A
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.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.
Gateway. It means more trains from NJ to NY, and no transfers needed.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?!
NY could fix that problem by simply charging a congestion tax and would need to spend nothing.1. But, if new trans-hudson tunnels are bored, than NYC would benefit because of reduced congestion on Manhattan's streets...
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 7.2. 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. Then why is the Bloomberg Administration so fixated on the Seven Extension to Secaucus?NY could fix that problem by simply charging a congestion tax and would need to spend nothing.1. But, if new trans-hudson tunnels are bored, than NYC would benefit because of reduced congestion on Manhattan's streets...
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 7.2. 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?
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.1. Then why is the Bloomberg Administration so fixated on the Seven Extension to Secaucus?
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.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?
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.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?
Not according to current plans.2. Is there any way that the Gateway Project Upper Level Option for Block 780 gets constructed Without tearing down the entire block?
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.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?
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.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).
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.4. As for the Gateway Project, what is the estimated cost including property acquisition within Block 780?
Why do you think that they would?
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.Suppose that the Seven Extension to Secaucus gets chosen--would Amtrak's Board complain to the Fed's about funding the Project?
This link will give you info on NYMTC.1. What does NYMTC stand for?
Enter your email address to join: