New York City Transit Planning

Welcome to our Transit Planning WebSite

Here's a preview of some of the exciting projects we have put together for you:

Our feature article: Sometimes it appears New York City never had a bit of transit planning.

See historic photographs of Grand Central Terminal, New Haven Railroad electrification, New York's subway system, marine rail operations in New York Harbor and the New Haven Railroad.

Read about a 1961 study by the Ford Foundation for: "...the feasibility of setting up an agency or agencies to take responsibility for rail commuter service in the New York metropolitan region".

See a 1965 study of the capacity of the New York Central Railroad's electrified route from Woodlawn to Grand Central Terminal, including the terminal facilities.
by Edward Karl Morlok, Jr.

Read our article on airports and the train to the plane.
You won't want to miss a companion article on the last JFK Express.

We have plenty of reference material and a subway map

Included is a current events section that talks about ridership increases.

Yes, we have lots of material on the Second Avenue Subway! and on New York City's subway tunnels.

Nobody can park or drive in New York City so we invented commuter railroads. Now it is getting harder and harder to park at commuter railroad stations!

Don't miss a visit to our WebSite on commuters and car culture.
A proposal by L. Alfred Jenny which consisted of a modern electrified railroad connecting the various New Jersey railroads and bringing these lines into a new passenger terminal in mid-Manhattan.
Also included is a discussion of public support of private railroads. The greatest economic factor of the 19th Century was the railroads. Public money helped them then and it could help them now.
Included is a real story for this era is how General Motors, Ford and Chrysler reshaped American ground transportation to serve their corporate wants instead of social needs.

We have "must see" WebSites on Grand Central Terminal, and the New York City subway system.

Read all about Harlem River Passenger Service

Take a quiz on Which One of These People Hurt New York City the Worst?

New York City Subway Tunnels

The Subway Webring
[ Join Now \| Ring Hub \| Random \| << Prev \| Next >> ]

This site is a member of WebRing. To browse visit here.

Click on the HopStop logo above for the absolute best directions on the New York City subway system.

Have you heard about WAZZ UB

WAZZUB, is a Brilliant Concept; It has NEVER Been Done Before ~ Make no mistake. WAZZUB is a multi-billion dollar project. It has been in the making since 2007 with over $2,000,000 already invested. It’s the new Internet Phenomenon; it's here to stay and you are one of the first in the world to know about it. So, it's very important to understand what you have in your hands. This Baby WILL go VIRAL.

~ Timing is Everything ~
You can set yourself up for life financially - for F*R*E*E - and earn Massive Passive Residual Income every month like nothing else out there. ~ This can happen at LIGHTNING SPEED because it's always FR*E*E for all ~ The more F*R*E*E members you invite, the more money you will make. You could earn about $1.00 per person in your "UNLIMITED" width x 5 generations-deep WAZZUB family. (depending on the company growth)

Sign up for WAZZUB today.

The JWH EDI Services Electronic Commerce Messaging System may be a right for you if you already have an EDI translator, EDI personnel, or do your own mapping and only need EDI VAN communication. The power of our global EDI network is available on your server, your cloud platform or your application.
Move past the ancient VAN technology. JWH EDI Services Electronic Commerce Messaging System will bring your EDI operation into the 21st Century.
READ MORE

The Driver's waiting for a fare--notice the "availability" of the cab, by the white lite-lit Medallion on the cab roof!
Is Mass Transit available to you!!!

How many gallons of foreign oil does it take to fill this thing?
Trains can be powered by electricity generated by home-grown coal.

Politicians and their asphalt-lobby friends think "Busways" are the answer!
Not really! Get serious about mass transit.

NYC Transit Planning

Sometimes it appears New York City never had a bit of transit planning. Where else can one find a city with its major airports poorly served by rail, its major convention center without a rail connection, and block upon block of the city served only by busses.

Add to this list the South Street Seaport, United Nations and the Meadowlands sports complex in New Jersey. The East Side absence of rapid transit might not have been as great if the Second Avenue subway had been built. The West Side's gap has a ready answer - the old New York Central Freight Line. The northern portion is being restored as an AMTRAK connection but the southern portion is a rusty strip.

Many, many plans (good and bad) have been presented over the years but few accepted. One reject was "A complete Rapid Transit System for Greater New York" which was prepared by Beauvais B. Fox, Jr. in 1941. It expanded on the July 16, 1940 proposal to the City Planning Commission by the Board of Transportation.

In this plan, Staten Island would be linked to the rest of the city by tunnel. Local trains would be intraborough while expresses would be interborough.

All lines on the system would be either 2, 3 or 4 track. Certain lines would be expanded beyond this limit but would act as separate lines. For instance, a 6 or 8 track line would operate as two 4 track or a 4 and a 2. Fifth tracks would be added in several areas with this track utilized as a peak period express track (travel in direction of prevailing flow). In non-rush periods, it would be utilized as a storage track.

The capacity of most subway lines is 30 trains per hour, with some capable of 40. At this rate, a train passes a station once every 90 seconds. The capacity of most tunnels is 80 trains per hour.

Fox's plan advocated the development of interline transfers.

NY, Westchester & Boston routes in the city would be taken over and Westchester County would be encouraged and aided in the development of a corporation to take over the rest of their lines.

Finally, the plan included integration of subways into Grand Central Terminal to alleviate congestion.

It isn't just New York City that ignored public transportation in its planning. A 1962 report by the Greater Bridgeport (Connecticut) Regional Planning Commission gave absolutely no recognition that trains (or even busses) played a part in a regional transportation policy. The answer was roads, roads and more roads. This region had a 1960 population of 280,000 people and was projected to grow to 550,000 by the Year 2000.

New York's Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) thinks that for a little over $50 billion it could correct many of the region's problems.
Some of their proposals include:

* Completing the 2nd Avenue Subway.

* Building a transfer between the subway system and the Long Island Railroad at Queens Plaza.

* Connecting Grand Central Terminal with New Jersey. (an old idea revisited)

* A cross-Westchester route (see below).

* Extending the IRT "7" Flushing Line to Javits Center and the New Jersey Meadowlands.

* Rail access between Kennedy and LaGuardia Airports with connection to Manhattan.

Recently, Metro-North Commuter Railroad, an arm of the MTA, has proposed a rail line crossing Westchester County along the same route that Interstate Highway 287 passes. In other words, it would go from Port Chester on the New Haven Line, through White Plains (Harlem Line), cross the Hudson River (connect with Hudson Line) and end up in Suffern with interchanges to the Port Jervis branch and hopefully restored service on the West Shore (CONRAIL's River Division). Concurrently, the New York State Department of Transportation (DOT) is exploring light rail in the same area.

The Metro-North option would cross the Hudson by either bridge or tunnel and would link New Jersey to New York City as well as permitting direct rail service to Stewart Airport near Newburgh. Some of the problems are how to build through already-populated areas, how to connect with the Hudson line (a physical "altitude" problem), and how to serve dispersed work locations along the corridor.

Rail advocate groups and the Regional Plan Association have surfaced several other options recently. One of the most popular is extension of the Hudson Line of Metro-North to Hyde Park and even on to Rhinecliff. Other ideas for New York State east of the Hudson are: Jamaica (Long Island) to New Rochelle (New Haven Line) and Penn Station to New Rochelle with several intermediate stops; Yonkers to Penn Station (when AMTRAK connection opens); Danbury - Brewster - Hopewell Junction - Beacon; and extension of the Harlem Line to Millerton.

The Hudson Valley will have at least 10,000 additional commuters by the year 2005. Most of these will be west of the Hudson. West of the Hudson ideas include extension of the Pascack Valley service to Suffern; service on Conrail's River Line to Newburgh and Kingston; service to the Catskill Mountain resort area; and, of course, additional bridges/tunnels across the river. Eventually, growth will dictate extension of the Port Jervis Line to Honesdale and new service from Campbell Hall to New Paltz.

Connecticut service advocates wish list includes extension of the Danbury Branch to New Milford; use of the line between Danbury and Derby and on to New Haven; and service between Waterbury and Hartford.

New Jersey, with almost 200,000 commuters into the city has not kept pace. Its only recent improvement was the North Jersey coast electrification. Service to Toms River and Sandy Hook, including several intermediate points, would help many commuters. Some of the other service improvements might be: increased service on the Raritan Valley Line and extension to Allentown PA; extending the Boonton Line to Washington NJ; rail service to Flemington, Stroudsburg/Scranton via the Lackawanna Cutoff; and Susquehanna service to Warwick NY. But New Jersey's biggest problem is absence of suburb-to-suburb commuting and poor interline connections.

The biggest problem remains the New York City airports. The next biggest problem is connecting the existing lines and handling cross-suburb commutes. This situation would be alleviated if the Long Island and NJTransit were linked with the New Haven via Hell's Gate; the LIRR and NJTransit were linked with the Hudson Line via the Westside Connection and also via the lower level of the 63rd St. tunnel.

Commuters and Car Culture. Proposal by L. Alfred Jenny which consisted of a modern electrified railroad connecting the various New Jersey railroads and bringing these lines into a new passenger terminal in mid-Manhattan.	Which One of These People Hurt New York City Public Transit the Most? Click on the picture to find the correct answer. If you get the wrong answer, you will still see a good story!

Grand Central Terminal and the New York City Subway

This page is our gateway to New York City. Find out about the New York Central Railroad's Grand Central Terminal. Explore the fabulous New York City Subway System. Learn who Robert Moses. was and his impact on New York City. Understand New York City transit planning, West Side Freight Line (the "High Line") and St Johns terminal. The New Haven Railroad and the Long Island Railroad reached into New York City. Did you know the Lehigh Valley Railroad even went into New York City (by ferry). Learn about the Jenney Plan to bring commuters into New York City and finally explore mysterious track 61 at Grand Central Terminal with its relationship to Presidents of the United States.

Suburbs to Grand Central

New York depends more than any other city on the suburban rail services linking its suburbs to its central business district. Before public takeover, most of the railroads serving New York had been losing money for years by conventional railroad accounting criteria; most of the railroads had sought release from the responsibility for continuing services; and a few lines had been discontinued (Putnam branch and Hudson River ferry/West Shore were examples).

Despite relief in the form of tax abatement, loans, subsidies and other measures, the rail suburban services had continued to lose money. This situation had stimulated numerous proposals to set up separate commuter service agencies to operate rail commuter service into New York City. Most of these proposals involved separating commuter services from ordinary railroad operations; a few recommended physical separation by reserving separate tracks of existing rail lines for publicly operated commuter services. In 1963 the New York Central and the New York, New Haven & Hartford hauled about 60,000 commuters from the northern suburbs to Manhattan's central business district. This figure represented a decline from the post-World War II period. As you know, this number has increased dramatically in the last 25 years to about 95,000. Experts disagreed on the definition and the amount of the losses, but if the New York Central had not had to operate its suburban service, its 1961 operating deficit would have been $7.6 million less. Similarly, the New Haven would have had a $3.7 million smaller deficit.

A study was financed by the Ford Foundation, following a proposal submitted by the Institute of Public Administration in 1961 for: "...a study of the feasibility of setting up an agency or agencies to take responsibility for rail commuter service in the New York metropolitan region. The study would concentrate on the New Haven and New York Central Railroads; findings could be applied to other commuter railroads in the region and elsewhere." This report focused on what is popularly called commuter travel, a term which applies to frequent and regular trips of any considerable length, ordinarily for work purposes. The term arose from the early railroad practice of granting reduced, or "commuted" fares for regular trips between outlying towns and their city terminals, originally for the purpose of increasing traffic on intercity trains. In 1963, about 18 percent of the employees of Manhattan's central business district (south of 60th Street) were commuters from out of town; of these, about 50 percent used suburban rail service for at least part of their trip.

Most of the commuter travel was concentrated (and still is) in two peak morning and evening hours, though a few commuters travel at off-peak hours. In addition, there has always been casual travel between the suburbs and the central city. Most rail commuters from the northern sector were served by the equipment devoted exclusively to suburban service, though about 7 percent traveled on intercity trains. This figure would hold up today as suburban service stops at New Haven and Poughkeepsie while commuters have migrated to places like Rhinecliff, Hudson, Hartford and Old Saybrook which are currently only served by AMTRAK. Suburban rail service has always been different from mass transit rail services in terms of equipment, operating techniques, fare structure and techniques of fare collection. Public support to keep rail services operating appears to be justified on two grounds: first, large scale diversion of travel from rail to other modes is likely to be even more costly to the public than rail support; and second, suburban rail service, particularly for purposes of work trips, is an important factor in the economic health of both the suburban towns and the central business district of Manhattan. The degree of public financial support required depends partly upon the fare levels, and these in turn affect the volume of suburban rail travel.

Getting back to the Ford Foundation-sponsored study, one issue that was explored was the need for cooperation between the railroads and a commuter service agency. At this point, of course, railroads were still running intercity trains and an issue was fitting the two schedules together. Alternatives were explored like routing intercity trains into Pennsylvania Station (in 1963 it was still the "old" one). New Haven trains would go via the Hell Gate Bridge (like AMTRAK does now) and New York Central trains would use the West Side Freight Line, which was still operational then. A short connector, which could have been much more easily built than the major project AMTRAK now has underway, would have been required. Another issue that was explored was the advisability of a complete separation of commuter operations by placing them on reserved tracks. This would then focus responsibility for service quality on the operating agency. The conclusion was that this physical separation would sacrifice operational flexibility and economy. For example, there are four tracks between Grand Central and Mott Haven Junction. Two tracks, at a minimum, would be required for other rail operations, leaving two for commuter operations.

Rush hour commuter traffic requires three in the dominant direction. Moreover, if only one track in each direction were available for suburban traffic, there would be no way for express trains to pass locals; scheduling problems would be increased; and it would be difficult or impossible to maintain the quality of service possible on four tracks. A limit of two tracks is what now prevents faster times on the Harlem Division.

The plan called for the disposition of the existing stations as follows:

(1) junction stations such as Grand Central, New Haven and Poughkeepsie would remain under railroad control and the commuter service agency would lease space;

(2) joint stations such as Bridgeport, Harmon and Stamford would be operated by the commuter service agency, with the railroads leasing space for long distance trains; and

(3) all other stations would be operated by the commuter service agency.

Two of the most promising possibilities which surfaced were automatic fare collection and automatic doors which would make possible the reduction of personnel required for fare collection and train operation.

Two alternative plans were examined in the report. The first involved maintaining the existing pattern of service between the suburbs and 125th Street and Grand Central Terminal. The second contemplated a somewhat radical change, under which commuter rail service would terminate in the lower Bronx and suburban passengers would transfer to rapid transit for the trip downtown. The tracks between the lower Bronx and Grand Central Terminal would be converted to a transit operation, which would considerably increase the capacity of the track and serve the double purpose of carrying out of town commuters and relieving overcrowded subway lines into the Grand Central area. Under this arrangement, a commuter rail service would be terminated at the junction of the Harlem and the New Haven in the lower Bronx (Wakefield); suburban passengers would transfer to rail transit at that point. The transit system would operate conventional transit equipment over the Central's tracks between Wakefield Station, Mott Haven and Grand Central Terminal. Hudson Division trains would terminate at Mott Haven. The arrangement would make possible greater efficiency of operation -- for instance, the shorter runs would allow some trains to make two trips. Although service to Grand Central would not be as good under this arrangement, it would have advantages: (1) passengers could go immediately to the street level at 46th Street and at 59th Street (a new subway station would be contemplated at 59th Street connecting to the BMT); (2) commuters with West Side destinations between Worth and 110th Streets would have available more subway routes without the need for a separate connection at 42nd Street (for instance, connecting with the IND and IRT at 149th Street in the Bronx). This would assume that a direct link to the existing subway system (Lexington Avenue) was built at Grand Central. Although not specifically mentioned, 1963 was the era of "bulldoze and build" so what was the reason to keep Grand Central Terminal??? One possible formula for allocating the burden of public support was suggested by the report, whereby the contribution of each jurisdiction (state and local) would be in proportion to the cost of serving commuters in that jurisdiction.

The possibility of federal government aid was as much an unknown in 1963 as it is today. It was hoped that pending legislation would provide grants contributing toward the cost of needed capital equipment. In a 1963 article in the "American Economic Review", Professor William Vickrey of Columbia University discussed the issue of how pricing might be used to improve utilization of transportation facilities. He concluded that the current pricing policy for public mass transportation and for the use of streets was not only cumbersome but wrong in that it tended to stimulate use at the most expensive time of day. His idea called for the introduction of automatic equipment for fare collection (similar to the current systems in Washington and San Francisco). More importantly, he felt automatic equipment should be expanded into automobile toll collection. By charging realistic tolls to center city automobiles, Vickrey felt off-peak motorists would not have to subsidize peak-hour motorists. In 1963 dollars, a man who bought a $3,000 car for the purpose of driving to work was asking the community, in effect, to invest $23,000 (the additional investment required for an additional car to drive downtown during prime hours). The impact of street use pricing would be economic allocation of traffic amongst the most efficient means - mass transportation.

EQUIPMENT REQUIREMENTS FOR A 1963 COMMUTER SERVICE AGENCY
(Assumption of Existing Equipment)
LOCOMOTIVES:

Division	Type	Horse Power	Number
Central	Yard Diesel	1200	15
New Haven	Yard Diesel	1500	21
Central	Road Switcher	1500	21
Central	T-Motor	1905	11
Central	P-Motor	4250	11
New Haven	FL-9	1800	13 -a)
			75

(a-Shared with New Haven and allocated on a mileage basis.

MU CARS

Division	Seats	Built	Number
Central	130	1962	53
Central	130	1951	100
Central	95	1925-6	111
New Haven	120	1954	100
New Haven	120	1926-1931	38 (motors)
New Haven	120	1926-1931	61 (trailers)
			453

Also acquired would be 7 rail diesel cars and 379 coaches

HOW MANY PEOPLE RODE THE TRAINS?
(Based on 1962 Trainmen's count)

	Miles from GCT	Hudson	Harlem	Stamford	New Haven
GCT	0	13,800	23,000	13,500	6,200
138th Street	8	14,300	24,000	13,500	n/a
Spuyten Duyvil	10	1,100	n/a	n/a	n/a
Woodlawn	12	n/a	n/a	12,500	6,200
Wakefield	13	n/a	23,500	n/a	n/a
Scarsdale	19	n/a	14,500	n/a	n/a
Larchmont	19	n/a	n/a	6,500	6,200
White Plains North	24	n/a	5,000	n/a	n/a
Tarrytown	25	6,500	n/a	n/a	n/a
Stamford	33	n/a	n/a	2,800	5,000
Harmon	33	3,200	n/a	n/a	n/a
Mt Kisco	37	n/a	2,000	n/a	n/a
Peekskill	41	1,800	n/a	n/a	n/a
Westport	44	n/a	n/a	n/a	1,500
Brewster	52	n/a	700	n/a	n/a
Pawling	64	n/a	75	n/a	n/a
New Haven	72	n/a	n/a	n/a	500
Poughkeepsie	73	200	n/a	n/a	n/a

This WebPage is maintained for historical articles only.
For an up-to-date listing of North American Commuter Rail and Transit Systems, please visit our TRANSIT WebPage www.ominousweather.com/Transit.html

Metro North Train in Grand Central Terminal. Metro North is one of the components of the Metropolitan Transit Authority. Grand Central Terminal (not Grand Central STATION, that is an old-time radio show), is one of the most famous buildings in the World. It served the New York Central Railroad and the New Haven Railroad. Lots about it, start with the mystery of Track 61.

Airports: More on Trains to the Plane

By nature, airports create a lot of ground traffic. Unlike most European cities, this means cars in New York City. Developed early on in the history of aviation, JFK International, LaGuardia and Newark airports were intended to only be accessed by automobile. In the 1929-1948 period, who would have thought that an "old-fashioned" train would ever be the most efficient way to get to the airport. Anti-rail, pro-highway Robert Moses directed most of the traffic/transit planning in those days. Now that the land around the airports has become more heavily populated and there are more cars on the road, highways are less and less the answer. New York and New Jersey transportation departments still don't believe rail is a better alternative than just widening highways. Several plans for a rail link to the airports have fizzled in the last thirty years.

A current $3 per passenger departure tax is intended for airport-related projects and could be used to fund a connection. Will the traditionally anti-rail Port Authority go through with such a connection? They have until 1994 to prepare a comprehensive plan or the tax will expire. A big obstacle is that the various agencies don't work together very well. The Port Authority doesn't seem inclined to work with either the Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Long Island Rail Road, Metro North or NYC Transit Authority) or New Jersey Department of Transportation.

JFK has 80 percent of the region's international travelers but the worst ground transportation in the unreliable and badly overloaded Van Wyck Expressway. About 10 percent of the travelers use the subway "A" train to the edge of the airport at Howard Beach followed by a 4-mile bus shuttle. Ignoring other options including the former LIRR Rockaway branch, the Port Authority is talking about a $3 billion Queens-Manhattan transit link. This 20-mile "grand tour" elevated transitway would also serve LaGuardia Airport but seems guaranteed to fail because of length, community objections, a congested Manhattan terminus and "non-standard" equipment.

"Transportation Alternatives", a New York City organization, has put forward its own alternatives. The Rockaway branch leaves the LIRR main at a high-speed junction in Rego Park and runs over five miles on an almost straight line south to the western boundary of JFK. Except for a short span over the LIRR's Montauk division, all underpasses and bridges are serviceable. It would be necessary to build connecting tracks entirely on airport property from near Howard Beach to the JFK terminal area (same route as the current Port Authority plan). Including restoration of the track and signals, the cost would be far less than the Port Authority proposal. Airport trains would run on LIRR tracks from Rego Park to Manhattan's Penn Station. Another ongoing project to connect the LIRR to Grand Central via the 63rd St. tunnel would be a plus.

The biggest obstacle is political: the Port Authority contends that using the $3 airport passenger tax to restore the Rockaway line is inappropriate, since people not headed for the airport might benefit from it. Another drawback of the Rockaway idea is that the line goes through busy Jamaica Station and downtown Jamaica. Several options are available to deal with this.

Trains on the Rockaway route were already running before most homes on the route were built, but after thirty years of no service, abutting residents (approximately 300 families) are concerned about high speed trains in their back yards. Quieter trains and noise barriers would need to be incorporated in the plan.

Newark Airport is visible from Amtrak's Northeast Corridor but there is no easy way to get from one to the other. When the current terminal area was rebuilt, space was left for an inter-terminal train or "people mover". While a COMPLEX HIGHWAY INTERCHANGE WAS BUILT, NOBODY EVER INTENDED FOR A RAIL CONNECTION.

Around 1990, the Port Authority proposed a people mover to the parking lots. Some New Jersey officials also suggested a connection with a proposed connection between Newark and Elizabeth. The economy seems to have halted this idea. Best solution could be provided by NJ Transit commuter rail service that passes near the airport.

Many people feel LaGuardia Airport should not be included in longterm plans and should instead be closed. It is small and has hazardously short runways. Financially strapped airlines could concentrate on fewer larger, more efficient planes at JFK and Newark. Much of its traffic is short haul air trips which might better serve the public if they were diverted to an improved Northeast Corridor rail service.

When the Long Island Rail Road operated through Howard Beach (before 1956) where the NYC Transit Authority now operates, the station consisted of ground level shelters on each side of the tracks. The north end of the station had a steel signal bridge with a crosswalk. This accommodated people from the long-gone community of South Aqueduct (now part of the Aqueduct Race Track parking lot). Shopping for groceries required the residents to cross the tracks or else take a circuitous drive. As well as a safe crossing, it was a great place to watch trains.

Few freights moved through Howard Beach. Those that did were hauled by a DD-1. Freight service to the Ozone Park team yard used DD-1's. Alco S-1 power was used to deliver horses to Aqueduct. The team yard third rail still remains.

In 1903 actual construction started on a plan to electrify from Flatbush Avenue over the Atlantic Division to Belmont Park; from Woodhaven Junction to Rockaway Park and from Jamaica through Locust Avenue to Valley Stream, Far Rockaway and back to Hammels (where the Jamaica Bay trestle joins the Rockaway Peninsula). Ground was broken for a power house in Long Island City. 1904 saw an order being placed for MP-41 electrics. 1905 saw electric service between Flatbush Ave. and Rockaway Park, the first electric train to Jamaica and the extension of electrification to Valley Stream and to Belmont Park. By 1908 electrification reached Hemstead, Long Beach, and into New York's Penn Station by 1910. The project was completed in 1912 when Whitestone Landing was electrified.

Lexington Avenue-63rd Street Station · Opened 10/29/1989

Two levels, one side platform and one track on each level. Queens-bound trains use the lower level (approx. 100 feet below street level), and Manhattan-bound trains use the upper level (approx. 80 feet below street level). Behind the platform wall on each level is a second track intended for future connection to the proposed Second Ave. subway line. The platform walls features orange tile laid vertically. From the upper level platform there are three long escalators and intermediate levels before we reach the fare control. All of the intermediate levels feature soaring high ceiling design. At the south end of the fare control are two very long escalators to the lowest intermediate level. This station has full elevator access to all platforms and the street. From here, the 63rd St. tunnel line splits and has access to the 6th Ave. IND, as well as the BMT Broadway line. It is possible that some future service from 63rd St./Queens Boulevard might use the Broadway Line instead of the 6th Avenue line.

My last ride on the JFK Express subway in April 1990. Includes the experience of a cab ride from Howard Beach to the new station at Queensbridge.	Powered by WebRing.

	New York City Transit History

This site is intended in aiding you to locate HAND TOOL suppliers. You may search by product or by manufacturer. We add both products and manufacturers, so keep checking back.

REFERENCE

List of New York Railroads
West Shore Railroad

Welcome to the Hudson Tubes!
New York City Metropolitan Rail Photos
Many rapid transit vehicles were designed by Raymond Loewy
History of Railroad Innovations
Gateway to Transportation Links
Facing the year 2020 Fantasies in New York City Transit and Exploring ideas of what could be done.
A Blog about building the Second Avenue Subway.

Charles Warren's Gallery, mostly New York City subways and railroads

Test and Understant Students with TeachPro.

Click on map for larger size	For more about railroad terminals in New York City, see this map and list developed by the Port authority of New York and New Jersey.

	New York City Subway System

Driving north from New Haven, Cedar Hill yard cannot be overlooked. Its still used, but not to the extent it was 50 year ago. Imagine, over 9,000 cars handled on one day! Cedar Hill was built between 1910 and 1920. Cedar Hill became in the 1920's the keystone of the whole New Haven Railroad freight operation. It seems to have started out as a more local facility, then grown into that larger role. Or was the idea of making it the center part of the original intention?

Make your Reservations!

Visit our Travel Reservations & Information Center

See Our Partners

Lowest Airfares - Coach, Business and First Class

Grand Central Terminal

See more historic photographs of Grand Central Terminal, New York's subway system, marine rail operations in New York Harbor and the New Haven Railroad.

Long Island Railroad
Route of the Dashing Commuter

Food Distributor for organic and natural products. Wholesale distribution throughout North America. We are a broker for organic and natural products. We specialize in locating organic products you sometimes can't get from your local distributors. We set you up with a relationship with a supplier. Our ORGANIC FOOD WebSite is not everything we can get, just a robust sample.

Our HAND TOOL WebSite is intended in aiding you to locate HAND TOOL suppliers. You may search by product or by manufacturer. We add both products and manufacturers, so keep checking back.

In addition we are a full service MRO (Maintenance, Repair and Operational Supplies) supplier. If you are in the construction or farming business, we are your source.


New Haven Railroad arrivals board at Grand Central


Freight car on barge in New York Harbor


Marine fleet in action


Tower A in Grand Central


Tower A track chart at Grand Central


New Haven train arrives at Track 42 in Grand Central


New Haven train arrives at Grand Central


New Haven's Jersey connection across the harbor


New Haven tug boat


Cos Cob control room


Cos Cob wires


Electric locomotive at New Haven station


Electric locomotive at the dock


New Haven mainline through Connecticut

See KC Jones BLOG about Railroad History

index

sitemap

advanced

site search by freefind

SEARCH THIS SITE