Quantcast

Options for 7 Train to NJ

Help Support Amtrak Unlimited Discussion Forum:

Andrew

Lead Service Attendant
Joined
May 3, 2013
Messages
471
No and No.
Why do you think it is unnecessary to build the Bergen Loop?

And if 7 Train to Secaucus gets built, what are your thoughts on building some stations between Secaucus and Hudson Yards?
 

jebr

Conductor
Staff member
Administator
Moderator
Joined
Jan 23, 2012
Messages
3,952
Location
"The Last Great City of the East," St. Paul, MN
I completely disagree. What would make people want to get off at SEC if they will get stuffed with additional NJ traffic? They may as well stay on the NJT and connect to the various subways at NYP.
Depends on their destination. If my destination is on the 7 line, or a line that connects to the 7 line but not to one of the Penn Station subway lines easily, the transfer is still a good option as it gets me to my destination sooner. I also doubt that intra-NJ traffic would overwhelm a standard 7 line consist.

Furthermore, I still maintain Hoboken should be bypassed at all costs and make those people utilize the ferry.  If you don't, you're just recreating the same problem in a smaller venue.

Diversify your options!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Wouldn't diversifying your options mean offering the subway as an option if routing allows? Forcing people to use the ferry means that, if for whatever reason the ferry service is inoperable or is overcrowded, there's no backup option. Whether or not routing the 7 train through Hoboken makes sense on the whole is one thing (the added time or the route difficulties may make it not a great option) but if the option is there and it doesn't significantly impact through traffic, let's add another option.

That all said, I don't see a ton of great stop options on a semi-direct route from the current terminus for the 7 and Secaucus. A transfer point to the Newark light rail makes sense (remove some traffic from Newark or Hoboken) but it's hard to find an obvious second stop that's even somewhat en route to Secaucus with the current NJT bus/rail network. Maybe a neighborhood stop on JFK Blvd.? Not sure how much that's built up, but there's at least some local bus service to offer transfer opportunities if desired.
 

Thirdrail7

Conductor
AU Supporter
Joined
Jul 9, 2014
Messages
4,490
Depends on their destination. If my destination is on the 7 line, or a line that connects to the 7 line but not to one of the Penn Station subway lines easily, the transfer is still a good option as it gets me to my destination sooner. I also doubt that intra-NJ traffic would overwhelm a standard 7 line consist.
The proposal was planned prior to the Amazon HQ. The main purpose was to add additional connections to the subway system and provide additional trans Hudson capacity. This  only works if the train doesn't become crowded en route and provides a quick connection.  Adding stops will not really accomplish the goal.

Wouldn't diversifying your options mean offering the subway as an option if routing allows? Forcing people to use the ferry means that, if for whatever reason the ferry service is inoperable or is overcrowded, there's no backup option. Whether or not routing the 7 train through Hoboken makes sense on the whole is one thing (the added time or the route difficulties may make it not a great option) but if the option is there and it doesn't significantly impact through traffic, let's add another option.

.
I have to be honest with you, Jebr. I like the idea of the subway but at the same time, I believe if they build it, people will come....and stuff the  train.  While this would seem like a good idea to a railroader, I think of the proximity to Hoboken this line will run. I remember that they spent all of this money to overstuff NYP like a young child at Build a Bear workshop. I think of the expense this tunnel will cause and will also compete for funds.

Therefore, the answer to me is the 7 train can stay right were it is and we can utilize the existing infrastructure to access it. I'm all for trains, but they are fixed and expensive. We have a cheaper, reasonable  option that is shovel ready: restore timely service to Hoboken and using connecting ferry service to not only connect to the 7 train, we can orbit Manhattan and operate a ferry DIRECTLY to LIC and the new Amazon HQ.  This will reduce congestion at NYP,in the NYC subway system (which is already straining to meet demand)and probably save BILLIONS..which we can use for other projects.

Ferries, are diverse....as long as the river isn't frozen.

If they fail, there is still the existing back up: train to NYP and disperse into the system that way or transfer at NWK, take PATH and disperse into the system.
 

Thirdrail7

Conductor
AU Supporter
Joined
Jul 9, 2014
Messages
4,490
Why do you think it is unnecessary to build the Bergen Loop?
You see, with a proper Gateway, a possible 7th ave extension and a robust ferry system, I'm all for the Bergen Loop.  This is another reason to push trains some of the Midclown, Raritan, NEC and NJC to the underutilized Hoboken. You can now repurpose Secaucus Jct as a massive park and ride. 

This will reduce stress on the Lincoln Tunnel and reduce the crush of cars that will soon look for a way to avoid congestion pricing in midtown Manhattan. It will also add additional cities that now have a one seat ride potential.

With NJT ordering new equipment, this can free up locomotives to allow those cities a ride and still have the capacity to accept the transfers.
 

jebr

Conductor
Staff member
Administator
Moderator
Joined
Jan 23, 2012
Messages
3,952
Location
"The Last Great City of the East," St. Paul, MN
The proposal was planned prior to the Amazon HQ. The main purpose was to add additional connections to the subway system and provide additional trans Hudson capacity. This  only works if the train doesn't become crowded en route and provides a quick connection.  Adding stops will not really accomplish the goal.

I have to be honest with you, Jebr. I like the idea of the subway but at the same time, I believe if they build it, people will come....and stuff the  train.  While this would seem like a good idea to a railroader, I think of the proximity to Hoboken this line will run. I remember that they spent all of this money to overstuff NYP like a young child at Build a Bear workshop. I think of the expense this tunnel will cause and will also compete for funds.

Therefore, the answer to me is the 7 train can stay right were it is and we can utilize the existing infrastructure to access it. I'm all for trains, but they are fixed and expensive. We have a cheaper, reasonable  option that is shovel ready: restore timely service to Hoboken and using connecting ferry service to not only connect to the 7 train, we can orbit Manhattan and operate a ferry DIRECTLY to LIC and the new Amazon HQ.  This will reduce congestion at NYP,in the NYC subway system (which is already straining to meet demand)and probably save BILLIONS..which we can use for other projects.

Ferries, are diverse....as long as the river isn't frozen.

If they fail, there is still the existing back up: train to NYP and disperse into the system that way or transfer at NWK, take PATH and disperse into the system.
I'm generally in agreement that the primary focus of such an extension should be to facilitate trans-Hudson traffic, not intra-NJ traffic. That said, a stop that allows connections to Newark light rail makes sense; it likely won't add a ton of intra-NJ traffic but would facilitate another point for people to get into NYC without going through NYP.

Other than the Gateway project, what funds (in terms of trans-Hudson traffic) would a 7 extension be competing with? I'm not aware of much, and I'd hope that the Gateway project would take precedence over a 7 extension. Ferries are a decent short-term solution, but for many they'll add an extra transfer without much benefit (other than alleviating crowding on the trans-Hudson portion.) After all, unless your destination is within walking distance of the port, you'll still need to transfer to a different mode of transportation near the port. I'm not sure how much traffic is close enough to a port to be feasible to transfer, and I'd be surprised if most of the traffic well served by a 7 extension would be just as well-served by a ferry.
 

Thirdrail7

Conductor
AU Supporter
Joined
Jul 9, 2014
Messages
4,490
Other than the Gateway project, what funds (in terms of trans-Hudson traffic) would a 7 extension be competing with? I'm not aware of much, and I'd hope that the Gateway project would take precedence over a 7 extension.
It largely depends on where the funding comes from but the NYC is ripe for overhaul.  For example, If the Port Authority is involved and they utilize revenue, I'd much rather see them work on replacing the aging OuterBridge Crossing.  They've already replaced the Goethal's, overhauled the Bayonne,  overhauled the GWB bus station, the GWB cables, assigned funds to rebuild the Pulaski Skyway and Tonnelle circle (to feed the Holland Tunnel) and the helix replacement for the Lincoln Tunnel is underway. That leaves the 1929 OuterBridge as one of the major assets that has not seen any real improvement. This bridge is 90 years old and is as narrow as the former Goethal's Bridge.

Any funds NJ uses should go to their bankrupt transportation trust fund for general use because there are plenty of roadways that need overhaul.

The same goes for NYC. Aside from the replacement bridge to City Island, the Mill Basin Drawbridge replacement and the Kosciuszko Bridge replacement, NYC's infrastructure is quite old. The Verrazano-Narrows Bridge is the newest asset and it was completed in 1964. Most of the rest of the major pieces (the Throgs Neck Bridge notwithstanding) were built in the early to mid 1900s.  Hell, the Brooklyn Bridge goes back to the 1800s!!!!  That is just the bridges. What about all of the old, obsolete highways? I've always stated (without citation) that one of the reasons Manhattan is so congested is the "bypasses" around it are too congested to utilize. BQE anyone? Belt Pwky to the Throgs Neck anyone???  Money must be available for these assets.

If Amtrak is taking in on, the Hell Gate bridge is crumbling, Pelham Bay drawbridge is still a piece of work, Mystic swing, Conn lift and Shaw's Cove allneed replacement..and that is the cheap stuff....when you compare it to the B&P tunnels, the Union tunnels, capacity upgrades in MD.

The bottom line is every dollar you spend on one thing, means it may not be available for something else.  As much as I believe in additional capacity trans-hudson, there are easier ways. NYC has added bike lanes and Citi Bike has expanded its reach.  The city should continue to work with Citi Bike (or some other entity) to make these bikes available at not only subway stations, but ferry slips as well.

We need a well rounded system.
 

Andrew

Lead Service Attendant
Joined
May 3, 2013
Messages
471
What are the arguments for and against building the Bergen Loop?
 

Andrew

Lead Service Attendant
Joined
May 3, 2013
Messages
471
Not happening anytime soon in any scale unless something changes seriously.

The Hudson Tunnel, which is now being handles completely separately from the rest of Gateway can start construction tomorrow if NJ, NY and PA choose to fund it without waiting for the Feds. With the feds who knows. Perhaps after the wall


Anyway, we have no idea about what or when of the rest of Gateway, other than Portal North, on which preliminary work has already started and it is at least half funded. The rest of Gateway remains to be seen.
What do you think is not happening anytime soon?
 

Andrew

Lead Service Attendant
Joined
May 3, 2013
Messages
471
While Gateway does need to be funded, it actually solves very little of the trans Hudson commuter problem. 7 to Secaucus addresses that problem more effectively than Gateway by reducing congestion at Penn Station. Gateway only increases it and makes Penn Station an even bigger single point of failure.
Or maybe instead of the 7 Train to NJ, new hudson tunnels won't terminate in Block 780. 

Instead, the concrete casing can act as the Penn Station connector, but the new deep tunnels can continue to 42nd street and 6th Avenue or near Rockefeller Center?
 

Andrew

Lead Service Attendant
Joined
May 3, 2013
Messages
471
The proposed route for the #7 tunnel places it just south of the new NEC tunnels, so it passes under the border between Weehawken and Hoboken. Some have proposed a station in that area providing connection to the Hudson Bergen LRT, but it does not appear in any concrete documented plan.

The tunnel being South of the NEC tunnel makes sense if it is built as an extension from the tail tracks of #7 from the Javits Center terminus. OTOH, if it is built as a branch from m10th Ave. it becomes a different matter and a more expensive proposition, though it saves a few minutes on the journey from Secaucus to Times Square.

Thirdrail, the reason I consider things like 7 to Secaucus as important things to think about is because it does help decongest NY Penn Station. As I think you and I agree, the current trend towards stuffing everything into Penn Station is simply not sustainable and it is producing more and more reducuously expensive alternative that will eventually crash under their own weight. Just IMHO. What is needed is dispersal of arriving/departing commuter traffic, not concentration.
Why not send the 7 train in the future to Hoboken instead of Secaucus?
 
Top