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.
henry6But 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.
I like this general idea, if we'd be using the 7 tunnel to alleviate traffic going through the Lincoln Tunnel (which I think is a reasonable idea even preserving the existing counterflow busway in rush hour). i wonder, though, if you wouldn't want to establish the actual 'bus hub' further out from where 3 crosses Tonnelle -- I recall 3 backing up past that point fairly often in rush hour, so you'd need more dedicated busways inbound if you were going to put a facility of any particular size there for this purpose.
Much cheaper, of course, to build these lanes than to update the elevated approach to the Lincoln vehicle tunnels, and interestingly enough the trans-Hudson route would go neatly under the 40th St. bus facility itself on its way to Grand Central, so you have enhanced access both places to, say, Carey going eastbound to LGA and JFK.
One of the prospective places I see self-driving cars being most useful is in facilities like this, where a driver can proceed (through a gate that confirms parking space is available and can spec its location) and go through the "kiss 'n ride" lane, where he just gets out and heads into the terminal (under reasonable cover). The car itself then navigates to the parking spot chosen and parks itself. Reverse this upon return. Pay for it with the PA's merged system for EZpass and C-vision or whatever it will be called. Adding BEV charging and some other 'amenities' would not be particularly difficult, either, and this scenario removes some of the latent objections to the use of battery mode in hybrids in the New York/New Jersey area.
The other question: Rt. 3 and Tonnelle is only about 1000' from where I used to park to walk down (illegally, through that break in the chain link) to West Portal at Bergen Hill. Would you advocate co-locating the part of the 7 line extension going to Secaucus with the NYCR ROW more or less before the NYCR finishes curving south, i.e. within about a half mile of the portal? Or would you think re-purposing the old Northern alignment (now being used for that light rail project) would make better sense? (I don;t know if the precedent of all that digging in the Meadowlands for drainage sets a precedent for construction or not...)
There are some interesting implications for the south Portal Bridge replacement if you can divert enough of the M&E (etc.) traffic to where it doesn't have to cross the Hackensack on the Kearny Yard alignment. I'm not saying all of it would, but perhaps you'd get to where the three-track Gateway improvement, plus the lighter transit alignment, would both 'work' at the 50' free clearance height...
I'm proceeding on a couple of assumptions here.
PA has said there's a priority on developing a one-seat ride between the major airports, that also serves major zones in midtown. I don't see any route that does this without involving the 7 line, and by extension its car size and clearances. The only other line I see in contention for a 'rail' LGA extension is the Q train, and there's a hell of an issue getting that line over there compared to a branch off the 7 (there are already MTA indications about 'Airtrain' in the official map listing, and you can bet these aren't for JFK!) Meanwhile accessing, say, the southbound IND line around 8th Avenue is scarcely unthinkable... and there you would be. You even get the choice of airport branch right at the bus terminal... how useful is that?
Stewart is the Port Authority's official 'fourth airport' choice -- don't argue with me, argue with them, they've set it up already so (good or ill) that's where the development will go. I don't see anything of great importance either about the runway alignment or the possibility of placing parallel runways a la Memphis, especially with 15,000' available on the main strip and plenty of dedicated land.
Since the trip from the Port Jervis line over to Stewart is not very far and I don't see dramatic terrain from the satellite, even fully elevated viaducting for access ought to be thinkable within the scope of the airport development budget PA is looking at, particularly as no intermediate stop or passenger access would be necessary. I confess that I have not looked at the detailed topo information for that area, but if you branched off at the curve above Beaver Dam Lake and went generally northeast, there isn't much... yet... that reasonable eminent domain wouldn't get you. Combined with the fact that NJT/MNCR have upgraded the track all the way from Secaucus up to this point -- well enough that Ross Rowland could get his 4-8-4 up to 80mph on it -- I'd say there are few all-rail routes better, again *for the purpose of creating a one-seat ride between airports*.
With all respect, I don't see the CSX River line even remotely serving as an access here, even if we were to take advantage of the old double-track ROW to put in new separate track north of Blauvelt, transfer over to the old Northern where it crosses, expand the light-rail infrastructure, etc. in order to get down to, say, a Rt. 3 crossing parallel to, and not far west of, Tonnelle Avenue... I remember the West Shore running along the river in this area with substantial cliffs (remnants of the Palisades) to the west, and a number of major roads that would require bridging over/under... all to get to an approach that is going to be slower and less convenient than a Port Jervis line connection. (I look to PA using extensive shuttle-bus operation, perhaps from a new Port Jervis line station north of Salisbury Mills, in the interim, just as I expect enhanced shuttle-bussing from the Airtrain stations on the 7 line in Queens...)
Blue Streak -- remember that this proposed subway extension is in PARALLEL to the Gateway tubes that Amtrak is doing. I would be very, very surprised if the new Gateway tunnels were not built to 'bilevel' clearance or perhaps even beyond, given the capabilities of the existing TBMs that are, handily, available for this work.
All the existing materials I've seen give the cost of the 'subway' tunnel, all the way under the Palisades, as less than $5 billion. It literally does not matter if you have additional tunnel clearance for the transit proposal, except (marginally) insofar as you might want to build it to clear IND-size equipment for some potential future uses (and I believe the extension tunnels are oversize already, so this is not unthinkable).
The nice thing about the transit tunnel is that HYDC is on board with the idea, as it benefits their work both directly and indirectly, and if motivated they are a potential source of capital.
If I understand the situation correctly, and I think I do, the chief reason Christie cancelled the NJ side of ARC was that he was receiving insufficient guarantees that the State of New Jersey -- not the PA, not any entity in New York -- was going to be left with $1B or more of overall cost without any budget in place for that. This indicates to me that even if the transit tunnel is only a couple billion short it would not face objection like that for ARC, and WITH THE PRESENCE OF GATEWAY it would provide some valuable services that would be far less practical, or even impossible, with full-size commuter stock (let alone bilevels!)
Now, something this at least brings up again is allowing subway-size stock to access the PRR tubes once Gateway is in place. I am tempted to mention that third rail is still in the tunnels (for cat maintenance) and it wouldn't be terrifically difficult to arrange things so that '7 line" trains could go via the Empire Connector and thence (even with a reversing move, practical) out through the PRR tunnel either to Secaucus directly or branching off to its own alignment on the other side of Bergen Hill. (Yes, I know there are FRA regs involved here, but again, in the absence of high-speed traffic in the older tunnels it becomes something that could be worked toward, especially considering the amount of capital it would 'not require'...
IRT subway cars are not going to operate on NJT or Amtrak tracks for one simple reason. The prohibitive cost of installing ATC-PTC indication and control equipment compatible with what Amtrak and NJT both are using now and what is required by the new FRA PTC program. A large fleet of subway cars would require this equipment, and it would be in use only a fraction of the time. An across the platform or other exchange would be so far more economical that any one-seat ride promises would not be kept.
Overmod Blue Streak -- remember that this proposed subway extension is in PARALLEL to the Gateway tubes that Amtrak is doing. I would be very, very surprised if the new Gateway tunnels were not built to 'bilevel' clearance or perhaps even beyond, given the capabilities of the existing TBMs that are, handily, available for this work. All the existing materials I've seen give the cost of the 'subway' tunnel, all the way under the Palisades, as less than $5 billion. It literally does not matter if you have additional tunnel clearance for the transit proposal, except (marginally) insofar as you might want to build it to clear IND-size equipment for some potential future uses (and I believe the extension tunnels are oversize already, so this is not unthinkable). The nice thing about the transit tunnel is that HYDC is on board with the idea, as it benefits their work both directly and indirectly, and if motivated they are a potential source of capital. If I understand the situation correctly, and I think I do, the chief reason Christie cancelled the NJ side of ARC was that he was receiving insufficient guarantees that the State of New Jersey -- not the PA, not any entity in New York -- was going to be left with $1B or more of overall cost without any budget in place for that. This indicates to me that even if the transit tunnel is only a couple billion short it would not face objection like that for ARC, and WITH THE PRESENCE OF GATEWAY it would provide some valuable services that would be far less practical, or even impossible, with full-size commuter stock (let alone bilevels!) Now, something this at least brings up again is allowing subway-size stock to access the PRR tubes once Gateway is in place. I am tempted to mention that third rail is still in the tunnels (for cat maintenance) and it wouldn't be terrifically difficult to arrange things so that '7 line" trains could go via the Empire Connector and thence (even with a reversing move, practical) out through the PRR tunnel either to Secaucus directly or branching off to its own alignment on the other side of Bergen Hill. (Yes, I know there are FRA regs involved here, but again, in the absence of high-speed traffic in the older tunnels it becomes something that could be worked toward, especially considering the amount of capital it would 'not require'...
Christie cancelled the tunnel project because of feared overrun costs. The project was an Amtrak related with funds from various sources including NJ and the Federal government.and not an MNRR nor MTA nor PATH project. Commuter and passenger trains and rapid transit trains are two different types of railroading and don't mix well. MTA owns and operates Subways as an entity of the City of New York and is rapid transit. The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey owns and operates PATH as political and economic entity created by the States of New York and New Jersey and is rapid transit with different physical and engineering designs of most MTA subways and is not connected in any way with the subway system nor the MTA. Amtrak is a railroad empowered by Congress to operate heavy rail passenger trains and railroads in the US and owns the former PRR main line into Penn Station. NJT is a part of the State of NJ's Department of Transportation and is divided into separate rail and bus operations.with the rail division operating trains over Amtrak into NYP and Sunnyside Yard from various owned and operated lines in the State. Subway or rapid transit cars cannot operate on the Corridor nor in the North River Tunnels.
Dave Klepper pointed out above that bus connections were or could be involved, a point I have overlooked. With a bus terminal at or near Secaucus, for instance, a rapid transit line might be a more practical project and less confusing than trying to tie it into another rail system. Another good location would be at the already uses park and ride on the west side of Bergen Hill where the Susquehanna RR used to have their Susquehanna Transfer. NJT does not have rail access there but could if there is development of the old Northern Railroad of NJ right of way either as heavy or light rail, service on the CSX River line (not at all likely) or via the NYSW from the Bergen County Cut Off or from NYSW line origination west of Hawthorn should it ever materialize. But it still stands legally and politically at the moment that the Port of Authority of NY and NJ would have to be the entity to do the rapid transit line whether with PATH or a new sub entity. NJT would not do it as it is a commuter railroad and agency which even its Light Rail division is a far fetched candidate. MTA is not empowered to dig under the Hudson nor build in NJ. The other fly in the ointment could be that no matter who builds it, operations could be contracted out to another party. So if the PA did build it it could contract with MTA to operate if legalities were overcome.
Overmod Blue Streak -- remember that this proposed subway extension is in PARALLEL to the Gateway tubes that Amtrak is doing. I would be very, very surprised if the new Gateway tunnels were not built to 'bilevel' clearance or perhaps even beyond, given the capabilities of the existing TBMs that are, handily, available for this work. All the existing materials I've seen give the cost of the 'subway' tunnel, all the way under the Palisades, as less than $5 billion.
All the existing materials I've seen give the cost of the 'subway' tunnel, all the way under the Palisades, as less than $5 billion.
answers to some other posts ----
1. You cannot just place any tunnel just at a whim as there are many impediments such as buildings, cemetarys ?, train tracks, etc.
2. AMTRAK has already expressed concern that unless they can under ground rights for the Gateway tunnels those tunnels will not be built.
3. Yes build these # 7 proposed tunnels -- but.
4.. The H & M PATH tubes ( 4 ) ( not by any imagination tunnels ) were built 100 + years ago using cast iron sections bolted together. I believe these tubes were just laid in trenchs on the bottom of the Hudson and then covered ?
5. Since "SANDY" pushed salt water up the Hudson how much salt water got on the tubes and has stayed is anyone's guess ? Note; 'SANDY' even put salt water further up the hudson into the north river tunnels. Were the PATH tunnels even built for salt water ? Cast iron -- how does it handle salt water ?
6. So there may be soon a new need for 1 or more of the tubes to be replaced by another tunnel. Any PATH slowdown /shutdown now would be disastorous as there is no spare capacity in any of the Hudson river rail tunnels.
7. If a new PATH tunnel(s) is needed due to corrosion then most certainly bore all new tunnels to bi-level clearances
8. It actually might be possible to use the same TBM (s) to bore the both the Gateway and these new tunnels. The only additional tunneling costs would be a larger bore TBM, larger tunnel liners, some additional operating, and removal of the additional spoil. (might even be able to rail them out )
9. Costs ? Your figure may only be for the tunnel itself and when we look at the ARC estimated costs that would be the full cost of this # 7 tunnel ?
10. Again boring to subway clearances is very penny wise and pund foolish.
Salt water is found in the Hudson almost to West Point...to the Bear Mt. Bridge I think. Tide effects all the way to Albany and Troy. Sandy did not produce any new limits in and around the City.
More important to all the comments is that you cannot have a single track or set of tracks which would handle intercity rail, commuter rail and rapid transit rail together...at least the rapid transit would need separate right of way. Yes, PATH, or the Tubes, are actual tubes on the bottom of the Hudson and now covered with silt at least. North River bores and Lincoln and Holland tunnels are under the river itself. (But I say that with caution because I have heard the highway bores referred to as tubes for each separate bore but as tunnels when describing location and name.)
You cannot compare the ARC to a rapid transit tunnel. At least without comparing use and application variables you can't; they cannot be equal because of equipment and use. PATH has, ironically, had opportunities to rebuild and repair the tubes and tunnels over the years. Nine Eleven was used to make improvements between Exchange Pl and World Trade Center and the Hoboken to Christopher Street Tubes have had improvements and repairs over the years with single tracking especially nights and weekends. I believe PATH has done a great job of keeping the tunnels and tubes in safe order.
What has to be decided and weighed are: Amtrak tunnels; commuter train tunnels, bus tunnels, and rail rapid transit tunnels. Each has a different purpose by design, each has different equipment and operating characteristics. The terminating point in NYC itself could be different for each . Commuters from Northern North Jersey and adjacent NY state may have to go downtown instead of mid town, so a 7 train configuration or connection may not make as much sense as an A train connection...plus with the A train northern and central Queens, all of the west side of Manhattan, plus Brooklyn could be reached either direect or via transfers . NJT and Amtrak have to look at a through station and not stub end terminal because in the long run regional and intercity through trains should have to be accommodated. And again, if commuter rail is improved there should be less need for the rapid transit rail except for local near shore NJ. But if we look at the rail rapid transit as an extension of a bus ride or park and ride, then we have still another set of dynamics and needs to be dealt with.
My initial comments on these (not in boldface)
Most, if not all, of the 'impediments' to a prospective 7 line tunnel are either overcome (in the case of the virtually-finished extension boring) or not yet built (in the case of any transition section under the Hudson Yards site) or under the Hudson or the Palisades (neither of which have serious infrastructure at tunnel level).
Extension of the 7 line to the Empire Corridor, on the far West Side, poses much less difficulty than in midtown. A transfer station directly to service to the north does not represent a particularly great engineering exercise; the vertical distance between the Corridor line of track and the extension track cannot be substantial, and incorporating this into the prospective design gives additional incentive to complete the Tenth Avenue station.
I doubt that relocation of utilities or structures at the Meadowlands end, even if it is run as Henry indicated, would involve any great marginal cost or pose particular difficulty. The line of the tunnel exiting the tunnel has more option vertically as well as horizontally compared to what would be required for full-length and weight conventional equipment. I don't see this objection as critical, certainly not in the sense that any more direct connection between GCT and Penn would be.
Did you not read what I posted about the establishment of the rights in 1935? For TUNNEL RIGHT-OF-WAY New Jersey has full authority under the Hudson up to the agreed division line; New York on the other side. No more issue, and no more permissions, are required under applicable law and precedent. There may be political agendas about the cost of construction, or the routing, or the construction of amenities on either side of the Gateway tunnels -- but certainly not about who has the authority to permit the tunnels to be built.
Covered extensively, with material that provides a very good 'seal' within a comparatively short period of time; I believe to a fairly considerable depth. There is little or no salt exchange or active oxygen contact to the outside of the tubes.
5. Since "SANDY" pushed salt water up the Hudson how much salt water got on the tubes and has stayed is anyone's guess ?
See above; the answer is effectively 'none' to a fair number of decimal places. But see below...
Note; 'SANDY' even put salt water further up the hudson into the north river tunnels. Were the PATH tunnels even built for salt water ? Cast iron -- how does it handle salt water ?
You seem to be laboring under the idea that the lower Hudson is fresh water. It is tidal, so salt water goes over them... well, every time the tide comes in. I thought this was common geological knowledge for anyone doing tunnel planning...
Did I forget to mention: cast iron is not as susceptible to chloride corrosion as steels are. Remember that there is essentially zero velocity over the surface, it's sealed away from oxygen or active salt replenishment... does anyone here remember the Hunley? that was cast-iron, too...
In short, there is no particular probability that the tubes were compromised by Sandy, or by age; it is possible that seismic activity might pull some of the joints, but repair would be less by several orders of magnitude than outright replacement. (Which could be done with floating reinforced-concrete sections a la BART if keeping to the same alignment... which of course is wildly incapable of taking cars of great length or truck wheelbase, did you forget that angle (pun intended)?
8. It actually might be possible to use the same TBM (s) to bore the both the Gateway and these new tunnels. The only additional tunneling costs would be a larger bore TBM, larger tunnel liners, some additional operating, and removal of the additional spoils. (might even be able to rail them out )
I think the point was made previously that the TBMs used for the extension were adjustable in size up to a substantial diameter, and they are as I mentioned comparatively ready to hand. There's always the option of using the method I indicated above; expect to see the same reasoned comparison of 'materials and methods' that we have already seen for the Portal Bridge replacement.
Well, let's take this up. How much of the ARC cost was All That Stuff To The South Of Penn Station? NONE of which is required for a 7 line extension. No need for multiple platforms at an operating 'terminal', either (as was the case for all the ARC traffic from disparate points all funneling in). That alone makes much of the difference self-evident. We can go on with energy and TBM supply costs, which scale as the cross-sectional area, not linearly -- do the math and see the implication; it's similar to increase in net process area for flat-screen displays vs. nominal diagonal measurement. MUCH easier curve and grade limitations for the subway tunnel compared to what's needed for long, high bilevels, and probably shorter effective headways as all the equipment is common and transition to the tunnel is straightforward and linear instead of concentrating.
Meanwhile, what's involved at the Manhattan end? It's just a butt-end connection, to one track over and one track back, with vent and access space between the rail bores (probably similar to the configuration in the Holland Tunnel, with less mandatory ventilation due to the lack of internal combustion...) What about the other end? just a continuation (past Henry's park n' ride loop) over to Secaucus. Not even necessary to have it at the same level as the other tracks; it might even be possible to tunnel under the Hackensack instead of bridging at 50'.
Please run some actual numbers, then come back here and say it again with some justification. However, a large number of people who HAVE run some numbers indicate the subway tunnel project is much, much less than ARC, and with more assurance against overruns or exposure due to unanticipated changes in scope (imho, a major factor in Christie's cancellation of the Jersey end of the ARC project).
Sure, it does vastly fewer things, with substantially smaller vehicles. But it's a transit system, not seated-ride. If we presume it would be initially operated with some combination of 142a's and remanufactured R62s with the required special interiors ... no running modifications needed, and continuous train control installation well in hand (easy to extend it).
(BTW, in reference to equipping IRT cars with PRC: the WIUs going in will support both ITC and ACSES, and having a man-portable unit for the actual train control has been practical since at least 1987 (trust me, I know). That means that retrofit for compatibility per car is limited to little more than a rotair valve for modulated brake action and a few components added to the control system. Most of the 'expense' is in the controls, but only one is required per motorman, and procedures to handle those are not particularly different from those used for FREDs -- easy to teach, easy to learn, easy to remember.)
Hungerford, the author of Men Of Erie, Men of the NYC, producer of the railroad shows at Chicago Expo and the 1939 World's Fair also wrote a book in the mid 30's about some of this same material concerning subways, Tubes, railroads, and connections in Manhattan...I believe it was published in the mid 30s's. Unfortunately I no longer have access to the book...but if anyone does, read it and compare notes please.
henry6 so a 7 train configuration or connection may not make as much sense as an A train connection...plus with the A train northern and central Queens, all of the west side of Manhattan, plus Brooklyn could be reached either direect or via transfers . NJT and Amtrak have to look at a through station and not stub end terminal because in the long run regional and intercity through trains should have to be accommodated. And again, if commuter rail is improved there should be less need for the rapid transit rail except for local near shore NJ. But if we look at the rail rapid transit as an extension of a bus ride or park and ride, then we have still another set of dynamics and needs to be dealt with.
so a 7 train configuration or connection may not make as much sense as an A train connection...plus with the A train northern and central Queens, all of the west side of Manhattan, plus Brooklyn could be reached either direect or via transfers . NJT and Amtrak have to look at a through station and not stub end terminal because in the long run regional and intercity through trains should have to be accommodated. And again, if commuter rail is improved there should be less need for the rapid transit rail except for local near shore NJ. But if we look at the rail rapid transit as an extension of a bus ride or park and ride, then we have still another set of dynamics and needs to be dealt with.
8Th Ave subway connection...yep, the A train as I said. 6th ave subway, B and D trains to Coney Island. So why change trains, build onto the A or B/D train. Clearance schmerance....build new, forget IRT and PATH unless you run 7 train to Flushing (why?) or make it part of the PATH system (why not?).
Henry, help me out here. Is this his "Story of Public Utilities" from 1928? (There is no ISBN but Amazon has assigned it an ASIN of B0008648KO and there are a couple of copies for sale 'used' from them that are not too expensive...)
(BTW, since this is a Kalmbach forum, is there a 1965 reprint of Hungerford's "Pattern for a Railroad for Tomorrow - 1960" or only the original 1945 version?)
All the other potentially applicable books by Hungerford are much earlier; some of them (such as 'Railroad of Tomorrow', 1911, and 'The Railroad Problem', 1917), are available for download via the 'usual' sources like Gutenberg, Google, etc.
henry6 8Th Ave subway connection...yep, the A train as I said. 6th ave subway, B and D trains to Coney Island. So why change trains, build onto the A or B/D train.
8Th Ave subway connection...yep, the A train as I said. 6th ave subway, B and D trains to Coney Island. So why change trains, build onto the A or B/D train.
Clearances and gaps are different -- you would need to use the smaller-size PATH/7 line equipment even on the IND trackage -- and provide some sort of gap-filling capacity (this is not difficult if you introduce those screen panels at appropriate points on the platform, etc.). In the brief run of 10-12 blocks, probably on a grade, you wouldn't need an intermediate station anyway...
... forget IRT and PATH unless you run 7 train to Flushing (why?)
Aforementioned connection to LGA. Remember that these are the prospective 'through trains' as airport connectors; the 7 connects up from somewhere, the service cutting over to the Rockaway line (eventually) goes to JFK. (We'll ignore the JFK last-mile implications!)
There is always the build-new option of trompling on the NIMBYs and building out the old LIRR Rockaway branch for high-speed transit. Note that this goes through Sunnyside and could be a 7 candidate... (you could do some Q thing but connection to trans-Hudson with one ride would be amusing...)
or make it part of the PATH system (why not?)
Or more appropriately make it connect, and do dual-crew/dual service to get around the MTA-motorman-requirements-being-different-from-PATH requirements.
There is a nifty thing about the PATH PA-5s; they are in an important sense R142as that are built to full FRA standards (!) so are implicitly able, at least in principle, to use main tracks at Secaucus Junction, share trackage to Newark, and (via re-establishment of the Hudson Tower or Harrison connections that used to be there, perhaps) access the ex-H&M/PRR stuff... and perhaps reach Secaucus Junction (and the prospective Stewart service) over existing arrangements from the *south*.
As happens, if we assume the Thales CBTC for the 7 line is fully compatible with the Siemens stuff for the PATH, there is no reason (other than FRA waiver issues) for the 7 and PATH equipment to interwork with short headway control.
Be interesting to see if a way to cut over from 7 line to H&M at 33rd could be arranged (presuming of course that CBTC opens up enough capacity for the 33rd Street side to handle the extra load of the 7 line trains). I'd have to agree with you that the B/D connection at 6th, if it could be arranged, would be about the only cost-effective way to get there, and then you're likely to be forced into fitting with the PATH operating scheduling (plenty of stop-and-go). But as a way to get el cheapo access to EWR, which the PA has been studying since September, it's indeed a reasonable idea.
two items.
1. This tunnel needs to be HrSR capable at least ( 100 - 120 MPH ) that speed eliminates any NYC subway car as their max speed is what ?? ~~ 50 - 55 MPH. PATH DEFINITELY FASTER ??
2. Cost comparsion between this tunnel and the ARC Iis difficult.
Quoted Costs of the ARC included 4 tracking NEC from Newark to both tunnel portals, the 2 bridges at Portal draw, Secaucas station expansions, connections of NEC to Bergan line at Secaucus, expansion or the separate NY Penn station. Quoted price of the subway tunnel seems to only the tunnel itself ?
Subway tunnel only the cost of the tunnel ?
Explain concisely how you think 125mph peak speed matters in a tunnel under the Hudson with its first stop under the Palisades. Terminating in what by definition is a large angle under the Yards... cue modern reboot of Malbone Street, CBTC or no CBTC... ;-}
There's scope for the Gateway tunnels to be HSR-capable, but only if you can imagine a service that doesn't stop at Penn Station. (How likely is THAT?)
I get sick easily of schemes that assume acceleration/deceleration can be at unspecified rate, or that going 125mph instead of 55 mph over a three-mile trip segment translates into meaningful time savings. Why don't people do the actual math any more?
It's not difficult to develop a detailed engineering model of the tunnel and its approach work, and project cost and probable overrun from that. As you note, when you shift the cost of the NYP expansion and new NYCR expansion onto the Gateway project -- where it is much, much more appropriate, and deserving of expanded gage clearance between carbody and catenary -- it's impossible to believe that a smaller double-bore-in-one-TBM pass tunnel culminating in transit-level track extension can be dramatically more expensive. (Admittedly, much of the actual construction cost involves passing through the volcanic dike, but even there, the volume of rock being moved is comparatively small vs. the ARC tunnel...)
I repeat that if Gateway weren't being built, it would be a waste to use smaller clearance and dedicated traffic for the 7 line. (As noted, the 142a PATH cars are already FRA-compliant, so you'd have no reason not to make the 7 line bores larger capacity as you want, as federally-mandated segregation of types wouldn't be required... and the new tunnel does come out conveniently close to the Yards, where transition to Empire Connector traffic would be comparatively simple) ... so I encourage you to make the case for larger clearance if you can run good enough numbers or arrange for the larger trains to be fleeted effectively, as the transit cars can by default as they go to a direct connection to the 7 service (no need for a bunch of terminal platforms or yard sidings on expensive Manhattan real estate!)
Too many trains in a short space, too short a space, and absolutely no ability to achieve even 50 miles per hour much less supersonic 100+! You're talking of less than two miles from the west side of the Hill and the base of a pier on the North River! With traffic, curves, grades, stations, etc. I'd be surprised if speed could even get to 30 MPH.
The Airport loop idea is another interesting concept...Newark to Staten Island to JFK to LaGuardia (to White Plains) to Tetetaboro and back to Newark! Way out, but interesting nevertheless. Take the Hopper, not the Chopper! Love it.
Unless we know who is going to build and who is going to operate, there is no reason or use arguing equipment needs. Yes, we all know the IND the PATH and the IRT, etc., all are different in someway or another. So it is premature to argue and make corrections on something that is nowhere near determined nor determinable.
...Hopper not the Chopper....yeah...sounds good....mmmmm
How about "Take the Non-Stopper, not the Chopper'?
Or 'go under the river, not into it'?
Or 'take the train to the plane, not the bus' (With an amusing historical invocation of the early days of railroading and transit, showing the inconvenience of many breaks in trips vs. the one-seat experience...)
henry6Unless we know who is going to build and who is going to operate, there is no reason or use arguing equipment needs. Yes, we all know the IND the PATH and the IRT, etc., all are different in someway or another. So it is premature to argue and make corrections on something that is nowhere near determined nor determinable.
I disagree fairly strongly with this claim where it applies to the 7 line.
We know what equipment on the Manhattan side fits 7 line clearances.
We know what equipment on the Manhattan side fits 7 line clearances, and is FRA compliant for main line service.
We know what equipment on the Manhattan side is built and paid for, or for which there are standing blueprints and production know-how that make follow-on production (albeit of new and improved versions that don't have the common-mode and other problems that have been reported)
We also know that economic-scale equipment on the New Jersey Transit side has not a shred of a chance of fitting either into the ex-H&M tubes, or over the 7 line extension already built between 8th Avenue and the Yards, let alone other parts of the Flushing line. (That includes any MNCR Port Jervis line stock equipped with dual-mode power to get into NYP from Secaucus Junction, if we were to speculate on building the short branch to serve Stewart)
I don't think there's any point in speculating about NJT (or any other New Jersey entity of record) building common stock to a new design, that suits the clearance and operating requirements of the 7 line, or PATH. Nor do I see any likelihood at all that NJT (or the PA) would order a design substantially different from the PA-5/R142a family for the New Jersey 'contribution' to the 7 line project... except with respect for the special interior arrangements for the airport trains (and the PA has already factored those into its priorities...)
And you're suggesting with a straight face that it's too early to decide what equipment should be used to operate the line when it opens?
Overmod And you're suggesting with a straight face that it's too early to decide what equipment should be used to operate the line when it opens? RME
Yes I am...with a straight face and no facts in front of me to convince me that there is a firm enough plan, design, designated contractor, designated operator, or a contract of any kind to build this. Everything so far is in the talking stage with nothing firm nor confirmed. How can we say such and such a piece of equipment has to be used and has to match up to anything else when there is nothing established, designed, planned, contracted for, legislated, or anything else. The only ideas and concepts we have so far are what have been thrown around here and not on any agency's floor or engineering firm's tables. Our convictions here carry no weight or conclusions.
henry6How can we say such and such a piece of equipment has to be used and has to match up to anything else when there is nothing established, designed, planned, contracted for, legislated, or anything else.
Well, there are these little things called 'physics' and 'economics' and 'engineering' that provide us with clear understanding of phenomena in the real world. This isn't a discussion of what politicians might decide to do; it's a thought experiment determining things that CAN PHYSICALLY WORK WITHOUT EXTENSIVE MODIFICATION vs. things that can't be built without substantially greater cost or time. It's a discussion about rational engineering choices to minimize overall system cost and expenses. And there is no need to conduct extensive amounts of 'consulting' or whatever to figure out what the common-sense options are (although I certainly love the opportunities when the consulting dollars start to be spent!)
The only ideas and concepts we have so far are what have been thrown around here and not on any agency's floor or engineering firm's tables.
I am glad to see that you are so well connected in the engineering industry as to know this, although there are some who would disagree with you. You certainly haven't addressed the points I was making when you say something like this.
Precisely what would you suggest, in engineering or economic terms, that you would use other than what I was saying. Go ahead, you have such a wealth of experience in transit practice that you suggested having PATH oversee the 7 line project. You must have had some reason other than a misunderstanding of what PATH is to make such a claim. You must also have some idea of what PATH would do, or would use (in terms of the options available to it within the appropriate timeframe) if it were given authority over the 7 line project as a whole...
Or perhaps not. Just don't go implying that others don't comprehend engineering possibility or practicality more than you do.
Our convictions here carry no weight or conclusions.
Why, sure they don't -- were you thinking that PA planners were following this forum, or any other Internet fanac forum, taking careful notes on the brilliant analysis therein demonstrated? Or that politicians and bureaucrats were having AHA! moments with the amazing quality of transit analysis, so far in advance of anything yet done? Plenty of examples -- the ARC cancellation, imho, among them -- that show how politics can be divorced from reasoned economic analysis. Plenty of examples where expediency, or inexperience, or other shortcomings in elected or appointed administration has influenced what is actually put in a formal plan, or is built. BUT THAT DOES NOT CHANGE THE REALITY OF WHAT CAN OR CAN'T BE BUILT GIVEN EXISTING CONSTRAINTS AND TECHNOLOGY, which is what the discussion I was trying to carry on involves.
If I may be forgiven for saying this, your most recent post seems to be approaching an attempt at sniveling last-word one-upmanship rather than reasoned discourse. Can we please keep the discussion pointed at practical alternatives, not claims that we can't possibly know what practicality is?
RME...there are no engineering studies or plans for this project. It is one that has been talked about by fans here and politicians there. No official program has been started, engineering designs, definitions, anything. Mayor Bloomberg brought this up when Christie shut down the ARC project. We have made more of it here on this forum than anybody else anywhere else. Unless you know something we don't know...We can comprehend, speculated, transpose, suppose, propose, suggest, think about, say whatever we want...nothing has been done to correct, change, or judge.
I resent the tone your last remark, too. If you have printed, published plans, budgets, etc. for this project from one of the agencies or a contracted engineering firm, then present them now. If not, then my point of view is not one to be ridiculed. I am not one upping anybody, but stating fact..
Overmod the ARC cancellation, imho, among them -- that show how politics can be divorced from reasoned economic analysis.
If I may jump in, do you believe Access to the Region's Core was not based on "reasoned economic analysis?"
No, not at all, by any stretch of the imagination.
I was talking about Christie's *cancellation* of NJ's side of the ARC project based on his opinion that some aspects of its cost were going over what NJ might be able to pay.
That decision threw a great deal of 'reasoned economic analysis' in the toilet, and the subsequent history of the litigation over Federal fund returns indicates to me that some 'reason' in New Jersey's analysis leading up to the cancellation was either lacking or "held in abeyance" [insert other milspeak euphemism as desired... ;-} )
Many were opposed to the ARC but it was proposed and contracted for anyway if only because nothing else was being done; it was pushed down our throats. . In hindsight Christie's cancellation was probably a good thing in that it got other more viable programs and ideas brought forward for discussion.
One of the discussions then, but not mentioned recently, is the idea of getting NJians to the east side of Manhattan which NYP doesn't do and ARC wouldn't have done. That prompted Bloomberg's comment of extending the 7 train...an easy statement at the time as the 7 train's tunnel construction to the west side was being completed. But nothing but rhetoric has come of it since...what has been discussed here has been conjecture on our part with no firm proposals from any agencies. There has been further discussion, too, about the need for better and more access of NJT into Manhattan as well as the needs of Amtrak to better serve. Again needs and concepts have been tossed around but no firm plans or contracts.
I find the repeated mentioning of transit to LGA interesting. The "air train" that runs to JFK could just as "easily" continued up the center of the Van Wyck /Grand Central Pkwy right to LGA IMHO. Or Just have the N or Q make a right turn over Ditmars Blvd and head in that way. Extending the 7 train there seems like "the hard way". The idea of the ROW from the old Rego Park/ Rockaway line becoming a park is gaining traction. There has already been a grant given to fund a feasibility study for that. (think of a High Line Park in Queens) So it's use for transit isn't as open as it might have been. Interesting discussion though.
Good points; have you done any topo or other studies to confirm how the routing of the N/Q line extension ought to go? (Playing devil's advocate for a moment, what sort of connector could be built between 7 and Q at Queensboro Plaza or the viaduct to the east? Which might get you not only to the Q line but also the E... which has 'certain advantages' going to access JFK... ;-} )
Can you be more detailed about how your route up the Van Wyck would tie into the existing service (are you extending the people-mover system, or the subway?)
I'd think what you propose, if done with IND extension, would put the junction point for Manhattan-bound trains between JFK and LGA? That would make a shuttle between those two facilities easy, but complicate rides outbound from Manhattan (which I think is the lion's share of that traffic) and require a complicated operational routing between the three pairs (leaving aside the issues of one-seat connection to Newark and Stewart, which the PA has said is a design priority)
That's part of my reasoning why 7 line extension to LGA instead of N/Q (whether reaching Newark via some connector around 33rd Street to PATH, as Henry was considering, or via a new line under the Hudson) is a more 'reasonable' planning alternative. As noted, the advantage of the Path PA-5s is that they are FRA compliant, and could (with minimal changes) be adapted to run to access Secaucus Junction from the south, or reach closer to EWR than PATH currently runs; it remains to be seen whether CBTC increases capacity on the existing ex-H&M PATH service from 33rd St through the tubes sufficiently to accommodate new airport-connector traffic. (For the record, yes, I think it would...) Nothing I am aware of that fits IND clearances is capable of this, and I don't see a substantial practical advantage running IND equipment through an appropriately-sized new tunnel just to extend
art11758The idea of the ROW from the old Rego Park/ Rockaway line becoming a park is gaining traction. There has already been a grant given to fund a feasibility study for that. (think of a High Line Park in Queens) So it's use for transit isn't as open as it might have been. Interesting discussion though.
Yeah, this is the reason for me saying NIMBY in the earlier post. Residents, unsurprisingly, don't want to see trains over those tracks again. I suspect the thing may come down to 'do the needs of the many outweigh the convenience of the few' (or 'who has the better lawyers or the deeper pockets') -- and the West Side Highway/Westway business, even after all these years, rankles a bit.
An intermediate 'improvement' of the route for conversion does not necessarily rule out using trackage later -- all the existing rails, ties, and perhaps ballast would need to be taken up and essentially relaid as if from scratch to provide the necessary track quality. So it might be a bit Machiavellian, but effective nonetheless, to let other folks go to the trouble of clearing the site and performing ecological remediation... *then* bringing down the boom... [Disclaimer: I am not really serious about that...]
I see the principal advantage of using the old LIRR ROW in terms of absolute speed for that route segment. With limited stops and no other required traffic, it would be easy to get up to very high speed with appropriate equipment, certainly the maximum effective speed of something like a R142a or PA-5, and not be required to accommodate even 'slower' expresses on the other MTA trackage...
OvermodThat decision {Gov. Christie's cancellation of ARC} threw a great deal of 'reasoned economic analysis' in the toilet,
Overmod,
When you're right YOU'RE RIGHT.
henry6 In hindsight Christie's cancellation was probably a good thing in that it got other more viable programs and ideas brought forward for discussion.
In hindsight Christie's cancellation was probably a good thing in that it got other more viable programs and ideas brought forward for discussion.
I cannot agree here, Henry. What New Jersey needs is the New York job market. Right now all roadways and railways to Manhattan are full. Canceling the tunnel closed the door to a lot of jobs.
Yes, we do get a lot of discussion about how to get the door open. But wouldn't it have been better to simply open it rather than shutting in and talking about getting it open again?
Yes, it would have been nice to have a one seat ride to the east side of Manhattan rather than having to take a subway from the west side. But isn't it better to be on the west side of Manhattan than not in Manhattan at all?
Christie supporters derided the project as "The tunnel to Macy's basment." Well right now the 33rd Street PATH station is also at Macy's basement. When you get off all you do is to get on an escalator. Or you can go shopping at Macy's.
henry6 One of the discussions then, but not mentioned recently, is the idea of getting NJians to the east side of Manhattan which NYP doesn't do and ARC wouldn't have done.
Hmmm... you have me thinking now.
How about this: under ARC, and perhaps the way Gateway/North River Tunnels will be operated, there is far more traffic coming in from the West that would not have to go through the East River tunnels. Some free 'tunnel' space between NYP and the East River is thereby available for east-west access via a small-'bore' people-mover system. This would do nothing but shuttle NYP passengers further east, to a junction first with the Lexington line and ultimately (I hope!) to the Second Avenue system. Elevators/escalators both places for the level change. With continuous-block train control, I'll bet a hat that only three of the East River Tunnel bores will handle all the incoming traffic, leaving the fourth track available for shuttle ops.
For a wackier idea: run this like a 'bilevel' but in two separate vertically-separated runs: PRTs are fleeted on one level outbound, and are raised up to fleet backward 'overhead'. Any number of vehicles, subject only to control resolution and working speed including stops. Separate platforms for the two directions make high parallel speed of access and egress possible...
Sure involves less pain than boring great big tunnels for a subway from which most NY commuters will be transferring within a coupla minutes... once their train comes in the desired direction, and makes several stops en route.
The N/Q and 7 train connection is a walk across the platform, probably one of the best in the entire system.The N/Q stays elevated all the way to Ditmars, where it dead ends. So for it to continue (in my mind) would be the easy way to LGA. The 7, while being attractive for it's "single seat" is a triple tracked elevated, with directional express service on the center track. In my opinion, having it divert to LGA would be not as simple as the the N/Q. The E train, while serving Jamaica (LIRR Air Train,j & Z trains) at no time interchanges easily with anything. Queens Plaza, while close to Queensboro Plaza (a couple of hundred feet) is not convenient if you are toting luggage and whatnot. (it is underground, while QBP is elevated) The AirTrain runs south from Jamaica to JFK right down the center divider of the Van Wyck Expressway only. For whatever reason, going north to LGA didn't happen.
The old Rockaway/Rego Park line had a connection only going west once it jojned the main line, and I think that is why it was passed on for connecting with JFK. The Air Train can be accessed by a greater number of residents from every LIRR branch. (even Port Washington If you change @ Woodside) and the MTA/NYCT connections. The argument for a "Park" for that land is persuasive.
Excellent post.
I wouold only comment that I wasn't thinking of making the 7 line go to LGA, only having a spur that would access the airport loop. Only the trains representing the one-seat ride would need to use this, which in turn would allow FRA-compliant stock (for the tunnel and co-located access to Secaucus and south,, etc. to be used most effectively). As noted before, there re advantages to the 7 line clearances being such that the equipment is comparable to the PA-5s.
(For some ungodly reason, I remember the 7 line being one level different from the Q, or something like that. over on the Queens side. Has there been rebuilding or improvement, or am I just having a senior moment?)
The LI bound trains are side by side on the upper level and the Manhattan bound trains side by side on the lower level.
Remember when going to an airport with baggage, luggage, brief cases, etc. one seeks a one train ride and not have to change and trek if at all possible.
Remember also that many of the people transiting between airports are not familiar with the local subway system. They may even be foreign nationals making connection from an international flight to a domestic flight. A one-seat ride where you don't have to find and navigate thru transfer stations is a big consideration when trying to make a connecting flight.
I have to remind that IRT No. 7 line equipment and PATH equipment are not interchangeable . The IRT cars are a bit too long to get around PATH's tunnel curves, and the bulge at the waist of the PATH equipment would have them hitting signals along any IRT line.
Obviously both types would have no problem on B Division or LIRR trackage, except for the gap between door thresholds and station platforms. And of course ATS-cab signal issues.
Well the 7 would certainly be viable in that regard only. That would be a mighty slow ride. Even if it was dedicated service from Newark to LGA, that would still have to operate within the established spacing of already existing service. Plus, I have to ask, why would you be transferring from Newark to LGA? Don't both airports serve the same basic carriers? I think it would be much more useful to connect LGA with the transit system (trains) than any other benefit. There is already bus service (M60) from the A,B,C,D,1,2,3,4,5,&6 trains (depending on where you catch it) so it isn't totally isolated from transit. Just not very convenient.
daveklepperI have to remind that IRT No. 7 line equipment and PATH equipment are not interchangeable .
This is a general comment and not directed at you, Dave.
One of the interesting things about New York Subways including the PATH trains is that they were built by individual private companies. As a result each has its own quirks and a different personality. It would make no sense to reconstruct everything today to some kind of rational uniform standards. In the New York area our transit system is like an eccentric and sometimes difficult old aunt who has always been there and who we all love.
John WROne of the interesting things about New York Subways including the PATH trains is that they were built by individual private companies.
And you are including the IND in this?
If I remember correctly, the Q10 is considerably more direct.
The critical stated issue for the PA appears to be one-seat ride, not speed.
And the great advantage of the 7 line is not so much that it goes from EWR to LGA as that it passes within spitting distance of NYP, and under GCT, as it goes. Easier to build the LGA connector either from 7 or Q extension if it's part of a greater coherent scheme...
Dave, if this is so, why is there all this discussion on the Web and technical transit discussion groups about how the PA-5 and R142a are basically the same design? We're not talking about using any older equipment (unless it's somehow cheaper to rip interiors out of something like an R62 and rebuild it expen$ively to have CBTC -- which isn't particularly sensible).
I have answers for the gap filler issue, and ACSES is (relatively) easy to provide (in a module the motorman carries, not equipment on every *** car), and CBTC standards are the same between PATH and the 7 line. What is this "ATS" that you are mentioning?
No, I'm not including the IND.
Yes, each subway line was built different specs so that there in no real interchangeability between lines, including the IND which was city built. PATH and SIRR cars I always was led to believe to be the closest cousins but I now don't think so.
So, again, there are no engineering plans or even official unofficial plans of any kind...what has been discussed here has been born and hatched and embellished here. No lines, no end points, no cars. So it is all up for conjecture as we have done. And all up for grabs and planning by those who want to do it or those who want to have the other guy or agency or state or ... do it.
art11758 ... Plus, I have to ask, why would you be transferring from Newark to LGA? Don't both airports serve the same basic carriers? ...
... Plus, I have to ask, why would you be transferring from Newark to LGA? Don't both airports serve the same basic carriers? ...
Newark is an international airport whereas LaGuardia is domestic so there could be connections. Maybe PA is looking at more specialization at the different airports.
Just rechecked the AMTRAK vision report. They do envision another set of tunnels in addition to the GATEWAY tunnel set at a time frame some time after 2040. Of course who can make a reliable prediction of what will be needed in 2040 ? Another item is anticipation of expanding NEWARK station as well either to the east or on top of the present station ?
SIRR, BMT, and IND, same specifications. Completely interchangeable, as today's B Division is both BMT and IND. And R44's operate on SIRR (and so did LIRR MP-54's at one time, as a temporary fix!) SIRR cars operated on the Culver after WWII. BMT elevateds are another matter. The 5th Avenue, Myrtle and Lesington Avenue elevateds were built to pretty much the same standards as the Manhattan-Bronx systems absorbed by the IRT. But the Brookliyn Bridge original cable line and the Fulton Street and Broadway-Brooklyn-Jamaica lines were built to take wider cars, even though operated by much of the same elevated equipment as the narrower clearance lines. And of course BMT service north and east of Quennsboro Plaza had IRT clarances..
PATH is common with CTA!!! Nobody else.
MIami, Cleveland Red Line, Boston Red Line, LA Red Line, Broad Street Phila, PATCO. all same as BMT-IND. Toronto too except for track gauge.
Washington DC, lower roof line. BART : lower roof line, slightly wider, different track gauge.
The original H&M black cars COULD operate on the IRT, and did in test service on the 2nd Avenue elevated in 1904. But from PA-1 on we got the bulge in the waist.
In Brooklyn, the 4th Avenue subway has higher roof clearances than the rest of the IND-BMT system to allow use by the then standard 40-fot box cars, since South Brooklyn was authorized to route trains through that subway. .
.
Tain't simple now are it?
daveklepper SIRR, BMT, and IND, same specifications. Completely interchangeable, as today's B Division is both BMT and IND. And R44's operate on SIRR (and so did LIRR MP-54's at one time, as a temporary fix!) SIRR cars operated on the Culver after WWII. BMT elevateds are another matter. The 5th Avenue, Myrtle and Lesington Avenue elevateds were built to pretty much the same standards as the Manhattan-Bronx systems absorbed by the IRT. But the Brookliyn Bridge original cable line and the Fulton Street and Broadway-Brooklyn-Jamaica lines were built to take wider cars, even though operated by much of the same elevated equipment as the narrower clearance lines. And of course BMT service north and east of Quennsboro Plaza had IRT clarances..
Now we have the new 2nd ave subway under construction. What cars will run on it and what clearance guage is it being built ? These can be different.
daveklepperIn Brooklyn, the 4th Avenue subway has higher roof clearances than the rest of the IND-BMT system to allow use by the then standard 40-fot box cars, since South Brooklyn was authorized to route trains through that subway. .
Dave, was the higher clearance preserved in things like the stations built on grade-crossing elimination?
You are referring to the Sea Beach and Brighton Lines. I can say definitely yes for Sea Beach, since freight was handled on it even after WWII. Even after WWII there were two freight sidings on the north side of 4-track line connected to the city-bound local track equipped with trolley wire. But there probably was not any reason to do this on the Brighton Line. The old tunnel that links the 4th Avenue subway with the 9th Avenue station of the West End Line, and formerly the Culver as well, has a high roof.
henry6Remember when going to an airport with baggage, luggage, brief cases, etc. one seeks a one train ride and not have to change and trek if at all possible.
Well Henry, if you were flying out of JFK you might be able to take the train from Port Jervis and change at Seacaucus to the No. 7 line. You might have to make another change but it could still be an inexpensive and convenient way to get to the airport.
You already have a connection a Seacaucus to Penn Station, where you can go LIRR to Jamaica and then AirTrain to your airline terminal or E train to Jamaica and Airtrain or A Train to Howard Beach and Airtrain.
Estimated time from Seacaucus. the first 60 minutes, the second 90 minutes, and the third two hours. Unless there is a long line at the LIRR ticket machines!
My take on the 7 train or any MTA line into NJ and/or expansion of PATH lines is part planning for the future, part having to manipulate or persuade people into using the service(s), and part field of drams. No market and traffic studies have been done, no clear cut reasoning, purpose or planning has been done or made public, so no engineering or other legitimate proposals have been presented.
henry6My take on the 7 train or any MTA line into NJ and/or expansion of PATH lines is part planning for the future, part having to manipulate or persuade people into using the service(s), and part field of drams.
Interesting Freudian slip. Does 'drams' imply this is a "7-line-per-cent solution?"
But Henry,
Can you imagine what a No. 7 train to New Jersey would do for bus commuters with the Port Authority Terminal moved to the Meadowlands? No more getting stuck in traffic at the Lincoln Tunnel, on the Helix or on Route 3 in Weehawken.
But John,
Can you imagine what moving the Port Authority bus terminal TO the Meadowlands would cost? The counterflow bus lanes handle the trip over the Helix just fine; what's needed is a dedicated bus lane through the tunnel and some more route separation for buses only at the other end.
If you look back in the thread, I cheerfully concur that the 7 line should tap the PA park-n-ride lots, and perhaps establish some direct transfer from some of the inbound bus traffic, perhaps also with 'wing' platforms off Rt. 3 for the bus lane and regular lane for quick transfer, functionally like the arrangement right before the toll plaza with the bus traffic going over the GWB.
You COULD put a satellite lot somewhere between 3 and Lautenberg, but it would have to be close to the logical routes there, and none of those little cross streets have any ease in linking to either Rt. 1 or the Turnpike. So even there you have a massive infrastructure problem and bus-traffic issues. Might as well just establish a couple of multiple angle-park spaces for 'through' or looping bus access at the lot for Lautenberg and call it a day...
Yet the bus terminal in NJ idea is actually what sells a subway train from NYC! And you don't have to have a terminal or bus storage yard on taxpayer's property or expense. A parking lot for cars and arrival and departure platforms are all that is needed...let the bus companies go home or buy their own lot. In fact it may be cheaper for them to do that than the extra trip time, toll costs. and slot costs at the PA! Transfer doesn't need full building but only shelters and small waiting rooms with the idea that people will be making quick transfers rather than long waits.
Typed my last post wrong. Have corrected it.
The idea would be to have rapid-access angle parking FOR BUSES in a loop at an otherwise park 'n ride or kiss 'n ride facility.
The big issue is how you get the buses to and from such a loop. You would need new ramps and perhaps a dedicated 'outside' access land all the way back past the Turnpike to give 'true' fast rush-hour access to the Park 'n Ride at that location; I have never taken the service or driven the route going in the other direction but would assume it would only entail widening the existing entrance by one lane. Dedicate these as HOV-4 during the appropriate rush periods, and the job (it seems to me) is done. At MUCH less cost, and much more use, than some new bus terminal out in the Meadowlands where all the arriving traffic would funnel into one line, one track of transit. The existing facility at 40th Street has FAR more direct access to various Manhattan transit lines than you could possibly get with the same capacity run serially, even with CBTC running at full efficiency...
Whatever is built for buses, it would be less than a full size terminal like in NYC. Plus bus companies would not have to pay for drivers to layover, have the cost of tolls for regular runs and dead head moves, drivers and buses could more easily and cheaply return home rather than be stranded in the city, time and fuel consumption would be less. Virtually anything bus companies could do without going into the city would be a financial easement for them in many ways. Again we are speaking hypothetically because no agency or entity has suggested, planned, engineered or mentioned anything at this point.
But you can bet your bippy that NJT would love not having to run some of its current service across the state line into NYC! As you point out, equipment utilization on many of the lines especially to points south of Rt 3 would be very well served, by (1) reducing the effective trip time, (2) cutting down on the stress and risk of incident of running in a counterflow lane, and (3) possibly allowing more service, or later service, to some destinations thanks to the better equipment utilization and quicker trip completion time. All those in addition to the money savings, and effective terminal-capacity expansion with fewer NJT buses going into 40th St.
henry6Again we are speaking hypothetically because no agency or entity has suggested, planned, engineered or mentioned anything at this point.
I agree with you, Henry. And given Governor Christie's history I doubt any agency would be inclined to do much of anything as long as he is in office.
However, and speaking hypothetically, I can see a lot of benefits of bringing the No. 7 line to the Meadowlands and moving most of the Port Authority Bus Terminal there.
NJT wants to provide service and that is allowing people to detrain inside NYC. Thinking otherwise does not make sense and is not what NJT does, wants to do, and has to do.
As I've said, any MTA or PATH service under the North River makes sense for bus services only. NJT into Manhattan via Corridor or new tunnels is separate service.
henry6As I've said, any MTA or PATH service under the North River makes sense for bus services only. NJT into Manhattan via Corridor or new tunnels is separate service.
I don't think I have suggested anything different from what you say, Henry. NJT, of course, wanted to build new tunnels to Manhattan for many years and that idea had strong bipartisan support in the Federal government and New York and New Jersey state governments. After about 20 years of planning the project began. And then Chris Christie used the power of his office to stop it. Those tunnels were and are important to New Jersey as a great many Jersey people work in Manhattan and the surrounding area and current transportation links are carrying the maximum number of people they can. They are also important to New Yorkers who might commute on the Port Jervis line and the Spring Valley line. Stopping the project has stopped any real increase in the number of Jersey people who have access to the economic opportunities New York City offers. That is what Chris Christie stopped.
Maybe despite the Christie decision some other ways of gaining access to the economic opportunities. An extension of the No. 7 line is one of those alternatives. Another is for Amtrak to build new tunnels. If either or both of those do happen it will be many, many years in the future. Unless and until happens we will just have to live with Governor Christie's decision to deny an expansion of the New York City job market to many many people.
Because of this thread I'm becoming more fearful or aware of the public misconceptions which can arise. An MTA or PATH extension to N. Bergen-Secaucus area has to be considered as something completely separate and apart from any digging under the North River that Amtrak and or NJT propose. They are two completely different projects for two completely different purposes serving several different markets. Bloomburg is the only politico who has mentioned the 7 train (others have been responses); I don't think anybody of importance in NJ has addressed it. And I think it has become quite clear here that it would be done to serve the bus commuters and some private auto drivers...NJT and Amtrak have a different clientele base who most likely wouldn't use the connection since they would actually not gain anything cost or timewise..
henry6 They are two completely different projects for two completely different purposes serving several different markets.
Well, Henry, perhaps I am one of those self deluded members of the public.
I certainly agree with your comment about Amtrak. Amtrak has nothing to do with any subway extension.
But New Jersey Transit is different. If the No. 7 line were extended to New Jersey there would be a connection to it at the Secaucus station so it would have something to do with NJT trains. But there is a more important point. NJT also runs buses but it can't get any more buses into the Port Authority Terminal. With a No. 7 connection it could run more buses than it does now so more people could commute to New York City. That is an important part (but not the only important part) of a new bus terminal.
I agree with you that Mayor Bloomberg is the only person who has talked about this. Or at least the only person I know of.
But no one has officially proposed anything...you cannot say there will be a connection at Secaucus Jct! If bus connections are the point, then there are thousands of square acres to make the terminal for a rapid transit to bus connection. The Junction could be a location, but for buses it doesn't have to be. NJT train connection is not necessary as the same connections to subways can be made at NYP. The connection would not be cost or possibly time effective for NJT rail customers and NJT could lose income besides. But it could be a boom for auto drivers and bus companies if parking is affordable and available and the bus companies can save on labor costs, fuel, deadheading, tolls, etc. So I think it might be a good idea to reduce traffic into and in the City, reduce pollution--air and ground, and utilize the open spaces of the Meadows not already under concrete.
henry6But no one has officially proposed anything...you cannot say there will be a connection at Secaucus Jct!
You're right, Henry. Perhaps I would not be as focused on it if I didn't see Chris Christie's decision to destroy the effort to build new NJT tunnels as so wrongheaded.
But if it were built I do think it would save a lot of people a lot of waiting time on the Lincoln Tunnel approach. I don't see it as harming NJT as they would not loose train or bus riders. In fact it would allow them to add buses and gain riders. Actually, in an ideal world the thing to do would be to build a new bus terminal adjacent to the Secaucus Train Station so the No. 7 subway could end there and you could transfer from your bus to either the subway or any connecting train line.
But, as you say, no one has proposed any such thing.
John WR Actually, in an ideal world the thing to do would be to build a new bus terminal adjacent to the Secaucus Train Station so the No. 7 subway could end there and you could transfer from your bus to either the subway or any connecting train line. But, as you say, no one has proposed any such thing.
Actually, in an ideal world the thing to do would be to build a new bus terminal adjacent to the Secaucus Train Station so the No. 7 subway could end there and you could transfer from your bus to either the subway or any connecting train line.
Actually, what Henry proposed earlier (which is to put the 'first stop' on the 7 line tunnel at the park 'n ride lot at Rt 3 and Tonnelle) is an eminently better proposal. For one thing, any bus currently dedicated to the counterflow bus lane could now make the 'loop' and discharge directly to what is essentially the New York subway system in terms of seated ride, without any need to negotiate all the turns and nooks and crannies involved with getting from platform to subway at the PA 40th Street terminal. Very little additional infrastructure is needed for this trick, and it already serves park 'n ride auto commuters better than just about any other solution... look at all the road accesses.
Going to Secaucus as the 'last stop' only allows some potential reduction in traffic through the North River tunnels by allowing some of the rail commuters to connect directly to transit rather than go into Penn to make the connection. There is some question in my mind whether terminating some services at Secaucus with the presence of the transit access is akin to a NYW&B approach -- I do not think so, because the access to midtown is fairly direct, rather than entailing a long, long ride with multiple stops.
It might be possible to provide a dedicated busway to an integrated hub at Secaucus, but then you're discharging all those bus passengers (have you counted the number?) to just one line of transit... and already-crowded trains. A marginally better solution outbound... but nowhere near as sensible as putting the transfer on Rt. 3 as Henry indicated.
OvermodIt might be possible to provide a dedicated busway to an integrated hub at Secaucus, but then you're discharging all those bus passengers (have you counted the number?) to just one line of transit... and already-crowded trains. A marginally better solution outbound... but nowhere near as sensible as putting the transfer on Rt. 3 as Henry indicated.
You make an interesting observation. Of course had NJT's trans Hudson tunnels not be aborted the problem of limited train capacity would be going away. I agree that Henry's Rt. 3 plan is good. But it would be nice if all bus and rail transit could come together and the further you look into the future the nicer it is.
John WRBut it would be nice if all bus and rail transit could come together and the further you look into the future the nicer it is.
Not, I think, at the price you'd have to pay.
Overlap between bus and train service is very, very slight, and transfers at Secaucus -- ARC or Gateway tunnels alike -- will only provide greatly increased volume on precisely the short segment where the bottlenecks and heavy inbound infrastructure have to be placed. Outbound the situation is still relatively hopeless... do you expect commuters to stand to Secaucus and then walk downstairs and fribble around to get to their bus to, say, Lakewood? Much easier in that circumstance to just ride from 40th Street and skip the whole cattle crush. And I wouldn't blame them a bit...
It only makes sense to have an enormous transit hub where there's a destination for the passengers, or where mode transfer is a hard requirement. Secaucus is appropriate... now... because there are so many NJT services that are not dual-mode, or that could not be economically operated 'through' to Manhattan. Not appropriate for buses at ground level, and a fairly utter waste of money to build a whole new structure just to dock all those converging buses out in the swamp, er, Meadowlands so that their passengers can join the madding crowd for limited accommodations and a longer ride.
I would also note that as soon as there is PARTIAL relief of bus traffic, the remaining 'express buses' running in the counterflow lane will more easily provide through service, or buses not in the 'express' lane will now have a useful termination point close to the 'helix' for transfer to other local services, or for bus-to-bus route transfers outside Manhattan. I, for example, could not travel from Englewood to Princeton without having to go via Manhattan, nor could I get from EWR to North Jersey in any practical sense without doing so. That would change dramatically with a transfer point between subway, bus, and light rail at the Park 'n Ride location, and this alone might be reason enough to put the tunnel through Bergen Hill even without further 'extension'.
OvermodNot, I think, at the price you'd have to pay.
Well, you will be happy to know that neither NJT nor NJDOT seeks my opinion on these kinds of issues.
I'm dusting this off for a reason -- even with all the interest in the topic, nobody on here seems to have noticed that the final planning report (.pdf file) was issued.
I'm sure many of you will be interested to read this, and then comment further.
There is not much to add to the report. Extending the Number 7 subway to the Lautenberg station would be complicated and expensive. The alternative is miles and miles and hours and hours of traffic backups at the Lincoln Tunnel.
I saw the report a while back...but am still not convinced it is the thing...partly because I grew up in North Jersey, partly because I live in upstate NY, partly because I think NJT should take NJ people into the city, partly because would like to see a run through to LIRR in Brooklyn or Long Island City, a more regionalized and rationalized use of commuter rail than rapid transit. Off hand, I think the rapid transit cost is greater than rail with better and broader benefits on a regional commuter rail system feeding a Manhattan rapid transit system. Perhaps there has to be an NJT line with stops at 9th-8th Ave, 6th Ave, and Lexington Ave to feed the MTA lines then interchange or transfers to MNRR and LIRR. .
henry6 I think NJT should take NJ people into the city,
I'm wondering why you believe this, Henry. After all, for people on the bus there can already be long backups at Route 4 when you hit the helix. And with the prediction of more people going into the city those back ups can only become longer and longer and longer.
John
Because I am a New Yorker...upstate New Yorker, but a New Yorker. I believe in separation of NYC and NY State as well as NJ and NY. If people chose to live in NJ, they should take care of themselves to get to and from work. But more importantly I believe in a rationalized regional rail system as I have touted so many times on these pages.
henry6 Because I am a New Yorker...upstate New Yorker, but a New Yorker. I believe in separation of NYC and NY State as well as NJ and NY. If people chose to live in NJ, they should take care of themselves to get to and from work. But more importantly I believe in a rationalized regional rail system as I have touted so many times on these pages.
Because I, too, am a New Yorker -- a Manhattan New Yorker -- I have a different view.
For one thing, unless something dramatic has changed, New Jerseyans who work in New York pay New York taxes... not just based on the income they earn there, but on all their income. They have earned the right to whatever participation of New York transit is involved in getting from Manhattan to the center of the Hudson, which the compacts of 1834 and 1921 agree is New York's responsibility.
Yes, New Jersey is responsible for the cost of everything in New Jersey, including a proper pro rata share of any 'joint' operation. But that framework has been in place since the PA expanded into ... well, into activities that led to its being renamed the 'Port Authority of New York and New Jersey' and its becoming the umbrella for all the little operating companies that handle other trans-Hudson facilities.
Why do you think this would be different because a nominally City agency (MTA) is the operating partner rather than an entity like MNCR?
(And by the way, John, the backup would indeed be long if New Jerseyans coming down Route 4 experienced a delay at the helix. Because Route 4 doesn't go within about nine miles of the Lincoln Tunnel... )
But I have to limit my taxes in Broome County and other upstate counties and towns instead of sending too much to NYC to support itself. NJ people who work in NY should pay their "fare" share instead of me.
The statement has been made that buses handle the majority of NJ commuters into Manhattan, and the assumption was made that this was via Lincoln Tunnel to the Port Authority Terminal. But buses also use the George Washington Bridge to the Washington Heights Terminal, the majority of these then using the A train to the Manhattan busines district or to other points souith of Washington Herights. And does the rail total include those using PATH? There are four PATH tracks into Manhattan from NJ and only two NJT tracks, the latter shared with Amtrak. Then there are both bus and rail passengers that use the ferries, mostly from Hoboken. And the Port Authority Terminal does handle intercity buses as well as commuter buses, and some come from Upstate NY and use the Major Degan Expressway in the Bronx and then Manhattan Avenues to access the PATerm. Does anyone have the actual figures for all these different lanes? And can west-of Hudson NY State commuters be separated from NJ commuters in these figures?
It certainly is a complex situation compared with figures on commuters from Westchester, Connecticut, and Long Island. These three are, of course, mostly rail.
Are there NJ commutgers that commute to Staten Island and use the St. George ferries?
Finally, in answer to Henry, if the 7 went to NJ, undoubtadly a higher fare would be charged at the turnstiles in NJ and the extra fare would be paid on a pay-leave basis for those existing. Thus, NJ riders would not be subsidized by NY taxpayers.
Agree, Dave...with your facts and your questions. You don't mention the Holland Tunnel which handles a lot of buses to Wall St., some turning back to NJ while other work up to PAT or other spots. And there is the Staten Island Ferry and Verrazano Bridge access...even peak hour buses from Bayonne to SI for SIRR or bus to St. George and the ferry or bus to Brooklyn and the R train; three bridges from NJ to SI feeding the Verrazano, too. As for NJ commuters paying extra fare for the 7 train, the building of the extension will still be on my tax bill.
daveklepper The statement has been made that buses handle the majority of NJ commuters into Manhattan, and the assumption was made that this was via Lincoln Tunnel to the Port Authority Terminal.
The statement has been made that buses handle the majority of NJ commuters into Manhattan, and the assumption was made that this was via Lincoln Tunnel to the Port Authority Terminal.
The only assumption that was made is that the 'first stop' on the 7 line extension would include large-scale facilities to divert traffic that would otherwise have to go through the Lincoln Tunnel (buses mainly to the PA bus terminal, cars anywhere south of where it would make more sense to go GWB and then Harlem/East river Drive or West Side Highway).
A further, less demanding assumption is that an extension of the 7 line as far as Allied Junction would allow passengers to divert 'early' from a variety of suburban trains, or drop-off buses, to a one-seat (and much more chance of a guaranteed sit-down, too!) subway connection. It does not take a degree in mathematics to realize this may decrease both the volume of traffic that has to pass through the North River tunnels and the volume of traffic that would otherwise clog up the IRT 7th Avenue or IND 8th Avenue northbound lines to reach the 7 line or Shuttle to go to the East Side. The former gives some breathing room until Amtrak's Gateway and Portal Bridge improvements can be made, or opens up at least the possibility of some additional trains from New Jersey or 'Port Jervis' NY points that could go Midtown Direct instead of terminating in the swamp... er, Meadowlands.
See light rail point below.
... buses also use the George Washington Bridge to the Washington Heights Terminal, the majority of these then using the A train to the Manhattan business district or to other points south of Washington Heights.
5 million a year, vs. 58 million at the PA terminal. Not exactly a compelling percentage. Out of the way... and across an excessively overcrowded [this is not redundant!] transportation artery... which the Lincoln and Holland tunnels are emphatically NOT... but useful if you can figure a way to use it wisely.
We in Englewood have been waiting for the A train extension over the Bridge since... well, since the '20s. There is STILL space between the lower deck lanes (and the structural engineering has been done; I've seen it) for rail over the Bridge; there might be some fun involved in transition especially at the Fort Lee end, and the situation is infinitely more complicated than the old route-it-down-the-Palisades-parallel-to-Route-4 option ... but not insoluble. And a very logical (to me, anyway) implementation of this option is to use the Light Rail going into Englewood ... but now not Tenafly ... as the system which would use the Bridge trackage. (Even terminating within the bus facility gets the job of reducing vehicle traffic over the Bridge massively reduced, and as Dave says, almost all the traffic goes south on the A line. (I spent my time with the miserable ride down into the hole at 168th St so I could get to Columbia without having to climb the Morningside hill, but at least it was free, and the IRT station was scenic!)
And does the rail total include those using PATH? There are four PATH tracks into Manhattan from NJ...
PA figures for Journal Square, Lord knows if they reflect 'through' passengers on PATH, but certainly would reflect the NJ traffic to NY) have about 8 million pax maximum, this including the connecting bus services. I would not look to massive capacity improvements on PATH, CBTC or no CBTC, any time soon. (On the other hand, it's at least theoretically possible to join the 7 line extension and Tunnel to at least a facilitated 'cross-platform' connection with the PATH line at 33rd St., as we were discussing in this thread a few months ago...)
Then there are both bus and rail passengers that use the ferries, mostly from Hoboken.
Do you have actual numbers showing that large numbers of commuters who live particularly far away actually use these things? My guess is that even with the Light Rail there are severe restrictions on how far you can enhance capacity. (I looked into the logistics in the early '70s, before Mr. Imperatore (I went to school with his daughter India) actually started things up, and even with the maximum practical number of boats, the effective throughput between 'destination pairs' was minuscule.)
And the Port Authority Terminal does handle intercity buses as well as commuter buses, and some come from Upstate NY and use the Major Deegan Expressway in the Bronx and then Manhattan Avenues to access the PATerm.
I cannot imagine such a thing actually being considered during rush hour. Even if there were a point, the bus would take hours to get through. I believe you will find there is, in fact, some common sense at work, and those intercity buses that might arrive from upstate during peak hours go into the GWB Station from the north or counterflow from the east, and not anywhere near ... Manhattan Avenue from the Deegan to get to 40th Street on the West Side? In rush hour? Give me some of what you're drinkin'!
Does anyone have the actual figures for all these different lanes?
Well, the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, for one. (I believe they've only comparatively recently started keeping full records -- didn't we have a post or two about this? -- but they know.
And can west-of Hudson NY State commuters be separated from NJ commuters in these figures?
This is more complicated. I'm sure you could do this for the EZPass people. You might need some fancy machine-vision software analysis to recognize how many cars from NYS points are going south to the metropolitan area -- and by the time you get up to Port Jervis country, you're looking at the other Hudson crossings and joining the traffic from the general north and east coming down the pre-Deegan Thruway and the parkways... cue the bridge-cams. (Note that this will implicitly be involved with the Westchester, etc. figures...)
I don't really know how many people from New York State come down roads like 17 or 9W or the Palisades Parkway to get into New York, but I would expect almost all of them either to go over the GWB or to find a park 'n ride or other mode somewhere else. There are relatively large lots in Fort Lee, and they fill up early every weekday -- but mostly with NJ license plates.
Are there NJ commuters that commute to Staten Island and use the St. George ferries?
I'm sure there are some, but there can't be many. I think the 'take rate' would be much higher if there were a rail connection directly across the Arthur Kill and down the SIRT to St. George, but there we run into that same old MTA/NJ separation-of-powers argument.
Finally, in answer to Henry, if the 7 went to NJ, undoubtadly a higher fare would be charged at the turnstiles in NJ and the extra fare would be paid on a pay-leave basis for those existing.
You can bet your bottom dollar there will be a 'surcharge' for the portion of the ride in New Jersey. Probably with some kind of option to exit the train in the Yards to avoid paying a full MTA fare, although I'm still musing about this. But I do NOT want any part of whatever you were drinking that made you suggest pay-as-you-leave for evening rush outbound. Verification machines are stupid enough. Pay as you leave (and stop if you can't?) verges on the suicidal. I suspect the only way you could make that work would be for all riders to have RFID passes tied to a known funding source, and 'bill their accounts' as they go.
ALL THOUGH THIS PROBABLY WOULD NOT WORK ;;; ----
Are the proposed gateway and #7 tunnels close enough together so one larger tunnel could be bored to carry the 4 tracks? That would be similar to the LIRR and subway tunnel to Gand Central ?
That's not a wacky question, but...
Gateway will be on the south side of the existing North River tunnels, which means even further south of the Rt. 3 approach to the 'helix', the existing park 'n ride lots, etc. I also suspect the Gateway easement will be considerably deep at that point (to minimize grade in the tunnels) so you'd need a long, circuitous approach track to get up to anything involving Tonnelle Avenue.
Likewise, if there is a stop close to the river, to access the existing 'light rail' on that side of the Palisades (it doesn't cross through the ex-Suskie Palisade Tunnel until further north) you'd have to have platform infrastructure for a couple of the joint tracks, while there would be none for the HSR.
The whole 7 line tunnel approach is predicated on it being cheaper to use smaller transit-equipment clearances, curve radii, and grade climbing ability hen building the tunnel. Four-tracking Gateway will not save you very much money as the required bore for a TBM would be the outside radius of a 'cloverleaf', with minimal usefulness for the little sections of the resulting cylinder outside the four track paths.
My assumption is that the 7 line tunnel would be assembled from precast sections a la BART. Much more complexity involved in either over/under fabrication (to cut down on trenching width) or four-tracks-abreast *to Gateway class 9 or whatever curve standards* even if it were cheaper to build Gateway by that method rather than deep TBM.
The time frames are very different. Gateway is not likely to be complete until the 2020s. The 7 line tunnel would be in the general timeframe for the stillborn ARC project -- shorter, in fact, because much less construction complexity would be involved.
Overmod: I thought that the LIRR tunnel to GCT was an over & under type ? that would cut down on TBM diameter ?
Overmod(And by the way, John, the backup would indeed be long if New Jerseyans coming down Route 4 experienced a delay at the helix. Because Route 4 doesn't go within about nine miles of the Lincoln Tunnel... )
Of course you are correct, Bob. Route 4 connects with the George Washington Bridge. Route 3 connects with the Lincoln Tunnel and leads into the Port Authority Bus Terminal.
But I hope you will excuse me for being taken by surprise at the idea that all of the people who now ride NJT trains to Manhattan could simply be put on buses and sent into the city. This is especially true if you consider not only the people who go directly to New York Penn Station but also those who go to Newark and change to the PATH and those who go to Hoboken and change to the PATH. To be frank, I don't know how to begin to consider such an idea. During the rush hour there would be no place to put all those buses. For about 20 years I worked in Hudson County including Hoboken and Weehawken. I can't remember how many times I saw traffic backed up on the helix and down route 3 but it was a lot.
OvermodBut I do NOT want any part of whatever you were drinking that made you suggest pay-as-you-leave for evening rush outbound. Verification machines are stupid enough. Pay as you leave (and stop if you can't?) verges on the suicidal. I suspect the only way you could make that work would be for all riders to have RFID passes tied to a known funding source, and 'bill their accounts' as they go.
Did you ever change from a Northeast Corridor Train to a Port Jervis Train? To pay as you leave the NEC train you put your ticket in the turn style. It is returned and you use it again on the train. It works quite well.
henry6As for NJ commuters paying extra fare for the 7 train, the building of the extension will still be on my tax bill.
And you know whose fault that is, Henry? DeWitt Clinton's that who. He taxed you southern tier guys to build the Erie Canal and ever since then it has gone from bad to worse. The Erie Canal is still going strong but you don't even have the Erie Railroad any more.
Dear Lord, no, I'm not suggesting more buses. I was only pointing out that TECHNICALLY you could achieve comparable passenger density in 'one highway lane' than in typical rail.
Unless there is a dedicated bus lane *through the tunnel* to match the capacity of the dedicated line through the helix, you will of course be limited by the speed with which buses can negotiate the bottleneck between the toll plaza 'slot' at the end of the dedicated lane and the actual tunnel portals. This used to be a fun thing to watch from the 'right seat' on a bus, as various flavors of Jersey driver would jockey for momentary advantage between the buses coming off the counterflow lane.
There is an implicit economy in a train's being able to board and discharge from one long parallel platform; buses need angle platforms to accomplish the same thing, and of course a reverse move (into traffic) is required to clear each one. On the other hand, if buses were given the same kind of door access as commuter cars, each angle platform can be cleared as soon as loading/unloading is complete, rather than having to wait the effective headway time (last passenger off that last car, then accelerate the train off the platform with 'safety' following distance, then get the whole following train along the platform and stopped) before any more passengers at all can be accommodated.
There was never any question of 'putting all the rail passengers on buses and sending them into the city' in actual practice, and of course there could not be. Buses could not replace PATH in any way, shape, or form without spending enormous sums of money. In the 'old days' infrastructure improvements on the required scale could have been justified because they would be useful to general off-peak automobile drivers too. but this is less true, or not true, of a dedicated busway or BRT scheme. The situation is even more pronounced for service through the North River Tunnels.
On the other hand, scaling passenger-only rail to rush-hour proportion is a very expensive proposition with very little alternative use during off-peak times. That has been one of the principal bugbears for suburban *profitability* for many years now. If a given amount of money is spent on trains, and there is no use for many of those trains outside of a total six-hour window, you get less bang for the buck than if you have something that can be effectively retasked to a variety of alternative services or routes when not in peak use. (Which was one of GM's advertising points for bus service as early as the '50s).
For about 20 years I was driving more or less regularly into the New York metropolitan area. This was out of necessity -- there was simply no effective way to get from Englewood to 70th and York in time for surgery in the morning. The interesting thing was how the cumulative delays affected things. If you got to the GWB before 6am, the trip took about 17 minutes. By 6:05, the wait at the Bridge was about 5 minutes, and the trip time ballooned to nearly an hour. By 6:15 it was difficult to be there before 8-something. (And leaving at 9 it was back close to 17 minutes again).
A very sizeable traffic in trans-Hudson commuters boards at Bridge Plaza, where (sensibly!) most of the buses coming across the Bridge can stop, and any passenger can take any route the 'last mile'. I don't have any numbers for what proportion of ridership this represents, but the wait time is of course far less than would be the case for any single bus route.
Why there is not even one directional-flow bus lane on the GWB has been a mystery to me long before I saw the blueprints for the Martha Washington Bridge (so labeled on at least some PA documents, although in the present age of political correctness this might have been changed) and realized how easily it could be run in the space between lanes on that lower deck. Not so easy, as I mentioned before, is how large numbers of buses from different directions would converge on this lane going westbound (the situation on the New York side, of course, is comparatively straightforward). The catch, of course, is the magnitude of bus traffic to GWB as opposed to the counts for 40th St. -- I did expect to see this go up dramatically with NY state originating passengers once 287 was completed between 80 and the state line, and perhaps it has, but the traffic into 40th St. still dwarfs what goes into GWB, and I am not surprised.
I can never remember a time when the helix wasn't occupied and spilling over down Route 3 during rush hour... and believe me, it was worse before the counterflow bus lane was introduced! My general rule was to avoid Rt. 3 and the Lincoln Tunnel if speed into the city was expected, and in fact to take the Western extension if going south at that time (even though I enjoyed watching trains on the NYCR from the Eastern extension) as it wasn't unusual for traffic (bound for the helix) to back up past that exit onto the Turnpike. I can't imagine the situation has gotten any better in the years since.
I'll throw my 2 cents worth in.
1.This has been pretty lively from going back over the thread.
2.And a few comments.
To start the upriver toll crossings of the Hudson River, the Tappan Zee, Newburg Beacon are both New York State Thruway crossings. (As is I-84 from the Hudson to Pennsylvania, I do not remember about the other way to Connecticut).
Looking briefly at the Parsons Brinkerhoff report going to FRL makes a fair amount of sense if you look at how much open space is available for development. Things like a parking garage. It is right off the NJ Turnpike. Expanded bus facilities. A multimodal facility.
The only thing I could see you could not do there easily is a ferry dock.(yes I know the Hackensack River is not that far away) .
One of the reasons NYCTA was put under the MTA(a state of NY function) was to get out from under some of the New York state constitution limitations on borrowing. If a municipality exceeds certain limits it has to go to the state legislature for authority. This was one of the hurdles that had to be overcome when the IND was built. When New York City goes to Albany for major expansions it gets to be a real political football.
Anyway as I said my worth.
Thx IGN
Th
John WR henry6As for NJ commuters paying extra fare for the 7 train, the building of the extension will still be on my tax bill. And you know whose fault that is, Henry? DeWitt Clinton's that who. He taxed you southern tier guys to build the Erie Canal and ever since then it has gone from bad to worse. The Erie Canal is still going strong but you don't even have the Erie Railroad any more. John
There was no one in the Southern Tier back then...just beavers and trout! Virtually. Upstate NY suffers because NYC has to get all kinds of permissions, charters, money, from Albany to do something..;almost anything and everythng... putting a burden, tax wise and otherwise, on those who do not live within the boundaries of the City. It gets harder and harder for them to sell to us, and for us to swallow, the line that we must pay NYC's bills because NYC wags the state, that what is good for NYC is good for the State, that we benefit from whatever money we give to NYC. There is an ever widening gap, politically, socially, and economically, between upstate and downstate. And our taking on the burden of paying for New Jersey's commute in and out of NYC is one of those dividing points. Even downstate NY'ers is hard for us to swallow.
blue streak 1 ALL THOUGH THIS PROBABLY WOULD NOT WORK ;;; ---- Are the proposed gateway and #7 tunnels close enough together so one larger tunnel could be bored to carry the 4 tracks? That would be similar to the LIRR and subway tunnel to Gand Central ?
After the Sandy storm serge, half the Amtrak tunnels on each side of Manhattan were flooded, and the other half were able to be put back in service quickly. Maybe ATK would see an advantage to staying with separate single track tunnels in future construction.
henry6There was no one in the Southern Tier back then...just beavers and trout! Virtually.
The history I've read is a little different, Henry. I understand there was a lot of farming in the southern tier. The Erie Railroad gave farmers access to the New York City market and made a big difference for them. For example, on item they shipped to New York City was fresh milk, milk that was much more wholesome than the milk before the railroad came along.
henry6And our taking on the burden of paying for New Jersey's commute in and out of NYC is one of those dividing points. Even downstate NY'ers is hard for us to swallow.
I don't suggest that New Yorkers would or should take on the burden of paying New Jersey workers commuting expenses, Henry. I don't see any reason for that to happen. Of course I don't know how a tunnel for the No. 7 train would be funded. But if it were funded with bonds based on future revenues from tunnel users then New Jersey commuters would pay the cost to the degree that they commute to New York City on the No. 7 train.
MidlandMike After the Sandy storm serge, half the Amtrak tunnels on each side of Manhattan were flooded, and the other half were able to be put back in service quickly. Maybe ATK would see an advantage to staying with separate single track tunnels in future construction.
blue streak 1 The problem that allowed the tunnels to be flooded is the lack of flood gates / flood doors.. Knowing that probably there will be another flood will cause a flood gate to be installed on any new tunnel as soon as any TBM clears that area so the TBM will not get flooded. This begs the question of how soon flood gaes will be installed on the existing tunnels both the Amtrak north and east river tunnels. As well MTA needs flood gates on their subway tunnels
The problem that allowed the tunnels to be flooded is the lack of flood gates / flood doors.. Knowing that probably there will be another flood will cause a flood gate to be installed on any new tunnel as soon as any TBM clears that area so the TBM will not get flooded. This begs the question of how soon flood gaes will be installed on the existing tunnels both the Amtrak north and east river tunnels. As well MTA needs flood gates on their subway tunnels
It sounds like they need more than just flood gates. I heard that the water got in to some of the tunnels (not sure if ATK's) thru unanticipated access points. This makes sense, since the pictures I've seen of both ends of the Hudson tunnels show both of the twin tunnel portals right next to each other and at the same elevation. If that was the entry point of the water, it's hard to see why they both didn't flood.
MidlandMike It sounds like they need more than just flood gates. I heard that the water got in to some of the tunnels (not sure if ATK's) thru unanticipated access points. This makes sense, since the pictures I've seen of both ends of the Hudson tunnels show both of the twin tunnel portals right next to each other and at the same elevation. If that was the entry point of the water, it's hard to see why they both didn't flood.
Sandy was unlike any other storm to ever hit Manhattan Island. Doors or gates on the tunnels would be a waste as the west portals are abut a mile or two inland from the Hudson (but on the Hackensack River flood plane and Meadows swamp) and the east portals are about a half mile from the Hudson. Likewise the east bores to LI are mostly well removed from the water's edge and not facing into a stream flow. It is very rare that such substantial flooding happened and that it will happen again in the near future....but, yes, say your prayers and keep your fingers crossed. There are other projects and safeguards that will help and be more cost effective....
MidlandMike I heard that the water got in to some of the tunnels (not sure if ATK's) thru unanticipated access points.
Yes, this is so. Subway is not submarine. It is not water tight. Water entering electrical vaults on the street can pour into the subway tunnels.
LION looked at idea of ocean flood gates ala Holland et NOLA. It could be done with one enormous gate at the Narrows Bridge, and one again on the Jersey side of Staten Island and a third across the LI Sound. As outlandish as this sounds they are quite doable, the head lands at these points are quite tall.
Doable but quite meaningless... Close off the Ocean and the Hudson River has no place to go except into the subway tunnels.
The Hudson River is one of the most powerful waterways on the planet, the Hudson Canyon is many times bigger than the Grand Canyon, and unlike the Colorado, it still has a might current.
Bonus Point: What state capital is on the Colorado River.
ROAR
The Route of the Broadway Lion The Largest Subway Layout in North Dakota.
Here there be cats. LIONS with CAMERAS
Austin, TX
Give the man an "A" in Geography!
BroadwayLion ... LION looked at idea of ocean flood gates ala Holland et NOLA. It could be done with one enormous gate at the Narrows Bridge, and one again on the Jersey side of Staten Island and a third across the LI Sound. As outlandish as this sounds they are quite doable, the head lands at these points are quite tall. Doable but quite meaningless... Close off the Ocean and the Hudson River has no place to go except into the subway tunnels. The Hudson River is one of the most powerful waterways on the planet, the Hudson Canyon is many times bigger than the Grand Canyon, and unlike the Colorado, it still has a might current. Bonus Point: What state capital is on the Colorado River. ROAR
The Hudson River is a sea level estuary as far north as Troy, NY. If the sea gates were closed, water coming from the upper Hudson and Mohawk would spread over the surface of the wide estuary. Further down the Hudson, much of the water from the surrounding hills is caught in reservoirs. The sea gate would only need to be closed for one or two tidal cycles, or about a day. When you speak of the Hudson Canyon, I presume you are talking about the submarine canyon below the waters of the Atlantic,and on the other side of the sea gate. Of course those sea gates would not protect low lying areas along the Atlantic like Rockaway.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.