Subway Extension to Secaucus (Flushing #7 or L Canarsie)

Discussion relating to the past and present operations of the NYC Subway, PATH, and Staten Island Railway (SIRT).

Moderator: GirlOnTheTrain

Re: #7 Subway to NJ/Secaucus

Postby Jeff Smith » Sun Jul 31, 2016 2:36 pm

That would seem to be apparent, but I'm sure an operating agreement could be worked out a la NJT and MNRR for West of Hudson, or CtDOT and MNRR. I've always wondered why subways haven't extended into Westchester, or Nassau counties.
Next stop, Willoughby
~Jeff Smith (fka "Sarge") :: RAILROAD.NET Site Administrator
Jeff Smith
Site Admin
 
Posts: 7443
Joined: Tue Nov 07, 2006 9:28 am
Location: MP 67.2 Georgia Southern Railway

Re: #7 Subway to NJ/Secaucus

Postby rr503 » Mon Nov 21, 2016 8:56 pm

Firstly, demand and patterns of urbanization. Subways require extreme population and economic density, and seeing that Westchester/Nassau don't have those charecteristics, commuter rail works better.

Secondly, the sheer number of stops added would cause delay and overcrowding, and would lead to a general degradation of service for those who live in areas where subways are the only viable option: namely, urban centers.
rr503
 
Posts: 519
Joined: Sat May 02, 2015 4:13 pm
Location: North by Northwest

Re: Subway Extension to Secaucus (Flushing #7 or L Canarsie)

Postby Jeff Smith » Sun Apr 30, 2017 5:54 pm

In the best horror movie tradition.... "it's alive!"
NJ.com

Fair-use SNIPS per site policy:

New York subway extension to N.J. may not be dead after all

The long-dormant idea to extend a New York subway line to Secaucus may have new life as an alternative to building a colossal Port Authority Bus terminal on Manhattan's West Side.
...
The idea was brought up by former Port Authority Chairman Scott Rechler, who suggested the agency study building a bus terminal in Secaucus and rehabilitating, but not expanding, the midtown Manhattan bus terminal.
...
The No. 7 to Secaucus has been endorsed by the New Jersey Association of Railroad Passengers, who said it would take pressure off the Lincoln Tunnel and bus terminal and would give commuters a faster ride, since many already transfer to city subways.
...
Retired NJ Transit planner James Greller also proposed a similar plan to extend the L line tunnels, which end at Ninth Avenue across the river, to under the Hoboken Terminal light rail station.

From there, it would pick up the unused state-owned Bergen Arches rail line through Jersey City and run on railroad rights of way or easements to Secaucus. The No. 7 could connect to that tunnel, he said.
...
Next stop, Willoughby
~Jeff Smith (fka "Sarge") :: RAILROAD.NET Site Administrator
Jeff Smith
Site Admin
 
Posts: 7443
Joined: Tue Nov 07, 2006 9:28 am
Location: MP 67.2 Georgia Southern Railway

Re: Subway Extension to Secaucus (Flushing #7 or L Canarsie)

Postby GirlOnTheTrain » Sun Apr 30, 2017 8:49 pm

Juuuuust sayin'....

Image
"I am no longer just a girl on the train, going back and forth without point or purpose."

Moderator: Amtrak, MTA Metro-North, MTA New York City Subway/PATH/NYC Area Light Rail
User avatar
GirlOnTheTrain
 
Posts: 367
Joined: Mon May 25, 2015 7:19 pm

Re: Subway Extension to Secaucus (Flushing #7 or L Canarsie)

Postby Arlington » Mon May 01, 2017 11:51 am

It seems a pretty valid point that the need to expand the PA Bus Terminal, which is generally seen as a success of the bus mode and the Lincoln Tunnel's bus lanes, can (and should, as far as RR.net Is concerned) be seen as a failure of the rail mode to keep up with the demands of daily commuters.

The "order of magnitude" estimates for replacing the PABT are between $3.7B and $15.3B. Once you're talking that size a project envelope, suddenly a new subway tunnel to new jersey that could move 200k people a day looks like a highly doable alternative.

Or given how huge the PABT replacement (or renovation) decision is, it is completely sane to consider the L or 7 "crazy transit pitches" as looking fairly sane.
"Trying to solve congestion by making roadways wider is like trying to solve obesity by buying bigger pants."--Charles Marohn
Arlington
 
Posts: 3264
Joined: Wed Jun 02, 2004 7:51 am
Location: Medford MA (was Arlington MA and Arlington VA)

Re: Subway Extension to Secaucus (Flushing #7 or L Canarsie)

Postby ExCon90 » Mon May 01, 2017 3:12 pm

Do the plans for expanding PABT include any new vehicular tunnels? One can imagine some empty bus berths at PABT in the morning rush hours awaiting the arrival of buses that are still trying to get into the Lincoln Tunnel. Just the opposite of ARC: a terminal too big for the tunnels rather than too small for the tunnels.
ExCon90
 
Posts: 3461
Joined: Thu Sep 18, 2008 1:22 pm

Re: Subway Extension to Secaucus (Flushing #7 or L Canarsie)

Postby Arlington » Mon May 01, 2017 6:23 pm

ExCon90 wrote:Do the plans for expanding PABT include any new vehicular tunnels? One can imagine some empty bus berths at PABT in the morning rush hours awaiting the arrival of buses that are still trying to get into the Lincoln Tunnel.

The Lincoln tunnel bus lanes seem like they are not the problem, but rather terminal congestion (with buses stacked up on 10th Ave, for example)
http://www.panynj.gov/bus-terminals/pdf ... ations.pdf

The success of the Lincoln Tunnel bus lanes at pumping unprecedented numbers of buses into the PABT seems to have created a problem at the terminal.

Meanwhile, if you read the linked presentation, you see the success of Secaucus / Lautenberg at pushing new commuters into Manhattan since 2005.
"Trying to solve congestion by making roadways wider is like trying to solve obesity by buying bigger pants."--Charles Marohn
Arlington
 
Posts: 3264
Joined: Wed Jun 02, 2004 7:51 am
Location: Medford MA (was Arlington MA and Arlington VA)

Re: Subway Extension to Secaucus (Flushing #7 or L Canarsie)

Postby MattW » Mon May 01, 2017 8:36 pm

What about just connecting PATH to the subway? I think there were plans for that at one time (MANY decades ago). I would think it would then be easier to expand off the existing PATH tunnels than to build new tunnels for an entirely separate system.
MattW
 
Posts: 509
Joined: Thu May 13, 2010 8:00 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA (ATL)

Re: Subway Extension to Secaucus (Flushing #7 or L Canarsie)

Postby Backshophoss » Tue May 02, 2017 12:47 am

The car profiles of the PATH Fleet are too wide for A (IRT) or B(BMT,IND) division tunnels of the Subway.
the "GAP" between the car and the PATH platform edge would be too wide for B division subway cars
Backshophoss
 
Posts: 4574
Joined: Mon Mar 05, 2012 7:58 pm

Re: Subway Extension to Secaucus (Flushing #7 or L Canarsie)

Postby Allan » Wed May 03, 2017 10:05 am

Backshophoss wrote:The car profiles of the PATH Fleet are too wide for A (IRT) or B(BMT,IND) division tunnels of the Subway.
the "GAP" between the car and the PATH platform edge would be too wide for B division subway cars


To help clarify the above statement:

The width of the PATH PA-5 car is 51 ft (15.5 m) long, with a width of approximately 9'-2 3/4" (2.8 m).

By comparison the R142A car (IRT or A Division) is 51.33 feet (15.65 m) long with a width of 8.60 feet (2,621 mm). The B Division's R160 car is 60.21 feet (18.35 m) long with a width of 9.77 feet (2,978 mm).

Even if the PA-5 car could platform at IRT stations there is an issue with the position of the trucks on the underbody. The PATH car trucks are positioned just under the cab (or end of car). NYC Subway cars have the trucks positioned set back about 1 foot (or so) from the cab (or end of car). This could cause clearance problems on curves (on PATH and on the NYC Subway).

Of course then you would have big arguments on revenue sharing. Does PATH get all the revenue from trains boarded in NJ and MTA all the trains boarded in NYC?
Would the train crews have to have FRA clearance and standard Railroad training? The various unions involved would go to war on this.
Allan
 
Posts: 391
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 7:10 am
Location: Bronx, NY

Re: Subway Extension to Secaucus (Flushing #7 or L Canarsie)

Postby railfan365 » Wed May 03, 2017 11:28 am

Based on such projects as East Side Access, the 63rd Street Tunnel, the Second Avenue Subway, the New South Ferry Terminal, and the Fulton Stret Transport Hub, I want to add that IF a subway extension to Secaucus will be undertaken, the interested parties should be prepared for the project taking years or even decades longer to complete than it should, and at a grossly bloated cost. This is not to say that it should never get done because of construction problems - but the planners and beneficiaries should be prepared for them.
railfan365
 
Posts: 613
Joined: Thu May 21, 2009 9:55 am

Re: Subway Extension to Secaucus (Flushing #7 or L Canarsie)

Postby TDowling » Mon May 08, 2017 6:43 am

The subway historically has only served the five boroughs. Though construction should not get in the way, we're talking about a huge milestone in cultural and infrastructural history, namely the expansion of one of the world's most famous intra-city subterranean line to another state. I don't imagine the PATH train being expanded to SEC anytime soon?
TDowling
 
Posts: 470
Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2008 4:36 pm
Location: West Point, NY

Re: Subway Extension to Secaucus (Flushing #7 or L Canarsie)

Postby trainbrain » Mon May 08, 2017 8:10 am

Extending the subway out of city limits while Eastern Queens and SI still have no service at all will likely be protested by leaders in those areas. No way this happens.
trainbrain
 
Posts: 288
Joined: Sun May 12, 2013 7:11 pm

Re: Subway Extension to Secaucus (Flushing #7 or L Canarsie)

Postby railfan365 » Mon May 08, 2017 3:02 pm

This is a good point that I should have been keener on. I lived in Eastern Queens fo rmany years with a lengthy bus ride just to get to a subway.
railfan365
 
Posts: 613
Joined: Thu May 21, 2009 9:55 am

Re: Subway Extension to Secaucus (Flushing #7 or L Canarsie)

Postby Jeff Smith » Mon May 08, 2017 3:38 pm

Let me preface this by saying I don't think this will ever happen.

That said, any subway extension in Queens or anywhere else in the five boroughs would be paid for by different stakeholders. 2nd Av was US/NYS/NYC; the 7 was wholly paid for by NYC. There are definitely expansion needs NYC needs more.

For this project, much more benefit could be gained by through running NJT-LIRR rather than building new tunnels and a subway extension. They just need a dual mode AC/DC (hums "Hells Bells" to himself while typing) that could run out onto Long Island. It's less than 5 miles from Penn to Woodside; I'm sure it's even less from where the NEC diverges. You could string catenary to Woodside for the extra couple of miles, use it as a transfer station to the LIRR, and turn trains there.

Otherwise, this sounds like a PATH project to me. PATH is overseeing the Gateway tunnels; I think up-thread I said something about making those tunnels two level similar to the East River tunnels used for both Subway and East Side access. Let them run a line from Secaucus and/or Newark and maybe dust off that deep cavern station plan for Macy's basement LOL.

NJT could already through run to Westchester and Connecticut (where there's an obvious need for reverse commuters) that wouldn't involve tying up additional slots for MNRR's Penn Access.

Sounds like I"m heading over to the Penn Trackwork thread :P
Next stop, Willoughby
~Jeff Smith (fka "Sarge") :: RAILROAD.NET Site Administrator
Jeff Smith
Site Admin
 
Posts: 7443
Joined: Tue Nov 07, 2006 9:28 am
Location: MP 67.2 Georgia Southern Railway

PreviousNext

Return to NYC MTA Subway and Rail, PATH and SIRT

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests