Jump to content

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


Recommended Posts

From NJ.com:

New York subway extension to N.J. may not be dead after all

 

 

22520191-mmmain.jpeg
A 7 line subway entering the Vernon-Jackson station in Queens. New York City's transportation commissioner has given new life to discussions about extending this subway to Secaucus. (Larry Higgs | NJ Advance media for NJ.com)
Stay connected to NJ.com 
 
×
 
 
 

The long-dormant idea to extend a New York subway line to Secaucus may have new life as an alternative to building a colossal Port Authority Bus terminal on Manhattan's West Side.

"Do we leave it out of the discussion? We shouldn't," said Polly Trottenberg, New York City transportation commissioner. "It should be part of the (bus terminal discussion) reset."

Trottenberg said it might be time to reopen discussion of the subway extension after a panel about cross-Hudson River commuting challenges Friday at the Regional Plan Association general assembly. 

The idea floated by Michael Bloomberg's administration to extend the No. 7 subway line from its Hudson Yards terminus to the Secaucus Junction train station has floundered since he left office. The idea was brought up by former Port Authority Chairman Scott Rechler, who suggested

The idea was brought up by former Port Authority Chairman Scott Rechler, who suggested the agency study building a bus terminal in Secaucus and rehabilitating, but not expanding, the midtown Manhattan bus terminal.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Haha.......This again. Pretty sure building a new bus terminal is so much cheaper than extending a subway down the Hudson. Can't believe someone would suggest this, but it would be cool to see. MTA and Port Authority are gonna have a fit.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using NYC Transit Forums mobile app

From what I saw some of the plans for PABT ranged from $4-5B to almost $15B so I don't know if that's necessarily true cost wise. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't they did it seem's to be a lot of in-fighting within the PA which is probably why we're seeing this plan resurface.   

Well yeah.  It's a question of who is going to pay for all of this and the logistics required to make it happen.  I don't understand why the (7) is back on the table when they were going to build those two underground tubes just a few years ago for Amtrak/NJT.  Booker and Christie have been lobbying for the funding for that suddenly now that all of these delays and derailments have been going on, as if they didn't know this could happen with Christie took the project offline citing a lack of available funds.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Booker and Christie have been lobbying for the funding for that suddenly now that all of these delays and derailments have been going on, as if they didn't know this could happen with Christie took the project offline citing a lack of available funds.

 

To be fair here, Christie took the Access to the Region's Core (ARC) off the table, not Gateway. That would have been a completely separate station under West 34th Street that only NJT could have accessed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To be fair here, Christie took the Access to the Region's Core (ARC) off the table, not Gateway. That would have been a completely separate station under West 34th Street that only NJT could have accessed.

Even so, he was aware of how bad those tunnels were. It was a stupid move that and now commuters are feeling the consequences.  My question is who is supposed to pay for this (7) extension? I'm sure NJ will want to split the costs when such a subway would likely benefit NJ commuters more than NY commuters.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even so, he was aware of how bad those tunnels were. It was a stupid move that and now commuters are feeling the consequences.  My question is who is supposed to pay for this (7) extension? I'm sure NJ will want to split the costs when such a subway would likely benefit NJ commuters more than NY commuters.

It's so frustrating thinking of this from and engineering and planning standpoint gee whiz. Mental block after block for nothing really even if NY paid something on this. NY is going to make its money and then some. Your moving tens of thousands a day to and from Jobs, Shopping, and Nightlife. NYC is the regional core all roads lead to Rome literally! Rome's going to take it's cut. NJ get's it's share as well possibly opening the housing market a bit. It's money both ways and both sides they see this. So if it's 75/25 or even 50/50 it's worth checking it out IMO. What am I missing?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In my opinion i don't find it right having a "New York City Transit (7) Line" go to a different state. But thats what i think about it. The fact is that why waste money on one or two new stations in NJ when its only going to up the ridership by about 14,000 a day? The money that would be spent on that could be used on something better like repair the low end stations or do something to make the (A) better or something like that rather than starting to expand the subway to different states. But having trains going to NJ isn't a bad idea.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have to take a look at the proposals I don't remember the ridership projections being that low I could be wrong. But that's the thing about it A lot of times money is not transferable. So I understand where your coming from money doesn't typically work that way it's not as simple as let me take that a put that somewhere else. If New Jersey or the PA is going to put in then why not. I get updated infrastructure and I get help with the bill. NJ or not people are spending money in New York and that's good for business. So Id say it could be a good thing.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using NYC Transit Forums mobile app

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have to take a look at the proposals I don't remember the ridership projections being that low I could be wrong. But that's the thing about it A lot of times money is not transferable. So I understand where your coming from money doesn't typically work that way it's not as simple as let me take that a put that somewhere else. If New Jersey or the PA is going to put in then why not. I get updated infrastructure and I get help with the bill. NJ or not people are spending money in New York and that's good for business. So Id say it could be a good thing.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using NYC Transit Forums mobile app

The ridership would be if your placing stations in Hoboken. Having trains to NJ is a good idea for the infrastructure so i cant argue with that one. As of the money problem its not always needed to repair/upgrade. It would be better in my opinion to leave the project of putting (7) trains in NJ until after the SAS is finished because it seems like thats where most of the problems will start happening. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The ridership would be if your placing stations in Hoboken. Having trains to NJ is a good idea for the infrastructure so i cant argue with that one. As of the money problem its not always needed to repair/upgrade. It would be better in my opinion to leave the project of putting (7) trains in NJ until after the SAS is finished because it seems like thats where most of the problems will start happening. 

Indeed. You have a point isn't there a station planned for Hoboken? Harbour Blvd-Willow? This definitely wouldn't take priority over the SAS but like I said would both projects be competing for the same resources as far as funding?

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.

Give the area 15-20 years. I'm sure they said the same for some other places as well.  :lol:

pHZVRKR.jpg

XSosqWB.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now that i think about it a station in Hoboken can help NJ commuters that are going farther in NJ they can hop on the (7) and be on their way to somewhere like Secaucus Junction. As far as the SAS and NJ competing for funding it would be best if each project was done once at a time because having two major projects at once would almost send the MTA to bankruptcy again as far as i know.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Might as well just create another PATH line, that'd be a more effective use of resources I feel. Crowding on the (7) is bad enough as it is...

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I could not agree more! Why can't it be a new PATH line? Wouldn't that make more sense, especially if it's in lieu of a new Port Authority Bus Terminal?

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

The (7) is already overcrowded with ridership from Queens, which will only get worse with all the development taking place along the line. And it's unreliable. Just five days ago it had a huge meltdown during evening rush hours that knocked out the entire line. Can you imagine how much worse that would be if the line also had to serve Jersey?

 

I honestly think a new PATH line would be better in the long run because it could be designed for today's population and trans-Hudson commuting patterns from the outset. The (7) wasn't designed for that and it would be no small task to modify the (7) stations to deal with the increased ridership that will be going to/from Jersey.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I could not agree more! Why can't it be a new PATH line? Wouldn't that make more sense, especially if it's in lieu of a new Port Authority Bus Terminal?

The (7) is already overcrowded with ridership from Queens, which will only get worse with all the development taking place along the line. And it's unreliable. Just five days ago it had a huge meltdown during evening rush hours that knocked out the entire line. Can you imagine how much worse that would be if the line also had to serve Jersey?

Times Sq and Grand Central for sure would be the bottlenecks. You have riders coming in from both sides that's where the NJ and Qns riders merge. That's something to solve no question. 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?

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using NYC Transit Forums mobile app

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Times Sq and Grand Central for sure would be the bottlenecks. You have riders coming in from both sides that's where the NJ and Qns riders merge. That's something to solve no question. 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?

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using NYC Transit Forums mobile app

 

In the report considering the Secaucus extension, that problem is mentioned.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My take on this: If they're really going to continue pushing this plan, they had better REALLY commit to it. They need to put aside all the petty interstate (and intrastate!) infighting, collaborate, and most importantly, find funding for ALL of the trans-Hudson stuff. The Jersey (7) (and requisite capacity upgrades at TSq and GCT), serious upgrades to trans-Hudson commuter rail capacity (ideally a pair of new tunnels as well rehab of the old ones), and capacity upgrades to Penn (and GCT if necessary). If they can't make that happen, forget about it.

 

(Also, ideally NJ would be on the hook for more of the bill than NY, considering they benefit most from NYC access in general. Just saying.)

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.