At a recent transportation summit organized by the New Jersey Alliance for Action, Governor Christie said he was ready to invest in a rail tunnel between New Jersey and New York, but only if the project is a “good deal” for New Jersey taxpayers. This is a subjective promise considering his cancellation of the ARC project, but at least suggests there may be light at the end of the tunnel.
There are two viable projects in the pipeline, albeit at very young stages. The first is the Gateway Project to build additional rail tunnels to Penn Station, which is spearheaded by Amtrak and was announced by Senator Lautenberg and Senator Menendez in early February. That project got a shot in the arm this week, when USDOT designated the Northeast Corridor an official high-speed rail corridor, allowing Amtrak to apply for rail funds (previously, only individual states could apply for projects in the Northeast). The second is New York City’s proposed expansion of the Number 7 subway line to Secaucus.
Sen. Lautenberg’s office offers its comparison of the two new project proposals and ARC project:
(New York’s MTA has not committed to extending the No. 7 either to Secaucus or to Penn Station.)
Also at the summit, Governor Christie reiterated his plan to use toll increases on the Garden State Parkway and NJ Turnpike to help fund the ailing Transportation Trust Fund, which pays for most of the state’s road, bridge, and transit projects. He called the Democrats’ demand to roll back the toll increases, which were meant to go towards construction for ARC, a “stupid idea.”
Why wouldnt the 7 relieve Nj congestion since alot of people will be leaving the system before it goes into ny
[…] HSR Designation for Northeast Corridor Gives Shot in the Arm to Amtrak’s “Gateway Project” (MTR) […]
It isn’t necessarily true that the Flushing Line extension would not relieve congestion on rail transit throughout NJ.
With a yard and loop track or two, NJT trains would be able to terminate at Secaucus, with their passengers changing to the subway. This would lift the terminal capacity constraint of Penn plus Hoboken.
Looking more broadly, over the past 30 years Long Island has declined as a place of residence for those who travel frequently to Manhattan, relative to New Jersey. Isn’t that the cause of the problem? I don’t think the number of people working in Manhattan has risen much, though their pay levels has, and if anything more Manhattan workers are living in NYC.
The ARC project is no longer a viable alternative. It was canceled by Governor Christie late last year.
NYC’s tentative #7 extension proposal has not been publicly released, just vaporware’d in the news media. As currently understood, it would route #7 trains through Hudson Yards, just south of Javits Center out to NJ. Their contemplated route through NJ to Secaucus is not known.
On the other hand, a better-thought-out #7 proposal on SubwayToSecaucus.com would send the train directly west to stops at a Weehawken HBLRT station and Secaucus Transfer. It would take more riders where they want to go. It would benefit NJ bus riders, who are ignored by the other proposals (PABT stop, anyone?). It would offer the NY metro region much more economic benefit by allowing underserved bus and rail riders to more efficiently match their residential communities to a wider range of jobs.
I find this comparison to be an extraordinarily silly and incomplete chart of meaningless criteria designed to rationalize one’s preconceived conclusions, which is a religious conviction to funnel all trans-Hudson rail passengers to an out-of-the-way Penn Station or even more ridiculous Macy’s Bunker, Penn Station South, or the Farley Post Office . Capital and ultimate operating costs are of course ignored. Row by row:
1) This is no commitment by NJT to run so much as one additional train per hour. Just where are 8 trainloads of passengers per hour going to park to justify these trains unless we construct a bunch of Metroparks throughout the northern and central Jersey ? Obviously the zero under the Subway proposal is silly since they can run on their own route every few minutes to 42nd Street in lieu of NJT trains to 31st Street.
2) The #7 extension to NYPS would be far more roundabout than the current IRT shuffle via Times Square, would take far longer than a direct ride from Secaucus, and therefore not viable.
3) Since there is no funding for anything, the dates are meaningless, but “Gateway” would cost twice as much as the #7. There is no chance of getting NY State to pay anything unless it is a subway.
4) “Controlling trains” by a NJ agency is a foolish goal when passengers are concerned for the physical service and don’t care who provides it, even as Amtrak does the dispatching. As much as PATH is a welcome alternative to NJT at Newark, so would a NYCT train be at Secaucus, and it would run 7/24. NJT proved totally arrogant and immune from public input at the last round of fare hike and service cuts. On the other hand, MTA does alter their proposals under the circumstances.
5) If the #7 could siphon off 30% of NJT riders at Secaucus, expansion of Penn Station and conversion of the Farley Post Office becomes unnecessary.
6) Expanding the right of way between Newark and Manhattan is hardly the same as “relieving congestion of NJT lines throughout NJ”. For one thing, the entire Hoboken Division of NJT is completely untouched
After the #7 stop at the Javitz Center have the #7 continue south and stop at 11th Ave. & 23rd St., then out to NJ, stopping at 9th St. on the eastside of Hoboken, 9th St. on the westside of Hoboken at the Hudson-Bergan Light Rail, then 2 stops under Union City, then out to the NJT Secuacus Transfer Station.
At the Secaucus Station build a giant park and ride garage connected directly to the highways (NJ Turnpike, I-280, Etc.).
Car commuters who go into Manhattan through the Lincoln or Holland Tunnels will get into Manhattan faster switching to the #7 rather than crawling through rush hour traffic waiting to go into the tunnels, then crawling in City rush hour traffic to get to a Manhattan parking garage.
Incorporate into that giant garage an equally big NJT bus terminal, also connected directly to the highways.
Bus riders who usually pickup the NYC Subway to travel to Manhattan’s eastside or other NYC locations can get on the #7 in Secaucus and those buses do not have to go into the Port authority Manhattan Bus Terminal, relieving overcrowding at the NY-NJPA Bus Terminal.
Have the same $3 Billion come from the NY-NJPA that they were going to put into the ARC project.
With a total cost of around $6 Billion, NY and NJ just have to figure out how to fund the other $1.5 Billion each for the #7. Each state would then fund all the other facilities in their own states themselves (NY for the addition Manhattan #7 stations, NJ for the additional #7 NJ stations, plus the Garage and Bus Terminal in Secaucus.
If you “really” want to get something going to improve NJ access to NYC, after doing the above think about this:
Have NJ Transit take over the PATH subway and workout a fare sharing system with NYC Transit and make the connections between the PATH and the NYC Subway a free transfer, with PATH Rares going up to the equal of NYC Subway fares.
Then take the PATH line going up 6th Ave., rework the Christopher St. station to have a direct free transfer to the West 4th St. Station of the 6th & 8th Ave. subway lines, run the PATH service west under 9th St. to Lafayette St. and connect it into the uptown #6 Lexington line subway (the PATH cars are about the same size as the 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, & 7 line cars).
This will give PATH riders direct eastside Manhattan service, with connections to all other NYC subways along the way.
That’s the best combination of not only building additional under Hudson rail capacity, but also makes the best use of connectivity to all other mass transit facilities on BOTH sides of the Hudson. That makes the commuter’s trip more convenient, by bus, commuter train, Subway-PATH, and even faster for drivers.
Did anyone look at the routing of the Bergen connection and its loop through both levels of Secaucus Junction. It is dubious that it would be more than marginally faster than the current transfer. A bus to Port Authority bus terminal probably would be faster than a train to Penn Station even in the rush hour given the circuity of the route. The only way a connection would really be time competitive is if the lines went due west from the tunnels until connecting with the various Bergen County oriented rail lines bypassing Secaucus Junction.
While the new tunnels would add capacity for more trains into Penn Station and the Gateway version provides for more capacity when one of the existing tunnels is down, how would either gateway or ARC impact on the intra-state capabilities of NJT Rail?
[…] the aftermath of the ARC Tunnel’s death, two new rail tunnel concepts appeared — Amtrak’s “Gateway Tunnel” to provide new tracks for Amtrak and […]
[…] also put in a plug for the Gateway tunnel, the proposed replacement for the ARC tunnel under the Hudson River, which New Jersey Gov. Chris […]