I agree with you completely. Why doesn;t NJT have the kind of commuter platforms that LIRR has? Because Penn was not originally planned as the commuter terminal for PRR;s two New Jersey services, the NEC and the NY&LB. Those trains were all supposed to continue to run to Exchange Place, PRR's Jersey City terminal. And the ferries continued to operate and the H&< option was available, as it sitll is from Newark. The abanodnment of Exchange Place and rerouting the NJ commuter traffic to Penn came as long distance trains use of the Hudson tunnels started dropping.
NYP is crowded. With trains. With people. Two ancient bores, two tracks, that's all that comes in from Jersey. Two juts as ancient bores and four tracks from L.I. Plus a single track from Amtrak's West Side line from Albany. On bore blocked in either direction can turn a whole morning or afternoon or whole day upside down. Peak commuter hours, it is elbow to elbow; you better know where you want to go and where you are going or else the crowd will take you elsewhere.
The whole problem of the thinking of new tunnels to Manahatten is that too many people are still thinking Pensylvannia Railroad and New York Central Railroad and no one is truly thinking GREATER NEW YORK CITY or THE NEW YORK METROPOLITAN AREA. So they still think that every commuter still comes from the suburbs, wherever they are, into the city and out again. But they aren't thinking about people from New Jersey going to Long Island or Connecticut or people from Westchester going to Brooklyn or New Brunswick. Thus the ARC is a come in and go back out plan which does not really look at the real rail passenger needs of the entire Metropolitan Area. There are too many fiefdoms and too many lords and too many overlapping juristictions each with ther own to defend. I think I listed some of them before: State of New York and its various departments and agencies; City of New York; the MTA and its sub parts MTA Subway and Bus, MNRR, and LIRR; the State of New Jersey and its various departments and agencies; New Jersey Transit and its sub parts NJT Rail and NJT Bus; Hudson and Bergen Counties and their attending municipal governments within; The Port of Authority of New York and New Jersey including the PATH; the United States Government including the U.S. Army Corpes of Engineers and the U.S. Coast Guard, the Department of Transportation, the United StatesPostal Service and Amtrak. And I have a feeling I missed a few. But when you have so many interests you have to find a leader to bang the gavel and take charge. So far no one has done that yet. And I really don't know of anyone insane enough and still smart and capable enough to do it. But, you know what? The PRR had the leadership which was able to cut through all that crap and was patient enough hold on to make NYP happen in the first place. Just about a hundred years ago from today, too.
RIDEWITHMEHENRY is the name for our almost monthly day of riding trains and transit in either the NYCity or Philadelphia areas including all commuter lines, Amtrak, subways, light rail and trolleys, bus and ferries when warranted. No fees, just let us know you want to join the ride and pay your fares. Ask to be on our email list or find us on FB as RIDEWITHMEHENRY (all caps) to get descriptions of each outing.
From what I observe at NYP there is just not enough room. It doesn't even seem efficient that the platforms that NJT uses could possibly handle any more increase in rush-hour commuter traffic.
I do not see now the NARP's "expansion of NYP" means anything else but making those tiny AMTK/NJT platforms any wider, just longer. NJT needs a commuter station like the LIRR has and right now it does not.
CSSHEGEWISCH Through equipment may work but through crews would require a lot of negotiations considering that different operators and seniority districts are involved.
Through equipment may work but through crews would require a lot of negotiations considering that different operators and seniority districts are involved.
Or, run the equipment thru and swap crews at Penn.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
Here is a preview, prelminary schedule for run through service New Haven Ct to Secacus Jct. NJ:
Three trains from Conn 1 lves Stamford 8:59A ar NYP 10:02 lv 10:14 Ar ScJc 10:10:14 lv 10:35 ar Meadowlands station 10:45. Second train leaves New Haven 9:05A, and is an hour behind the first train all the way to Meadowlands. Third train picks up Shore Line East passengers and lvs NH at 10:05 and follows the other schedules by one hour. Returning all three trains go all the way to NH the first leaving Meadowlands Sta. at 4:15 with a half hour stay at NYP and arrving Stamford 6:18 and NH 7:11P. The second train lvs 5:05, 13 minute layover at NYP. ar Stamford 6:48, NH 7:41 making a ShoreLine East connection. Third train Lvs. 6:20, 17 minute layover at NYP, ar Stamford 8:15 and NH 9:09P. Reportedly the NYP layovers are because these are extensions of NJT existing schedules and some adjustments have yet to be made. Also at present there is a bus transfer from Sec. Jct to Meadowlands but there is supposed to be a rail transfer bu summer. Theoretically, NJT will run a train from Hoboken to Sec. Jct. to Meadowlands which will become a shuttle for the rest of the day returning to Hoboken at end of day. Still a lot of details to be worked out. Note, too, that MNRR stops from New Rochelle to New Haven are covered. Again, it is all preliminary and will be adjusted more as time gets near.
SUNDAY
Right. That might not be attainable if it is SEPTA train that turns into an NJT train that turns into an MNRR or LIRR train. But what if it is REGIONAL RAIL RR? Or what's wrong with turning a whole train over to the next railroad, etc.? That's old long distance train services; for instance the PRR used to do that with the NH at NYP several times a day! We don't know what can be done because it has never been done and nobody I know is talking about it. Gotta think outside the guage and then work things out to the best advantage of those involved.
Oh I won't argue that...'ve done it enough times. My point was that on the specific railroads there is an ingrown attitude or at least method of operation for over a 150 year span. I am all for interline operations for marketability and equipment useage at minimum. As a boy of 7 or 8 back in the early 50's I dreamt of riding from Denville NJ on the DL&W to my grandparents in Jamaica, NY on the LIRR without changing trains!That is why I had to be on the first ever Midtwon Direct that morning then continued to Jamaica via the LIRR in a symbolic tip of the hat to my long ago dream.
REGIONAL RAIL...I have said it hundreds of times...REGIONAL RAIL...not just for passengers sake but also for equipment and even crew utilization. Why not an NJT Midtown Direct or any other electric locomotive hauled train haul all the way to Stamford or New Haven. Or the other way to Philadelphia. (I understand MU's may present problems of gaps at high level platforms.) Gee...instead of deadheading out to Jersey, sleeping all day, and then go back to NYP, have the equipment grab some passengers and bring in a buck instead, even if it is for MNRR or ConDot or SEPTA. WIth some market research and smart scheduleing and advertising and promotion, you might even get a real through NYP application that may give a real service; if not to the public, then at least to effeciency and costs. REGIONAL RAIL...may be a mantra that works better than "one seat ride".
Henry: The double platform method of changing at Jamica is a very efficient setup. However the changing I've done at NYP from LIRR to NJ TRANSIT is not especially track 27 to track 4. Unfortunally the new ARC station will not improve that much if that is the change.
Those who live on Long Island and use the LIRR are very at ease with changing trains...it has been a way of life. There are through trains Penn Sta. and/or Flatbush (Brooklyn) to Far Rockaway, West Hempstead, Long Beach, Babylon, Ronkonkoma, Huntington, and Hempstead. Some LIC trains go all the way to Speonk, Montauk, Greenport, and Port Jefferson. Most often you have to change trains at Jamaica but also at Hicksville, Huntington, Babylon, Patchouge and Ronkonkoma, especially not peak hours and weekends. MNRR has done the same successfuly with Wassaic trians from Southeast, Canan Branch trains from Stamford, Danbury trains from S. Norwalk, and Waterbury trains from Bridgeport. Only the PRR-Corridor and NY&LB train riders from South Amboy and later Matawan, in NJ are accustomed to one seat rides. Everyone else--CNJ, West Shore, Lackawanna, Erie, NYS&W and PRR to Jersey City--had to change to ferry, PATH, or bus to Manhatten. So, and this is my opinion, one seat rides is a marketing mantra to make customers agitated over not having it: you have now told them they are unhappy with what they have. It would be nice for marketing--as well as operations I suppose--to have one seat rides on all routes. But it may not be what one would hope for logistically, effeciently and economically.
One seat rides always build patronate. Liberty Bell lost ridership with change at Norristown. The Philadelphia Center City Tunnel and through routing PRR and Reading lines built patronage. Going from LIRR to NJT at Penn is hardly "across the platform." Few might commute from Stamford to Trenton, but lots might commute from Larchmont to Newark or New Brunswick. Or from Valley Stream to Summit. Amtrak does not serve this market.
From what I have read here and on other forums and threads and in newspapers, there are a lot of opinions flying around on this but few facts. Facts are available by reading the initial report but virtually evenything after that has been opinion: NIMBY, political, paroachial, railfan, commercial, individuals' desires, dreamers, and those who are totaly clueless except that they see a good fight. I myself have more opinion than facts about it!
I had heard and read a few times the same thing about "rights" to build 8 tunnels, 6 of which are the ones you mentioned which have been already been built.
It sure confuses me that some forms of governments granted these rights forever to some organization which no longer exists, and those rights now reside with some other organization which aquired some of the assets of the first organization.
Patrick Boylan
Free yacht rides, 27' sailboat, zip code 19114 Delaware River, get great Delair bridge photos from the river. Send me a private message
I believe the rights to do the ARC tunnel in the first place are ones inherited from the PRR. When they did the two for Penn Sta, and later the ones for what is now PATH, they still had rights to do another pair. (unless I have my history all confused....which is certainly a possibility! )
daveklepperSeveral good reasons have been given why the new NJT tunnels should have track connection to the East River tunnels. One addiitonal reason is the future should not be shortchanged for through NJT-Metro North service between Stamford or New Haven and Trenton, Long Branch, and Dover, or LIRR-NJT through service.
Don't get me wrong, I think that ARC should curve north and connect with the MN-East Side Access to offer NJT riders the option of riding through to GCT and vice versa (MN riders to 34th Street).
That said, wouldn't a "through routing" from NJT territory to MN/LIRR territory compete with Amtrak services (ie. Intercity service)? I can see riders from Connecticut valuing a one-seat ride to Newark Liberty Airport, but I don't see much demand for commuting from Dover, NJ to Stamford, CT or Montauk, etc. As it stands now, LIRR riders CAN access NJT and get to the airport through NYP -- it's just not a one seat ride.
aegrotatio Link http://parsons.com/about/press_rm/potm/08-2001/index.html
http://parsons.com/about/press_rm/potm/08-2001/index.html
If PRR owned the whole shebang there would never be an ARC, East Side Access, or even Empire Connection. New York's rail infrastructure is irrational and bizarre from the beginning.
I found this excellent overview of East Side Access while looking around for details:
henry6 First, planners look at increasing traffic in and out of NYC so that the ARC would just be an addition. Then, it is an NJT project dealing only with the needs of NJT services which are moving commuters in and out of NYC to and from New Jersey. Next is the problem of depth of each sets of tunnels and stations and platforms. But the real explanation for any problems arising, any questions being made, any rejection of any ideas put forth, and any other disagreements with whaat is being done come under the umbrella word: politics. NJT, State of NJ, City of New York, State of New York, New York-New Jersey Port Authority, MTA, MNRR, LIRR , unions, non unions, east siders, west siders, are just a few of the paroachial interests at work here.
First, planners look at increasing traffic in and out of NYC so that the ARC would just be an addition. Then, it is an NJT project dealing only with the needs of NJT services which are moving commuters in and out of NYC to and from New Jersey. Next is the problem of depth of each sets of tunnels and stations and platforms. But the real explanation for any problems arising, any questions being made, any rejection of any ideas put forth, and any other disagreements with whaat is being done come under the umbrella word: politics. NJT, State of NJ, City of New York, State of New York, New York-New Jersey Port Authority, MTA, MNRR, LIRR , unions, non unions, east siders, west siders, are just a few of the paroachial interests at work here.
That'll make it a wonder anything good will happen at all! Imagine if PRR still controlled the whole shebang....
aegrotatio Specifically, does NYP fit bilevel cars?
Specifically, does NYP fit bilevel cars?
Not taller (superliner height) but the new NJ Transit bilevels fit
The gallery shows the deep NJT station as a three-level station with two levels of tracks. This is a very tall and very long terminal as compared to NYP. My understanding is that if they build this station closer to street level as NARP would like this would partially block the East Side Access project (LIRR to GCT) and a subway line.
As for the bilevel cars, it depends, because the lines it would appear to be serving are the single-level, catenary-powered M.U. trains. Then again NJT has tried to standardize and I think they would most certainly only consider tunnels and platforms that can serve all their loading gauges.
The alternative connection to NYP is an interesting compromise, but do the bilevel trains fit there?
I need to see more presentations to internalize this discussion better.
daveklepper Several good reasons have been given why the new NJT tunnels should have track connection to the East River tunnels. One addiitonal reason is the future should not be shortchanged for through NJT-Metro North service between Stamford or New Haven and Trenton, Long Branch, and Dover, or LIRR-NJT through service.
Several good reasons have been given why the new NJT tunnels should have track connection to the East River tunnels. One addiitonal reason is the future should not be shortchanged for through NJT-Metro North service between Stamford or New Haven and Trenton, Long Branch, and Dover, or LIRR-NJT through service.
Absolutely: forgot to mention that one!
blue streak 1 I did not mention that the North river tunnels are over 100 years old and need rehabilitation. by connecting the new tunnels with a short stub to NYP . Then the old tunnels could be taken out of service one at a time and rehabilitated. If not done one or the other of those tunnels will have a major failure and then traffic will be cut in half to and from NYP.
I did not mention that the North river tunnels are over 100 years old and need rehabilitation. by connecting the new tunnels with a short stub to NYP . Then the old tunnels could be taken out of service one at a time and rehabilitated. If not done one or the other of those tunnels will have a major failure and then traffic will be cut in half to and from NYP.
...or Amtrak passengers going thru NY would have to change trains at Penn on slightly reduced service. Not a complete disaster.
The latest NARP newsletter has the new tunnels going south of present north river tunnels but curving under the present NYP's tracks. Then the diagram shows the additional station and platforms below and to the north of Penn Station platforms with no connections to the east for the east river tunnels or GCT. NARP wants the new tunnels to come out at the present level of of NYP and meet station tracks at about tracks 1 - 4. Then extend tracks 1- 6 eastward + longer platforms; connect them to the east river tunnels and provide a track(s) to GCT (understand the realestate is available). NARP wants the additional platforms south of track 1. As an alternate to NJ TRANSIT's plans NARP wants a connection from the new tunnels to rise and meet the station tracks of NYP at about tracks 1 - 4. If ? these are the plans I feel that both plans should be in the final plans even if not initially constructed.
One item not mentioned anywhere is the clearance that will be provided in the tunnels and stations. It would seem that the standard 20' 6" would be built for full 2 level passenger cars. One problem with using the present track level of NYP is that the NYP above clearance is constrained by a subway line (forgot which one). That may be one reason NYP level access was not in NJ's final plans. That problem should be able to be engineered around but at what cost.
I've been perplexed by the view that NARP (www.narprail.org) wants the ARC tunnel (http://www.arctunnel.com/) to merge with the North River tunnels and enter Penn Station on an expanded platform. New Jersey Transit has instead planned to make the new tunnel go to a new commuter-oriented terminal directly adjacent to Penn Station. NARP says this will cut off Amtrak if the North River tunnels were ever closed.
What I'm confused by is two issues. First, New Jersey Transit already consumes track time in the North River tunnels and the new ARC tunnel will remove them from the Amtrak tunnels almost completely (correct me if I'm mistaken) leaving copious capacity below todays' near 100% capacity at peak times.
Second, if ARC used "expanded Penn Station platforms" how could this be a good thing in terms of passenger crowding? It feels as if the NARP advocates of using Penn Station have never tried to use Penn Station as a commuter going through the North River tunnels. The platforms that serve the North River Tunnels are tiny and don't appear to be intended for fast-paced commuter use, to say nothing of whatever magical way that they can be expanded for the new capacity without a new terminal entirely.
Does anyone have any insights as to the controversey over the implementation of the ARC tunnel?
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.