Comments on: Metro-North considering W. 60th St. station

By: Back to the drawing board for Metro-North’s West Side stop :: Second Ave. Sagas

Mon, 22 Mar 2010 19:24:59 +0000

[...] one year ago, I reported on Metro-North’s desire to build a station near Riverside Park on Manhattan’s Upper West Side. The station, eyed for 60th St. as part of Extell’s Riverside South development, would have [...]

By: Christop

Christop — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 18:24:44 +0000

What am I missing here? What connection exists between Grand Central/Park Avenue Tunnel and the West Side?

By: Moynihan Station building steam :: Second Ave. Sagas | A New York City Subway Blog

Thu, 17 Sep 2009 04:29:59 +0000

[...] two new stations — one near W. 125th St. and one on the Upper West Side. In March, I noted that the W. 60th area seemed a likely spot for a Metro-North stop. The New Haven line will run to Penn Station via the [...]

By: Avi

Avi — Wed, 01 Apr 2009 22:22:38 +0000

I don’t see that easement being worth much. By 72nd people are close enough to the 123 that having a stop in the park isn’t worth much, and south we’re talking 1 or two stops max?

By: anonymouse

anonymouse — Wed, 01 Apr 2009 05:06:11 +0000

“Law requires that the MTA’s trains in Manhattan tunnels run on electric power.”
False. Common sense and biology require that. Running diesel trains into tunnels in any significant numbers would mean lots of diesel fumes and carbon monoxide, and an environment not compatible with human life. During the blackout, MNR did run diesels into Grand Central, but only once every two hours, to give the tunnels time to air out.

By: orulz

orulz — Wed, 01 Apr 2009 02:16:33 +0000

The west side line is only 2 tracks (with no room for expansion south of 72nd street), and just 1 track for the connection into Penn. If you start adding a bunch of stations, particularly south of 72nd, you start having to worry about interference with Amtrak trains too.

By: orulz

orulz — Wed, 01 Apr 2009 02:09:15 +0000

On the topic of transit and Riverside South, what will they ever do with the west side light rail easement? Is it being continued as riverside south is built out? Looks to me like there's only space for a single track but I am not an expert.

By: Alon Levy

Alon Levy — Tue, 31 Mar 2009 22:51:49 +0000

I can get wanting to extend the 7 northwest, but why then extend it back crosstown along 72nd? Nobody would take the line all the way because of the U curve, and the 7′s capacity issues are at the Queens end, so it won’t improve service. It wouldn’t even provide a good Uptown shuttle service, because the 6 stops at 68th and 77th but not 72nd. A far better Uptown crosstown service would be under 125th, which is an express stop on all lines that reach it, and which can easily tie in to SAS.

By: Alon Levy

Alon Levy — Tue, 31 Mar 2009 22:48:17 +0000

Alex, there’s something to be said for additional stops on the Upper West Side. However:

1. The line is on the wrong side of Riverside Park. Location means everything; that’s why the B/C are underused, while the 1/2/3 are bursting at the seams. It can work only in conjunction with intense development along the riverfront. Personally, I think they should demolish the Henry Hudson Parkway and build at Atlantic Yards densities above it.

2. The line already has a single-track bottleneck. To use it effectively for local service you need two tracks throughout, and preferably two dedicated local tracks in Manhattan, which are separate from those to be used by Amtrak and MNRR.

Also, don’t believe the people who say MNRR to Penn can’t happen until ESA and ARC are completed. MNRR can happen tomorrow if the MTA is willing to either turn around its commuter trains at reasonable speed, or send some of the LIRR’s diesel-electrics onto the Hudson Line after they reach Penn from the east.

By: Alon Levy

Alon Levy — Tue, 31 Mar 2009 22:41:38 +0000

The point of my comparison to the subway is that the MTA is already turning trains around very quickly, without any yard space, in stations with very constrained pedestrian flow. There isn’t much space for pedestrian traffic flow at Times Square, either, and yet the 7 manages 24 tph there with 2 tracks, and the shuttle manages 1-minute turnarounds.

The bottlenecks on the tracks themselves are the major problem. My point here is that it’s these bottlenecks that are the limiting factor, rather than track capacity at Penn itself. Of course there’s no space on the access tracks for running trains at high frequency on all 21 tracks; there is, however, a little more space than is currently used, with the Empire Connection and the East River Tunnels at a few tph below capacity.

And as for rolling stock, I’m not proposing any new trains – just that the existing trains be turned around more quickly than they are right now. This may actually reduce the amount of rolling stock needed, since the trains will be idle less.