[Date Prev][Date Next]
[Chronological]
[Thread]
[Top]
RE: Re:Re: (erielack) NY Harbor
Chuck, Jim hasn't (so far) commented, but according to _The Port of New York_, by Carl Condit - one
of the best books I ever read - the DL&W seriously considered building THEIR OWN tunnel into
Manhattan. This was early in the last century, at which point, the DL&W was making more money than
it really knew what to do with. The bridge idea was mostly either a) technically infeasible at that
time, and/or b) nixed by the defense department since the bridge, if it fell due to enemy action,
would present a hazard to navigation.
_The Port of New York_, Condit's book, is an amazing history as it ties together laterally many
contemporaneous threads of historical narrative. It's not >just< about railroads, or shipping, or
air travel, it's all those at once combined with politics, social developments, economic history and
more. VERY good reading. It's out of print, I believe, and it commands very healthy prices on
resale. Two volumes, BTW.
SGL
> -----Original Message-----
> From: erielack-owner_@_lists.elhts.org
> [mailto:erielack-owner_@_lists.elhts.org] On Behalf Of
> Charles_Walsh_@_Berlex.com
> Sent: Friday, August 12, 2005 7:14 AM
> To: Jim Guthrie
> Cc: erielack_@_lists.railfan.net; erielack-owner@lists.elhts.org
> Subject: 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
>
The Erie Lackawanna Mailing List
Sponsored by the ELH&TS
http://www.elhts.org
------------------------------