Will the PATH ever be extended to Grand Central?

[MAA89]

The original plans for the PATH (then the Hudson and Manhattan Railroad) included an extension to Grand Central Terminal. Why wasn't the line built?

 

Will (and should) PATH ever open a Grand Central extension? Why or why not?

[7LineFan]

The only problem I see is, where would it cross town? And plus you have the ESA supposedly being built in that area now.

[traildriver]

It would be nice, but like most proposals you have to question "would it be cost-effective"? How many PATH riders would it benefit and at what enormous cost?

[KeystoneRegional]

Please, watch the Nazi Banksters Crimes Ripple Effect at http://jforjustice.co.uk/banksters

[traildriver]

I don't see that happen until Port Authority wants to put more use into PATH in NYC side. I don't think PATH should build an extension to Grand Central, I'd rather see an extension into Bayonne or Staten Island.

 

That would be nice, but a much cheaper alternative would be to extend the Hudson Bergen Light Rail Line over the Bayonne Bridge into Staten Island and then along the north shore line into the St. George SIR/ferry terminal.

[traildriver]

And why stop at that? Run another light rail line from St. George over the north shore line all the way to Linden to connect with the NEC.

[metsfan]

Not till PA5 are all delivered, and 10 car trains are the norm on the red line.

 

There is a market for this connection, though i'm not sure which route it would take from 33rd st.

 

I suppose you could bring it up 6th ave to 40th street put a station there then turn east and head over to GCT and put a station wherever it fits not conflicting with ESA/ARC or future connections between them, make passageway to bridge the gap.

 

Pretty? No. Does it work? Yes. You could even close the 40th st station overnight, and if you were brilliant you could connect it to ( and . The 40th st station could also serve the library & bryant park.

 

- A

[MAA89]

Not till PA5 are all delivered, and 10 car trains are the norm on the red line.

 

There is a market for this connection, though i'm not sure which route it would take from 33rd st.

 

I suppose you could bring it up 6th ave to 40th street put a station there then turn east and head over to GCT and put a station wherever it fits not conflicting with ESA/ARC or future connections between them, make passageway to bridge the gap.

 

Pretty? No. Does it work? Yes. You could even close the 40th st station overnight, and if you were brilliant you could connect it to ( and . The 40th st station could also serve the library & bryant park.

 

- A

 

Makes sense. With LIRR's East Side Access and MNR running from Grand Central already, there has to be a market for a direct rail link to New Jersey, without having to use the subway or other means to get to Penn Station (to take NJT) or WTC (to take PATH to Newark, though it is possible to get there via a transfer from the Hoboken-33rd St line to Newark-WTC line). With the proposed LIRR rail link from JFK to Lower Manhattan-Fulton St Transit Center (via Jamaica and the Atlantic Terminal), PATH already will experience (presumably) increased ridership at its WTC hub. By adding another line to the other future LIRR terminal, it should be able to cover costs as a result of the added ridership.

 

Is there possibly a way in which the PATH tunnel is extended under Broadway to reach 42nd St? This would connect PATH to the busiest station complex in the NYC Subway, providing yet more potential customers. If an arrangement can be made where PATH riders have access to the 42nd St shuttle by paying the 50 cent differential between the subway fare and PATH fare, then that would allow a connection to GCT without having to build a PATH line that may possibly interfere with the ESA developments. Extending the PATH to Times Sq, in addition to serving PATH riders with 12 subway services, would also provide a direct link to the Port Authority Bus Terminal, and a near direct link to GCT, in addition to its existing connections with the Penn Station and WTC transport hubs.

 

I understand there will be difficulties owing to the different ownerships of the PATH and subway ROWs. On the other hand, the Port Authority controls both PATH and PABT and would be well advised to link and streamline their two services, as well as provide better links to JFK and Newark Intl. Airports.

[metsfan]

Makes sense. With LIRR's East Side Access and MNR running from Grand Central already, there has to be a market for a direct rail link to New Jersey, without having to use the subway or other means to get to Penn Station (to take NJT) or WTC (to take PATH to Newark, though it is possible to get there via a transfer from the Hoboken-33rd St line to Newark-WTC line). With the proposed LIRR rail link from JFK to Lower Manhattan-Fulton St Transit Center (via Jamaica and the Atlantic Terminal), PATH already will experience (presumably) increased ridership at its WTC hub. By adding another line to the other future LIRR terminal, it should be able to cover costs as a result of the added ridership.

 

Is there possibly a way in which the PATH tunnel is extended under Broadway to reach 42nd St? This would connect PATH to the busiest station complex in the NYC Subway, providing yet more potential customers. If an arrangement can be made where PATH riders have access to the 42nd St shuttle by paying the 50 cent differential between the subway fare and PATH fare, then that would allow a connection to GCT without having to build a PATH line that may possibly interfere with the ESA developments. Extending the PATH to Times Sq, in addition to serving PATH riders with 12 subway services, would also provide a direct link to the Port Authority Bus Terminal, and a near direct link to GCT, in addition to its existing connections with the Penn Station and WTC transport hubs.

 

I understand there will be difficulties owing to the different ownerships of the PATH and subway ROWs. On the other hand, the Port Authority controls both PATH and PABT and would be well advised to link and streamline their two services, as well as provide better links to JFK and Newark Intl. Airports.

 

Well, you got some good points. However currently the WTC hub will offer and and connections, so getting to PABT will mean a simple ride on the and you're there. Times sq you hop the or . I think connecting to ( and from 40th st is a better alternative to trying to build new tunnel under an all ready massively excavated times square complex and will link the entire city with only 2 seat ride, or even more with 3 seat ride. The at tsq is very deep, and it runs under the to GCT. If you had the bryant park stations connected to the 40th st you'd serve the library & bryant park for different events such as macy's parade, concerts, and new year's eve ball drop without coming up into the hoard of people requiring a likely closure, and it would be direct from NJ so you're spreading the load over HOB, NWK, and NYP. You can all ready take the passageway from PABT to the or the to GCT. The real issue is how to get under broadway at 6th ave, is there space, or would the tunnel need to duck under, what else might be down there that needs to be moved etc.

 

- A

[Amtrak7]

You'll have to wait until Water Tunnel 3 is complete, there's an old tunnel in the way.

[MAA89]

You'll have to wait until Water Tunnel 3 is complete, there's an old tunnel in the way.

 

I thought the DEP had said that all the tunneling work in Manhattan was complete. Anyway, if it does take longer, how long will it be before the area can be cleared for new rail tunnels.

[metsfan]

Well, the water tunnel in question has to be de-activated, inspected, repaired & put back into service. The other (#2) tunnel will remain in operation as a backup till tunnel #1 is back in service.

 

You would have to re-route WT#1 once it's empty of water, not that big of a deal honestly, and not huge on $ or time. Simply make it deeper & seal the old part off completely with grout and re-bar or whatnot.

 

- A

[KeystoneRegional]

Please, watch the Nazi Banksters Crimes Ripple Effect at http://jforjustice.co.uk/banksters

[metsfan]

HBLR and PATH are utterly unrelated. HBLR uses AC overhead catenary, PATH uses DC 3rd rail. The loading gauge is completely different and incompatible.

 

If PATH goes to SI it will be from the newark side, not bayonne.

 

If HBLR goes to SI (unlikely) it will be via bayonne bridge.

 

I see a terminal in bayonne & SI where trains that operate only on the bridge go between to connect the NY and NJ services.

 

HBLR is not 24 hours, PATH is 24 hours, any service on the north shore should be 24 hours.

 

So, as you see, it's a complicated issue if you try & do it that way. It would be very easy to run north shore trains into NJ over the existing rail bridge & leave PATH to complete its own goals & projects, same with HBLR. Better to connect them via NSL, not have them expand onto SI.

 

- A

[EE Broadway Local]

I think maybe the Hudson And Manhattan didn't build to Grand Central Terminal from 33d Street was maybe because the I.R.T. was under 42d Street and space was an issue.

 

When the City Of New York was building the Sixth Avenue IND., the original 33d Street was in the way and the 28th Street station was closed and a new 33d Street terminal was built (from 32d to 30th Streets). Then 19th Street was closed by the H & M in 1954. The West Side Avenue grade crossing was closed by PATH and a pedestrian overpass was built over the tracks allowing access to Newark Avenue.

 

Hudson Terminal was 30 and 50 Church Street.

[metsfan]

I think maybe the Hudson And Manhattan didn't build to Grand Central Terminal from 33d Street was maybe because the I.R.T. was under 42d Street and space was an issue.

 

When the City Of New York was building the Sixth Avenue IND., the original 33d Street was in the way and the 28th Street station was closed and a new 33d Street terminal was built (from 32d to 30th Streets). Then 19th Street was closed by the H & M in 1954. The West Side Avenue grade crossing was closed by PATH and a pedestrian overpass was built over the tracks allowing access to Newark Avenue.

 

Hudson Terminal was 30 and 50 Church Street.

 

They didn't extend it, because they were focusing on the lower part of the system between manhattan transfer and hudson terminal, the next phase which never happened would have connected to communipaw terminal, and GCT.

 

- A

[Far Rock Depot]

actually, there was a proposal a few years ago regarding this. i went back on google and found it again. it was to be an extention of WTC service to merge with the IRT south of Brooklyn Bridge and share tracks with the

 

 

the info was here

 

http://www.nj-arp.org/path_lex.html

this would work since the IRT and PATH are the same car sizes and both use similar signals. The only problem i saw was the IRT has too many tph as it is

[MTR Admiralty]

Thank you very much for sharing the map, but I highly doubt that the 6 will ever be extended into using the PATH ROW.

 

As to answering the main question, the plan to Grand Central was made at a time when Grand Central Terminal was very popular (and still is today). However Grand Central Terminal back then was actually a main line terminal, functioning as the terminus for many railway lines. Today, it is solely used for long distance commuter lines (the Metro North Commuter Railroad and the Long Island Railroad). It's role is diminished and there should be less need for this. Though it will benefit many commuters who work on the East Side, there are many hinderances and obstacles that prevent the line from becoming reality in today's world.

 

Simple logic, if the old terminus at 33rd Street had to be moved a block south due to subway construction at Herald Square, why would it be extended north again? Consider the grades of the adjacent subway station.

 

If an extension has to be exercised, the line will probably have to abandon its current terminus, and tunnel on a side street, say 30th to Lexington and up Lexington to Grand Central. In the contemporary world, there is no other way to do it. And to do it, there must be strong support in favour of the line being extended and economical and sociopolitical commitment towards the extension.

[Far Rock Depot]

it wasnt an extention of the 6. it was an extention of PATH to GCT

[7LineFan]

it wasnt an extention of the 6. it was an extention of PATH to GCT

 

Still wouldn't work. Grand Central on the Lex cannot be used as a terminal in its current configuration without major reworking or rerouting. And the MNCRR station uses bottom-contact rail, so you couldn't dig up into that.

[Far Rock Depot]

Still wouldn't work. Grand Central on the Lex cannot be used as a terminal in its current configuration without major reworking or rerouting. And the MNCRR station uses bottom-contact rail, so you couldn't dig up into that.

 

a loop connecting the 2 local tracks north of the LEX's CGT station could have solved that. remember, the LEX crosses over from Park ave to Lex ave between 41st and 43rd streets away from MNR tunnels.

and connecting it to mnr? forget about the third rail. what about the facts of PATH cars being IRT sized? and then theres the signals.....

[metsfan]

a loop connecting the 2 local tracks north of the LEX's CGT station could have solved that. remember, the LEX crosses over from Park ave to Lex ave between 41st and 43rd streets away from MNR tunnels.

and connecting it to mnr? forget about the third rail. what about the facts of PATH cars being IRT sized? and then theres the signals.....

 

PATH is not IRT sized, they are not as tall. In fact they run one one of the oldest ROW's in the region once owned by the PRR. These PA cars replaced PRR built H&M electric multiple units. There were specific car types. One set never left the tunnels, one was specifically for the hudson terminal to manhattan transfer service (PRR red car), and one was PRR subsidized and ran between present day journal square, and manhattan transfer & never went into the tunnel.

 

http://www.hudsoncity.net/tubesenglish/6-fleet.html

 

- A

[Far Rock Depot]

thanks for the clarafication. the main points that i have read about stated that the sharing of tracks between PATH and the IRT was possible due to similar dimentions and signal systems were the focus of that proposal. one thing i did mention and still see as a major problem if this ever surfaces again is the amout of train traffic on the IRT. Personally, i feel PATH is good the way it is.

[metsfan]

The voltage and 3rd rail spec is identical, and the signals are very similar however PATH trains are of a totally different design and operate under an FRA wavier, if they ran onto subway tracks that connection to the NEC would have to be severed, because it would risk main line rail equipment getting into the subway.

 

PATH trains could however operate on the SIR without modifying its FRA wavier, but charter forbids the sharing of tracks without written agreements. Also the loading gauge is different. Since operates under a state charter, technically the state owns all of the subway, LIRR, MNRR, busses etc & any trackage sharing would be a hurdle legally. And you'd have much smaller rolling stock with a large gap between train & platform. :cool:

 

A more practical solution is a GCT extension utilizing the west side terminal track allowing 33rd to remain as a terminal for yellow line trains. Blue line hob-33 could be extended to GCT and re-open the 2 closed stations.

 

Also they need to have a service from newark to the airtrain terminal. It really is not that far of a distance & there are several options.

 

- A

[MTR Admiralty]

That's a good solution Andy!

There should be a tunnel under 30th Street, turning right from the current tunnels, then turning under Lexington Avenue. Lexington, to my knowledge has no subway underground in this portion. Perhaps they could also run a shuttle from 33rd Street to GCT