EDC's Cross-Harbor Freight Movement Study completed earlier this year projected that the float has the potential to eliminate 275,000 cross-Hudson truck trips annually (MTR #271). Essentially all of these trips are long-distance truck trips that can be diverted to all-rail routes, so the benefit would go beyond traffic relief on the river crossings. While the reduction in truck trips is small (0.4% of truck vehicle miles traveled in the region would be eliminated), the float is a key early action to claim some of the huge short- to mid-range freight market now monopolized by trucking.

The discussion quickly revealed the futility of considering the float operation in isolation from other east of the Hudson rail freight limitations, including overhead clearances, weight restrictions, as well as insufficient trackage and yard space. Some pointed out that the 98-acre railyard proposed at Pilgrim State Hospital on Long Island, while an important step forward, would only begin to remedy the space shortage. Representative Jerry Nadler chided NYSDOT on its lack of initiative in gaining more yard capacity and warned that without a set-aside of hundreds of acres for future rail operations, there will never be a significant rail freight operation in NYC and Long Island.

A recurring question was the extent to which the float operation could support itself financially. New management at the current operator, Cross Harbor Railroad, insisted it could operate profitably without a subsidy, citing the small but growing volume of 3,000 rail cars per year at its single float bridge on each side of the Hudson. Cross-Harbor said $10-12 million for infrastructure improvements would suffice to increase volumes three-to-five-fold. Others maintained that even in its heyday, when the floats carried hundreds of thousands of cars annually, the operation did not pay for itself, and suggested that the service might be regarded as a public good requiring some level of subsidy.

The Port Authority seemed to gain consensus around investing in New Jersey at Greenville Yard, not Staten Island, given the transfer, handling and other complexities associated with the Staten Island RR. In a mostly New York crowd, support for a New Jersey investment by the Port Authority was promising.