Empire Connection was double-tracked north of 39th Street to south of the Spuyten Duyvil Bridge in the mid-1990s.
On April 7, 1991, all of Amtrak's Empire Corridor trains began using the Empire Connection into Penn Station, ending service to Grand Central.[35] Besides being more convenient for transferring passengers, this saved Amtrak the expense of operating two stations in New York City.
Local service considered
editA 1969 proposal by the North Bronx Transportation Project considered running trains via the Hell Gate Bridge to Penn Station, with travel times estimated to be 25 minutes. Some plans for the Second Avenue Subway included integration with the upper portion of the line, providing express service from the East Side of Manhattan to Co-op City and Parkchester. This line was also considered for through-running with the Northeast Corridor in New Jersey, easing travel for residents of Westchester and Connecticut trying to get to New Jersey.[36]: 104, 128, 130
While not proposed officially, in June 1973, two Congressman and the Mayor of Yonkers proposed having trains run from Stamford in Connecticut to Penn Station, making stops at Pelham Manor, Co-op City, and Parkchester/Van Nest. They proposed that the line be operated by the MTA pending completion of the Second Avenue Subway, which was slated to be completed in 1980. Sixty percent of Co-op City residents that responded to a survey said that they would have used the proposed rail service.[37]
A study completed by the Urban Mass Transportation Administration (UMTA) in October 1990 titled "Coordinated Program to Improve Mass Transportation Accessibility between Queens and Manhattan" recommended moving the Hellgate Line to the north side of Sunnyside Yard to provide a transfer to the subway and Long Island Rail Road at a potential complex at Queens Plaza. It also suggested that through-routed Metro-North/NJ Transit service and Amtrak could stop at the complex.[36]: 130–131
A report completed by the New York City Department of City Planning in 1991, which analyzed the potential use of inactive railroad rights-of-ways for transit service, recommended that a subway line be constructed in the excess width of the right-of-way to provide better service to the eastern Bronx. They concluded that building a new subway line would allow the excess capacity on the tracks used by Amtrak to be used for Metro-North, New Jersey Transit or additional Amtrak service. The cost of the subway line on the 10 miles (16 km)-long route was estimated to be $150.5 million, with each track mile costing $15.8 million, and each station costing $11.6 million.[36]: 131
Meadowlands service
editNew Haven Line service to Penn Station already exists in a very limited fashion; the Train to the Game runs between New Haven and New Jersey Transit's Secaucus Junction. Connecting service to Meadowlands Sports Complex station to bring riders to Sunday 1 PM NFL games played by the New York Jets and New York Giants. This special service, operated using New Jersey Transit's equipment, makes a stop at Penn Station, but that is only a secondary benefit of the operation.
Planning
editThe Penn Station Access project was initiated on September 2, 1999 when the Federal Transit Administration (FTA), in conjunction with Metro-North Railroad issued a Notice of Intent (NOI) to prepare a Major Investment Study/Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). The EIS was intended to consider possible additions to Metro-North using existing rail lines, with the intention of providing flexibility and increased regional access.[38] Rail alternatives originally considered included Hudson and New Haven service, via the Empire Connection and Hell Gate Line, respectively, and a Harlem Line option via Spuyten Duyvil.[39]: A-3
In November 2000, the Final Scoping Document for Penn Station Access was completed, showing 18 alternatives, including a no-build option, a Transportation Systems Management option, various commuter rail options, and alternatives using other modes. Various alternatives considered various ways to run service to Penn Station from the New Haven Line, the Hudson Line, and the Harlem Line, either during all times, or only operating during off-peak hours and weekends. Service from the New Haven Line would diverge at New Rochelle, using Amtrak's Hell Gate Line to access Penn Station, while service from the Hudson Line would split off at Spuyten Duyvil via Amtrak's Empire Connection. The alternatives via the Harlem Line would have required the construction of wye tracks. One option would have branched off of the Harlem Line at Mott Haven, using a wye track to go north via the Hudson Line. Using a newly-constructed wye track at Spuyten Duyvil, service would turn south via the Empire Connection before reaching Penn Station. Another option considered would have constructed a wye track at Woodlawn, allowing Harlem trains to go east. Another wye track would have been built, allowing trains to access the Hell Gate Line and Penn Station. The final option would have required the reconstruction of the Port Morris Branch and the Hell Gate Line. An additional option would have extended service from Grand Central to Penn Station through the construction of a new tunnel.[39]: 14–16 [40]
In September 2002, a second screening took place narrowing five alternatives to four, and narrowing 20 potential station locations in the Bronx, Queens and Manhattan to five locations. The remaining alternatives considered would have used either the Hudson or New Haven Lines. The Harlem Line options were removed from consideration. The five remaining stations under consideration were at West 125th Street and West 59th Street under the Hudson alternative, and at Co-Op City, Parkchester and Hunts Point under the New Haven alternative.[38]
First proposed in 1999 by the Federal Transit Administration and Metro North Railroad,[38] using three miles of trackage,[41] the project would also involve the construction of six new Metro-North stations in the Bronx and Manhattan, allowing riders in these areas to easily access Penn Station, Westchester, Dutchess, and Putnam counties upstate as well as Fairfield and New Haven counties in Connecticut.[38][42] Existing Metro-North riders would have the choice of arriving at either Penn Station or Grand Central on the New Haven Line and the Hudson Line.[43]
Penn Station Access would also provide system resiliency to protect service in the event of natural or other disasters.[41] In order to accommodate more trains, there would be upgraded power and signal systems, the installation of new track and the realignment of existing track, and the replacement of railroad bridges. Metro-North service to Penn Station will begin after the completion of the East Side Access project.[44]
In its 2015–2019 Capital Program, the MTA budgeted $695 million for New Haven Line Penn Station Access work, including track, structures, signal, power and communications work along the Hell Gate Line, specifications for rolling stock for the line, and construction of the four new stations.[44] New track will be installed between the Parkchester/Van Nest station and north of the Co-Op City station. Three bridges along the route will be rehabilitated or replaced.[45] The MTA plans to complete necessary environmental and federal reviews by 2017. On January 8, 2014, New York Governor Andrew Cuomo voiced support for the project in his 2014 State of the State address.[41]
2016 — Section of new track between Parkchester and east of Co-Op City; rehabilitation or replacement of Eastchester Road Bridge, the Bronxdale Road Bridge, and the Bronx River Bridge
Intended to be provided as East Side Access opened into GCT
Preliminary environmental analyses were completed in 2015, MTA/Amtrak Letter Agreement to partner during Technical/planning phase; the MTA led the Penn Station Operations Study to determine whether there was adequate capacity
2016-Value capture opportunities studied, $695 million approved in the Capital Program,
Conceptual engineering work done-site survey, preliminary track alignments, station platform locations, bridge realignments, and the development of a project implementation plan
Work underway-perform power/operations simulations, stakeholder agreements on Concepts of operations, scope, alignments, complete environmental analysis
Track and structures work, communication/signal upgrades, third rail, substations, catenary improvements
http://web.mta.info/mta/news/books/docs/Penn%20Station%20Access%20Project%20Overview.pdf
March 2016-High-level agreement between Amtrak, MTA, LIRR, MNR to move project forward, Technical Analysis initiated after an agreement with Amtrak was executed
http://web.mta.info/mta/news/books/archive/160321_0830_MNR.pdf#page=48
Planning for the renovation of the Hell Gate Line started in September 2017. This included choosing track alignment, planning power installations and service operation, and studying the environment of the right-of-way. The potential track map calls for 2 tracks at Hunts Point and 4 tracks at the other three stations, with new Metro-North platforms and tracks on the inside and Amtrak tracks on the outside. All stations would have one center island platform.[46]
http://web.mta.info/mta/planning/psas/pdf/Parkchester121022.pdf
http://web.mta.info/mta/planning/psas/pdf/HuntsPt_121002.pdf
http://web.mta.info/mta/planning/psas/pdf/MorrisPark_September2012.pdf
http://web.mta.info/mta/planning/psas/pdf/CT-presentation.pdf
https://www.newsday.com/penn-station-could-see-10-metro-north-trains-every-hour-by-2019-1.4886244
https://new.mta.info/document/36611
https://www.ble-t.org/pr/news/pf_headline.asp?id=23322
https://secondavenuesagas.com/2011/11/11/mta-eying-metro-north-access-to-penn-station/
https://www.wnyc.org/story/amtrak-metro-north-bronx-expansion-moves-forward/
https://new.mta-hq.info/document/44646
https://secondavenuesagas.com/2010/03/22/back-to-the-drawing-board-for-metro-norths-west-side-stop/
https://www1.nyc.gov/assets/planning/download/pdf/plans/transportation/deck03a.pdf
https://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/09/nyregion/cuomo-supports-metro-north-expansion-in-the-bronx.html
https://www.courant.com/news/connecticut/hc-xpm-2007-07-24-0707240161-story.html
https://www.norwoodnews.org/diaz-to-amtrak-get-on-board-metro-north-expansion-in-the-bronx/
https://www.amny.com/transit/cuomo-backs-metro-north-access-to-penn-bronx-1-6759596/
https://secondavenuesagas.com/2013/03/18/forecasting-the-next-capital-plan-penn-station-access/
https://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2012/09/28/a-chance-for-faster-commute-times-in-the-bronx/
https://nec.amtrak.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/Northeast-Corridor-Infrastructure-Master-Plan.pdf
https://secondavenuesagas.com/2010/03/22/back-to-the-drawing-board-for-metro-norths-west-side-stop/
https://www.railwayage.com/passenger/commuterregional/metro-north-psny-access-planning-resumes/
http://web.mta.info/mta/news/books/archive/150323_0830_MNR.pdf#page=43
http://web.mta.info/mta/news/books/archive/170320_0830_MNR.pdf#page=97
http://web.mta.info/mta/news/books/archive/190325_0830_MNR.pdf#page=64
http://web.mta.info/mta/news/books/archive/180319_0830_MNR.pdf#page=59
http://web.mta.info/mta/news/books/pdf/190724_0900_Board.pdf#page=137
http://web.mta.info/mta/news/books/archive/140324_0815_MNR.pdf#page=87
Hell Gate Line
editThe first piece of Penn Station Access would route some New Haven Line trains down Amtrak's Northeast Corridor to Penn Station. The New Haven Line to Grand Central splits off from the Northeast Corridor near New Rochelle at SHELL Interlocking. The Northeast Corridor, known here as the Hell Gate Line south of New Rochelle, continues south crossing the Pelham Bay Bridge into the Bronx, the Hell Gate Bridge into Queens, and enters Manhattan through the East River Tunnels also used by the Long Island Rail Road. This phase includes the construction of four new Metro-North stations in the Bronx to be served by the New Haven Line, located in Co-op City, Morris Park, Parkchester/Van Nest, and Hunts Point.[42] The stations would provide fast, direct rides to West Midtown and facilitate reverse-commuting trips to Westchester County and Connecticut.[41] The new stations would provide transit access to the transit-deficient East Bronx.[45] These stations would not be served by Amtrak.
Previously, a station was also considered to be built in Astoria, however analysis showed that there wouldn’t be enough riders to justify the high cost of constructing a station.[47][40] The construction of a station was projected to cost over $20 million, and the station would only be able to be 4-car lengths long. The station would only have a projected annual ridership of 310,367.[40] Recently, local residents have pushed to have a Metro-North station built in Astoria between 41st Street and 44th Street, or at Northern Boulevard and Broadway in Woodside.[48][49][50]
Yard upgrades at Penn Station and at New Rochelle Yard will be part of the project.[51]
Service will begin after East Side Access service commences. The opening of that project would divert some Long island Rail Road trains to Grand Central, therefore opening up slots at Penn Station for Metro-North service. During peak hours there will be between six and ten trains to Penn Station. There will be four trains per hour to Connecticut in the reverse peak direction, and there will be two trains per hour to and from Penn Station during off-peak and weekends.[52]
The project would add redundancy to the regional transportation network in case of service interruption. Regional connectivity will be increased with accessible transfers to Amtrak, the Long Island Rail Road and New Jersey Transit at Penn Station. Through-running between the New Haven Line and New Jersey Transit would be possible, linking business centers in Connecticut and New Jersey while providing access to Newark Liberty Airport.[52]
The second part of the project would bring Hudson Line trains into Penn Station using Amtrak's Empire Connection on Manhattan's West Side. The Empire Connection splits off from the Hudson Line near Spuyten Duyvil and is currently used by Amtrak's Empire Corridor trains traveling from Upstate New York, Canada, and other destinations. The majority of the Empire Connection is not electrified, so the M3 and M7 electric railcars in use on the Hudson Line are currently unable to travel to Penn Station. This phase includes a proposal for two new Metro-North stations to be served by the Hudson Line. Both stations would be located in Manhattan along the Empire Connection: one at West 125th Street in Manhattanville and the other near 62nd Street on the Upper West Side.[53]
References
edit- ^ "FTA studies".
{{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires|journal=(help) - ^ Records & Briefs New York State Appellate Division.
- ^ Mazza, Frank (June 7, 1973). "Penn C Will Ax 34 Runs; Curfew for Grand Central". New York Daily News. p. 5. Retrieved July 5, 2021.
- ^ "State Blocks Central's Appeal For Higher Fares". Poughkeepsie Journal. July 18, 1962. Retrieved July 5, 2021.
- ^ "Students to Benefit From Ticket Cut". Poughkeepsie Journal. January 12, 1966. Retrieved July 5, 2021.
- ^ a b c Brodey, Jesse (January 5, 1964). "Central Hopes to Lose Short-Run Rider Via Fare Boost". New York Daily News. Retrieved July 5, 2021.
- ^ "Zone Fare Proposal Of the N.Y. Central Approved by State". The New York Times. January 11, 1964. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved June 23, 2017.
- ^ "Central Gets Right To Keep Ticket Zones". The Journal News. White Plains, New York. November 27, 1964. Retrieved July 5, 2021.
- ^ "Act to Lure Riders Back to Rails". New York Daily News. April 21, 1963. Retrieved July 5, 2021.
- ^ a b "CENTRAL TO ADD TO EXPRESS RUNS; 2‐Year Project to Increase Commuter Services to Begin Next Month; HARLEM LINE AFFECTED; 10 More Trains to Be Used Daily for Westchester, Putnam and Fairfield". The New York Times. June 15, 1964. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved July 5, 2021.
- ^ "Harlem Adds 10 Trains To Serve Area". The Daily Item. Port Chester, New York. June 29, 1964. Retrieved July 5, 2021.
- ^ a b c d e Loconto, James M. (November 27, 1967). "Reviving Commuter Rail Service". Conference on New Approaches to Urban Transportation: 15–19.
- ^ Directory of Research, Development & Demonstration Projects. U.S. Urban Mass Transportation Administration. 1965. p. 36.
- ^ "Four Trains Added To NYC Harlem Line". The Daily Times. Mamaroneck, New York. April 23, 1966. Retrieved July 5, 2021.
- ^ "Train Times To Stay; 2 Changes Up". The Herald Statesman. Yonkers, New York. October 28, 1966. Retrieved July 5, 2021.
- ^ "N.Y. Central To Put On 5 Night Trains". The Daily Item. Port Chester, New York. January 21, 1967. Retrieved July 5, 2021.
- ^ "NYCRR Plans To Continue All County Experimental trains". The Herald Statesman. Yonkers, New York. March 29, 1967. Retrieved July 5, 2021.
- ^ "'Night Owl' Trains Slate Extra Fare". The Daily Item. Port Chester, New York. September 16, 1967. Retrieved July 5, 2021.
- ^ Directory of Research, Development & Demonstration Projects. U.S. Department of Transportation, Urban Mass Transportation Administration. 1969. p. 137.
- ^ a b Penn Central 1967 Annual Report (PDF). Penn Central Railroad. 1968. p. 18.
- ^ White, Frederick S. (1972). Public Transit: A Bibliography Compiled by Frederick S. White (PDF). Texas Transportation Institute. p. 29.
- ^ a b "Announcing The Extension of New Zone Schedules Effective June 28, 1965". Flickr. New York Central System. June 1965. p. page 1, page 2.
{{cite web}}: Missing or empty|url=(help)CS1 maint: url-status (link) - ^ "MTA Is Moving On Takeover Of Commuter Trains". The Bridgeport Telegram. July 18, 1969. Retrieved July 6, 2021.
- ^ "P.S.C. Orders Penn Central To Delay Timetable Changes". The New York Times. March 21, 1970. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved July 6, 2021.
- ^ a b Lindsey, Robert (September 2, 1970). "NEW HAVEN TO TRY 'ZONES' IN EVENING". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved July 6, 2021.
- ^ "New Train Times Confuse Commuters". The New York Times. September 22, 1970. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved July 6, 2021.
- ^ NYNH&H History
- ^ Brennan, Joseph (2002). "Abandoned Stations : Bronx Railroad Stations". www.columbia.edu. Retrieved September 28, 2017.
- ^ Hudson River and the Hudson River Rail-Road. Boston: Bradbury & Guild. 1851. p. 12. Retrieved September 18, 2015.
- ^ Highline Photo of the Week West Side Cowboy
- ^ "Fatal Disaster on the Hudson River Railroad". Frank Leslie's Weekly. January 21, 1882. Retrieved April 10, 2010.
- ^ Joint Report of the New York, New Jersey Port and Harbor development Commission, 1917
- ^ Penn Station could be reached from the Empire Corridor, but only via an impractical route from the Bronx, via the New Haven Line, that then backtracked several miles to the north, to Pelham Manor, to the Northeast Corridor line.
- ^ Voboril, Mary (March 26, 2005). "The Air Above Rail Yards Still Free". Newsday. New York.
- ^ "Travel Advisory; Grand Central Trains Rerouted To Penn Station". The New York Times. April 7, 1991. Retrieved February 7, 2010.
- ^ a b c An Assessment of the Transit Service Potential of Inactive Railroad Rights-of-way and Yards Final Report. New York City Department of City Planning. October 1991.
- ^ Hudson, Edward (June 9, 1973). "A NEW RAIL LINK SOUGHT FOR BRONX". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved December 25, 2016 – via New York Times Archive.
- ^ a b c d "Penn Station Access Study". web.mta.info. Metropolitan Transportation Authority. Retrieved September 26, 2017.
- ^ a b "FINAL SCOPING DOCUMENT Major Investment Study/ Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Penn Station Access" (PDF). mta.info. Metropolitan Transportation Authority. November 2000. Retrieved September 27, 2017.
- ^ a b c "Metro-North PENN STATION ACCESS MIS/DEIS Comparative Screening Results Report (September 2002)" (PDF). mta.info. Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade & Douglas, Inc. September 2002. Retrieved February 17, 2016.
- ^ a b c d "Metro-North Penn Station Access" (PDF). mta.info. Metropolitan Transportation Authority. Retrieved February 17, 2016.
- ^ a b "Final Scoping Document : Major Investment Study / Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Penn Station Access" (PDF). Web.mta.info. Retrieved April 23, 2015.
- ^ Stephen Jacob Smith. "West Side vs. East Side (Access): Upper West Side May Get Metro-North Stop". Observer.com. Retrieved April 23, 2015.
- ^ a b "MTA 2015-2019 Capital Program, pages 152 and 225" (PDF). Retrieved January 11, 2016.
- ^ a b "MTACC Quarterly Progress Report to CPOC Penn Station Access Project Overview December 12, 2016" (PDF). mta.info. Metropolitan Transportation Authority. December 12, 2016. Retrieved January 27, 2017.
- ^ "Capital Program Oversight Committee Meeting - September 25, 2017" (PDF). mta.info. Metropolitan Transportation Authority. September 25, 2017. pp. 46–51. Retrieved September 25, 2017.
- ^ "Petition for Metro-North station in Queens". NY Daily News. Retrieved February 17, 2016.
- ^ "Locals Pushing for Metro-North Stations in Queens". DNAinfo New York. Retrieved February 17, 2016.
- ^ "Petition for Metro-North station in Queens". New York Daily News. October 2, 2012. Retrieved February 17, 2016.
- ^ "Metro-North PENN STATION ACCESS MIS/DEIS Final Scoping Document" (PDF). mta.info. Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade & Douglas, Inc. Edwards and Kelcey, Inc. Retrieved February 17, 2016.
- ^ "PSA: Shops & Yards". mta.info. Metropolitan Transportation Authority. Retrieved February 1, 2017.
- ^ a b "Connecticut Presentation (2013)" (PDF). mta.info. Metropolitan Transportation Authority. March 2013. Retrieved January 27, 2017.
- ^ "Penn Station Access Proposed "Build" Alternative" (PDF). mta.info. Metropolitan Transportation Authority. Retrieved February 17, 2016.
External links
edit| East of Hudson |  | |
|---|---|---|
| West of Hudson (operated by NJ Transit) | ||
| Non-revenue and Predecessor lines | ||
| Other | ||
Category:Rail transportation in New York City Category:Transportation projects in New York City
West of Hudson Regional Transit Access Study
edithttp://web.mta.info/mta/news/books/archive/160321_0830_MNR.pdf#page=50
Port Jervis Line Capacity Improvements Project
edithttp://web.mta.info/mta/news/books/archive/160321_0830_MNR.pdf#page=50
MOW work
editImprovements
edit- Station enhancements
- Safety reforms
- North White Plains parking
- Transit Oriented Development
- Parking study Purdy's/Croton Falls
- Service
- September 2015; Port Jervis Line
- Purchase of M8s
- GP35 locomotive overhaul
- Grand Central Train Shed Rehab/Leak remediation
- Harlem Line station work, Fordham
- Croton-Harmon, Tarrytown stations
- New Haven Line rehabs, including Port Chester
- Prospect Road Bridge
- Train Time Mobile App, Real-Time LCD
- Harmon Shop
- New Haven Yard
- New Have Line signaling
- Positive Train Control
- Harlem Line Capacity — CP 109 interlocking
- Hudson/Harlem Power Improvements
- New Haven Line traction power
- Undergrade/Overhead Bridge