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  
BM5 via Woodhaven

Transit study will look into running 7 train into New Jersey

Recommended Posts

http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/transit-study-running-no-7-train-new-jersey-article-1.3844933

A top Port Authority official revived the idea Tuesday of extending the No. 7 line into New Jersey.

During remarks at a Crain's New York event, PA Executive Director Rick Cotton said running the MTA line into the Garden State would be part of a study about boosting service for commuters across the Hudson River more than 20 years into the future.

"It could be the extension of the 7 line, could be other alternatives," Cotton said at the New York Athletic Club. The multi-agency study will look at the rail link "in terms of, how do you continue looking at a 2040-type time frame that, by then, you have significantly increased the ability to move passengers across the Hudson."

Cotton said a rail link between New Jersey and New York would be part of the effort to figure out how to build transit to carry more people into the city, along with a new bus terminal, a new tunnel beneath the Hudson River and a boost in PATH train service.

"The bigger picture here is the need to expand trans-Hudson capacity in the long term," Cotton said.

The Port Authority will be working with the Metropolitan Transportation Authority and NJ Transit on the study. NJ Transit officials took no position on the idea, according to an agency spokeswoman.

MTA spokesman Jon Weinstein did not answer questions on the No. 7 line extension, but said in a statement that the agency looks forward to studying “long-term options for trans-Hudson transportation.”

The bistate agency will hire a consultant and has issued a request for proposals for a firm to handle the 18-month study.

The Port Authority's request says a boost in residential and commercial development in New Jersey has expanded need to get into the region's core.

"This momentum has magnified the importance of existing PATH and MTA subway systems not only in connecting commuters with the Manhattan central business district, but in serving new development in Hudson County, Newark, Downtown Brooklyn and Long Island City," the request for proposals said.

 

 

Edited by BM5 via Woodhaven
Link

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I’d like to know what the “other alternatives” Cotton said they’re looking at in the study. The (7) with its tiny A-Division cars is crowded enough as it is, especially the <7> express.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, T to Dyre Avenue said:

I’d like to know what the “other alternatives” Cotton said they’re looking at in the study. The (7) with its tiny A-Division cars is crowded enough as it is, especially the <7> express.

Keep in mind that these riders would be largely getting off in Midtown -- creating space for Queens (7) riders.

The other alternatives, if I had to guess, are probably extending the (L), maybe some sort of new PATH line, maybe a NJT extension from Hoboken, or just augmenting existing services in various ways (through running, moving block signaling on the NEC, IDK what else). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I feel I've heard this already. I used to be in a different transit group, and people used to mention the (7) and (L) being extended to Jersey was a good idea. In my opinion it isn't. Here's why. 

If the (7) got extended, everyone from Jersey would want to take it into Manhattan/Queens, and vice versa, since it would cost less than the PATH, NJT, And the Lincoln Tunnel. Hence adding to even more crowding at rush hour. It would be more crowded in both directions than it currently is during peak hours.

The same would go for the (L), Nobody would want to use the Holland tunnel anymore, (tolls are $10.00-$15.00) compared to $2.75. 

And even if we did do these extensions, where would they terminate in Jersey? Hoboken/Weehawken or closer to the Meadowlands? The Meadowlands sports complex even?  

Edited by Dannny
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The most recent proposals called for the (7) to terminate in Secaucus at the Frank Lautenberg Transportation Center. As for the (L), it depends on which members of whichever transit group suggest it. Usually it would be Hoboken or Jersey City. I’ve never seen any official proposal for an (L) extension to Jersey; only for a (7) extension.

Edited by T to Dyre Avenue

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's the thing: nearly every cross-Hudson commuting option is at or near capacity and for whatever reason, its not on anyone's radar. PATH is setting ridership records every month (averaging 7% increases every year) and there's a bunch of new buildings coming on line in Jersey City, Hoboken and North Jersey over the next decades...

Another cross-Hudson tunnel (or even two) is a necessity to handle all this ridership. The only question is whether its a new PATH tunnel, new Amtrak/NJT tunnel or an extension of the (7) or (L).

My personal opinion is that a subway extension is a waste if it doesn't serve Jersey City and/or Hoboken (like that first plan to Secaucus).

A new PATH and/or NJT tunnel(s) would be my first option, with an extension of the (7) to Journal Square as my second option

Edited by Around the Horn
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Dannny said:

I feel I've heard this already. I used to be in a different transit group, and people used to mention the (7) and (L) being extended to Jersey was a good idea. In my opinion it isn't. Here's why. 

If the (7) got extended, everyone from Jersey would want to take it into Manhattan/Queens, and vice versa, since it would cost less than the PATH, NJT, And the Lincoln Tunnel. Hence adding to even more crowding at rush hour. It would be more crowded in both directions than it currently is during peak hours.

The same would go for the (L), Nobody would want to use the Holland tunnel anymore, (tolls are $10.00-$15.00) compared to $2.75. 

And even if we did do these extensions, where would they terminate in Jersey? Hoboken/Weehawken or closer to the Meadowlands? The Meadowlands sports complex even?  

PATH is 2.75. People still use the Holland Tunnel. 

New Jersey’s waterfront (and Newark) is the next frontier in regional development. It’s absolutely imperative that we build to accommodate that, lest we lose the chance to define development with public transit. 

I’m torn as to what’s best to build. On one hand, a PATH extension would integrate best with stuff in NJ, and would be easiest to manage governmentally. On the other, finally bringing NJ into the NYC system would do worlds for connectivity and uniformity. So I don’t know. 

Also, for all of you who think a (7) extension will cause more crowding , I’ve got a question: do Culver (F) riders cause crowding on Queens Boulevard?

The NJ riders won’t go through, and they’ll be traveling in the opposite direction as Queens riders. That isn’t a worry. 

  • Upvote 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, RR503 said:

PATH is 2.75. People still use the Holland Tunnel. 

New Jersey’s waterfront (and Newark) is the next frontier in regional development. It’s absolutely imperative that we build to accommodate that, lest we lose the chance to define development with public transit. 

I’m torn as to what’s best to build. On one hand, a PATH extension would integrate best with stuff in NJ, and would be easiest to manage governmentally. On the other, finally bringing NJ into the NYC system would do worlds for connectivity and uniformity. So I don’t know. 

Also, for all of you who think a (7) extension will cause more crowding , I’ve got a question: do Culver (F) riders cause crowding on Queens Boulevard?

The NJ riders won’t go through, and they’ll be traveling in the opposite direction as Queens riders. That isn’t a worry. 

I've got a question for you... Why in the hell should "we" be concerned about transportation for NJ residents? The subway is for NY. Let NJ find their own transportation. Our subway is already a mess as it is and on top of that, we're worried about extending a NY subway line into NJ... <_<

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

I've got a question for you... Why in the hell should "we" be concerned about transportation for NJ residents? The subway is for NY. Let NJ find their own transportation. Our subway is already a mess as it is and on top of that, we're worried about extending a NY subway line into NJ... <_<

Because getting caught up in petty feudalistic spats creates issues like the ones we’re facing now. If we don’t learn to treat the metropolitan area as a cohesive unit, we will never be able to truly serve its needs, as we’ll be thinking about things on the wrong scale.

And FWIW, “we” are not worrying about anything. The Port Authority is — a body which was created to think this way. 

  • Upvote 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, RR503 said:

Because getting caught up in petty feudalistic spats creates issues like the ones we’re facing now. If we don’t learn to treat the metropolitan area as a cohesive unit, we will never be able to truly serve its needs, as we’ll be thinking about things on the wrong scale.

And FWIW, “we” are not worrying about anything. The Port Authority is — a body which was created to think this way. 

You wrote "we". I don't give a damn about NJ. If the project is paid for privately without using NY tax dollars, maybe I could stomach it. Our subway has so many problems right now that we should not be focusing or worrying about NJ or elsewhere.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

NJ has its own subway, it's called the PATH. If the state needs more rapid transit service across the river, then they can build a PATH line.

Unless the PA sells PATH to the (MTA) so that it becomes part of the subway, extending the (7) to NJ is just silly. Flushing commuters don't want to have their service delayed because of signal problems in Secaucus.

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, P3F said:

NJ has its own subway, it's called the PATH. If the state needs more rapid transit service across the river, then they can build a PATH line.

Unless the PA sells PATH to the (MTA) so that it becomes part of the subway, extending the (7) to NJ is just silly. Flushing commuters don't want to have their service delayed because of signal problems in Secaucus.

Agreed. We have a subway crisis here in NYC. Why as New York taxpayer, why should I care about New Jersey's transit issues? It's absurd to even talk about extending a subway into another state when the (MTA) can't even meet the service guidelines that it has in place.  Fix our subway here in NYC! Fix the endless delays here! When we can do that maybe we can talk about extensions elsewhere.

Edited by Via Garibaldi 8
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh look, another study for this brain-dead proposal of bringing the (7) to New Jersey. Yippee. We surely haven't gone through this song and dance before, have we? It's been said before and apparently, it bears repeating: a Secaucus (7) is not a solution to the ailments that plague Penn Station. This is one of the main reasons why similar ideas haven't gotten anywhere. There are very few riders who are going to bail NJ Transit trains for a roundabout subway line at Secaucus (or wherever this iteration of the line would terminate) when there is a much more direct route available. While the argument can be made for more regional transit connections, the relatively few that would flock to the Jersey subway would never be enough to offset the costs of building the extension in the first place.

That leads to my next point, which would be the expense of this proposal. Obviously such an extension would require a new cross-river tunnel and miles of new tracks and related equipment. With neither the MTA, nor the Port Authority able to successfully rein in costs in their respective super-projects lately, I have little faith this wouldn't quickly become a budget-busting mess the likes of which we've never seen before. If we can't get a Second Ave line or a rebuilt station at the World Trade Center completed without it costing billions upon billions of dollars, I fail to see how either agency would be able to do so in this proposal.

Another problem that will be caused by such an extension is service reliability. It's absolutely no secret that overall reliability in the subway is low. Extend the line miles and miles away from its current terminus and that reliability drops even further. Riders in Queens are not going to tolerate a service dip to appease a few riders on the other side of the Hudson, just because they don't feel like dealing with NJ Transit.

Rather than focusing on the same stale idea time and again, perhaps it's time to deal with the elephant in the room. The crisis with NJ Transit is not going to get any better with an extension of the Flushing line, nor are the capacity problems with the Hudson River tunnels between Jersey and Penn Station. People's cross-river commutes are not going to get any better until this issues are dealt with. This is not a problem that can be offset by a subway, even if the PA were to pick up the tab.

  • Upvote 8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

Why as New York taxpayer, why should I care about New Jersey's transit issues? 

You'll care when the New York economy suffers because these workers who live in New Jersey can't get in to work on time...                                                                                                  

Not saying that the (7) is the best solution to the problem, but it is a big problem that will effect and deserves attention from both states...

Edited by Around the Horn
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Around the Horn said:

You'll care when the New York economy suffers because these workers who live in New Jersey can't get in to work on time...                                                                                                  

Not saying that the (7) is the best solution to the problem, but it is a big problem that will effect and deserves attention from both states...

Listen. We don't need NJ. New Jersey needs us.  New York is the economic engine for New Jersey residents, not the other way around. Right now our economy is suffering because we New Yorkers can't get around on the subway. Late to work, late to everything. No one is talking about that though and how it costing us and we're losing productivity. Focus on NYC first. Not NJ. 

Edited by Via Garibaldi 8
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Lance said:

Oh look, another study for this brain-dead proposal of bringing the (7) to New Jersey. Yippee. We surely haven't gone through this song and dance before, have we? It's been said before and apparently, it bears repeating: a Secaucus (7) is not a solution to the ailments that plague Penn Station. This is one of the main reasons why similar ideas haven't gotten anywhere. There are very few riders who are going to bail NJ Transit trains for a roundabout subway line at Secaucus (or wherever this iteration of the line would terminate) when there is a much more direct route available. While the argument can be made for more regional transit connections, the relatively few that would flock to the Jersey subway would never be enough to offset the costs of building the extension in the first place.

That leads to my next point, which would be the expense of this proposal. Obviously such an extension would require a new cross-river tunnel and miles of new tracks and related equipment. With neither the MTA, nor the Port Authority able to successfully rein in costs in their respective super-projects lately, I have little faith this wouldn't quickly become a budget-busting mess the likes of which we've never seen before. If we can't get a Second Ave line or a rebuilt station at the World Trade Center completed without it costing billions upon billions of dollars, I fail to see how either agency would be able to do so in this proposal.

Another problem that will be caused by such an extension is service reliability. It's absolutely no secret that overall reliability in the subway is low. Extend the line miles and miles away from its current terminus and that reliability drops even further. Riders in Queens are not going to tolerate a service dip to appease a few riders on the other side of the Hudson, just because they don't feel like dealing with NJ Transit.

Rather than focusing on the same stale idea time and again, perhaps it's time to deal with the elephant in the room. The crisis with NJ Transit is not going to get any better with an extension of the Flushing line, nor are the capacity problems with the Hudson River tunnels between Jersey and Penn Station. People's cross-river commutes are not going to get any better until this issues are dealt with. This is not a problem that can be offset by a subway, even if the PA were to pick up the tab.

Exactly right.... This isn't much more than the state of NJ trying to pass the buck, due to the fact that they can't get their own shit straight w/ NJ Transit....

NJ Transit hasn't been "the way to go" & the MTA aint gonna "go their way" any more or less for them, than they are for us (NYC folk).....

26 minutes ago, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

Listen. We don't need NJ. New Jersey needs us.  New York is the economic engine for New Jersey residents, not the other way around.....

I've been saying to friends & acquaintances ever since my college years that New York City is New Jersey's downtown....

 

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, B35 via Church said:

Exactly right.... This isn't much more than the state of NJ trying to pass the buck, due to the fact that they can't get their own shit straight w/ NJ Transit....

NJ Transit hasn't been "the way to go" & the MTA aint gonna "go their way" any more or less for them, than they are for us (NYC folk).....

 

Damn straight.  Not only that but NJ hasn't been providing the funding that they should be for their transportation, and as a NY taxpayer, that's not my problem.  NJ residents pay taxes.  Let their state fund their transportation system the way they should be.  

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, RR503 said:

Keep in mind that these riders would be largely getting off in Midtown -- creating space for Queens (7) riders.

The other alternatives, if I had to guess, are probably extending the (L), maybe some sort of new PATH line, maybe a NJT extension from Hoboken, or just augmenting existing services in various ways (through running, moving block signaling on the NEC, IDK what else). 

But the platforms will be much more crowded with both Queens- and Jersey-bound commuters waiting for the trains, especially at Times Square and 5th Ave, which have relatively narrow platforms, (especially 5th). 

2 hours ago, RR503 said:

Because getting caught up in petty feudalistic spats creates issues like the ones we’re facing now. If we don’t learn to treat the metropolitan area as a cohesive unit, we will never be able to truly serve its needs, as we’ll be thinking about things on the wrong scale.

And FWIW, “we” are not worrying about anything. The Port Authority is — a body which was created to think this way. 

Then I’d strongly recommend they do it as a new PATH train connection between Jersey and Manhattan, especially since it’s the Port Authority taking the lead on this study. I don’t disagree that we need more Hudson River crossings, but the subway’s already got crowding and maintenance issues that needed to be dealt with years ago and weren’t. We have transportation deserts right here in the city that need to be filled. NYC and especially NY state/MTA need to be looking at the needs of the existing NYC subway and its commuters. They should not be funneling more commuters from Jersey onto already overcrowded subways until they can relieve some of the overcrowding. The LIRR East Side Access project should serve as a cautionary tale about what happens when you spend billions of dollars to bring more suburban commuters into the city without giving them sufficient options to get to their final destination. I fully expect the (4)(5)(6) lines to get whacked pretty hard once there are LIRR commuters pouring onto the subway in addition to the ones already coming from Metro North...that is, unless they build at least part of SAS Phase 3. That may not be the case with the (7) in Jersey if, like @Lance said, there will be very few NJT riders who will bail on their trains for a subway line that takes a roundabout way to get to Midtown. Though I suspect it may attract people who currently drive to work if they provide a park-and-ride at Secaucus or NJT Bus riders who currently use the PABT-bound routes. If so, then my concern about the LIRR/Lex connection at Grand Central stands.

Edited by T to Dyre Avenue
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, RR503 said:

I’m torn as to what’s best to build. On one hand, a PATH extension would integrate best with stuff in NJ, and would be easiest to manage governmentally. On the other, finally bringing NJ into the NYC system would do worlds for connectivity and uniformity. So I don’t know. 

How about both?

The H&M missed out on unification the first time in 1940, but PATH deserves to be part of the NYC Subway system if we are going to make Newark and Hudson County truly integrated in our metropolitan area. People coming from Newark, Jersey City, or Hoboken could have free transfers to the rest of the system just as anyone coming from Brooklyn, Queens, the Bronx, or Staten Island would. Eliminating the governmental barrier between systems could allow us to improve passenger flow in the Herald Square stop by removing the dividers that make subway riders go the long way around PATH to get from one end of the station to the other, as we would all be using a common fare control area. Integration could also allow us have cross-platform transfers between the 6th Avenue IND and the 6th Avenue PATH at 14th and 23rd by demolishing the walls between subway and PATH. Additionally, HBLR should have a free interchange to PATH.

Next, after organizational integration, we can start looking at projects that would bring physical integration. This could include the proposed short connection between the WTC PATH line and the East Side IRT (http://www.rrwg.org/path-lexa.pdf), which would have the (6) line take over the WTC to Newark branch of the PATH and give a seamless connection between Jersey and the East Side of Manhattan - likely reducing pressure on the Holland Tunnel, without building any new lines. Another project could be grade-separating the junction between WTC trains and Uptown tubes trains through new platforms or a lower level at Grove Street so the (6) has no conflict with other trains. This could also facilitate an extension of the PATH line that would take over the Bayonne branch of the HBLR, speeding commutes for people in dense areas of Jersey City, Bayonne, and even Staten Island through the existing S89 bus connection.

14 hours ago, RR503 said:

The other alternatives, if I had to guess, are probably extending the (L), maybe some sort of new PATH line, maybe a NJT extension from Hoboken, or just augmenting existing services in various ways (through running, moving block signaling on the NEC, IDK what else). 

When it comes to physical projects, though, I don't think the (7) extension is the highest value, at least not in the short term. Integrating the commuter rail systems with through-running and creating a Paris RER or SEPTA Regional Rail-like will do more good for more people and will probably have better cost-benefit. Even though the associated projects (finishing ESA, extending Gateway to Grand Central, a tunnel from Flatbush Avenue to Hoboken or Newport) will cost more than the (7) extension, their greater benefit comes with the fact that more people in New Jersey, as well as people in the outer city, Long Island, Westchester, and Connecticut, stand to benefit. This system allows us to get the most capacity out of our existing crossings (North River and East River tunnels) as well as under-construction projects (Gateway).

50 minutes ago, T to Dyre Avenue said:

That may not be the case with the (7) in Jersey if, like @Lance said, there will be very few NJT riders who will bail on their trains for a subway line that takes a roundabout way to get to Midtown.

When I created a map of proposed new rapid transit services in North Jersey, the subway extension I included was actually the (L) to Secaucus instead of the (7), for a few reasons. First, the (L) is the one with the lower-capacity terminal today, whereas Hudson Yards is more than adequate for the existing service on the Flushing Line. Second, the (L) serves a different corridor (14th Street) than the (7) (42nd Street), which is much closer to the existing cross-Hudson services, even closer if a connection is ever built between Penn Station and Grand Central. 

The map also includes some other stuff, like an LRT subway under Bergenline Avenue: https://www.google.com/maps/d/u/0/edit?mid=14D3IG5Pi_GhRr-fXJV7icsGjyh3VvcZw&ll=40.77070737385707%2C-74.02790132519533&z=14 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Lance said:

Oh look, another study for this brain-dead proposal of bringing the (7) to New Jersey. Yippee. We surely haven't gone through this song and dance before, have we? It's been said before and apparently, it bears repeating: a Secaucus (7) is not a solution to the ailments that plague Penn Station. This is one of the main reasons why similar ideas haven't gotten anywhere. There are very few riders who are going to bail NJ Transit trains for a roundabout subway line at Secaucus (or wherever this iteration of the line would terminate) when there is a much more direct route available. While the argument can be made for more regional transit connections, the relatively few that would flock to the Jersey subway would never be enough to offset the costs of building the extension in the first place.

That leads to my next point, which would be the expense of this proposal. Obviously such an extension would require a new cross-river tunnel and miles of new tracks and related equipment. With neither the MTA, nor the Port Authority able to successfully rein in costs in their respective super-projects lately, I have little faith this wouldn't quickly become a budget-busting mess the likes of which we've never seen before. If we can't get a Second Ave line or a rebuilt station at the World Trade Center completed without it costing billions upon billions of dollars, I fail to see how either agency would be able to do so in this proposal.

Another problem that will be caused by such an extension is service reliability. It's absolutely no secret that overall reliability in the subway is low. Extend the line miles and miles away from its current terminus and that reliability drops even further. Riders in Queens are not going to tolerate a service dip to appease a few riders on the other side of the Hudson, just because they don't feel like dealing with NJ Transit.

Rather than focusing on the same stale idea time and again, perhaps it's time to deal with the elephant in the room. The crisis with NJ Transit is not going to get any better with an extension of the Flushing line, nor are the capacity problems with the Hudson River tunnels between Jersey and Penn Station. People's cross-river commutes are not going to get any better until this issues are dealt with. This is not a problem that can be offset by a subway, even if the PA were to pick up the tab.

How many studies are we paying for now and how many of these lives will actually be built when we don't even have money for any of them? We can't even extend the Second Avenue subway one stop to 116 Street.  Let's see, the LGA line, the BQX, the Red Hook subway, the Utica Avenue Subway, the Rockaway Beach reactivation (the one that makes the most sense), now the 7 tunnel, more? In my opinion, the only ones who benefit from all these studies are the engineering and consulting firms hired to do these studies. It's all political payoff. 

  • Upvote 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, RR503 said:

PATH is 2.75. People still use the Holland Tunnel. 

New Jersey’s waterfront (and Newark) is the next frontier in regional development. It’s absolutely imperative that we build to accommodate that, lest we lose the chance to define development with public transit. 

I’m torn as to what’s best to build. On one hand, a PATH extension would integrate best with stuff in NJ, and would be easiest to manage governmentally. On the other, finally bringing NJ into the NYC system would do worlds for connectivity and uniformity. So I don’t know. 

Also, for all of you who think a (7) extension will cause more crowding , I’ve got a question: do Culver (F) riders cause crowding on Queens Boulevard?

The NJ riders won’t go through, and they’ll be traveling in the opposite direction as Queens riders. That isn’t a worry. 

Well, LESS people would be using the Holland tunnel, I drove through it a few weeks ago with a friend who didn't have EZ-Pass, it was $15.00. If this (7) extension was somehow completed, everyone who didn't live near PATH would pile onto the (7). As for the crowding, think of how packed it would be if a leaf fell onto the tracks and delayed (7) service in queens and Manhattan during rush hour, how packed would Grand Central 42nd street be? not only would you have the people waiting to go back to Queens, you would now have people waiting to go back to Jersey. Here,s how it looks, just serving Queens and Manhattan. Imagine trying to fit the Jersey residents in here.

2r2rlp5.jpgNOT MY PHOTO! ONLY USED FOR DEMONSTRATION. CREDITS GO TO WHOEVER TOOK THE PHOTO.

4 hours ago, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

I've got a question for you... Why in the hell should "we" be concerned about transportation for NJ residents? The subway is for NY. Let NJ find their own transportation. Our subway is already a mess as it is and on top of that, we're worried about extending a NY subway line into NJ... <_<

Yes, and this is also true. Its called NYC subway system for a reason. In that article it mentions how if we were to extend the (7) to Jersey, it would be completed by 2040. And not to mention the cost of it. My guess would be in the triple digit billions. In those 22 years, we could be investing in OUR subway, rather than wasting it on expanding into another state. 

Edited by Dannny
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Dannny said:

Yes, and this is also true. Its called NYC subway system for a reason. In that article it mentions how if we were to extend the (7) to Jersey, it would be completed by 2040. And not to mention the cost of it. My guess would be in the triple digit billions. In those 22 years, we could be investing in OUR subway, rather than wasting it on expanding into another state. 

What an unbelievably silly premise for a question. Just because it's called the NYC Subway doesn't mean that it can't cross borders. When they built the London Underground, they didn't stop at the borders of the City of London because they named it after London; it serves the region. Stop thinking about this as we live in one state, they live in a different state - we live in the same metropolitan area. Why should people who live in Jersey City and work downtown be treated differently from someone who lives in Queens and works in Manhattan, or differently from someone who lives in lower Westchester and works in the Bronx? We're all contributing to the economy and society of our region.

It's a symbiotic relationship; not only New Jersey stands to benefit from better transit integration with NYC. And as I posted above, that doesn't have to mean (and I don't think it should mean) an extension of the (7) line.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, officiallyliam said:

What an unbelievably silly premise for a question. Just because it's called the NYC Subway doesn't mean that it can't cross borders. When they built the London Underground, they didn't stop at the borders of the City of London because they named it after London; it serves the region. Stop thinking about this as we live in one state, they live in a different state - we live in the same metropolitan area. Why should people who live in Jersey City and work downtown be treated differently from someone who lives in Queens and works in Manhattan, or differently from someone who lives in lower Westchester and works in the Bronx? We're all contributing to the economy and society of our region.

It's a symbiotic relationship; not only New Jersey stands to benefit from better transit integration with NYC. And as I posted above, that doesn't have to mean (and I don't think it should mean) an extension of the (7) line.

It's very simple.  NJ residents pay taxes and their previous governor hasn't been funding their system the way that he should've. That isn't our problem. That's NJ's problem and therefore let them solve their problems with THEIR money.  

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.