Comments on: Lavishing Money on Access to Stewart Airport

By: Robert

Robert — Wed, 03 Feb 2010 04:34:23 +0000

You’re right–Buffalo and Montreal are pretty outlandish at this point. My point was that there are projects where those billion(s) will have far more impact. There is no reason why trains can’t run at 150mph on constant-tension catenary through NJ on the NEC, and for that matter, there is plenty of room for improvement on the Empire Corridor.

By: Froggie

Froggie — Thu, 28 Jan 2010 17:03:16 +0000

Per a previous thread, one could argue that Burlington could be an “intermediate destination” between Albany and Montreal…

By: Alon Levy

Alon Levy — Thu, 28 Jan 2010 07:37:47 +0000

Amtrak already has a decent chunk of air/rail traffic from New York to Albany, I think 30-ish percent. Buffalo and Montreal are a different matter, but neither would be the first or even second stage of a Northeast HSR initiative. Montreal would probably be the last stage, due to little economic integration between it and the Northeast and no intermediate destination between it and Albany.

By: Robert

Robert — Thu, 28 Jan 2010 02:38:28 +0000

When I flew out of EWR to Rome last month, I noticed that the departure boards showed a plethora of flights to Albany, Buffalo, Montreal, and several other cities that, with a respectable rail system, should be more easily reachable without flying. It seems to me that the billion dollars that the Stewart link would take, correctly placed, could cut out quite a bit of congestion and the need for Stewart in the first place. Further, I can’t envision an airline risking meager capital on such a remote airport, especially since it has seen such little use for decades. I’d rather see that money go to improve rail travel through New York State, bring 150-mph travel to the Northeast Corridor through NJ, ease bottlenecks through Connecticut, or even a third track on the North Jersey Coast Line through my town.

By: Alon Levy

Alon Levy — Sat, 06 Jun 2009 16:25:11 +0000

That’s why I called the line circuitous. It’s 95 miles by rail, but only 79 by highway, and 71 by local road.

By: Adirondacker

Adirondacker — Sat, 06 Jun 2009 03:15:06 +0000

two-hour Port Jervis-to-Hoboken runtime.

Respectable for a 95 mile trip through the mountains. . .it’s farther from New York, by rail, than Philadelphia.

By: Alon Levy

Alon Levy — Thu, 04 Jun 2009 20:01:25 +0000

Chris: the New York Times has ridership statistics for each station (link). The Bergen County Line, Main Line, and Pascack Valley Line have a total of 13,500 weekday riders among them, slightly more than 5-6% the systemwide total. The Metro-North west of the Hudson gets another 3,000 weekday riders, a little more than 1% the MNRR total. I'm not sure about speeds in New Jersey, but in New York, the Port Jervis Line is particularly onerous, with its two-hour Port Jervis-to-Hoboken runtime.

By: Chris H

Chris H — Wed, 03 Jun 2009 16:38:00 +0000

@Alon,

I don’t know what you mean by paltry. Sure, the ridership is not anything like the NEC but during rush hour, the 5-6 car trains are standing room only.

I don’t know what you mean by slow. Aside from a few curves, they are 79 mph running. An express from Ramsey-Route 17 will get to Hoboken in 37 min, which is faster than a car w/o traffic.

Investment by the PANYNJ will only make this better and will help address issues that the would not otherwise be able to tackle (for example, I have a copy of the MIS which specifically mentions straightening out the curve between Suffern and Sloatsberg which is a huge expense requiring a viaduct. It also provides for double tracking to Salisbury Mills-Corwall).

The PJ Line is only really circuitous west of where a Stewart Airport Link would be.

By: Alon Levy

Alon Levy — Wed, 03 Jun 2009 04:33:30 +0000

Even in New Jersey, the Main/Bergen County Line and the Pascack Valley Line see paltry traffic levels. They’re slow, regardless of the fact that they feed into Hoboken and not Penn Station; the route of the Port Jervis Line in New York is especially circuitous.

By: Ray

Ray — Wed, 03 Jun 2009 00:12:53 +0000

Guys don’t forget that NJ is west of the Hudson. One cannot mention a Port Authority project and then isolate the downstate west of Hudson MTA MNRR ops. MetroNorth’s west of Hudson service is integrated into NJ Transit operations which are very heavily used. We all know that MN’s Port Jervis line becomes NJT’s Main Line once it crosses the state border.

The PA is not building Stewart for Downstate NY residents alone. It’s a bi-state agency – both Governors have to approve the capital plans. NJ’s needs are an important part of the mix.

There is massive congestion at three NY area airports. EWR and LGA are notoriously affected by bad weather. All three airports are hemmed in by natural features or high density development. We need greater air transport capacity (yes saving is great too) Yet there is no where to grow or repair the mistakes of the past made at our legacy airports.

An FAA conceived scheme to impose congestion pricing on take offs and landings (dropped) might have made Stewart a very attractive option for leisure and business travelers looking for more reasonable options. Something similar could be in the offing that would make people take a second look at Stewart.

The PA is improving NJT’s access to Manhattan through its funding of ARC. Part of that effort will include one seat rides to Penn Station. Its not outrageous to conceive of a Stewart Airport Express train making stops at Secaucus Junction, Ridgewood and Suffern before heading to the airport.

I’m dubious that only a few hundred would find it useful. I think electrification of the west of Hudson lines is something that should be examined by the PA, NJT and MNRR.