Transit study will look into running 7 train into New Jersey

[Lance]

Actually, according to various sources, the Gateway Project calls for an expansion of Penn Station by acquiring the block across from the Farley Post Office between 31st and 30th Streets. Such an expansion would include seven new tracks with four additional platforms to complement the existing structure at Empire-Penn (or whatever Cuomo's calling it these days). Whether that actually happens remains to be seen as real estate values for that block are around $1billion now.

[T to Dyre Avenue]

I wonder how far that will go to relieve the existing Amtrak/NJT tunnels and Penn Station. It may not go far enough. To me, doing a subway or PATH crossing into Jersey should happen in addition to Gateway.

[P3F]

The impression I get from the PA is that it's not exactly... poor.

Building a $2 billion marble station? No problem. Rebuilding two major bridges at the same time? All that while installing PTC & CBTC, and buying new PATH cars? Piece of cake. They even have money to spend on random projects that have nothing to do with themselves, such as building new connections at the west end of I-278 and rehabbing the old US 1/9 skyway.

That's why I'm a little confused by those who were yelling a few months ago about how the Newark Airport PATH line is a waste of money. What's it to you? It's literally not your money, and who are you to dictate how someone else spends their money?

The current PATH system has no room for new NJ lines; the capacity doesn't exist on the 33rd St. Branch. Maybe WTC could handle an extra line, but the 33rd St. Line will be crush loaded due to transferring passengers. If PA intends to build new Manhattan capacity for PATH, I'd be interested in seeing where they plan putting it.

[RR503]

16 hours ago, bobtehpanda said:

JFK is tit for tat with EWR rehabilitation. WTC was the sweetener to absorb PATH, which is still the Port Authority's single biggest money loser. Oculus was a joint project (it's a PATH station, remember?) and was supposed to be funded with 9/11 money. And the ports are literally their raison d'etre. None of this is as questionable of an expenditure as say, rehabbing the Pulsaki skyway.

I don't think we'd benefit greatly. Unlike the PATH, which is plenty usable for a reverse commute, Secaucus Junction is literally an undeveloped mess that they've been trying to make happen for decades at this point. When is Xanadu/American Dream supposed to be opening, again? And on top of that it's an unattractive mode transfer, since around NJ Transit rail stations past Secaucus there's not a lot of jobs around the stations either.

Exactly. They aren't questionable.  We do things for each other because we're a region. 

And for whatever it's worth, if you'd one day take the time to read my entire post, you'd see that I am not advocating for the  extension -- I'm looking for more PATH. The info on the MTA's theoretical position vis a vis the  was merely a 'what if.'  And if you'd take the time to read the article in its entirety, you'd see that nowhere -- nowhere -- does Cotton specify Secaucus as the terminus, nor the  as the only option. 

16 hours ago, bobtehpanda said:

Contracts only work if you are willing to fight the good fight to enforce them and you trust the other partner to be in good faith. The MTA has gotten the short end of the deal multiple times when it comes to paying for operational things (student Metrocards, Long Island Bus during its existence, state "dedicated" taxes.) The Port Authority can spend all of its money doing all the foolish things they could ever want, that doesn't mean I have to approve of it.

Well then we might as well never do anything. All business transactions are based on trust. It's really just an issue with the MTA's BDSM mentality when it comes to contracts that causes these SNAFUs. That can change, and needs to. To say we shouldn't enter into contracts because we may get screwed is just accepting these idiotic realities.

Also, just reading the comments here, I don't think there would be any lack of will to get NJ to pay in full. Liens etc are valid even on instruments of the state. 

16 hours ago, bobtehpanda said:

Merging things into a federal authority is a non-starter, mostly because you couldn't possibly give it region-specific taxing authority (most definitely unconstitutional because it'd be the feds basically making a state in and of itself) and funding is just promises. Look at all the fighting around WMATA to see how well that actually works out.

Public authorities don't have direct tax power... I don't see the issue here. All of their 'dedicated' taxes are ones legislated by the state/local government for the express purpose of funding an authority. They aren't created by the authority themselves -- that would be unconstitutional. 

And yes, there would be fighting and funding issues, but look at what we have now. It is not in any way better. If we have an authority which can operate in the context of an entire region, we'd gain immensely. Finally, transit would be thought of on the level that it exists. 

[Deucey]

23 minutes ago, RR503 said:

Public authorities don't have direct tax power... I don't see the issue here. All of their 'dedicated' taxes are ones legislated by the state/local government for the express purpose of funding an authority. They aren't created by the authority themselves -- that would be unconstitutional. 

Only on the east coast.

The West can do that - create taxes as long as it wins a referendum from the public subject to the tax. Constitutionality doesn’t matter unless the state constitution prohibits it.

Hence NY’s problem - it needs progressivism in its constitution.

[RR503]

10 minutes ago, Deucey said:

Only on the east coast.

The West can do that - create taxes as long as it wins a referendum from the public subject to the tax. Constitutionality doesn’t matter unless the state constitution prohibits it.

Hence NY’s problem - it needs progressivism in its constitution.

Still, there needs to be some sort of popular consent. Taxing without that is the part that's unconstitutional. 

I wholly agree we need change though. 

@Lance Yes, Penn South will be built. That said, it's designed to be a stub end terminal for trains coming from the west -- an idiotic plan at best, given that Penn's largest inflow is from the east. 

What needs to be done instead is some sort of through running. Even if it means just extending NJT trains to some efficient terminal station in Queens, and LIRR to some one in NJ, getting as many terminating trains as possible out of Penn would do worlds for capacity. 

 

[T to Dyre Avenue]

Agreed. It is idiotic to build Gateway with stub-ended tracks. Didn’t they learn anything from the mistakes made with ARC (Access to the Region’s Core, the original incarnation of Gateway, before Christie scuttled that)?

[bobtehpanda]

4 hours ago, P3F said:

The impression I get from the PA is that it's not exactly... poor.

Building a $2 billion marble station? No problem. Rebuilding two major bridges at the same time? All that while installing PTC & CBTC, and buying new PATH cars? Piece of cake. They even have money to spend on random projects that have nothing to do with themselves, such as building new connections at the west end of I-278 and rehabbing the old US 1/9 skyway.

That's why I'm a little confused by those who were yelling a few months ago about how the Newark Airport PATH line is a waste of money. What's it to you? It's literally not your money, and who are you to dictate how someone else spends their money?

The current PATH system has no room for new NJ lines; the capacity doesn't exist on the 33rd St. Branch. Maybe WTC could handle an extra line, but the 33rd St. Line will be crush loaded due to transferring passengers. If PA intends to build new Manhattan capacity for PATH, I'd be interested in seeing where they plan putting it.

Then have them extend PATH or something else and call it a day. Relive the capacity and provide new service and kill two birds with one stone. Any subway extension into New Jersey should not even be on the table. 

It should also be noted that PATH money comes from somewhere, namely, hiking their tolls way faster than the rate of inflation, which New York and New Jersey drivers pay. And unless the Port Authority has somehow managed to scrounge up $30B between Gateway and the Port Authority Bus Terminal replacement, they don't have a lot of money they could just use on something else.

[bobtehpanda]

3 hours ago, RR503 said:

Well then we might as well never do anything. All business transactions are based on trust. It's really just an issue with the MTA's BDSM mentality when it comes to contracts that causes these SNAFUs. That can change, and needs to. To say we shouldn't enter into contracts because we may get screwed is just accepting these idiotic realities.

Also, just reading the comments here, I don't think there would be any lack of will to get NJ to pay in full. Liens etc are valid even on instruments of the state. 

Public authorities don't have direct tax power... I don't see the issue here. All of their 'dedicated' taxes are ones legislated by the state/local government for the express purpose of funding an authority. They aren't created by the authority themselves -- that would be unconstitutional. 

And yes, there would be fighting and funding issues, but look at what we have now. It is not in any way better. If we have an authority which can operate in the context of an entire region, we'd gain immensely. Finally, transit would be thought of on the level that it exists. 

BDSM, or because they can't? The MTA has barely any pull with the State because the Governor is their boss. The MTA has zero pull with the State of New Jersey. Saying a reality is idiotic doesn't change the fact that the reality exists and there is literally no traction moving towards some sort of regional kumbaya circle. In fact, if you were to ask your average voter today, they'd probably go against it.

What legislation giveth, legislation taketh away. Nothing short of a constitutional amendment in both states' constitutions would be required to make this a workable arrangement. We don't have workable interstate agencies anywhere because of this.

You don't need a regional authority to have cooperation. Seattle has very balkanized transit and functions fine. So do Tokyo, and Hong Kong, and numerous other places. What you need is effective management, cooperation, and coordination. If unified authorities were the answer to that, then I could use a Metrocard to pay a premium fare on the MTA Railroads agency.

[RR503]

12 hours ago, bobtehpanda said:

It should also be noted that PATH money comes from somewhere, namely, hiking their tolls way faster than the rate of inflation, which New York and New Jersey drivers pay. And unless the Port Authority has somehow managed to scrounge up $30B between Gateway and the Port Authority Bus Terminal replacement, they don't have a lot of money they could just use on something else.

If I’m not mistaken, the PA is creating two subsidiary development corporations to manage/build those projects. This allows them to fund them with tax dollars instead of their own funds. If they wanted to do some PATH extension coincidentally, they could either use their own cash, or just create another one of these corps and ask NY, NJ and the various municipalities to pay up. 

12 hours ago, bobtehpanda said:

BDSM, or because they can't? The MTA has barely any pull with the State because the Governor is their boss. The MTA has zero pull with the State of New Jersey. Saying a reality is idiotic doesn't change the fact that the reality exists and there is literally no traction moving towards some sort of regional kumbaya circle. In fact, if you were to ask your average voter today, they'd probably go against it.

The MTA doesn’t make contracts with NY. And if the subway alternative was chosen for NJ, they’d be holding all the cards as to whether NJ would actually get trains through their tunnel, thus giving them bargaining power. They could ask for all sorts of concessions, without which they could tell NJ to go do something else. 

That said, once again, I think PATH is the best choice here. 

12 hours ago, bobtehpanda said:

What legislation giveth, legislation taketh away. Nothing short of a constitutional amendment in both states' constitutions would be required to make this a workable arrangement. We don't have workable interstate agencies anywhere because of this.

Sure. Maybe. It may take work to redefine planning in the region. That said, I think we need a rewrite anyway. 

12 hours ago, bobtehpanda said:

You don't need a regional authority to have cooperation. Seattle has very balkanized transit and functions fine. So do Tokyo, and Hong Kong, and numerous other places. What you need is effective management, cooperation, and coordination. If unified authorities were the answer to that, then I could use a Metrocard to pay a premium fare on the MTA Railroads agency.

Yes, those places have more than one transit agency. But in the case of Seattle, they all do different things, in the case of Tokyo, there are seemingly infinite numbers of them, and you still have to pay to transfer, and in the case of Hong Kong, well again you can’t trasnfer between modes. So yes, they may have functioning transport systems, but they exist in a wholly different economic, social and political situation than New York. 

New York, on the other hand, would benefit greatly from one provider. Operationally, commuter trains could run through without requiring a whole host of complex contracts and crewing agreements. Financially, we could get a unified fare medium and structure. And in terms of planning, we could pick and choose projects on a regional scale, allowing us to easily coordinate efforts on both sides of the river — and then back them up with massive amounts of capital. 

And yes, you can’t pay for the LIRR with a metrocard, but that’s because the MTA is a raft, not an integrator. They were designed to save metropolitan area commuter railroads from bankruptcy by providing them with state funds and toll revenue. To those ends, the agency was designed to silo divisions off from each other to control costs, clarify expenses, and allow for simple funding mechanisms. So I really don’t think that citing it as an example of failed integration is in any way valid. 

[bobtehpanda]

3 hours ago, RR503 said:

If I’m not mistaken, the PA is creating two subsidiary development corporations to manage/build those projects. This allows them to fund them with tax dollars instead of their own funds. If they wanted to do some PATH extension coincidentally, they could either use their own cash, or just create another one of these corps and ask NY, NJ and the various municipalities to pay up. 

The MTA doesn’t make contracts with NY. And if the subway alternative was chosen for NJ, they’d be holding all the cards as to whether NJ would actually get trains through their tunnel, thus giving them bargaining power. They could ask for all sorts of concessions, without which they could tell NJ to go do something else. 

That said, once again, I think PATH is the best choice here. 

Sure. Maybe. It may take work to redefine planning in the region. That said, I think we need a rewrite anyway. 

Yes, those places have more than one transit agency. But in the case of Seattle, they all do different things, in the case of Tokyo, there are seemingly infinite numbers of them, and you still have to pay to transfer, and in the case of Hong Kong, well again you can’t trasnfer between modes. So yes, they may have functioning transport systems, but they exist in a wholly different economic, social and political situation than New York. 

New York, on the other hand, would benefit greatly from one provider. Operationally, commuter trains could run through without requiring a whole host of complex contracts and crewing agreements. Financially, we could get a unified fare medium and structure. And in terms of planning, we could pick and choose projects on a regional scale, allowing us to easily coordinate efforts on both sides of the river — and then back them up with massive amounts of capital. 

And yes, you can’t pay for the LIRR with a metrocard, but that’s because the MTA is a raft, not an integrator. They were designed to save metropolitan area commuter railroads from bankruptcy by providing them with state funds and toll revenue. To those ends, the agency was designed to silo divisions off from each other to control costs, clarify expenses, and allow for simple funding mechanisms. So I really don’t think that citing it as an example of failed integration is in any way valid. 

Taking the subway off the table allows New Jersey to be responsible for its own messes. Presumably even if the MTA were to suspend operations they can't just suspend maintenance on this additional infrastructure as well lest the tunnel under the Hudson fail and send that nice Hudson water down the . New Jersey should be responsible for its own decisions and infrastructure.

IIRC the subsidiary for Gateway is mostly because Gateway is primarily being driven by Amtrak. PANYNJ uses tax dollars from federal and state sources all the time, they can apply for funding just like everybody else. But to say they don't use taxpayer dollars is misleading. (Also, I haven't heard anything about a corporation for the bus terminal given that they don't even know what they're doing yet.)

The problem with planning in the region is a primary function of the problem with state government in both places. Reforming state government (again) would be a ridiculously heavy political lift; a Constitutional Convention hasn't won the ballot since the '30s. It's basically impossible.

We already have regional planning authorities, we just have two of them. NJ Transit was more than capable of funding transport studies in north Jersey until Chris Christie ran it into the ground. The MTA is a (poorly functioning) regional coordinator as well. In fact, when they were founded, not only were they founded to save transit with money from tolls, they were founded to coordinate planning. The Program for Action included a lot of things in it, and the MTA's predecessor had already looked into converting LIRR into a more rapid-transit like operation. But the MTA got badly burned and stopped being proactive.

If the MTA was not an integrator, they would not have attempted to merge the railroads, and they wouldn't have merged the buses (including Long Island Bus!) into Regional Bus Operations. The actual structure of the MTA isn't theoretically unworkable as an integrator; most of its problems come from how it gets representation and a mandate.

Really, PATH should attempt to have its railroad status dropped and be merged into New Jersey Transit. That would actually be the most beneficial integration.

[Trainmaster5]

1 hour ago, bobtehpanda said:

Taking the subway off the table allows New Jersey to be responsible for its own messes. Presumably even if the MTA were to suspend operations they can't just suspend maintenance on this additional infrastructure as well lest the tunnel under the Hudson fail and send that nice Hudson water down the . New Jersey should be responsible for its own decisions and infrastructure.

IIRC the subsidiary for Gateway is mostly because Gateway is primarily being driven by Amtrak. PANYNJ uses tax dollars from federal and state sources all the time, they can apply for funding just like everybody else. But to say they don't use taxpayer dollars is misleading. (Also, I haven't heard anything about a corporation for the bus terminal given that they don't even know what they're doing yet.)

 

We already have regional planning authorities, we just have two of them. NJ Transit was more than capable of funding transport studies in north Jersey until Chris Christie ran it into the ground. The MTA is a (poorly functioning) regional coordinator as well. In fact, when they were founded, not only were they founded to save transit with money from tolls, they were founded to coordinate planning. The Program for Action included a lot of things in it, and the MTA's predecessor had already looked into converting LIRR into a more rapid-transit like operation. But the MTA got badly burned and stopped being proactive.

If the MTA was not an integrator, they would not have attempted to merge the railroads, and they wouldn't have merged the buses (including Long Island Bus!) into Regional Bus Operations. The actual structure of the MTA isn't theoretically unworkable as an integrator; most of its problems come from how it gets representation and a mandate.

Really, PATH should attempt to have its railroad status dropped and be merged into New Jersey Transit. That would actually be the most beneficial integration.

IMO we have regional planning authorities in the area but their mandates aren't the same. The is a New York state creation period. The interstate planning authority is the PANY&NJ. NJT is the counterpart to the . With the one-time NY resident in DC at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, surrounded by the majority in Congress, any Amtrak, Gateway, PANY&NJ, funding is a pipedream and not worth parsing semantics at this time. That's my take. Both sides of the argument on this forum bring up good points but any plan is DOA at present. Carry on.

[RailRunRob]

16 hours ago, Trainmaster5 said:

IMO we have regional planning authorities in the area but their mandates aren't the same. The is a New York state creation period. The interstate planning authority is the PANY&NJ. NJT is the counterpart to the . With the one-time NY resident in DC at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, surrounded by the majority in Congress, any Amtrak, Gateway, PANY&NJ, funding is a pipedream and not worth parsing semantics at this time. That's my take. Both sides of the argument on this forum bring up good points but any plan is DOA at present. Carry on.

As much as I'd like to be the future pushing futurist... I can't deny the fact that you are correct.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/02/nyregion/trump-schumer-hudson-rail-tunnel.htm

But it's really point's like this that always bring me back to square one and asking? What the rest of United States is doing for us when so much of our money is shared amongst the Country. And two we're stronger together as a Region! These types of stories I guess fuel my rants.🤷‍♂️You have your own countrymen betting against you. Truly depressing. 

[RR503]

19 hours ago, bobtehpanda said:

IIRC the subsidiary for Gateway is mostly because Gateway is primarily being driven by Amtrak. PANYNJ uses tax dollars from federal and state sources all the time, they can apply for funding just like everybody else. But to say they don't use taxpayer dollars is misleading. (Also, I haven't heard anything about a corporation for the bus terminal given that they don't even know what they're doing yet.)

3% of the PA's funding comes from "grants, contributions, and misc. revenues" according to their budget. By contrast, the Gateway project is expected to be close to 100% taxpayer funded. Yes, the Amtrak connection is part of it, but it is also definitely a funding sources structural issue. 

19 hours ago, bobtehpanda said:

We already have regional planning authorities, we just have two of them. NJ Transit was more than capable of funding transport studies in north Jersey until Chris Christie ran it into the ground. The MTA is a (poorly functioning) regional coordinator as well. In fact, when they were founded, not only were they founded to save transit with money from tolls, they were founded to coordinate planning. The Program for Action included a lot of things in it, and the MTA's predecessor had already looked into converting LIRR into a more rapid-transit like operation. But the MTA got badly burned and stopped being proactive.

If the MTA was not an integrator, they would not have attempted to merge the railroads, and they wouldn't have merged the buses (including Long Island Bus!) into Regional Bus Operations. The actual structure of the MTA isn't theoretically unworkable as an integrator; most of its problems come from how it gets representation and a mandate.

Not really, though. Neither authority have the same holistic portfolio as PANYNJ, and neither can operate on both sides of the river without contractual/statutory issues. 

NJT wasn't founded to save toll money. It was founded basically so that the SoNJ could operate private bus routes, because NJDOT couldn't directly do that. In '83, that expanded to rail, and so on. Once again, it was a raft -- a better designed one than the MTA, to be sure -- but a raft nonetheless. Unlike the MTA, it's fully at the mercy of the vagaries of the state, as it has no toll revenue, and no 'dedicated' tax base. 

Now, the MTA. Yes, PfA tried to integrate. Yes, MTA Railroads is ostensibly a thing. Yes, RBO is a thing. But all of these are/were nascent, largely failed bureaucratic constructs that have failed to unite parts of an agency that have been managed and funded in competition with each other for decades. Nothing is preventing the agency from integrating, yes, but the way that internal funding is handled (with competition for capital funds, ops funds, and the whole PEG thing), the MTA continues to encourage this "you vs me" internal zeitgeist at the expense of us riders. We just have too many moving parts that have been enshrined in bureaucratic largess from the get go. 

19 hours ago, bobtehpanda said:

Really, PATH should attempt to have its railroad status dropped and be merged into New Jersey Transit. That would actually be the most beneficial integration.

I thought you were against complex, multi-state contracts?  

[bobtehpanda]

4 hours ago, RR503 said:

3% of the PA's funding comes from "grants, contributions, and misc. revenues" according to their budget. By contrast, the Gateway project is expected to be close to 100% taxpayer funded. Yes, the Amtrak connection is part of it, but it is also definitely a funding sources structural issue. 

Not really, though. Neither authority have the same holistic portfolio as PANYNJ, and neither can operate on both sides of the river without contractual/statutory issues. 

NJT wasn't founded to save toll money. It was founded basically so that the SoNJ could operate private bus routes, because NJDOT couldn't directly do that. In '83, that expanded to rail, and so on. Once again, it was a raft -- a better designed one than the MTA, to be sure -- but a raft nonetheless. Unlike the MTA, it's fully at the mercy of the vagaries of the state, as it has no toll revenue, and no 'dedicated' tax base. 

Now, the MTA. Yes, PfA tried to integrate. Yes, MTA Railroads is ostensibly a thing. Yes, RBO is a thing. But all of these are/were nascent, largely failed bureaucratic constructs that have failed to unite parts of an agency that have been managed and funded in competition with each other for decades. Nothing is preventing the agency from integrating, yes, but the way that internal funding is handled (with competition for capital funds, ops funds, and the whole PEG thing), the MTA continues to encourage this "you vs me" internal zeitgeist at the expense of us riders. We just have too many moving parts that have been enshrined in bureaucratic largess from the get go. 

I thought you were against complex, multi-state contracts?  

It's not really "complex" or "multi-state", because otherwise NJT running into Penn would be considered "complex" or "multi-state". As far as the raft is concerned, handing PANYNJ bridges and tunnels to NJT or some North Jersey transportation agency would make way more sense than the balkanization that exists today. One agency that runs services from North Jersey, including those from North Jersey to New York, and one that runs services within the five boroughs. (I would actually prefer if the railroads were split off from the MTA, but that's unworkable unless the city gets the ability to toll all crossings into Manhattan from the five boroughs.

[AlgorithmOfTruth]

Even if there existed substantial and justifiable cause to extend the to New Jersey, such a project would be so financially implausible that it would prevent the idea from becoming reality. Let's not forget that it took 8 years alone for the to be extended just 1 stop southwest to its current terminal at 34th Street–Hudson Yards. The extension to Hudson Yards was delayed several times and as a consequence, cost the MTA nearly $2.5 billion. Bottom line, all major subway extensions within Manhattan simply take way too long to complete and are unbelievably expensive to fund. With that said, this proposal is nothing more than wishful thinking. Let the MTA focus on its daily subway operations in New York City, which New Jersey isn't a part of... Let PATH or NJ Transit deal with that. 

[RailRunRob]

11 hours ago, AlgorithmOfTruth said:

Even if there existed substantial and justifiable cause to extend the to New Jersey, such a project would be so financially implausible that it would prevent the idea from becoming reality. Let's not forget that it took 8 years alone for the to be extended just 1 stop southwest to its current terminal at 34th Street–Hudson Yards. The extension to Hudson Yards was delayed several times and as a consequence, cost the MTA nearly $2.5 billion. Bottom line, all major subway extensions within Manhattan simply take way too long to complete and are unbelievably expensive to fund. With that said, this proposal is nothing more than wishful thinking. Let the MTA focus on its daily subway operations in New York City, which New Jersey isn't a part of... Let PATH or NJ Transit deal with that. 

I guess the great thing is that there would be 1,400 feet of tunnel to be built to the waterline and you already have depth. So technically that's .2 miles of dealing with Manhattan prices. Everything's mostly in place.  How would PATH or NJT handle it? The one thing I didn't see any ask or focus on which is a big one in my mind again is were are people going once in NYC. I get to Penn Station then what? I get to PABT okay and? Are people going to Eastside? Hudson Yards? Soho, Chelsea? Isn't that a major factor in planning as well sure it is !!. If some of these destinations hold true then at some point it is the NYCTA problem it's all interconnected there completing the trip.  If PATH built a 3rd tunnel what would be some of the complications there?  Tunnel through some of the most densely populated and crowded above and below square millage in the world. NJT what could they do to balance the load beside pass more riders to the Subway system at a fixed point?

[T to Dyre Avenue]

6 hours ago, RailRunRob said:

I guess the great thing is that there would be 1,400 feet of tunnel to be built to the waterline and you already have depth. So technically that's .2 miles of dealing with Manhattan prices. Everything's mostly in place.  How would PATH or NJT handle it? The one thing I didn't see any ask or focus on which is a big one in my mind again is were are people going once in NYC. I get to Penn Station then what? I get to PABT okay and? Are people going to Eastside? Hudson Yards? Soho, Chelsea? Isn't that a major factor in planning as well sure it is !!. If some of these destinations hold true then at some point it is the NYCTA problem it's all interconnected there completing the trip.  If PATH built a 3rd tunnel what would be some of the complications there?  Tunnel through some of the most densely populated and crowded above and below square millage in the world. NJT what could they do to balance the load beside pass more riders to the Subway system at a fixed point?

In response to the second bolded text, that’s a question that’s always going to be asked, regardless of the whether it’s subway or commuter rail. Because for many people (myself included), the journey doesn’t end when you get to Midtown on the ,  or PATH, just as it doesn’t for many on NJT/LIRR/Metro North. Forgive me if I’m stating the obvious here, but that’s a question that the study planners best take into account. By funneling even more riders onto the  or , the planners need to look at how many of those additional riders will get passed on to the other subway lines and whether or not they in turn can handle it. 

And yes, it’s easy to see how close the  is to the waterline and say that’s less money we’ll have to spend to tunnel under pricey and crowded Manhattan infrastructure. The  too - at 14th St, it also has a very short ways to go before it hits the Hudson. But will we really? There may be less tunneling needed for a  or  extension to Hoboken/Secaucus. But what about the stations in Manhattan? The  and  line stations have a lot of difficulty handling their existing ridership - at all times. Not just during rush hours. This is something that simply cannot be discounted. Both the ability to cope with additional riders and the potential to expand the existing stations have to be taken into account. And how much it will cost to expand said stations. If what we know about PA or MTA building costs or building in Manhattan in general are any indication, then it’s entirely possible that the costs to expand the existing  or  line stations will eat the savings of not having to tunnel in Manhattan.

[checkmatechamp13]

On 3/2/2018 at 5:27 PM, P3F said:

That's why I'm a little confused by those who were yelling a few months ago about how the Newark Airport PATH line is a waste of money. What's it to you? It's literally not your money, and who are you to dictate how someone else spends their money?

One word: Taxes

[RailRunRob]

1 hour ago, T to Dyre Avenue said:

In response to the second bolded text, that’s a question that’s always going to be asked, regardless of the whether it’s subway or commuter rail. Because for many people (myself included), the journey doesn’t end when you get to Midtown on the ,  or PATH, just as it doesn’t for many on NJT/LIRR/Metro North. Forgive me if I’m stating the obvious here, but that’s a question that the study planners best take into account. By funneling even more riders onto the  or , the planners need to look at how many of those additional riders will get passed on to the other subway lines and whether or not they in turn can handle it. 

And yes, it’s easy to see how close the  is to the waterline and say that’s less money we’ll have to spend to tunnel under pricey and crowded Manhattan infrastructure. The  too - at 14th St, it also has a very short ways to go before it hits the Hudson. But will we really? There may be less tunneling needed for a  or  extension to Hoboken/Secaucus. But what about the stations in Manhattan? The  and  line stations have a lot of difficulty handling their existing ridership - at all times. Not just during rush hours. This is something that simply cannot be discounted. Both the ability to cope with additional riders and the potential to expand the existing stations have to be taken into account. And how much it will cost to expand said stations. If what we know about PA or MTA building costs or building in Manhattan in general are any indication, then it’s entirely possible that the costs to expand the existing  or  line stations will eat the savings of not having to tunnel in Manhattan.

Indeed you may be entirely correct I didn't overlook the possibility of overcrowding I don't have any numbers or stats besides what's in the 5-year-old feasibility report they covered some of the circulation improvements from GC to TS new walkways, stair widening etc.  That indicated that those upgrades should be able to handle what they're expecting in additional ridership. This is for the  of course.  There are so many variables and this is why the new study is important. Again smarter people than us both agree as well.

I tend to think and process in probability. So applying 1st principles and what I know to be true. tho IRT standard does serve higher impact areas. Hudson Yards, East Midtown and LIC all areas of major growth in the coming decades.  So that puts riders west of the Hudson in a two-seat range of these areas  That would at least in my mind put it over the . As for PATH what would be a comparable alignment into Midtown? The NJ side is easy for both but the PATH prob more so being under the FRA arm of things. But Manhattan is humdinger 57th crosstown? 49th? deep level? The transfers and above ground punch throughs are going to be tough alot of displacement, inconvenience, and existing infrastructure. At the very worst case widening the platforms on the Flushing line tho it would be a challenge, GC comes to mind. I don't think it would come to close to a crosstown PATH route in my mind in cost. The  at Hudson Yards is already halfway there. And it's a reverse commute for the most part from NJ with overlap from  HY to CG same thing we already see on the Lex from 59th to BB. This study should give us a more comprehensive comparison of all options then you narrow down the field. 

[RR503]

On 3/4/2018 at 5:37 PM, bobtehpanda said:

It's not really "complex" or "multi-state", because otherwise NJT running into Penn would be considered "complex" or "multi-state". As far as the raft is concerned, handing PANYNJ bridges and tunnels to NJT or some North Jersey transportation agency would make way more sense than the balkanization that exists today. One agency that runs services from North Jersey, including those from North Jersey to New York, and one that runs services within the five boroughs. (I would actually prefer if the railroads were split off from the MTA, but that's unworkable unless the city gets the ability to toll all crossings into Manhattan from the five boroughs.

NJT to Penn is just them dumping passengers in NYC and then hauling back to NJ. With PATH, there comes a possibility of people riding within NYC (however few they may be), and the fact that NJT would own the infrastructure on which the trains would run. Sure, not insurmountable, but difficult nonetheless. 

The same issue presents itself with the bridges. Operating/maintaining road infrastructure is simply not within their purview -- it'd require amendments to their charter. 

I wouldn't split the RRs off from the MTA. I think we'll see soon a significant increase in intra-city ridership on the LIRR and MNR as people seek subway/bus alternatives, and as Freedom Ticket is introduced. I also have a feeling that given our obscene capital costs, projects like the RX -- which will require mainline rail involvement -- will be getting more attention in the near future. 

1 hour ago, checkmatechamp13 said:

One word: Taxes

That whole discussion was following the fact that the PA receives negligible amounts of tax dollars every year, begging P3F's question. 

[CenSin]

1 hour ago, RailRunRob said:

Indeed you may be entirely correct I didn't overlook the possibility of overcrowding I don't have any numbers or stats besides what's in the 5-year-old feasibility report they covered some of the circulation improvements from GC to TS new walkways, stair widening etc.  That indicated that those upgrades should be able to handle what they're expecting in additional ridership. This is for the  of course.  There are so many variables and this is why the new study is important. Again smarter people than us both agree as well.

I tend to think and process in probability. So applying 1st principles and what I know to be true. tho IRT standard does serve higher impact areas. Hudson Yards, East Midtown and LIC all areas of major growth in the coming decades.  So that puts riders west of the Hudson in a two-seat range of these areas  That would at least in my mind put it over the . As for PATH what would be a comparable alignment into Midtown? The NJ side is easy for both but the PATH prob more so being under the FRA arm of things. But Manhattan is humdinger 57th crosstown? 49th? deep level? The transfers and above ground punch throughs are going to be tough alot of displacement, inconvenience, and existing infrastructure. At the very worst case widening the platforms on the Flushing line tho it would be a challenge, GC comes to mind. I don't think it would come to close to a crosstown PATH route in my mind in cost. The  at Hudson Yards is already halfway there. And it's a reverse commute for the most part from NJ with overlap from  HY to CG same thing we already see on the Lex from 59th to BB. This study should give us a more comprehensive comparison of all options then you narrow down the field. 

I wonder if the Spanish solution would be feasible for those currently island platforms. Save the island platform for exiting, and add side platforms for boarding.

[P3F]

10 minutes ago, CenSin said:

I wonder if the Spanish solution would be feasible for those currently island platforms. Save the island platform for exiting, and add side platforms for boarding.

Knowing the , they'd probably want to test it out somewhere like Union Square (where the side platforms already exist) before tearing up the walls at Times Square.

[RailRunRob]

9 hours ago, CenSin said:

I wonder if the Spanish solution would be feasible for those currently island platforms. Save the island platform for exiting, and add side platforms for boarding.

Possible.. Id start with the question of with the base projected ridership growth on the then add the 128K extra riders from the NJ side. We know there spread out amongst 5 stations on the Manhattan side.

Hudson Yards,10th ave, TS ,5th and finally Grand Central.

Which of these stations have pinch points?

We know this line will have CTBC activated at this point so semi lower wait times +7% increase in capacity with that said are the station issues due to rider circulation? With exiting and entering the station and it's platform or is it mainly physical space issue on the platform itself?  Where the Spanish style may help out.  Grand Central in my mind is the hardest to solve for being a deep bore tunnel. TS and 5th should be a bit easier push the tunnel walls out a few feet on both sides widen the platform. Think 36th street junction on the QBL.

[CenSin]

1 hour ago, RailRunRob said:

Possible.. Id start with the question of with the base projected ridership growth on the then add the 128K extra riders from the NJ side. We know there spread out amongst 5 stations on the Manhattan side.

Hudson Yards,10th ave, TS ,5th and finally Grand Central.

Which of these stations have pinch points?

We know this line will have CTBC activated at this point so semi lower wait times +7% increase in capacity with that said are the station issues due to rider circulation? With exiting and entering the station and it's platform or is it mainly physical space issue on the platform itself?  Where the Spanish style may help out.  Grand Central in my mind is the hardest to solve for being a deep bore tunnel. TS and 5th should be a bit easier push the tunnel walls out a few feet on both sides widen the platform. Think 36th street junction on the QBL.

With the adding of side platforms though, less of the tunnel has to be widened, reducing the cost. Widening the island platform would mean moving the tracks and the supports as well. I’d like to think that what Hoyt–Schermerhorn Streets would be a better setup than having everyone mix on a single island platform. The Spanish solution works well when traffic in both direction of travel is simultaneously utilized and passenger flow needs to be separated (getting on versus getting off). But when it is used at the terminals (such as in the Bronx), where passengers primarily board in the morning and get off in the evening, some platforms won’t be used.