Comments on: Support Access to the Region's Core – From TSTC's Website!

By: John V

John V — Sun, 28 Sep 2008 15:41:47 +0000

Tom is entirely right; the project in its current form is fatally flawed.

Amtrak and many others have started to raise red flags, by pointing out that this multi-billion-dollar effort does NOTHING to increase Amtrak redundancy (it will still be captive to two 100-year-old tunnels) and nothing to improve regional interconnections.

It’s notable that NJ-ARP, the New Jersey transit passengers association, is against the current project. They absolutely support added capacity, but it needs to benefit ALL riders, not just NJT’s riders, if it’s to be federally funded. They call the current project “deeply flawed”.

See their analysis here … http://www.nj-arp.org/arc3.html

By: TSTC Wants You To Help Support “ARC” — Transit Blogger

TSTC Wants You To Help Support “ARC” — Transit Blogger — Tue, 16 Sep 2008 10:42:08 +0000

[...] One of the tri-state area’s leading transit advocates is the Tri-State Transportation Campaign. They recently asked tri-state area residents to contact their local officials to help a bill which would help New Jersey fund its portion of the “ARC” tunnel project. The project would build a second rail tunnel below the Hudson River, connecting New Jersey & Midtown Manhattan. For more information on the project & how you could help support it, you can read their entry by clicking here. [...]

By: Streetsblog » Time for Legislators to Commit to Better NJ-NYC Transit Access

Mon, 15 Sep 2008 18:28:47 +0000

[...] their blog, Mobilizing the Region, TSTC says that ARC [...]

By: Chris H

Chris H — Wed, 10 Sep 2008 02:28:56 +0000

Tom B,

I would argue that it increases the effectiveness of Secaucus by allowing more trains (RVL) to access Secaucus, making transfers between it and the ex-Erie lines to take only one transfer rather than two. Combine that with the ability to decrease the headway on every line makes trips for intrastate commuters to use Secaucus a much more feasible option.

The Northern branch is currently in the DEIS/EIS process and so is MOM. Neither are as far along as ARC is. All three are necessary but ARC will increase public transit ridership the most. Moreover, MOM is still a political hot-potato whereas ARC currently has broad support (aside from a few grumpy railfans and armchair planners).

I don’t know what you mean by calling ARC as a “snake oil cure.” What exactly is it “snake oil cure? for?

By: Tom B

Tom B — Tue, 09 Sep 2008 18:17:47 +0000

One major issue I have with the ARC project is that there is no link to Grand Central Terminal, as it was in earlier proposals, NJT has recast this project to serve only NJT needs (i.e. train to macy’s basement) and not provide this important link and added Amtrak capacity. The rail capacity increase is needed, but this project needs to serve the region, not just NJDOT/NJT.

NJT continues to dangle the “one seat ride” as a magic trinket, what of the 750 million investment in Secaucus?. They need to focus on the lack of rail service across the most densely populated counties (Bergen – Hudson), the lack of usable intra-state connections, poor off peak service on the Pascack Valley line, the forever stalled MOM project, etc.

I will stop there, NJT is selling the ARC as magic snake oil cure, there needs to be a regional solution, but that’s hoping for way too much…

By: James Riley

James Riley — Mon, 08 Sep 2008 19:14:00 +0000

In addition, we won’t have to deal with any more hour-plus delays as a result of Amtrak’s snafu’s on the Northeast Corridor trackage. At least, those who ride anything except the NEC and NJCL trains will be spared that!