Jump to content

The Idea That Just Wont Die: 7 to New Jersey is on the table. Again.


Around the Horn

Recommended Posts

 Okay so let's say you got with a PATH extension what's your play?

Route alignment stations? Areas served? You think the they'll be able to handle construction in Midtown? What's your plan It's the lesser of two evils. This versus upgrading TS and GC to handle more rider traffic? Qns riders aren't affected by NJ riders except in the space while waiting and getting to there train. Am I wrong in that observation?

That same plan bobtehpanda had. A new line crosstown on 57th Street to Secaucus.

 

As for the idea that Queens riders wont be affected by New Jersey riders, you have to somehow handle twice the number of people swiping in and twice the number of people on the existing platforms.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


That same plan bobtehpanda had. A new line crosstown on 57th Street to Secaucus.

 

As for the idea that Queens riders wont be affected by New Jersey riders, you have to somehow handle twice the number of people swiping in and twice the number of people on the existing platforms.

57th could work as a alignment. With a little depth you could clear all the north lines subway routes with the Lexington express tracks being the deepest. 42nd does seem a sweeter spot with TS and GC direct access. As far as the crowding I agree the feasibility report seems to have a good starting point to at least start addressing the issue with abit of details on how expand station flow. Just seems triple the work to build a new line a lot of these stations along 57 would have to compete for space with existing infrastructure or maybe even have to be tied into with that infrastructure. Think of a station on 57th and 8th or 6th or even Lex or 3rd. Seems easier and cheaper just to expand current stations. No?

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using NYC Transit Forums mobile app

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Run the (7) down to Battery Park via West Street to meet the (1) at South Ferry. A station could be built beneath the WFC Winter Garden entry pavilion at the foot of the giant escalators to the WTC. It could pass beneath the PATH tubes. People who want to go to Jersey can transfer to the PATH at WTC.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You don't think it'd be easier to use the existing infrastructure within NYC? Where would you Align the new PATH route? If you created a crosstown PATH route it would easily rival the SAS for density and complexity per mile. True TS and GC would have to solve some crowding issues or more passenger flow. But a (7) to NJ would a lot easier feat IMO.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using NYC Transit Forums mobile app

Since PATH/H&M originally planned to go to Astor Place, build that spur from WTC, then connect it to the SAS.

 

Might need to merge PATH with the Subway, but I'm also the guy who thinks NJT and LIRR should reunite for thru-service to/from LI and NJ to alleviate the Penn Station bottleneck.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What im trying to figure out is who gonna benifit from it at secaucas juction...

This plan go's with the idea of a second PABT on the NJ side near or at Secaucus.While keeping the PABT in midtown the same size. This could also take some pressure of the 7th and 8th ave lines Midtown east riders that take the subway to Penn some a two seat ride I might add. Without the Bus connection on the NJ side, it remains to seen if indeed it'll be worth it IMO.

 

Since PATH/H&M originally planned to go to Astor Place, build that spur from WTC, then connect it to the SAS.

 

Might need to merge PATH with the Subway, but I'm also the guy who thinks NJT and LIRR should reunite for thru-service to/from LI and NJ to alleviate the Penn Station bottleneck.

To be honest I'm all for integration, especially for infrastructure. Not too sure about the SAS connection but PATH integration overall yeah. To your point though running could definitely speed things up and better move people via Penn. I tend to look at it all as a regional thing with NYC at the core. NY, NJ event CT all the same regional (Shrugs) Sharing jobs and spending, generating money people should be able to move freely. You'll see better growth overall.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

PATH would have to be integrate with the A division -- the loading gauge is much closer to that than the B.

 

Also, PATH is technically FRA jurisdiction (hence grab irons on cars and PTC), so that would also have to be worked out.

 

In theory, I'm in favor though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

PATH would have to be integrate with the A division -- the loading gauge is much closer to that than the B.

 

Also, PATH is technically FRA jurisdiction (hence grab irons on cars and PTC), so that would also have to be worked out.

 

In theory, I'm in favor though.

Phase out the PATH rolling stock, Get them grab irons and FRA223 glazed glass in future orders of A division cars fill in them platforms. And presto Brooklyn to Newark on one fare. Or Newark Airport better yet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Think of a station on 57th and 8th or 6th or even Lex or 3rd. Seems easier and cheaper just to expand current stations. No?

 

Excavating new transfer and exit passageways, and increasing platform space, would be so difficult that it would just not be worth doing. You could put all the buildings around and on top of the complex in danger. And there is certainly no way to do so with the station actually open; think about how disruptive Fulton St construction was, but much worse (particularly in the vicinity of GCT)

 

Also, as it is the 7 is supposed to be swamped from the west with Hudson Yards passengers once it is fully built out. It wouldn't be able to also handle Secaucus passengers.

 

Finally, who in their right mind wants to take the bus or rail to Secaucus, then switch to the 7, then switch to another subway line if they need it, then walk? I'd take a lower salary to avoid that kind of schlep every morning for a 9-5.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Excavating new transfer and exit passageways, and increasing platform space, would be so difficult that it would just not be worth doing. You could put all the buildings around and on top of the complex in danger. And there is certainly no way to do so with the station actually open; think about how disruptive Fulton St construction was, but much worse (particularly in the vicinity of GCT)

Also, as it is the 7 is supposed to be swamped from the west with Hudson Yards passengers once it is fully built out. It wouldn't be able to also handle Secaucus passengers.

 

Finally, who in their right mind wants to take the bus or rail to Secaucus, then switch to the 7, then switch to another subway line if they need it, then walk? I'd take a lower salary to avoid that kind of schlep every morning for a 9-5.

With (7) going by the data I'm looking at in the report I'm inclined to think someone smarter than me put it all together. Your concerns are valid They seem to have been somewhat addressed here let me know what numbers you think are wrong? Report solutions below.

 

Am I off by thinking the people using the (7) connection are folks in walking distance of their destinations? People are still going to use Penn and PABT in Manhattan at worst case the New PABT is the same size. You have options just more. 

 

CR8rZ0y.png

qHjR3jW.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You'll need to widen more than just the mezzanines. Thats where the costs come in.

. Indeed I don't argue with that! I guess where I'm lost is? How do you expand and interconnectivity between northern Jersey and Manhattan? If you build a bigger bus terminal on this end? How do you get more buses in when your river connections are almost at capacity already? OK so build two more tubes into Penn station but are you really expanding capacity? If I'm wrong let me know. The logic is any additional links with NJ and that region would be helpful overall. It's not about funneling people limited capacity 11 car IRT trains i'm fully aware of the limits. If someone has to get off at Penn and take the (1) to the (S) or the (C)(E) to the (7) anyways for the Eastside Secaucus could be for you everyone else the next stop is NYPenn or the PABT .It's about giving options. If we want greatness we have to figure out how to do what is hard what is difficult. That's what engineering is about. Or at least what I've been taught.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using NYC Transit Forums mobile app

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Phase out the PATH rolling stock, Get them grab irons and FRA223 glazed glass in future orders of A division cars fill in them platforms. And presto Brooklyn to Newark on one fare. Or Newark Airport better yet.

Much easier to derate PATH imho. 

 

Problem with that is and forever will be capacity. The A div. is at capacity, and adding 50-150,000 new riders per rush won't help anyone do anything. I think we're better off doing the aforementioned 57th st. line, maybe (warning: foam) connections to HPA or Queens Plaza or (now some real stuff) Jamaica... We could even do it as part of a QB Bypass...

 

In all seriousness, I'd argue for such a project. You could run it across the river to Port Imperial (connection to HBLR) and then deep tunnel under Bergen Hill (maybe another stop?) then out and over the Meadowlands to Secaucus. Only problem is it'd be isolated from the rest of the PATH system. Maybe connect to the Newark Line in the meadowlands? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Much easier to derate PATH imho. 

 

Problem with that is and forever will be capacity. The A div. is at capacity, and adding 50-150,000 new riders per rush won't help anyone do anything. I think we're better off doing the aforementioned 57th st. line, maybe (warning: foam) connections to HPA or Queens Plaza or (now some real stuff) Jamaica... We could even do it as part of a QB Bypass...

 

In all seriousness, I'd argue for such a project. You could run it across the river to Port Imperial (connection to HBLR) and then deep tunnel under Bergen Hill (maybe another stop?) then out and over the Meadowlands to Secaucus. Only problem is it'd be isolated from the rest of the PATH system. Maybe connect to the Newark Line in the meadowlands? 

Umm 1st off true. Not too bad of an idea honestly. And the FRA status would make it easier to build along the right of ways both in Qns and along the NEC. Point and case the EWR extension. The only downside is 57th is on the outskirts of Midtown I guess the bright side would be transfers within fare control. How would an FRA-regulated train operate on FTA trackage if it's possible?   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Umm 1st off true. Not too bad of an idea honestly. And the FRA status would make it easier to build along the right of ways both in Qns and along the NEC. Point and case the EWR extension. The only downside is 57th is on the outskirts of Midtown I guess the bright side would be transfers within fare control. How would an FRA-regulated train operate on FTA trackage if it's possible?

The PATH line could be situated a few blocks down at 50th Street. By putting it there, it would be able to connect to every north-south subway trunk line and be closer to more Midtown office towers as well as Radio City Music Hall and the Theater District - possibly more so than the (7). Not to mention functioning as yet another crosstown subway. At the very least, this PATH service should also be weighed as an alternative to the (7), which will require a lot of disruptive reconstruction in order to accommodate the sheer number of riders going to and from Jersey.

 

If the PATH service remains on its own tracks, I don't think FRA vs FTA issues would come into play.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd rather see the (7) be extended down to 23rd Street than across the river to NJ. I'm not feeling the 34-Hudson Yards station because the area feels so incomplete.

I'm thinking maybe a decade from now you'll feel better about it. Development is growing very fast, and while it may still not be the biggest place for a terminal, I think it'll be more suitable then.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Phase out the PATH rolling stock, Get them grab irons and FRA223 glazed glass in future orders of A division cars fill in them platforms. And presto Brooklyn to Newark on one fare. Or Newark Airport better yet.

No way the path rolling stock would be phased out yet. Nobody would agree to that. Port Authority spent a lot of money to replace its aging rolling stock, and it hasn't even been a decade since they began production! Sorry, I don't think that's realistic at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The PATH line could be situated a few blocks down at 50th Street. By putting it there, it would be able to connect to every north-south subway trunk line and be closer to more Midtown office towers as well as Radio City Music Hall and the Theater District - possibly more so than the (7). Not to mention functioning as yet another crosstown subway. At the very least, this PATH service should also be weighed as an alternative to the (7), which will require a lot of disruptive reconstruction in order to accommodate the sheer number of riders going to and from Jersey.

 

If the PATH service remains on its own tracks, I don't think FRA vs FTA issues would come into play.

 

Hmmm, that does sound like a good idea.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Really, anything other than an expansion of PABT is extremely short sighted. Asking New Jersey bus commuters to change for a subway train and pay another fare while they're at it will be a great way to torpedo transit mode-share for New Jersey commuters.

 

Look at the GWB bus terminal and how poorly utilized that is. The Secaucus terminal is the same shit repackaged.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Really, anything other than an expansion of PABT is extremely short sighted. Asking New Jersey bus commuters to change for a subway train and pay another fare while they're at it will be a great way to torpedo transit mode-share for New Jersey commuters.

 

Look at the GWB bus terminal and how poorly utilized that is. The Secaucus terminal is the same shit repackaged.

 Agreed. However, I think that these proposals should be considered in tandem. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Really, anything other than an expansion of PABT is extremely short sighted. Asking New Jersey bus commuters to change for a subway train and pay another fare while they're at it will be a great way to torpedo transit mode-share for New Jersey commuters.

 

Look at the GWB bus terminal and how poorly utilized that is. The Secaucus terminal is the same shit repackaged.

Again what's your play how do you expand the PABT? There talking 40% growth over the next 30 years where are these extra buses going to go? Lincon, Holland where's the extra capacity? Fine, you can say it's crap but what's your plan B what's the better play? There going to pay the extra fare on the Manhattan side anyways. These are the people that would be using the service in the 1st place.

 

No way the path rolling stock would be phased out yet. Nobody would agree to that. Port Authority spent a lot of money to replace its aging rolling stock, and it hasn't even been a decade since they began production! Sorry, I don't think that's realistic at all.

2035? By the time any of this would be close to happening these cars would have 25 years minimum. Phasing them off the PATH routes why couldn't you repurpose them somewhere else? B division routes? SIR? Maybe the RX they are to FRA standards after all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The PATH line could be situated a few blocks down at 50th Street. By putting it there, it would be able to connect to every north-south subway trunk line and be closer to more Midtown office towers as well as Radio City Music Hall and the Theater District - possibly more so than the (7). Not to mention functioning as yet another crosstown subway. At the very least, this PATH service should also be weighed as an alternative to the (7), which will require a lot of disruptive reconstruction in order to accommodate the sheer number of riders going to and from Jersey.

 

If the PATH service remains on its own tracks, I don't think FRA vs FTA issues would come into play.

Could work! Would be a good balance would be interesting to see how this would cross the ESA tunnels. I guess the question I have is how the TA handled other major reconstruction projects over the years Platform lengthening's of the late 40's come to mind the reason being that was also at a time of record subway use and they managed it 10-12 stations at a time. I have to wonder.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm really surprised that everyone seems to have come with a plan involving rolling stock, routing, and the like but no one, absolutely no one, has mentioned the biggest impediment to any such plan. Politics plain and simple. IMO any proposal I've seen here or in the press ignores the obvious. It's not FRA or FTA compliance but reality. The last few pages have rightfully focused on the necessary nitty gritty but ignores the politics. Didn't " Bridgegate" show you the divisions within the PANY&NJ ? New York State vs New Jersey and the infighting within the agency. Look at the (MTA) and the politics played in that agency. Then you have the City of New York and NYCT where the local needs are funded and subservient to the surrounding NY counties. In my almost 70 years as a NYC resident I don't ever recall a clamor for ESA. Ask your parents or grandparents if they remember those cries. I sure remember the cries from SE Queens, NE Queens, and Utica Avenue, Brooklyn. Since this (7) extension and any rehab and/or new construction of the PABT on either side of the Hudson fall within the 25 mile limit of the PANY&NJ I guess both projects could fall under it's jurisdiction and leave NYC to fund it's own projects, with or without the (MTA).. Most people out here are probably too young to realize that the PA historically wants nothing to do with a money losing transportation project. IIRC it took special legislation from both states to force them to take over the H&M, today's PATH service. The bondholders, not the states, are it's first obligation. I'm just waiting for my fellow posters to explain how these legal and political obstacles can be overcome. Otherwise we're looking at a shoulda, woulda, type project for the foreseeable future. Carry on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Again what's your play how do you expand the PABT? There talking 40% growth over the next 30 years where are these extra buses going to go? Lincon, Holland where's the extra capacity? Fine, you can say it's crap but what's your plan B what's the better play? There going to pay the extra fare on the Manhattan side anyways. These are the people that would be using the service in the 1st place.

 

The original plan was to rebuild between 9th and 10th, and then rebuild the old terminal after building the new one and have double the space. There is nothing that says that the Port Authority can't build on top of Port Authority the way Penn Plaza was built on top of the bones of old Penn.

 

A good portion of people getting off at PABT or Penn walk, and thus never pay the subway fare in the first place, let alone wait god knows how long for a train that might not show up due to signal problems.

I'm really surprised that everyone seems to have come with a plan involving rolling stock, routing, and the like but no one, absolutely no one, has mentioned the biggest impediment to any such plan. Politics plain and simple. IMO any proposal I've seen here or in the press ignores the obvious. It's not FRA or FTA compliance but reality. The last few pages have rightfully focused on the necessary nitty gritty but ignores the politics. Didn't " Bridgegate" show you the divisions within the PANY&NJ ? New York State vs New Jersey and the infighting within the agency. Look at the (MTA) and the politics played in that agency. Then you have the City of New York and NYCT where the local needs are funded and subservient to the surrounding NY counties. In my almost 70 years as a NYC resident I don't ever recall a clamor for ESA. Ask your parents or grandparents if they remember those cries. I sure remember the cries from SE Queens, NE Queens, and Utica Avenue, Brooklyn. Since this (7) extension and any rehab and/or new construction of the PABT on either side of the Hudson fall within the 25 mile limit of the PANY&NJ I guess both projects could fall under it's jurisdiction and leave NYC to fund it's own projects, with or without the (MTA).. Most people out here are probably too young to realize that the PA historically wants nothing to do with a money losing transportation project. IIRC it took special legislation from both states to force them to take over the H&M, today's PATH service. The bondholders, not the states, are it's first obligation. I'm just waiting for my fellow posters to explain how these legal and political obstacles can be overcome. Otherwise we're looking at a shoulda, woulda, type project for the foreseeable future. Carry on.

 

I could've sworn that PABT was a Port Authority initative (unlike PATH which was a quid-pro-pro deal for WTC).

 

Of course, now that the PANYNJ has blown all of its money on WTC II: Electric Boogaloo, there's now no money in the bank for anything even after all the toll hiking they've done. I would be surprised if the Port still exists in its current form in 10 years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.