Re: (erielack) Which Stewart Airport is it

["Alexander Scandrett" <"scanlpr_@_usit.net">]

The Stewart International Airport is located on 207 West about 2 Miles =
from I-87 & I- 84 interchange.

Alex
- ----- Original Message -----=20
From: Gary R.Kazin <"gkazin_@_netscape.net">
To: <"erielack_@_internexus.net">
Sent: Thursday, January 13, 2000 13:52
Subject: Re: (erielack) Which Stewart Airport is it


> "Inlinebob_@_aol.com" wrote:
> > The burning question in these Tappan Zee threads is "Where is =
Stewart=20
> > Airport." Some say Nyack, some say Newburgh which is where I think =
it is.
>=20
>=20
> The last time I went by a sign that said 'Stewart Airport', it was =
west of NY
> 300 near Thruway exit 17 for Newburgh.  The former US Air Force base =
is south
> of NY 17K and I-84.  My 1974 Mobil map of 'Greater New York' shows the =
airport
> at this location.  There was an airport for light aircraft between =
Spring
> Valley and Nanuet called Ramapo Valley, but a Shop-Rite shopping =
center has
> been there for many years.  There's no airport in Nyack...
>=20
> >=20
> > Given that, there are then TWO rail routes being considered for =
connection
> to the east side of the Hudson... the Erie via Nyack to Suffern and =
beyond
> (NS) and the CSX River Line up to Newburgh.
>=20
>=20
> I don't think so.  The article says there are two parts to the rail =
link.  One
> is between Stewart and Port Jervis.  I think they garbled this; it =
makes more
> sense if it is between the airport and the existing line to Port =
Jervis.  I
> think that's what the MTA said.  The other part is between Suffern and =
Port
> Chester via the bridge.  The Rockland County part could be done =
partially by
> reconstruction of the Erie Piermont line or by going over the Thruway; =
you
> know which I prefer.  NY-MTA owns this line as far as I know; it is =
not
> officially abandoned although it has been idle for ages.  The =
Westchester
> County part most likely will be planned to run over I-287, and could =
include
> connecting tracks to the Hudson or Harlem line, or even the New Haven =
(toward
> that city) or just transfer stations.  The Putnam branch is abandoned =
north of
> the NYC line, and didn't offer service to GCT, so it's not a real =
candidate
> compared to active lines.  I feel that trans-bridge ridership will be =
pitiful
> if through service to Grand Central is not offered, although there are =
many
> people living in Rockland who work in Westchester, especially White =
Plains.
>=20
> The article says NOTHING about connections east of the Hudson other =
than at
> Port Chester, which is on the NEW HAVEN line.
> =20
> >=20
> > Unless of course, someone is putting the Walkill RR back ;-)
>=20
> I don't think that accomplishes much; it faces the wrong way.  A =
change of
> directions or a slow-speed wye track means delays.  Plus it's indirect =
(about
> 10 miles longer) for the expected major destination, New York City.
>=20
> >=20
> > Given that, it seems that the bridge will have a dramatic freight =
rail
> impact for both NS and CSX... one that would allow CSX to give up the =
northern
> part of the Hudson line totally to Amtrak (retaining local rights) or =
if a
> full wye was built on the east side CSX would have a "double-track" =
route to
> Piermont.=20
>=20
>=20
> Only if MTA allows NS or CSX to use it.  They don't have to.  And what =
would
> they do at Piermont?  Transfer containers to barges?
>=20
> >=20
> > More interesting for NS is the opportunity open traffic to New =
England that
> cannot move under Penn Station.
>=20
> They have to go somewhere east from Port Chester.  On the New Haven?  =
With
> AMTRAK trying to do 100 between SHELL and New Haven?  And 150 beyond?  =
Or
> would they buy the P&W's rights?
>=20
> >=20
> > Also interesting to the dreamer in me is the chance for Amtrak to =
restore=20
> NY-Buffalo/Chicago service on the Erie directly from GCT or NYP!
>=20
>=20
> This would require a major financial commitment by a big shipper, like =
UPS or
> USPS, who would dictate when the trains run, like the proposal to =
split the
> Boston section off the LAKE SHORE LIMITED that surfaced in the fall.  =
I don't
> think there are enough potential passengers on the Erie route west of =
Port
> Jervis to cover even 1/3 of the operating costs.  AMTRAK isn't going =
to add
> trains that can't cover their expenses, either with help from a state
> government or from a shipper in addition to the passenger fares.  This =
would
> probably be a 24 hour ride, but it MIGHT offer daylight service in =
Ohio,
> Indiana and Illinois, which would be a plus.
>=20
> Gary Kazin
> Rockaway, New Jersey
>=20
> New Jersey Transit - THE WAY TO GO!!!
>=20
> (I have no affiliation with New Jersey Transit.)
>=20
> ____________________________________________________________________
> Get your own FREE, personal Netscape WebMail account today at =
http://webmail.netscape.com.
>=20
>  ------------------------------------------------------------
> Visit the erielack photopage at http://el-list.railfan.net
>=20


 ------------------------------------------------------------
Visit the erielack photopage at http://el-list.railfan.net

------------------------------

End of Erielack Digest V2 #575
******************************


 ---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, send an e-mail to "majordomo_@_internexus.net" with the
command unsubscribe erielack-digest in the BODY of the message.
To switch to the regular version of the list, include the command
subscribe erielack as the second line in the e-mail described above.