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.
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.
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.)
RME
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.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.