Secaucus Loop

Also... why would the south Portal bridge cost $700 million more than the north one since I would bet they will be identical. I know there was a time when the south bridge was going to be a swing bridge but why bother with that?

And... the Sawtooth bridge doesn't cross the Passaic River.

Backshophoss wrote:West Point is on the CSX River Line at the shoreline of the Hudson River,it's a bit of uphill hike from the station.
Good luck getting commuter service on CSX rails.

While this is a totally fair point, I can't resist being pedantic and mentioning that SEPTA does that every day.

mohawkrailfan wrote:

Backshophoss wrote:West Point is on the CSX River Line at the shoreline of the Hudson River,it's a bit of uphill hike from the station.
Good luck getting commuter service on CSX rails.

While this is a totally fair point, I can't resist being pedantic and mentioning that SEPTA does that every day.

As well as MARC, VRE, and MBTA

Has anyone answered what will become of that massive station we built just for transfers between these lines if this thing actually ends up going through? Obviously a lot of folks still need to go to Hoboken, but the station will certainly see a drop a useage if direct trains are routed through there...and it's not at all anywhere near capacity in its present state.

Maybe they could build those commercial buildings at the site like the original plans suggested.

By the time it is actually built, the station will have been active 20-25+ years so it's not a total loss...

SemperFidelis wrote:Has anyone answered what will become of that massive station we built just for transfers between these lines if this thing actually ends up going through? Obviously a lot of folks still need to go to Hoboken, but the station will certainly see a drop a useage if direct trains are routed through there...and it's not at all anywhere near capacity in its present state.

Maybe they could build those commercial buildings at the site like the original plans suggested.

Just because the station might not see as much use once the loop is built as it sees now once the transferring passengers practically disappear, this is not a good argument against building the loop. As per NJTransit's own numbers the station saw on average 6,656 boardings per weekday in FY2014. That number does not include the transferring passengers from the Hoboken lines, but only terminal boardings on all lines. About 90% of those passengers travel between Secaucus and NYP. Secaucus Junction has become one of the largest stations in terms of boardings. The station opened in 2003 and has been in operation for 12 years and two months. While I do not know what numbers were projected when the station was built, just by comparison with all other NJTransit stations it is undeniably a success when it comes to ridership. We can argue all day whether this justifies the cost at which it was built, but people need to be aware that most of the cost that gets cited for the station includes the right of way elements such as the viaducts/bridges both on the NEC and the Bergen Line connector and these by necessity were expensive as they are in the swamp. The station building by itself was relatively cheap.

As for commercial/residential buildings there, give it some time -- we had a recession and a flooding form Sandy. Indeed there is something going on just southeast of the rail bridge over County Rd. I am guessing it is a residential development, but I could be wrong. Has anyone driven on County Rd and read the signs?

It looks like the original plans, with the office/residential towers in place, was for the station to see a total of 80,000 users per day by 2030. I think even the most optimistic of us can probably see that isn't going to happen.

I like the station and have used it a few times on treks from EWR to Port Jervis when travelling. I just think it'll be a waste to add the loop, but I don't have to use it every day so maybe my opinion isn't as valid as someone who does.

Fyi - NJT lists daily ridership as 23,440.

F40 wrote:

trainzrok wrote:Looks to me like it would defeat the purpose of Secaucus Jct. It's not like the transfer is THAT painful. God forbid someone has to get out of there seat and walk to the upper level.

The loops will not eliminate Secaucus as a stop (for those who actually travel to/from there by car/taxi/bus). From the Gateway's preliminary drawings, the loops will hook onto the new "south ROW" of the NEC which will be built for 2 new tracks into Penn Station, not the current ROW. After trains serve SEC, it would take the loop into Penn Station. However, the preliminary drawings indicate the possibility of a "SEC South" station going up next to the current one (lots of pork I expect), so that the "south ROW" will also have "access to SEC." If anything, I personally believe this threatens the loop project and any hope for Bergen/upstate NY commuters for a one-seat ride, as who knows how much $$ the new station will take to build. With the loops, you will decrease the folks needing to use SEC (far cry from needing a 2nd SEC). Without them, you will end up having 2x the people transferring at the marshland (which does not need to be made any bigger by the way, it is under capacity even at today's rush hour). With a mega-budget project such as the Gateway, the commuter experience should be upgraded for the passengers as well, instead of leaving them stuck in the early 2000's era of (transferring) commuting for the forseeable future because if this doesn't, what will? There are many folks on the Bergen lines who ask why isn't there a direct train into NYP.

Bump. If there is any argument for eliminating a stop, it should be EWR, especially now that the monorail is on its last legs. "Why not build PATH to a no man's land terminus which will serve a couple of airport passengers?" It is not a one seat ride from downtown Hudson County or WTC and a waste of resources. If they want to keep EWR, extend the monorail to Newark Penn instead. But back on topic.

SemperFidelis wrote:It looks like the original plans, with the office/residential towers in place, was for the station to see a total of 80,000 users per day by 2030. I think even the most optimistic of us can probably see that isn't going to happen.
Fyi - NJT lists daily ridership as 23,440.

The latest numbers I have seen are in excess of 27,000 originating and transferring passengers per business day.

When they made that 80,000 projection they either were not paying attention or were assuming that ARC would have been built. 80,000 per day is 40,000 each way. Assuming 90% of them would travel to NYP that means 36,000 passengers. A 10 car multilevel set would be short of 1,500 seats, so that number of people would require the equivalent of 24 ten car multilevel sets. There is no way they could fit that amount of trains or make existing trains longer/higher capacity to fit that many people. It is probably better that the original forecast will not come true, but I see it as possible that the station might get to 40,000 users per day by 2030. It got 27,000 in 12 years, so it is probably as likely as a fair coin toss that another 13,000 could be gained in about 15 more years (let's not kid ourselves: it is 100% certain that there will be no loop by then).

But, but, but...

Certainly a President Christie (shudder runs up spine) would repay the good voters of New Jersey with a giant stimulus check to get this tunnel thing going, right?

Not to get all political (transparency: pretty liberal writer here), but honestly, even though I loathe the idea of a President Trump or Christie, at least both of those men likely understand the pressing need for new tunnels and better access to New York City...call it a silver lining to what I would see as a dark, dark cloud.

Back on topic:

Rather than a cloverleaf, would there be a way to elevate the diverging track, cross the other Hoboken bound tracks, and connect to the NEC east of Secaucus Transfer? The area looks crowded by a lot of things, not the least of which the north end of what I think is NS' Coxton Yard. It would keep trains from going through the station twice (only inAmerica would we design a railroad like that) and maybe allow higher speeds. It doesn't look like it would be easy or cheap, but neither does the cloverleaf. If we're going to spend so much money to limit the utility if a flawed but useful transfer, why not do it right? I don't know anything about railroad design on a professinal level, but there has to be a better way than a slow 270 degree turn on what must be a significant grade.

I presume there is another part of this plan to bring trains down from the NEC to the northbound tracks. Couldn't the southbound tracks follow that and cross under the NEC on a new alignment? I'd imagine that no one would be happy putting in several crossovers and having the trains cross at grade.

Edit BTW- I apologize if any of this has been covered either here or elsewhere. If it has been, please don't post a snippy remark about how I should weed through 300 pages of a different topic to find my answer. If it bothers you that much, just ignore me. It works for my wife!

Best wishes to all! Good luck out there!