Seven Subway Line

Amtrak Unlimited Discussion Forum

Help Support Amtrak Unlimited Discussion Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
The MTA has many other things that they need to do with their money than to build a subway to NJ. The MTA is NYC's agency and charged with improving things for NYC; not NJ.

Not to mention that going to Secaucus Junction via Hoboken would be downright silly. Not only does PATH already serve Hoboken, meaning that we'd be duplicating service, but it would add time to the run to Secaucus Junction.
 
I am under the impression that NYC would chip in for the Extension by issuing bonds--not the MTA--as is currently occurring with Seven Subway Extension from Times Square to the Javits Center.

My question is, though:

WHICH project better meets New Jersey's Future Travel Needs:

Seven Subway Extension to Secaucus Junction

OR

Gateway Project and why?!
 
Well at least it's better than that plan to create a new Hudson terminal. As I said in that thread, if you're going to tunnel to Hoboken anyways, it'd be better to extend the 7 than extend the commuter rail.
 
I am under the impression that NYC would chip in for the Extension by issuing bonds--not the MTA--as is currently occurring with Seven Subway Extension from Times Square to the Javits Center.
You're under the wrong impression; sorry! Why would NYC want to pay to move New Jersey residents? NYC needs to worry about moving the people who live here in the city; not people who live in another state.

My question is, though:

WHICH project better meets New Jersey's Future Travel Needs:

Seven Subway Extension to Secaucus Junction

OR

Gateway Project and why?!
Gateway. It means more trains from NJ to NY, and no transfers needed.
 
1. But, if new trans-hudson tunnels are bored, than NYC would benefit because of reduced congestion on Manhattan's streets...

2. Someone mentioned that if Seven to Secaucus gets built, than expensive property acquisition within Manhattan can be avoided. But, if the Gateway Project includes a Deep-Level Annex underneath Block 780, wouldn't this also avoid expensive property acquisition?
 
1. But, if new trans-hudson tunnels are bored, than NYC would benefit because of reduced congestion on Manhattan's streets...
NY could fix that problem by simply charging a congestion tax and would need to spend nothing.

2. Someone mentioned that if Seven to Secaucus gets built, than expensive property acquisition within Manhattan can be avoided. But, if the Gateway Project includes a Deep-Level Annex underneath Block 780, wouldn't this also avoid expensive property acquisition?
Yes, I've no doubt that a 7 would avoid major property acquisition. Still doesn't make it a good choice. After all, Gateway isn't just about NJ. It is about Amtrak too. Amtrak doesn't stop in Secaucus, so it doesn't benefit from an extended #7 line. And NYC benefits more from a Gateway than it does from an extended 7.
 
I would rather see a tunnel to Staten Island finished. They have been getting the shaft for a long time and you can argue that those residents could use better commuting options and rise in real estate values (which is the whole purpose of this NJ extension anyway) when people realize they don't have to take the ferry.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
1. But, if new trans-hudson tunnels are bored, than NYC would benefit because of reduced congestion on Manhattan's streets...
NY could fix that problem by simply charging a congestion tax and would need to spend nothing.

2. Someone mentioned that if Seven to Secaucus gets built, than expensive property acquisition within Manhattan can be avoided. But, if the Gateway Project includes a Deep-Level Annex underneath Block 780, wouldn't this also avoid expensive property acquisition?
Yes, I've no doubt that a 7 would avoid major property acquisition. Still doesn't make it a good choice. After all, Gateway isn't just about NJ. It is about Amtrak too. Amtrak doesn't stop in Secaucus, so it doesn't benefit from an extended #7 line. And NYC benefits more from a Gateway than it does from an extended 7.
1. Then why is the Bloomberg Administration so fixated on the Seven Extension to Secaucus?

2. As for the Gateway Project, what do you think is more likely to occur: a Penn Station South Expansion directly to the south of the current Penn Station, or a Deep-Level Penn Station South?
 
1. Then why is the Bloomberg Administration so fixated on the Seven Extension to Secaucus?
They're not what I would call "fixated" on it. The think it would be a good idea, and it would. But not if it means that Gateway doesn't happen. And not if NYC has to pay for the whole thing, as well as the operating costs.

But NYC needs to first deal with finishing the Second Avenue subway, the full length Second Avenue subway from end to end of Manhattan. And they need to finish a few other projects, some of which haven't even been started yet.

2. As for the Gateway Project, what do you think is more likely to occur: a Penn Station South Expansion directly to the south of the current Penn Station, or a Deep-Level Penn Station South?
I don't think about things like that at all. There is no point to worrying about something that will never be built until Gateway is funded.
 
The deep level station is just not going to happen in our lifetimes, if ever unless the political alignments in the country change to become massively pro-rail, even more so than it has ever been in our entire history.. It is there as a visionary thing, and will happen in conjunction with the $160 billion HSR project some day maybe, not before that. So just forget about it. The only extension, if any, will be the upper level. Even the folks who present those slides agree with that position. But it is their job to articulate options and costs. The Gateway cost that is mentioned does not include the cost of the lower level extension at all.

As for 7 to NJ, it would appear that at present if NJ was asked to pitch in it would more likely pitch in for the subway extension than for Gateway. The reasons for that are complex, but primarily because a subway extension is viewed as less risky, less expensive and less expensive to operate. But these are things that change pretty dynamically. So one can never tell what will actually happen when it happens. Suffice it to say that if any extension of a subway line to NJ happens it will be substantially if not entirely funded by NJ both for construction and operation.

Some of us are trying to keep all options on the table since we have no idea how the winds will blow and would like to have options to jump on when an opportunity permits.


And then there is of course the MagLev! :D :help:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Lolz, Maglev...

1. I worry, though, that people who are very supportive of the Gateway Project are actually very anti-Amtrak. In other words, these politicians trust that MTA would do a better job of improving service into Manhattan instead of Amtrak... I am also concerned that the Seven Subway Line will not carry as many people as the "128,000" prediction...Thus, how do we know that it is a good use of taxpayers money?

2. Is there any way that the Gateway Project Upper Level Option for Block 780 gets constructed Without tearing down the entire block?
 
Lolz, Maglev...

1. I worry, though, that people who are very supportive of the Gateway Project are actually very anti-Amtrak. In other words, these politicians trust that MTA would do a better job of improving service into Manhattan instead of Amtrak... I am also concerned that the Seven Subway Line will not carry as many people as the "128,000" prediction...Thus, how do we know that it is a good use of taxpayers money?
That numbers and "taxpayer money" game is a dangerous game to play since what is good for the goose is good for the gander. So what makes you think that Amtrak's Gateway number will materialize any more than any other project's? Afterall both projects are being consulted on by the same folks. Frankly there are already so many people quite convinced that throwing any money at any rail project is inappropriate use of taxpayers money, I think it is kind of silly to now start the same destructive argument within the rail supporter community pitching one project against another.

Amtrak is not designed to handle the sort of traffic that MTA handles. So it would stand to reason that MTA (or NJTransit) would do a better job at doing what its primary mission is and is not Amtrak's primary mission - local transit. Why is that so surprising? I have not heard anyone say that Amtrak should get into local transit business, and Amtrak itself has worked hard to remove itself from such in the New York area, by reducing the number of local stops etc., and that is fine.

I don't think even Amtrak will argue that they will do a better job of providing trans-Hudson local service than the various local transit agencies.

I am not sure where you get the idea that people who are supportive of Gateway Project are anti-Amtrak. And indeed there are many pro-Amtrak people who think that Amtrak should be given the freedom to develop true world quality regional corridor service without loading it down with responsibilities of handling local traffic any more than absolutely necessary.

What Gateway does is a good job of separating NJT traffic from Amtrak through traffic. It does not follow that it addresses the entire Trans-Hudson capacity problem.

2. Is there any way that the Gateway Project Upper Level Option for Block 780 gets constructed Without tearing down the entire block?
Not according to current plans.

According to current plans the tunnels and the NYPS South extension happens as a package. The project at present is not structured as two separate projects.

Here are some additional facts to consider.... The congestion problem in Lincoln Tunnel, GWB and PABT is far more severe than anything in Penn Station. This is relevant because as far as trans-Hudson local traffic goes, NJT Bus Operation carries more people each day across the Hudson than Amtrak and NJT Rail Operations combined. Any solution that does not bring significant relief to bus operations is only half a solution. Gateway does not even start to address the bus operations issues. This is one of the other complex reasons why there is interest in extending subway to NJ irrespective of Gateway.

In this context merely building something to Hoboken is also not a comprehensive solution. The bus traffic needs to be intercepted and transferred to rail before it gets to the Hudson County congestion. Secaucus is ideally located for that. Even after building Gateway there will not be enough capacity at Penn Station to absorb the current bus traffic and its projected growth.

Early diagrams of Gateway showed a 7 extension to Penn Station. The reason for that is the realization that Penn Station does not have the wherewithal to disperse the Gateway Tunnel borne traffic that will show up at Penn Station without adding significant subway capacity. Well, for various reasons the 7 to Penn Station is history. So it would be even more foolhardy now to dump a cartload of additional local traffic onto Penn Station beyond what is already planned by Gateway. Hence even if Gateway could get all the trains into Penn Station, beyond a point it won;t be able to handle and disperse the arriving local passengers in a timely fashion. At present there is not a single additional turnstile planned at 34th St on 7th or 8th Ave to handle the additional local traffic. Basically Penn Station needs to be relieved of foot traffic that it cannot handle. LIRR is doing its bit by moving some to GCT straight to a core employment district. NJ will need to figure out a way to do something similar.

So conclusion from this is that Gateway is a very good project which addresses Regionals concerns with some accommodation for local trans-Hudson traffic. But it comes nowhere near addressing the local trans-Hudson traffic needs. Hence irrespective of what becomes of Gateway NJ and NY need to look at additional alternatives to capture trans-Hudson traffic outside Hudson County congestion and be able to disperse them to multiple points within the Manhattan/Queens employment districts, and likewise be able to transport westbound traffic to Hoboken - Jersey City and Newark employment districts. One possible way to address that is 7 to Seaucus. There are of course other possibilities too.

But to claim that Gateway or 7 to Secaucus are an either/or proposition is to at least suggest a profound lack of understanding of the overall traffic flow problem that we face across the Hudson.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
1. First of all, I made an honest mistake. (I meant to say that politicians who are more supportive of the Seven Extension to Secaucus do not trust Amtrak with adding additional capacity into Manhattan). Perhaps Bloomberg and Christie think this?

2. If I am understanding you correctly, both Gateway and Seven to Secaucus would significantly improve trans-hudson capacity--but that Seven to Secaucus is better?

3. If this is the case, what makes you so convinced that commuters would be happy transferring from bus to subway in Secaucus, NJ? (The reason why I ask is because I almost believe that it makes sense to build a bus garage on top of the PABT to reduce congestion within the Lincoln Tunnel).

4. As for the Gateway Project, what is the estimated cost including property acquisition within Block 780?
 
1. First of all, I made an honest mistake. (I meant to say that politicians who are more supportive of the Seven Extension to Secaucus do not trust Amtrak with adding additional capacity into Manhattan). Perhaps Bloomberg and Christie think this?

2. If I am understanding you correctly, both Gateway and Seven to Secaucus would significantly improve trans-hudson capacity--but that Seven to Secaucus is better?
No you did not understand me correctly! I did not say that. I said both are necessary and serve different purposes. You can keep trying every which way, but you will not get an unequivocal choice for one or the other from me. Such would be based IMHO on factors that have more to do with emotion than facts.
3. If this is the case, what makes you so convinced that commuters would be happy transferring from bus to subway in Secaucus, NJ? (The reason why I ask is because I almost believe that it makes sense to build a bus garage on top of the PABT to reduce congestion within the Lincoln Tunnel).
Building bus garage is not going to increase capacity of the tunnels. Any day one would prefer not to sit in buses for 30min to an hour stuck in traffic, which is the projection for where the bus traffic to PABT is headed. Remember most of them have to transfer to a subway at PABT anyway. So it is just a question of where you transfer. There is nothing holy about being able to transfer to a subway only in Manhattan. Also it is not like all bus service will cease. There will just be more choices of routing and transfers.
4. As for the Gateway Project, what is the estimated cost including property acquisition within Block 780?
Somewhere between $15 billion and $18 billion according to one estimate. It all depends on what one considers to be part of Gateway and what is not. Currently all components between NYP and NWK are generally considered to be part of Gateway. It will take a bit more than chump change to get the whole thing built. It also depends on what real estate will actually cost. Remember that is what primarily sank ARC, since they overran that budget even before any significant shovel was put into the ground. And that scared the heck out of people who would have to come up with the money to cover the cost overruns namely NJ State.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
1. I still do not understand why the proposed Seven to Secaucus does not include a station near Palisades Avenue?

2. The Seven Extension to the Javits Center is expected to open in 2014, and Amtrak's Tunnel Box is currently under construction beneath Hudson Yards. How likely is it that we get a decision on which Project gets the green light for construction over the next few years?
 
Suppose that the Seven Extension to Secaucus gets chosen--would Amtrak's Board complain to the Fed's about funding the Project?
 
Why do you think that they would?

Perhaps Amtrak would assume that if the Seven Subway Extension gets chosen for federal funding, that it would delay construction of the Gateway Project for several decades?
 
Suppose that the Seven Extension to Secaucus gets chosen--would Amtrak's Board complain to the Fed's about funding the Project?
Who would "choose" the 7 line extension to Secaucus in that scenario? Let's be realistic. The 7 extension to NJ has had only 1 simple feasibility study done so far. Before such an extension to NJ would get get funded, it probably has a decade or longer of alternative route analysis, down selection, NEPA, PE, numerous public meetings, many questions of fiscal and operating responsibility to settle, and some serious bureaucratic turf wars ahead of it. We do not build major transit infrastructure projects quickly in the US. It takes a LONG time before construction even starts. Besides, with Bloomberg leaving office, who would fund and support the studies? The MTA has no apparent interest at this time because their plate is full for the next decade with ESA, Second Avenue Subway, system modernization, repair and flood prevention efforts from Sandy.

The Gateway project is much further along in the process of NEPA and PE, conceptual design because it is built on the many years of development for the ARC project. By Gateway, I mean the core project: 2 new tunnels under the Hudson with 2 new tracks to the south Portal bridge to create a 4 track line from Newark to NYP. Penn Station South is a future phase which may never get built as it would be for NJT. Maybe in 10-15 years, NJT would decide to support a 7 extension to Secaucus instead of Penn South.
 
Gateway Project has no NEPA process in place. It has had a conceptual design and engineering done in addition to the Tunnel Box. nothing more. It cannot use of the ARC NEPA because the routing is different. The only NEPA that has happened is for the Tunnel Box, nothing else. The process has not started yet and is yet to be funded. So let us not get ahead of ourselves here. To keep claiming that Gateway is built on ARC, at least the tunnel part, is simply untrue. Specific question on that matter to the Chief Engineer has been answered in the negative. The previous work is being used for Portal Bridge, and that was not part of ARC.

NJT does not decide anything. NJ State does, if anyone does. And the agency involved may very well be PATH and not NJT.

Anyway all this is speculation so far afield that we could be spinning whatever story.

I don't think that the design team of Gateway thinks that Penn Station South is a future phase. Even last week at the NYMTC presentation on Gateway it was mentioned that they would not build the tunnels if Penn Station South is not built. They could not justify the cost of the tunnel without Penn South. That has been the position of the Gateway designers all along. Now of course things could change, but that is the current situation as far as we were informed by the presenter.
 
1. What does NYMTC stand for?

2. Isn't true that Amtrak was planning on giving out an "Engineering and environmental review package for the proposed tunnels within FY 2014?"

3. To save time on the engineering contracts, can Amtrak give out engineering contracts to the same companies that originally worked on ARC?
 
Back
Top