[Date Prev][Date Next]
[Chronological]
[Thread]
[Top]
Re: Re:Re: (erielack) NY Harbor
Jim,
Great history. You cogently point out how the railroads were their own
worst enemies in promoting roads over rails. Utterly amazing. The
railroads were very naive and shortsighted when it came to the role that
trucks would eventually play. The railroads couldn't conceive of a world
where transportation didn't revolve around rails. Even so, correct me if
I'm wrong, but there was a proposed joint venture involving the PRR, DL&W
and a couple of other railroads that would have built a four-track bridge
into Manhattan with a union station being built instead of what became Penn
Station. I'm sure there were political issues involved with this, but the
cost blew the DL&W literally out of the water--this was during the
Truesdale administration and I'm sure if anyone could have pulled it off,
good 'ol Bill could have--and the DL&W turned it's attention to rebuilding
its mainline instead. Can you possibly comment on this?
Chuck
"Jim Guthrie"
<jguthrie_@_pipeline.
com> To: <erielack_@_lists.railfan.net>
Sent by: cc:
erielack-owner_@_list Subject:
s.elhts.org Re: Re:Re: (erielack) NY Harbor
08/11/2005 10:36 PM
Please respond to
"Jim Guthrie"
> This discussion has been going on for almost 100 years, since before WWI.
> The Port of New York Authority (miscalled the >"Port of Authority" by
> millions for decades) was formed to explore the feasibility of a rail
> freight tunnel between New Jersey, >where most railroads ended, and New
> York City, where most customers and ships were located. To get an idea
of
> costs and >benefits, they first built a vehicular tunnel -- the Holland
> Tunnel -- which became an immediate cash cow. They then built the
> >Lincoln Tunnel, then doubled them both, then the George Washington
> Bridge. The money was (and is) coming in faster than they >could spend
> it.
Considering how hard the railroads fought against the Port [of] Authority's
tunnel plans, it takes some great historic revisionism to decide the PA was
at fault. The railroads strongly encouraged the highway tunnel projects and
fought tooth and nail against rail, fearing it would give another line a
competitive advantage.
As for the above mythology, let's start with the fact that the Holland
Tunnel was not a Port [of] Authority project, although they took it over
later after it was opened. The Holland tunnel was supported by the DL&W and
the LV; the Erie groused about it because it took a few acres of Erie land
in Jersey City.
The president of the Lehigh Valley testified many times against the PA,
declaring "We need highways tunnels, not rail tunnels! Rail tunnels are
impractical!"
When the Port [of] Authority actually built some track (completing the
missing links on "Line 13" that would allow through freights to run from
Bayonne to Edgewater, the Erie sued to prevent its use!
The DL&W built its wonderful huge freight terminal convenient to the new
Holland Tunnel so that trucks could make LCL deliveries city-wide.
The PRR -- which controlled the New Haven in the 1920s -- was quite happy
with its Greenville-Bay Ridge operation, and planned its own tunnel. The
PRR
also sabotaged Mayor Hylan's four track tunnel to Staten Island (two
passenger, two freight, a small length actually built) by getting to Gov Al
Smith, who saw to it that Hylan's career came to an end in favor of Jimmy
Walker. Smith left office with a huge block of PRR stock that he did not
own
entering office; I believe he may have even served on the PRR board for a
time, but I digress . . .
The New York Central actively campaigned against any cross-Hudson rail
projects in the New York State legislature; as we know, they also lobbied
hard (along with the PRR) to make sure the Corps of Engineers kept upping
the requirements on a cross-Hudson bridge to make sure it could never
happen.
The B&O (and by proxy, Reading and CNJ) were the only railroads that acted
with any integrity in the entire matter, but one keep hearing the canard
about the Port [of] Authority didn;t built the rail tunnel because . . .
nonsense.
Now -- let's fast-forward to the $100-million. This is not what it appears
to be. What it is is strictly a Rep. Jerrold Nadler idea to get trucks of
the streets of his Manhattan District. Having a TOFC or Container termnal
in
Maspeth does NOT get trucks off city streets, only within a limited area of
Nadler.s West Side Congressional District.
That the LIRR (read NY&A) would not be permitted to carry the freight
traffic to and from Nassau and Suffolk is the starting point here -- NIMBYs
are already stopping the triple tracking in Nassau County; other NIMBYS are
fighting the Pilgrim freight terminal idea, and in general, the locals are
making the Mayor of Oradell (let's bring this back to E-L-related content
<g>) look like a man with a double-digit IQ when it comes to rail freight
traffic. And it also begs the question as to why CSX or NS would want the
additional expense of hauling freight another couple of miles when they
have
good terminals now.
Cheers,
Jim
PS, for those of you not following the last paragraph, the Mayor of Oradell
stopped installation of a passing siding there because "it would allow NJT
to run 250-car freight trains on the NJ&NY through Oradell and block the
crossings." And NJT allowed this thinking to prevail! Neat, huh?
The Erie Lackawanna Mailing List
Sponsored by the ELH&TS
http://www.elhts.org
The Erie Lackawanna Mailing List
Sponsored by the ELH&TS
http://www.elhts.org
------------------------------