Jump to content
Attention: In order to reply to messages, create topics, have access to other features of the community you must sign up for an account.
Sign in to follow this  
NYtransit

#7 to NJ or lower manhattan.

Recommended Posts

Im not sure if this has been talked before, But Im just Curious to see what you guys like to see more. The Proposed 7 train to New Jersey actually happening or To continue to extend down towards 12 avenue since There is no subway service around there. They could even probably Build 3 or 4 tracks going down 12th avenue to add express service.  What do you think would work out better?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure about the need of an extension down 12th Ave but if I really had to choose between those two ideas I would choose 12th Ave, no doubt about it. No crazy ass extension to NJ.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Extension down 12th Ave to Hell's Kitchen where the clubs are, which is a popular hangout area that has the potential for real estate residential & commercial development. The ARC project that Gov Christie killed was the perfect option for cross state travel to NJ to be used by NJT and Amtrak, and should be put back on the table. In my opinion, IRT clearance cars would not be able to handle the traffic if it was sent to NJ. Better the ARC tunnels from 34th street to Secacaus NJ as once proposed with capacity for railroad cars for the sake of capacity and high rate of passenger ridership, and the (7) sent further down 12th ave.

Edited by realizm
  • Upvote 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(7) train down to lower manhatan would be better especially the wall street area and wtc. this would relief some crowding on the (2)(3)(4)(5).

 

Realism that ARC tunnel is on the work and it now called gateway by amtrak.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(7) train down to lower manhatan would be better especially the wall street area and wtc. this would relief some crowding on the (2)(3)(4)(5).

 

Realism that ARC tunnel is on the work and it now called gateway by amtrak.

As well it should be. If I understand correctly, governor Christie put the kibosh on this project because NJ Taxpayers were going to foot the bill for the whole thing. This new tunnel shouldn't have been just a Jersey thing, it would be very beneficial for everybody, actually meaning Amtrak passengers as well

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If Hudson and Bergen and whatever other counties are willing to pay the MTA taxes, then I will be more than happy to contemplate the idea of a 7 extension there.

 

They gotta talk the talk before they can walk the walk.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@bob: They don't need to pay the (MTA) taxes for that. See the rush hour (MTA) buses from SI to NJ.

 

----------

 

Extending down 12th Ave also has more advantages: nothing would have to be screwed up for it. In contrary to building a long, winding, structure to NJT, to 12th Ave it would just be underground and behind the walls of the current extension. No disruption whatsoever. Maybe on street level a few little diversions but nothing major compared to NJT extension.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@bob: They don't need to pay the (MTA) taxes for that. See the rush hour (MTA) buses from SI to NJ.

 

----------

 

Extending down 12th Ave also has more advantages: nothing would have to be screwed up for it. In contrary to building a long, winding, structure to NJT, to 12th Ave it would just be underground and behind the walls of the current extension. No disruption whatsoever. Maybe on street level a few little diversions but nothing major compared to NJT extension.

 

Those buses don't make stops in New Jersey on their way to Manhattan, so that's not an issue. If they want actual MTA service to/from New Jersey, then they can pay for it.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, down 12th (or 11th) and West would be the best - the West Side is dense enough that you could actually justify a third trunk line (especially because Eighth Avenue service is rather poor south of Columbus Circle).

 

It would be an absolute shame if all subway extensions for the next couple decades was all Manhattan-centric, though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So Im not the only one who thinks this, What are the chances of the idea of actually to continue to extend down 12th avenue coming through?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The flip side of this is, can we trust the MTA to build that close to the Hudson without ending up with severely water damaged stations? We're all familiar with the problems with New South Ferry.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So Im not the only one who thinks this, What are the chances of the idea of actually to continue to extend down 12th avenue coming through?

 

Politics plays a very major part in the possibilities of this happening, which supercedes common sense from an engineering/architectual perspective.

 

Realistically it does'nt seem that it may happen as of 2011-12. It is true that Bloomberg, also Gov Christie are pushing the extension to Secacus NJ. Studies has been implemented already on the feasibility of this. Recall that the original reason for the plan to be implemented was in anticipation of winning the bid to host the olympics, which failed. If that has changed anyone who is participating in this discussion do bring me up to date.

 

However:

 

The MTA is actually opposed to the idea of a further extension at all. Former MTA Chairman Joe Lhota made a statement to quote: “It’s not going to happen in anybody’s lifetime, the expense is beyond anything we’re doing.”

 

Furthermore many advocates are against the idea because they are calling this a waste of tax dollars that will not benefit NY'ers. Basically what they are saying is why should they pay for a NJ line? It also seems that Albany is opposed to the idea which is as usual not a shock to us.

 

 Interestingly there are stub tracks south of the startion, surely used for turnarounds and layups which makes sense. But that in itself  does from an engineering perspective according to my layman knowledge makes it at least remoely possible to build further down the line but that means sending off another TBM to construct new tunnel further down at enourmous cost. With several projects in the works slated into future capital budgets along with public works projects already in the works (BMT Sea Beach Rehab, Second Ave Subway, which is ongoing, and the IND Queens Blvd CBTC installation to start next year and in 2015 respectively) So I cannot forsee where the MTA can actually find the funding for the project to commence past 34th Street as an extension.

 

According to the map this is how the proposed NJ extension should look like:

 

7Secaucuslarge.jpg

 

Now we have the high speed railroad gateway program underway in the planning stages courtesy of Amtrak apparently to serve the same purpose with Amtrak taking the lead in financing for the project. (Thanks pjbr40 for the clarification) So that original IRT extension option is out the window now. It dosnt seem that the MTA has no plans to extend the (7) line in Manhattan past 34th Street for the aformentioned reasons, they are completely opposed to the idea as far as I know. That is my knowledge on this with the on the fly research as a refresher I made for this response.

 

Extend the (7) downtown? I'm all for it, common sense would dictate that. However there is no will on the part of the MTA Executive Committee to support such a hypothetical idea unfortunately at this time. In fact according to the 20 year assessment released it actually reveals that the MTA is much more focused on completing the SAS end to end from 125th to Hanover Square in 20 years and that is their grand focus, aside from the side projects such as the Sea Beach rehabilitation and all phases of the QBL CBTC project all officially in the books now sort of speak with definitely start construction dates.

The flip side of this is, can we trust the MTA to build that close to the Hudson without ending up with severely water damaged stations? We're all familiar with the problems with New South Ferry.

 

They have the knowhow to make the stations floodproof. They are planning to finish rehabbing key stations to floodproof the shells so a catostrophe similar to what was experienced with superstorm sand will not be repeated. I've read that as a part of the Sea Beach rehabilitation project (From the Sea beach line upgrade thread and the source article in the OP there) they will also floodproof certain stations along the open cut as well when that work starts in 2015.

 

StationFloodMitigation.jpg

 

So that is what I know about that particular.

Edited by realizm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@bob: That bus route does make stops en route to NY. Or so I was told by some people from this forum...

 

Btw, speaking of water proof... Doesn't matter for the (7) because the idea of this extension isn't even on the table. What you want to be concerned about regarding water proofing is SAS, or to be exact: the future terminal at Hanover Sq.

 

@realizm: The (MTA) not focusing on extending the (7) down 12th Ave doesn't mean it isn't going to happen within 20 years. All they need is some outsider (be that Albany, be that the state of NY, -insert other source here-) to support the idea and fund them. If that would happen than I'm pretty sure (MTA) won't refuse.

Edited by Vistausss

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
@realizm: The (MTA) not focusing on extending the (7) down 12th Ave doesn't mean it isn't going to happen within 20 years. All they need is some outsider (be that Albany, be that the state of NY, -insert other source here-) to support the idea and fund them. If that would happen than I'm pretty sure (MTA) won't refuse.

 

Indeed. 20 years is a huge window for change in terms of grand scale capital construction plans. All arguments aside concerning FRA regulations and such we can't rule out that even the Triboro RX line may actually be reconsidered two decades down the line. Anything is possible.

 

After all, some years ago we as New Yorkers never even anticipated that the MTA is actually serious about even considering the completion the SAS from 125th to Hanover Square in the decades to come provided that they continue to exist as a public benefits corp by then! Now this is what they are saying.

 

So yes in agreement, anything is possible in the unforeseeable future.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@bob: That bus route does make stops en route to NY. Or so I was told by some people from this forum...

 

Btw, speaking of water proof... Doesn't matter for the (7) because the idea of this extension isn't even on the table. What you want to be concerned about regarding water proofing is SAS, or to be exact: the future terminal at Hanover Sq.

 

@realizm: The (MTA) not focusing on extending the (7) down 12th Ave doesn't mean it isn't going to happen within 20 years. All they need is some outsider (be that Albany, be that the state of NY, -insert other source here-) to support the idea and fund them. If that would happen than I'm pretty sure (MTA) won't refuse.

 

If it were to happen within the next 20 years, that would be an absolute miracle. The MTA projects a $100B need in capital needs over the next however many decades, and that's just to keep up with the current state of the system. The MTA has already spent quite a bit of money on large capital projects, and SAS is likely to steal the lion's share of funding both citywide and at the FTA for the near future (considering every other national project minus the WMATA Silver Line and LA Metro extensions are all light rail projects).

 

In any case, we'd have some serious IMBYism going on. While this is not a positive thing, it is certainly a very valid concern - every non-maintenance capital project since the ill-fated 1968 Plan for Action has been in Manhattan. With Queens politicians starting to itch for new subway extensions and SI pols itching for ferry, SIR, and North Shore/West Shore rapid transit, it will only be a matter of time before outer borough politicians ask for their piece of the pie. SBS is not going to be enough, and will never provide the capacity, time savings, or economic benefits of a subway line - it's paint on the streets. Making all major capital works Manhattan-centric for the next 20 years would, quite frankly, be a slap in the face.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If it were to happen within the next 20 years, that would be an absolute miracle. The MTA projects a $100B need in capital needs over the next however many decades, and that's just to keep up with the current state of the system. The MTA has already spent quite a bit of money on large capital projects, and SAS is likely to steal the lion's share of funding both citywide and at the FTA for the near future (considering every other national project minus the WMATA Silver Line and LA Metro extensions are all light rail projects).

 

In any case, we'd have some serious IMBYism going on. While this is not a positive thing, it is certainly a very valid concern - every non-maintenance capital project since the ill-fated 1968 Plan for Action has been in Manhattan. With Queens politicians starting to itch for new subway extensions and SI pols itching for ferry, SIR, and North Shore/West Shore rapid transit, it will only be a matter of time before outer borough politicians ask for their piece of the pie. SBS is not going to be enough, and will never provide the capacity, time savings, or economic benefits of a subway line - it's paint on the streets. Making all major capital works Manhattan-centric for the next 20 years would, quite frankly, be a slap in the face.

 

See thats the thing. I understand what you are saying in terms of the projected growth in the corporation's debt in the face of continued budget cuts to deal with a national fiscal crisis as it is. However what we cannot predict, despite your on point analysis, which makes sense to me, on paper,  is the fact that we do not know what changes on the political scene will occur in that period of time, looking at this subjectively.

 

Point: It's OK to dream a bit.

 

But one thing is for sure, the NIMBY's are messing up alot of things here, and politicians in their bickering stalling alot of otherwise excellent ideas for progress in transit expansion as of 2013, that I can agree with, I can write a book on that one, I hear you.

Edited by realizm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Those buses don't make stops in New Jersey on their way to Manhattan, so that's not an issue. If they want actual MTA service to/from New Jersey, then they can pay for it.

 

Perhaps he's thinking of the S89, which stops (and terminates) in Bayonne?

 

So Im not the only one who thinks this, What are the chances of the idea of actually to continue to extend down 12th avenue coming through?

 

Very small.

 

In any case, we'd have some serious IMBYism going on. While this is not a positive thing, it is certainly a very valid concern - every non-maintenance capital project since the ill-fated 1968 Plan for Action has been in Manhattan.

 

That's simply not true. The Queensbridge extension, the 63rd Street connector, and Archer Avenue all serve Queens. There have been station rehabs and signal modernizations in all five boroughs. CBTC came first to the Canarsie line (primarily Brooklyn), is currently under construction on the Flushing line (mostly Queens), and comes next to the Queens Blvd. line (again Queens). The Rockaway line in Queens was rebuilt earlier this year after Sandy, and the Montague tube, connecting Manhattan and Brooklyn, is currently being repaired. Major repairs took place between the late 80's and early 00's on the Williamsburg Bridge and Manhattan Bridge, also connecting Manhattan and Brooklyn. Jay/Lawrence is in Brooklyn; the new transfer facilities at Broadway-Lafayette/Bleecker and Fulton, while physically in Manhattan, primarily serve Brooklyn residents.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps he's thinking of the S89, which stops (and terminates) in Bayonne?

 

 

Very small.

 

 

That's simply not true. The Queensbridge extension, the 63rd Street connector, and Archer Avenue all serve Queens. There have been station rehabs and signal modernizations in all five boroughs. CBTC came first to the Canarsie line (primarily Brooklyn), is currently under construction on the Flushing line (mostly Queens), and comes next to the Queens Blvd. line (again Queens). The Rockaway line in Queens was rebuilt earlier this year after Sandy, and the Montague tube, connecting Manhattan and Brooklyn, is currently being repaired. Major repairs took place between the late 80's and early 00's on the Williamsburg Bridge and Manhattan Bridge, also connecting Manhattan and Brooklyn. Jay/Lawrence is in Brooklyn; the new transfer facilities at Broadway-Lafayette/Bleecker and Fulton, while physically in Manhattan, primarily serve Brooklyn residents.

 

Weren't Queensbridge, 63rd St, and Archer Av all part of the Plan for Action? Note how I said non-maintenance work; station rehabs and bridge maintenance are not about new capital work, but about maintaining the current stations at a State of Good Repair, which should be the very minimum that the MTA should be aiming for anyways.

 

In any case, the actual bits of the Plan For Action that would have actually boosted capacity in the outer boroughs were never finished (the Queens Bypass Line, the extension of the Nostrand Av Line, the completion of the SE Queens line, extensions of the subway to Co-Op and the substitution of the Third Av Line). When we started looking at investment in the current system again, only the bits that affected Manhattan were picked up - the SAS and East Side Access. Then they piled on New South Ferry, the Fulton Transportation Center, the WTC Hub, and the 7 Line Extension. We've then got Moniyhan Station and Gateway as more Manhattan-centric projects, and studies into Penn Station Access (although that shouldn't cost too much).

 

CBTC does cost millions of dollars to implement, but is not a substitute for the actual train capacity and commute improvements that a subway extension would bring. Neither is SBS - Nostrand, Utica, and the general Webster/Park/Third area all have enough demand to warrant an actual subway extension, but are getting red paint on the roads instead. Compared to these, which would actually improve overall mobility for  more people, a Far West Side Line is not going to improve many existing commutes, and should be placed on the backburner until more pressing needs are met.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not go off topic But wouldnt the (G) train be a better choice for next CBTC? Its another line that runs mostly by it self, Why queens blvd? 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Weren't Queensbridge, 63rd St, and Archer Av all part of the Plan for Action? Note how I said non-maintenance work; station rehabs and bridge maintenance are not about new capital work, but about maintaining the current stations at a State of Good Repair, which should be the very minimum that the MTA should be aiming for anyways.

 

In any case, the actual bits of the Plan For Action that would have actually boosted capacity in the outer boroughs were never finished (the Queens Bypass Line, the extension of the Nostrand Av Line, the completion of the SE Queens line, extensions of the subway to Co-Op and the substitution of the Third Av Line). When we started looking at investment in the current system again, only the bits that affected Manhattan were picked up - the SAS and East Side Access. Then they piled on New South Ferry, the Fulton Transportation Center, the WTC Hub, and the 7 Line Extension. We've then got Moniyhan Station and Gateway as more Manhattan-centric projects, and studies into Penn Station Access (although that shouldn't cost too much).

 

CBTC does cost millions of dollars to implement, but is not a substitute for the actual train capacity and commute improvements that a subway extension would bring. Neither is SBS - Nostrand, Utica, and the general Webster/Park/Third area all have enough demand to warrant an actual subway extension, but are getting red paint on the roads instead. Compared to these, which would actually improve overall mobility for  more people, a Far West Side Line is not going to improve many existing commutes, and should be placed on the backburner until more pressing needs are met.

 

Queensbridge and Archer were part of the Plan for Action, but the 63rd Street connector was not.

 

A rehab that completely replaces a station from scratch is not maintenance. Replacement of an old signal system with a brand new signal system (whether conventional or CBTC) is not maintenance. Replacement of a subway line that landed in Jamaica Bay is not maintenance. I think you're using the wrong terminology.

 

As you know, there has been very little system expansion (which may be the term you're looking for) since the 40's. The 50's saw the Rockaways and the IND-BMT connection at Queens Plaza (before which there was no direct QBL local service into Manhattan!), the 60's saw Chrystie Street, the 80's saw Archer and Queensbridge, and the 63rd Street connector (which increase QBL-Manhattan capacity by 25%) came in 2001. Since then, construction has started on two subway line extensions - SAS Phase I is indisputably the single most overdue new line in the system, and the 7 extension is being funded by the city to support new high density commercial and residential development.

 

East Side Access is physically in Manhattan and Queens and serves Long Island - Manhattan commuters. Fulton Street primarily serves Brooklyn - Manhattan commuters. The WTC Hub (not an MTA project) serves New Jersey - Manhattan commuters. South Ferry most directly serves Staten Island - Manhattan commuters. The other projects you mention primarily serve commuters between Manhattan and other places. Manhattan residents make up a very small minority of the beneficiaries of these projects.

 

Any line extension that would increase ridership on an outer borough line can only be built if there's first adequate capacity into and in Manhattan. If you say that this is Manhattan-centric, that's only because the rush hour ridership is Manhattan-centric.

 

The Plan for Action was pie-in-the-sky fantasy. While all of these new lines were being proposed, the existing system was falling apart. I think it's time we recognized that and stopped treating it as anything more than fantasy.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not go off topic But wouldnt the (G) train be a better choice for next CBTC? Its another line that runs mostly by it self, Why queens blvd? 

 

The (G) line doesn't warrant CBTC. Yes, ridership is growing exponentially for that line, but for the sake of Queens riders, CBTC would be much more useful and financially sound serving more people on QBlvd.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@AndrewJC: Thanks, yes, I meant the S89 to Bayonne. But apparently bobtehpanda didn't get that... Anyhow, NJ doesn't have to pay (MTA) taxes for the (7). If that would be the case, then why aren't they paying (MTA) taxes for the S89 to Bayonne?

 

@bobtehpanda: Aside from the S89 thing, you didn't even read my other post, unlike realizm who did. I said OTHER source than the (MTA). Who says some politician might not see the benefit in 20 years? Or some company? Or the state? A lot can happen in 20 years and maybe someone is willing to fund the (MTA) for a 12th Ave extension.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@AndrewJC: Thanks, yes, I meant the S89 to Bayonne. But apparently bobtehpanda didn't get that... Anyhow, NJ doesn't have to pay (MTA) taxes for the (7). If that would be the case, then why aren't they paying (MTA) taxes for the S89 to Bayonne?

 

@bobtehpanda: Aside from the S89 thing, you didn't even read my other post, unlike realizm who did. I said OTHER source than the (MTA). Who says some politician might not see the benefit in 20 years? Or some company? Or the state? A lot can happen in 20 years and maybe someone is willing to fund the (MTA) for a 12th Ave extension.

 

The S89 serves primarily Staten Island residents who work in New Jersey, not vice versa, although of course anybody is welcome to ride the bus.

 

Bloomberg proposed extending the 7 to Secaucus in 2010 (2011?) to improve access to the Hudson Yards. The employers located at Hudson Yards will pay MTA taxes, and if improving accessibility would increase employment, payroll tax revenues would go up. I don't share the strict-territorial approach. The proposed extension didn't make sense, regardless of where the capital dollars were coming from.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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