Will the New York Subway come to New Jersey? Railway Age Editor Douglas John Bowen says the question isn't will it happen but when will it happen. The idea is now supported by the Real Estate Board of New York. While many New Yorkers wonder why they should pay for a subway that runs to New Jersey that question could be answered if New Jersey agrees to come up with part of the money. There is one opponent, Joseph J. Lhota who right now is a candidate to be the next Mayor of New York. But even if he is elected there is still a possibility that eventually the train could get here. Here is a link to Bowen's column:
tp://www.railwayage.com/index.php/blogs/doug-bowen/next-champion-for-no-7-subway-to-new-jersey.html?channel=
As a Jersey guy I don't see my own Governor, Christ Christie, supporting this. Christie vetoed a new tunnel for New Jersey Transit to Manhattan claiming it would be too expensive so why should he be inclined to support this tunnel? Christie is up for reëlection next November but right now he is overwhelmingly popular.
This link might work better:
http://www.railwayage.com/index.php/blogs/doug-bowen/next-champion-for-no-7-subway-to-new-jersey.html
I thought the Port Authority had a monopoly on new NY/NJ Hudson crossings?
MidlandMikeI thought the Port Authority had a monopoly on new NY/NJ Hudson crossings?
Back when the New Jersey Transit was going on (and it actually began before Governor Christie stopped it) there was no issue of Port Authority control. However, the Port Authority had committed a significant amount of money to paying for it.
Whether or not the Port Authority would have jurisdiction over a subway tunnel operated by the Metropolitan Transit Authority I don't know.
Of course, New York promised us they were going to send a branch of the IND over the George or Martha Washington Bridge -- I don't remember which, but I saw the actual engineering blueprints for some of the track structure involved -- and it's interesting to consider where it would have gone (Hackensack, I think) and what it would have connected to on the way. I'd have loved to see the viaducting down the valley that contained NJ Route 4... this is long before it was 'opened up' for the I-95/80 megaplex... and seen the effect on traffic for, as an example, the Northern Branch of the Erie. I believe the Depression killed it.
I'd have to wonder whether there would be adequate capacity opening up in the ex-PRR Hudson River tunnels (which do have third rail in them that could be made compatible with subway standards) once Amtrak gets their 'new' Hudson River Tunnels done. Surely it makes better sense to have the subway connection go directly to someplace like Secaucus than wander across to access some light rail with multiple stops to actually get someplace; this is a bit like a slugs-despising-the-worms remix of the NYW&B debacle...
Gets you around a GREAT deal of the 'orthodox' GCT-to-Penn confusion, too, if you extend the 7 line over to tie into the old West Side line (that is now the Empire Corridor) and then make a little modification to allow trains to turn into the Hudson bores as well as toward the Penn Station platforms...
RME
Yes, it was planned when erected that the G.W. Bridge would have tracks, but I'm not sure how firm the concept was.
I commented to Railway Age similar to comments I've made on these posts over time that PATH should be the builder/operator of any such trans Hudson crossing. First it is the purview of the Port Authority and as such all legal crossings of state lines, etc. are cleared. Second, PATH could extend north and west from 33rd St going into NJ and then turn south toward Hoboken, Journal Square, or Newark (and Newark Airport)...this could be straight line or loop. Third, PATH could also take advantage of abandoned railroad rights of way and lines and extend into upper Newark, Bloomfield, the Oranges, etc. Fourth...how many people in Flushing want to go to NJ and vice versa? The 7 train's route would only scantily viable if it included LaGuardia and could connect to Newark Airport in a once seat ride. Politically and socially the concept of the MTA or anything NYCity intruding on Jersey soil would not sit well with many on both shores of the North River. And this service would not be heavy commuter rail but more local rapid transit. All realities and sensibilities and legalities lead to PATH being the agency with the best abilities and least problems in providing rapid transit between the shores of NJ and NY.
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.
henry6PATH should be the builder/operator of any such trans Hudson crossing.
Your thinking is way ahead of my own here, Henry. My own thought was that a direct connection to the New York Subway System in New Jersey would be desirable.
You point out that the Port Authority could do a lot of other desirable things for the whole area. Also, the Port Authority is in a much better political situation to accomplish these things and that is very important.
I recall discussing the possibility of extending the PATH to Newark Airport and that the Port Authority is studying this so they seem to have some interest in that part of the plan. Is there any reason to believe the Port Authority would be willing to take on the rest of it?
My point is that if you want something to happen, PATH is ahead in the game with authority to bridge over and tunnel under the Hudson. If you want to drag things out for another 100 years while the State of NJ battles the State and City of New York and other fiefdoms including the Port Authority, then, yeah, have the MTA do it...but my great, great, grandkids as grandparents themselves might be the first riders.
It was explained to me, repeatedly, in the '70s that the Port Authority and PATH were two very, very different things when it came to bridges/tunnels for the Hudson (this being in connection with my involvement in the 125th-street Trans-Manhattan Viaduct project at that time)
The very stringent clearance restrictions on the old H&M make design of PATH-compliant equipment restricted in a number of respects. That is true in both gage/'plate' restrictions and length.
The whole point of the 7 line is not that it's coming from Flushing; it's that it's crosstown through Grand Central toward the West Side, in the immediate vicinity of (1) 42nd Street area, (2) the PA bus terminal. This would be like saying that very few people are going from Inwood to the Rockaways as a justification not to build the IND!
I find it very unlikely that H&M anything is going to be extended to GCT area, and its lines in lower Manhattan are much the same 'might as well be on the Moon' for many commuters as would access to the Lincoln Tunnel from downtown in the absence of the 31st street connector...
I, personally, would expect there to be relatively little run-through from NJ out to Flushing on the "7 line" project; much more likely that it would act like a shuttle from GCT to NJ. I of course like the idea of a one-seat TRAIN ride between LaGuardia and Newark; I would even use transfer to an expanded version of the Q10 if that's more cost-effective to access the various terminals and services at LaGuardia and the time of the rubber-tired loop service could be held to a consistent minimum.
In case you hadn't remembered, there has been "MTA encroachment" on Jersey soil for quite some time now, even extending to MTA ownership of locomotives and cars. Does Suffern ring a bell? There's no reason whatsoever to think that MTA and NJT don't, let alone can't, have working relationships ... or that the PA itself can't work with them (of course it already works with NJT regarding all that bus access to Manhattan...!)
Now, I'll grant you that extended service to places like Newark and the Oranges might well be provided by extending PATH... but those areas are already privy to enhanced access to Manhattan both via PATH itself and the various services through Allied Junction or Hoboken. Nothing more than a faster NJ transfer service, say between Allied Junction and the first 7 line stop after the Palisades, would be needed to make the change from 34th-street to 42nd-street access.
But MTA Subway is not in NJ, MTA's MNRR is. As far as difference between PATH and Port Authority is that the Authority owns and operates PATH. PATH holds the franchise for crossing the Hudson, not MTA, not MNRR, not NJT in the sense of rapid transit. The time and bloodshed it would take for MTA or anybody else to get the authoritative ability to do it will take decades. So why play the game? Use the cards PATH is holding. And then expand on it..
henry6 If you want to drag things out for another 100 years while the State of NJ battles the State and City of New York and other fiefdoms including the Port Authority, then, yeah, have the MTA do it.
As I say, Henry, your thinking her is ahead of mine.
But I have heard that for the Port Authority the PATH is a money pit and they would dump it if they could. Is there any real reason to think they would expand a money losing operaton?
henry6 But MTA Subway is not in NJ, MTA's MNRR is.
Technical only. And I suspect, less than defiinitive in the sense you want it to be. MTA is the entity that deals with PA, and almost certainly with PATHC on the administrative level where those things matter.
As far as difference between PATH and Port Authority is that the Authority owns and operates PATH.
Now, I'm going to go out on a limb here, and ASSume that you are conflating the Corporation with the existing "PATH" rail system itself. The PA was not particularly interested, let alone happy, to take over the H&M services, as I recall. Only in the negotiations over the WTC did PA agree to take over what are now called the PATH services. Not exactly a situation where mother dog will fight anyone attempting to come to the manger, is it now/
PATH holds the franchise for crossing the Hudson, not MTA, not MNRR, not NJT in the sense of rapid transit.
Just exactly what 'franchise' would you have this be, post the transfer from H&M ownership? Do you have legal cites that back up an actual exclusive franchise for the Port Authority Trans-Hudson Corporation? If so, please provide them for me.
It's a good thing you put in that qualifier about 'rapid transit' because I was going to ask what the MTA agency of record involved in the proposed Tappan Zee rail connector (which last I looked was still 'crossing the Hudson') was going to be ... (hint: not the Port Authority Trans-Hudson Corporation).
The time and bloodshed it would take for MTA or anybody else to get the authoritative ability to do it will take decades. So why play the game? Use the cards PATH is holding.
I would tend to call 'wack' on this. Look no further than that recent open letter by Kingsberry in which he clearly states "we collaborated with NJ Transit to provide discounted ferry service from Hoboken Terminal to Midtown Manhattan". It's not difficult to understand that even in the absence of a tunnel-filling storm, similar collaboration is possible; neither is it difficult to imagine similar collaboration with the MTA, agency to corporation as it were (or should I say MNCR more specifically) regarding how and where the new bores in the "Port" area of New York and New Jersey will go. There is certainly nothing particularly magical about improving rail service when somebody else is paying for it, and I do not recall seeing hard evidence that the PA was intending to restrict trans-Hudson transit of any kind merely to protect its perceived 'interest' in keeping all trans-Hudson transit under its ownership, even (or perhaps especially!) transit service directed to areas the PATH rail system does not, and economically would not, serve.
All this ignores a simple, fundamental truth: the Port Authority Trans-Hudson Corporation is not limited to the old H&M system, or even committed to building only equipment that is compatible with it. But don't go blithely quoting PATH (which most on here will assume refers to the railroad operating entity) when you mean the corporate parent...
Overmod. The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey owns and operates PATH. (Port Authority Trans Husdson) as a successor to the Hudson and Manhattan Railroad. Whether they wanted to or didn't want to, they do. The Port Authority also owns and operates the George Washington Bridge, the Outer Bridge, the Goethals Bridge, and the Bayonne Bridge, plus the Holland and Lincoln Tunnels. They have the authority and expertise in trans Hudson infrastructure and transportation projects. Neither the MTA nor NJT have any input or control over it. MTA and MNRR own and operate only in New York City and State and contract with NJT for crews and operating trans above the NY/NJ border and don't have any authority over PATH (or the PA) in any way nor do they have any authority to do anything trans Hudson. or interstate. So, rather than have a national debate, interstate and regional squabbles and tantrums, and fiefdom wars, etc. and waste the time to go through all that, just have the Governors of the two States (who "control" the PA board and managers by selection) push the idea. The Port Authority is already in place with the powers to do it without all the hullaballo which would ensue. And the ferry company is a private enterprise not regulated by the Port Authority and can enter into any contract it wishes with whoever it wishes; in the Sandy emergency, it probably would not have mattered anyway. The Tappan Zee project is going through the State of New York Department of Transportation with MNRR having some input.
[quote user"Overmod"]
... PATH holds the franchise for crossing the Hudson, not MTA, not MNRR, not NJT in the sense of rapid transit. Just exactly what 'franchise' would you have this be, post the transfer from H&M ownership? Do you have legal cites that back up an actual exclusive franchise for the Port Authority Trans-Hudson Corporation? If so, please provide them for me. It's a good thing you put in that qualifier about 'rapid transit' because I was going to ask what the MTA agency of record involved in the proposed Tappan Zee rail connector (which last I looked was still 'crossing the Hudson') was going to be ... (hint: not the Port Authority Trans-Hudson Corporation). ...
...
It was pointed out in another thread that the Port Authority's monopoly only extends up the Hudson so far, and that the Tappen Zee bridge was built at that location because it was just beyond PA's control.
Why do you think they called it the PORT Authority!
Seriously though, I only brought that up because Henry phrased his claim in terms of any crossing of the Hudson, not just those involved to 'Greater New York'.
Yes, the 'logical' way to handle the matter is for PA to have authority and control over the tunnel (consider it like any other of the Hudson River vehicle crossings, with similar bounds on approach ownership and administration, even though rail-only), MTA to have authority over the buiild and operations on the New York side, and NJT on the other (it's probably very, very unlikely that any operations of the 'subway extension' would then go back into New York west of the Hudson, or to Pennsylvania! But (1) that wouldn't put the Port Authority in charge of the whole schmear, and (2) the PA wouldn't be in the position of expanding its rail operation ... well, let's go ahead and say it, net operating deficit ... to run even the part of the extension within the tunnel and approach confines. That would just add to the cost to the PA, which would already be looking at the net cost of all tunnel construction and maintenance cost, bond- and toll-financed though those might be.
I consider it fairly obvious that the PA would be "interested as could be" in maximizing its use of OPM and minimizing its exposure to railroad operations. Somebody will need to make a VERY convincing argument, direct from Kingsberry or someone similarly empowered in the PA administration, that the situation would or even should be different.
Evidently none of you know what the Port of Authority of New York and New Jersey is. It is a legal and political entity agreement between the two states to administer to the operations of the Port. The bridges, tunnels, and PATH, and certain piers, properties, and waterways come under its jurisdiction. It was born so as to overcome the conflicting laws and domains of the two states and to work for the good of the Port.. Both states adhere to this entity in dealing with matters as defined by its charter. In effect, it is a separate state or sub state or what ever you want to call it, that acts as the agent for the two states within the Port area. You can hypothecize and claim whatever you want, but it is what it is and has first authority on the inter state or trans Hudson transportation infrastructure. It is real, it is legal, it is the Authority. The board is comprised of appointees from each of the states with the governor of both states ex officio memebers.
Henry6 ias absolutely correct. Here is the only scenereo that might take a New York City subway line to New Jersey. The PA owns both the 41St and 8th Avenue and the Washington Heights bus terminals. These sit on valuable real estate. Obviously , the Port Authority could realize a large fortune by developing both properties for business and commercial-retail use. If the buses did not have to cross the GW bridge, there would more than enough reduction in traffic to allow the two rapid transit lanes that were unused for anything through WWII to be converted back to rapid transit from roadways, and the IND connection would be feasible, with a new bus-subway transfer station on land in Edgewood that is available and convenient to highways. And most of the bus passengers transfer to the IND subway now anyway, so the transfer would just occur at a different place. If the 7 were extended to Secause in it own tunnel (give up any idea of it using any Amtrak tunne, a rediculous idea, on the way a Meadows NJT-PA bus terminal would be built, and the buses that now go into midtown Manhattan would drop their passengers at the new No. 7 transfer station. They could then go to Manhattan and Queens on the subway, or back track one stop for convenient connections to NJT trains at Secaucus. Both scenereos are doable and I think fundable because of the valuable real estate now occupied by bus terminals.
Dave: DUH! I have been so tied to the rails I didn't think to think of bus terminals in NJ instead of rail connections or a one seat rapid transit line! Thank you for jogging my brain away from the train!
A comment on the discussion of the Port Authority's juristinction; recently (2010-2011?) the Port Authority was directed to assume control of Steward Airport in Newburgh NY by the Governors of NY & NJ. Both state's legislatures immediately passed bills modifying the PA's "charter".
Obviously, the "Port" aspect in Port Authority is no longer the focus. The PA is now involved in anything that the two governors decide that it will be.
I forgot about Stewart. But the point is underscored that the Authority an entity which wields great power and jurisdiction under the whims of the governors of the two states.
It is true that I have no idea what the Port of Authority of New York and New Jersey is.
On the other hand, I have known and continue to know a great deal about the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey -- its history, its mandates, and its plans. From when it was still called the Port of New York Authority, as a matter of fact.
I take it that you are interpreting Article VI of the Compact of 1921 in thinking that 'full power and authority' is a mandate; it is not. It simply confirms that the Port Authority is capable, just as any other entity, of undertaking improvements in its own name.
If there are questions about exactly where the power, the real power, lies, I suggest
http://njlegallib.rutgers.edu/journals/docs/journal.nwk.1.29.pdf
which lays things out in terms that even Van Schnooken Raggen should be able to comprehend.
BTW, for those interested in specifically where the Port Authority goes, here is a snip from the Compact (long, so don't come whining TL;DR to me!) :
The district is included within the boundary lines located by connecting points of known latitude and longitude. The approximate courses and distances of the lines inclosing the district are recited in the description, but the district is determined by drawing lines through the points of known latitude and longitude. Beginning at a point A of latitude forty-one degrees and four minutes north and longitude seventy-three degrees and fifty-six minutes west, said point being about sixty-five hundredths of a mile west of the westerly bank of the Hudson river and about two and one-tenth miles northwest of the pier at Piermont, in the county of Rockland, state of New York; thence due south one and fifteen-hundredths miles more or less to a point B of latitude forty-one degrees and three minutes north and longitude seventy-three degrees and fifty-six minutes west; said point being about one and three-tenths miles northwest of the pier at Piermont, in the county of Rockland, state of New York; thence south fifty-six degrees and thirty-four minutes west six and twenty-six hundredths miles more or less to a point C of latitude forty-one degrees and no minutes north and longitude seventy-four degrees and two minutes west, said point being about seven-tenths of a mile north of the railroad station at Westwood, in the county of Bergen, state of New Jersey; thence south sixty-eight degrees and twenty-four minutes west nine and thirty-seven hundredths miles more or less to a point D of latitude forty degrees and fifty-seven minutes north and longitude seventy-four degrees and twelve minutes west, said point [being] about three miles northwest of the business center of the city of Paterson, in the county of Passaic, state of New Jersey; thence south forty-seven degrees and seventeen minutes west eleven and eighty-seven hundredths miles more or less to a point E of latitude forty degrees and fifty minutes north and longitude seventy-four degrees and twenty-two minutes west, said point being about four and five-tenths miles west of the borough of Caldwell, in the county of Morris [Essex], state of New Jersey; thence due south nine and twenty-hundredths miles more or less to a point F of latitude forty degrees and forty-two minutes north and longitude seventy-four degrees and twenty-two minutes west, said point being about one and two-tenths miles southwest of the passenger station of the Delaware, Lackawanna and Western Railroad in the city of Summit, in the county of Union, state of New Jersey; thence south forty-two degrees and twenty-four minutes, west seven and seventy-eight-hundredths miles more or less to a point G of latitude forty degrees and thirty-seven minutes north and longitude seventy-four degrees and twenty-eight minutes west, said point being about two and two-tenths miles west of the business center of the city of Plainfield, in the county of Somerset, state of New Jersey; thence due south twelve and sixty-five hundredths miles more or less on [to] a line passing about one mile west of the business center of the city of New Brunswick to a point H of latitude forty degrees and twenty-six minutes north and longitude seventy-four degrees and twenty-eight minutes west, said point being about four and five-tenths miles southwest of the city of New Brunswick, in the county of Middlesex, state of New Jersey; thence south seventy-seven degrees and forty-two minutes east ten and seventy-nine hundredths miles more or less to a point I of latitude forty degrees and twenty-four minutes north and longitude seventy-four degrees and sixteen minutes west, said point being about two miles southwest of the borough of Matawan, in the county of Middlesex [Monmouth], state of New Jersey; thence due east twenty-five and forty-eight hundredths miles more or less, crossing the county of Monmouth, state of New Jersey, and passing about one and four-tenths miles south of the pier of the Central Railroad of New Jersey at Atlantic Highlands to a point J of latitude forty degrees and twenty-four minutes north and longitude seventy-three degrees and forty-seven minutes west, said point being in the Atlantic ocean; thence north eleven degrees fifty-eight minutes east twenty-one and sixteen-hundredths miles more or less to a point K, said point being about five miles east of the passenger station of the Long Island Railroad at Jamaica and about one and three-tenths miles east of the boundary line of the city of New York, in the county of Nassau, state of New York; thence in a northeasterly direction, passing about one-half mile west of New Hyde Park and about one and one-tenth miles east of the shore of Manhasset bay at Port Washington, crossing Long Island sound to a point L, said point being the point of intersection of the boundary line between the states of New York and Connecticut and the meridian of seventy-three degrees thirty-nine minutes and thirty seconds west longitude, said point being also about a mile northeast of the village of Port Chester; thence northwesterly along the boundary line between the states of New York and Connecticut to a point M, said point being the point of intersection between said boundary line between the states of New York and Connecticut and the parallel of forty-one degrees and four minutes north latitude, said point also being about four and five-tenths miles northeast of the business center of the city of White Plains; thence due west along said parallel, of forty-one degrees and four minutes north latitude, the line passing about two and one-half miles north of the business center of the city of White Plains and crossing the Hudson river to the point A, the place of beginning.
The boundaries of said district may be changed from time to time by the action of the legislature of either state concurred in by the legislature of the other.
Perhaps a more interesting follow-on question is this:
The Port Authority has made some clear indications that a priority is a 'one-seat ride' between the area airports, and that the #7 line and improvements to it constitute one alternative to accomplish that (now that the ARC and "THE" Tunnel project is stopped).
How you'd extend the 7 line from Secaucus/Lautenmund (that's a joke, son) down to Newark with third rail is an interesting question; in my opinion, yes, it would CERTAINLY involve co-operation with PATH at some point, perhaps connecting around Newark Penn Station. (You would have the option at Newark, coming from EWR, of taking PATH directly to where it goes, the 7 line directly to where it goes, or shuttling to Secaucus and transferring to where all those liines go, including NYP).
Far less likely is the advantage of such heavy capitalization, particularly the portion of 'subway-grade' track that would provide non-FRA-compliant access across the Meadows, just for the 'one-seat ride on transit' approach. It might be better (for example) to establish some running rights from Secaucus to Newark via some of that prospective Portal Bridge improvement, perhaps sharing ROW with the NYCR, and then making the 'hub' of EWR access somewhere around Newark Penn... figuring out wherever you go with joint H&M and subway clearances.
Somewhere in here we should probably also consider what combination of running rights and new line might be used for the #7 system to connect via the general Cranford Junction route with the SIRT bridge to Staten Island, and thereby give a direct rail connection from Staten Island to the airport system and to midtown Manhattan. (Don't bother me with the clearance issues; I've worked that out in principle...)
Where the real fun starts is in how you get a one-seat ride between the fourth airport (ex-Stewart AFB) and the others. Now, it would look like a slam-dunk to provide a feeder to Stewart from the Port Jervis line somewhere north of Salisbury Mills/Cornwall... but there's this little problem called the Moodna Viaduct that would restrict you to shared single track unless you spend LOTS of money. And shared ops are going to be a pain. So I'd expect that cost-effective ties to Stewart would involve one transfer (probably at Secaucus to the ex-EL lines that feed into the Port Jervis line) and either a service extension or coordinated-time train service (perhaps, God help us, with dual-power railcars) for the fourth-airport access. You still get the construction advantages of ARC-lite for the new tunnel construction, and suburban access to midtown without an in-Manhattan train change.
The Port Authority has no jurisdiction over the 7 train or any other MTA operation, subway or heavy rail. The MTA has no jurisdiction to dig a hole under the Hudson River to NJ for any reason. The Port Authority operates by a board of directors appointed by the governors of the states of New York and New Jersey and therefore are controlled by that chain of command or whimsy. What part of this set up do you not understand?
You seem to be laboring under the misapprehension that the "MTA" is building the 7 line extension. That isn't true even for the little piece under the Bus Terminal to the Yards; why would you even assume MTA oversight would be involved in letting the tunnel contract, or even arranging for the portion of extended-line operation in the new tunnel?
I certainly understand the 'setup', indeed, I have no particular problem understanding interagency communication and 'collaboration' in this area, or how it would be applied for this project. Had you actually read what I posted, you might get a better idea of what the situation of the 7 line construction, and then operation, and then administration, would entail.
Let me reiterate that the PA had no great desire to assimilate the H&M, and in fact uses a separate corporation to administer it (this is the PATHC entity that you seem to think would control all trans-Hudson operations). It is just as likely (imho) that the New York and New Jersey Railroad Corporation is the PA 'entity' that would be involved with this 7 line extension. Or that a new corporation would be formed to administer the bi-state aspects of the line.
Yeesh.
I am under the understanding that no one is building the 7 train to NJ but that many are wagging as an idea. I am also under the understanding that MTA can't tunnel under the Hudson to NJ. And that only the Port of Authority has the authority to do so whether as part of PATH or any other part of their powers. And if it isn't the MTA building it, it ain't the 7 train....
We're getting into nitpicks here that don't really matter.
When everyone talks about the '7 line extension' they mean a railroad that connects the end of the existing "7 line" in Manhattan with New Jersey points. Trains going into the tunnel to get over there need no more be "7 trains" than the 'Train to the Plane' trains were A/Rockaway trains. And in fact, any one-seat 'shuttle' service between airports would not be run with normal MTA subway stock interiors (remember that point in the PA strategic plan about luggage space?), or on 'typical' 7 line schedules.
So no, the extension to New Jersey 'ain't the 7 train' to begin with. (If the MTA wanted to secure trackage rights to use the tunnel and the extension for actual continuation of 'regular' 7 iine trains, I'm sure something could be arranged either allowing MTA crews to run such service or provide a change of crew and, perhaps, signage at the Yards or wherever that would get around the issue. But the advantage of that alone as an excuse to spend All That Tunnel Money, with the (rather weak, to me) argument about lower tunnelling cost for a transit-quality and size structure, is not particularly promising when one applies the wire brush.
We could kvetch about who owns the actual train cars, but here too nothing more serious than some kind of interagency lease solves the problem in principle... as does PA funding of all or part of "subway" equipment subsequently operated by, say, one of the other transport agencies or operating corporations.
Why you are hung up on what the MTA isn't supposed to be able to do, I'm not sure. It's not important whether the extension of the 7 line is nominally MTA controlled, or MTA owned, or not... it's that a one-seat ride from midtown (or further out!) can be made to New Jersey points. MUCH simpler to work that out with some paper contracts and operating agreements than to have physically separate hardware arrangements,,,
Even if you were to use PATHC as the owning and operating agency for the tunnel, you'd still have to work out interworking with the MTA system for through trains. Transferring to another system's train at, say, the Yards or under the bus terminal defeats the whole principle of the one-seat ride.
You still don't get it, do you?
What a waste a present day subway or PATH tunnel system would be. Based on the proposed costs of the aborted ARC tunnels I would suspect that 2 subway clearance sized tunnels would cost $10 B ? Access to NJ and NYC may have limited locations to build. Anything other than full Bi-level clearance tunnel (s ) will probably be needed in the future . Costs would not be that much more % wise. Very penny wise and # foolish. For instance there is no reason that some day PATH will have to replace the H & M tubes and why not allow for much higher capacity full bi-level trains when that happens. The new world trade center station certainly already has those clearances. I cannot remember if Journal Square already has that required vertical clearance ? Too much looking only at short term instead of long term ?
But Blue Streak, the idea is different if we talk bus terminal in NJ to meet the tunneled trains....you could also bring NJT to the terminal, say, to the Park N RIde at Rt 3(?) and Tonnelle Ave.
There is one problem with expanding the #7 line under the Hudson to give a one seat ride to Newark Airport... IT DOES NOT CONNECT TO LaGUARDIA AIRPORT AT THE OTHER END. Since LaGuardia has gone 3/4 of a century without rapid transit, I would not hold my breath waiting for subway expansion west of the Hudson. And we will be driving flying cars before Stewart Airport is connected.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.