oltmanndIt's because the line is supposed to extend a few more blocks toward the capital.
Don, When the line was built there was talk of extending it along North Clinton Avenue and then along State Street as far as Calhoun Street. And there was even talk of extending it out to Ewing to the West Trenton Station for a connection with both the Mercer County Airport and SEPTA. But none of that was in the original plan and there has never been any further suggestion that it might be done. I suppose we should never say never but I don't expect it to happen in my lifetime.
John
Look at LIRR schedules and you'll see reasonable across the platform or train ahead connections with five minutes at the most for the connection, which can be even tighter if needed during rush hours. NJT does the same at Dover, Newark Penn, Sec. Jct., Summit, and Long Branch and with SEPTA at Trenton. It can be done and is done. But, yes, there has to be integrity in the schedule and the effort.
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.
schlimm Very true, henry. Of course a "one-seat" ride is desirable, but hardly a sine non qua. A large number of commuters in major US cities ride on two or more conveyances every workday each way. And the same is common in European and Chinese cities as well, from my perspective over the years.
Very true, henry. Of course a "one-seat" ride is desirable, but hardly a sine non qua. A large number of commuters in major US cities ride on two or more conveyances every workday each way. And the same is common in European and Chinese cities as well, from my perspective over the years.
I also agree with Henry's comment, with one qualification. The transfer needs to be short with minimum delay. Ideally there should be no waiting time at all.
But much too often when your commuter train gets to the station, you then have to wait 30 minutes for the next feeder bus to finally reach home. Or maybe it's 20 minutes standing in the rain transferring between buses. With that experience in mind it is not surprising that any poll will come out strongly in favor of a one-seat ride.
John WRThe Riverline runs right along the NEC. Then it turns away and stops on the other side of South Clinton Street from the rail station. They might have run the line right into the station but NJT didn't bother to do that.
It's because the line is supposed to extend a few more blocks toward the capital.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
The Post Office only sits over the westernmost end of the platforms for tracks 13 through 17.....
henry6As great as a one seat ride sounds, it actually is rare and it has not been a real problem for almost 200 years of commuting by rail in the NY area...but has become an issue more often used as a slam against commuter agencies and trains and mostly as opposition from the private auto/highway lobby.
I agree with your insightful comment Henry, but I would just like to add a bit.
New Jersey Transit operates our buses and trains. And yet far to often there is no way or only ways involving long and sometimes dangerous walks to get from one to the other. Yet NJT is not concerned with that at all.
Consider, for example, the RiverLine, a light trail built not that many years ago to connect with trains in Trenton. The Riverline runs right along the NEC. Then it turns away and stops on the other side of South Clinton Street from the rail station. They might have run the line right into the station but NJT didn't bother to do that. Far better to let everyone who wants to change cross a busy street, especially in the rush hour. It is hard for me to see how this is not a public be damned way to operate.
henry6they were more interested in real estate than running a railroad wanting a quick and high return on their investment.
I think they were only interested in real estate and a quick profit, Henry. Other than that I agree. The PRR's disdain for railroading is why Alfred Perlman and Stuart Saunders didn't speak to each other.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
Oh good, tear it down, it is but tuglyist building in Manhattan.
Have fun with your trains
CJtrainguy henry6 This idea of a one seat ride is over rated and over played, its political and not necessarily practical or needed. I'd love to see studies on that. Based on my experience as a commuter in a number of locations in the US and Europe, I'd say that many people place a high value on that one seat ride and if that's not an option, suddenly the car in the driveway will be a much more attractive option. Consider also that for many commuters from the NJ suburbs, there is a car ride to the train station (alternately a bus ride to the train station). Then a train ride to get close to NYC. Another change there (say Newark Penn or Secaucus Junction) is indeed an added element of inconvenience and stress. Likewise when I commuted from Manhattan to the far reaches of Queens, that involved the subway out to Queens and then transfer to a bus for the rest of the ride. It was okay, but not entirely ideal (especially late nights when the bus didn't show up). I fully understand that it's not always possible to provide the one seat ride for everyone, but certainly see it as important to do so whenever possible.
henry6 This idea of a one seat ride is over rated and over played, its political and not necessarily practical or needed.
This idea of a one seat ride is over rated and over played, its political and not necessarily practical or needed.
I'd love to see studies on that.
Based on my experience as a commuter in a number of locations in the US and Europe, I'd say that many people place a high value on that one seat ride and if that's not an option, suddenly the car in the driveway will be a much more attractive option.
Consider also that for many commuters from the NJ suburbs, there is a car ride to the train station (alternately a bus ride to the train station). Then a train ride to get close to NYC. Another change there (say Newark Penn or Secaucus Junction) is indeed an added element of inconvenience and stress.
Likewise when I commuted from Manhattan to the far reaches of Queens, that involved the subway out to Queens and then transfer to a bus for the rest of the ride. It was okay, but not entirely ideal (especially late nights when the bus didn't show up).
I fully understand that it's not always possible to provide the one seat ride for everyone, but certainly see it as important to do so whenever possible.
Every commuter has to get to a station: private car, taxi, walk, bus; that's one seat. Most have to take a second mode at the end of the train ride: subway, ferry, bus, rapid transit. Many in the New York area have to change trains enroute, most notably the LIRR's change at Jamaica and NJT's Sec. Jct., but also changes at some branch line junctions, too, on LIRR and NJT as well as MNRR.. As great as a one seat ride sounds, it actually is rare and it has not been a real problem for almost 200 years of commuting by rail in the NY area...but has become an issue more often used as a slam against commuter agencies and trains and mostly as opposition from the private auto/highway lobby. It is an issue that seems designed to cause unrest than to provide solutions.
The LV long distance trains used P Sta. up to the end of service in 1961; CNJ never did. But the whole of the decision to tear it down was based on real estate values and how investors viewed holdings: they were more interested in real estate than running a railroad wanting a quick and high return on their investment. American's interest was in airports and moon flights and how many cars they could have in their driveways, so, the whole concept of the need for a railroad station anyplace, but specifically at 9th Ave and 34th St., was not part of their mindset. As for commuters having to change at Sec. Jct., I still say, so what. Many change at many stations across the area and have to over a hundred years...if not to a ferry boat, then to PATH or bus or subway or branchline trains. This idea of a one seat ride is over rated and over played, its political and not necessarily practical or needed.
The Pennsylvania Railroad opposed giving any other railroad access to New York Penn Station. The Long Island had access but that railroad was owned by the Pennsylvania. The New Haven had access for trains to Washington DC where the Pennsylvania pulled them south of New York but it paid a high price to use the Hell Gate Bridge. Other than that no other railroad company got into their station.
During World War I when railroads were nationalized the Federal Government put a stop to that foolishness and B&O trains were allowed in. I don't know if CNJ trains went there or continued to use the ferries. When control was returned to private railroads the Pennsylvania evicted the B&O as quickly as possible.
Had the Pennsylvania been willing to share its station the decision to tear it down might have been unnecessary as railroads that shared the terminal would have to have shared operating expenses. Of course we can never know that. What we can know is that having access to New York Pennsylvania Station is a great improvement over the old days even though some commuters still have to change trains at Secaucus.
A lot of suburban trains continued to terminate at Exchange Place after Penn Station was opened. I would assume that one of the reasons was to avoid the engine change at Manhattan Transfer. I would also assume that operating practices began to change after the AC electrification eliminated most of the engine changes and continued with the gradual decline in passenger service, both intercity and suburban.
Commuter trains were su-posed to continue to use Exchange Place, where passengers could use the ferry boats or the Hudson Tubers (H&M) to get to Manhattan.
54light15 I thought as well that the Farley post office would be the new station call Moynihan Station after the late senator. I remember when they built MSG, it was called something like a "miracle of progress" or some stupid thing like that. Progress, my a$$.
I thought as well that the Farley post office would be the new station call Moynihan Station after the late senator. I remember when they built MSG, it was called something like a "miracle of progress" or some stupid thing like that. Progress, my a$$.
The old post office will be part of whatever new is constructed. Contracts have already been awarded to build new entrances to Penn Station from the post office.
To me there was always a feeling about the post office plans that they were trying to make the best of a bad situation by turning it into a station. No matter how nice the post office turned train station will be, it doesn't make up for the parts of Penn Station under MSG or having to dive down in the underground like rats when you come to the 7th Ave/32nd Street entrance. Now the opportunity to fix all that is finally here.
By the way, I once saw a movie with senator Moynihan years ago. My wife and I were in Upstate Films in Rhinebeck, New York watching Spike Lee's "Do the Right Thing" when after about 5 minutes, in popped the senator wearing one of his tweed suits he was know for. He left five minutes before it ended. For a big guy, he sure moved fast!
Here's some more info about what's underfoot. Could be a total transformation for the whole area around Penn Station.
More info about the plans for a new Penn Station
aut I thought the idea was to convert the old monumental post office building across 8th Avenue into a Penn Station replacement.
I'll never see it but I hope it bids well for a real railroad station to serve both Amtrak and commuters as needed instead of the mess they have now. The City Council's act serves notice to MSG to start looking and move with the intonation of "the sooner, the better". It was a good idea so many years ago but has been badly played since.
New York City Council voted to terminate MSG's lease in ten years as opposed to both MSG's request for "in perpetuity" lease and Mayor Michael Bloomberg's counter offer of fifteen years. This clears the way for redevelopment of the site for necessary improved transportation infrastructure.
“Things of quality have no fear of time.”
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.