With funding, ARC construction to start soon

Comments

26 responses to “With funding, ARC construction to start soon”

1. January 19, 2009

   Cap’n Transit

   The National Association of Railroad Passengers is not a supporter of this version of the tunnel. I’ve got my doubts, too.

   Reply
2. January 19, 2009

   Scott E

   I’ve been caught in this bottleneck under the Hudson many times, and doubling capacity is surely a good thing. However, if I understand correctly, this project only addresses the tunnels, right? Without a station to go along with it, it won’t do much good.

   I’ve heard of many options: Moynihan, a long east-west station (similar in shape/entrance design to a subway station) under 34th Street, even a Grand Central connection. Penn can’t handle the capacity, and Moynihan, with it’s far-west-side location, steep staircases, and lack of Subway service isn’t exactly practical (although it would be very nice to look at).

   The tunnel may be the first step, but we really need a complete plan before digging this “tunnel to nowhere”.

   Reply
   1. January 19, 2009

      Alon Levy

      Penn can easily handle the capacity. What it can’t is handle the capacity while remaining a terminal. However, if it is converted to a through-station, with NJT trains continuing east as LIRR trains and vice versa, it will not need more than four tracks, one for each track connecting to it. The big underground transfer station of the Paris commuter rail system, the RER, has six tracks, and significantly more ridership than Penn Station.

      Reply
3. January 19, 2009

   John

   There already IS a block-long tunnel connecting Penn Sta and the 34th st Subway / Path station. It was closed off when the subway station was renovated a decade ago. It had store windows to Gimbel’s, and was a favorite hangout for the homeless.

   Reply
4. January 19, 2009

   Kaja

   Scott,

   With all due respect, stop posting.

   Reply
5. January 19, 2009

   Marc Shepherd

   It’s true, the NARP is not happy with the final design. It is not what I would have preferred, but certainly better than doing nothing at all.

   Scott, the project includes both the tunnel and the new station. This is not like the 63rd St. tunnel, which was built decades ago without any concrete plans at the time to connect it to anything.

   The existing block-long tunnel connecting Penn Station and Herald Square is in the vault space under the sidewalk and would not support the expected volume of passengers.

   Reply
   1. January 19, 2009

      Alon Levy

      It’s not better than doing nothing. It’s going to preclude any real expansion in Penn’s capacity, which can only come from constructing a new pair of tunnels connecting to the existing station. It’s also going to make it less likely that there will be money for other good projects, like a Hoboken-Fulton-Flatbush connection.

      Reply
      1. January 19, 2009

         Kyle

         If NJT moves much of its operations to a new station, wouldn’t that free up capacity at Penn?

         Reply
         1. January 19, 2009

            Judge

            Not really. It’s rather like the LIRR East Side Access in that the plan is to add extra trains during the peak hours, the extra service being provided by the new tracks. There won’t be to much difference, if any, in train volume at Penn Station.

            Reply
         2. January 20, 2009

            Cap’n Transit

            Judge is right that it won’t free up much capacity at Penn Station. However, the East Side Access is projected to free up part of Penn Station – which is why there are plans to run Metro-North trains to Penn after ESA is put in place.

            Reply
         3. January 21, 2009

            Alon Levy

            No, it won’t. Penn Station has exactly one real capacity bottleneck: it only has a two-track connection to New Jersey. The ARC tunnel will not change that, because the additional two tracks will be wasted on a cavern that doesn’t connect to the main station.

            Reply
6. January 19, 2009

   kvnbklyn

   This is such a bad, bad plan.

   They are not spending all those billions on the new tunnel – it’s the new underground station that will cost billions. It’s frustrating enough that all three commuter railroads seem to be hell-bent on continuing to operate dead-end, capacity-constrained service, but if you’re going to spend all that money on a new dead-end station, why not put it where people actually want to go rather than kinda near, but not really near Penn Station, which is not exactly close to most people’s final destination. Why not build a new station beneath Rockefeller Center, for instance?

   And why they’re not building the new tunnel from Hoboken – so that a single train could serve both Manhattan-bound riders as well as Jersey City riders – is beyond me. Most people traveling between NJ and NY are coming or going to Hudson County and PATH is already near capacity, as is the Lincoln Tunnel bus lane. And you would think the state of New Jersey would be interested in directing transportation investments to spur development in their so-far successful and most important business district. That truncated light rail just isn’t enough.

   But what do you expect from NJT? Look at the disaster of Secaucus Junction where the station is designed to take you on the most circuitous route from from one train to the other through a stupid train hall where all the services are located even though no one hangs out there. The platforms always reek of urine because there are no bathrooms on the platforms. And the structure is grossly oversized so that someone can build a skyscraper on top of the station. And all this for half a billion dollars.

   They have a knack for designing the most expensive stations that deliver the absolute least benefit to riders and the economy. And everything they build is butt ugly.

   I will step off my soapbox now.

   Reply
7. January 20, 2009

   Marc Shepherd

   It’s not better than doing nothing.

   In other words, you think that the region’s transit would be better if they cancelled this project and did nothing at all…ever? That is not only non-sensical, but contradicted by what you go on to say…

   It’s going to preclude any real expansion in Penn’s capacity, which can only come from constructing a new pair of tunnels connecting to the existing station.

   Penn Station doesn’t need more capacity. The region as a whole needs the capacity. Building a new station, with the tunnels to reach it, achieves that. The location of the proposed new station is actually better than where Penn is located, because it will have direct connections to the Herald Square subway complex for workers in East Midtown.

   It’s also going to make it less likely that there will be money for other good projects, like a Hoboken-Fulton-Flatbush connection.

   I am not aware of any reputable regional planner who has advocated that idea. At first blush, it makes no sense to me. If there’s a groundswell of demand for direct transit from Hoboken to Flatbush, it doesn’t seem to have been mentioned anywhere. Even if it were the world’s greatest idea, you’re talking about 10-15 years of planning before the first shovels could hit the ground. We’re supposed to do nothing until then???

   Reply
   1. January 21, 2009

      Alon Levy

      First, the new station won’t do much good if it can only serve New Jersey Transit trains, without easy connections to the main station. A four-track line is less vulnerable to service disruptions than a two-track line; what the ARC project will do is have two separate two-track lines, instead of a four-track line. It will also cost more than it has to, for reasons that other people in this thread have mentioned. In fact, the project’s greatest boosters seem to be more concerned with naming something after Moynihan than with providing good transit in the region.

      Second, because of the expected high cost and relatively small benefit, I think it makes sense to just cancel the project. Some projects just don’t justify their costs, and preclude more useful projects that may be proposed further down the line. For example, right now the NJT is in a good position to through-run trains with the LIRR, which will add capacity in itself. Once half the NJT operations converge into a stub-end station that lies next to a water tunnel, that will never happen.

      And third, there’s demand for transit from both directions into Lower Manhattan. Many cities have already realized the benefits of through-running and system integration, including Paris, Philadelphia, and now Boston and LA. Ironically, it’s New York, with one major terminal that services trains from both directions, that has never considered through-running.

      Reply
      1. January 21, 2009

         Kyle

         Just a point of clarification, this project (ARC) is NOT the same as the Moynihan Station project. This station, north of Penn Station, is different than a remodel/rebuild of Penn Station.

         Reply
         1. January 21, 2009

            Alon Levy

            You’re right, but a) much of the impetus for ARC comes from the Moynihan Station boosters, and b) the issue of the ridiculous costs for a new station remains.

            Reply
8. January 20, 2009

   jon

   The real problems I have with the ARC project as currently designed are two fold. First, this does essentially nothing to expand Amtrak peak capacity. I believe Amtrak will be getting 4 trains per hour during the peak rushes, as opposed to three now. Second, and even worse long term, is the fact that the new tunnels are not redundant for the Northeast corridor. There is no way to take the 100+ year old tunnels out of service for the weekend without stopping all Amtrak service in the Northeast. Aren’t we supposed to be getting people out of planes and cars and into trains.

   It is great that they are expanding commuter service from New Jersey, but they could have done so much more for the region.

   Reply
9. January 21, 2009

   Eric

   New York City needs increased mass transit rail access from New Jersey, but not to an already overcrowded Penn station. From a purely security perspective this is a very bad idea, with too much concentration at one key point. From a commuter perspective, this is also not providing any new service value. Passengers need to get to their intended destinations in a most convenient manner, and Penn station vicinity is not the final destination for many NJ Transit passengers.

   The ARC tunnels will serve New Jersey’s commuters (and New York City) better if they were to follow a more northerly route (e.g.) directly to the Port Authority and then onward to Grand Central station. (It might be possible to fit in with the current development of the 7 Line extension, and the East Side Access Project with its new underground Grand Central station already under construction.) A previous blogger also mentioned the option of going to the Rockefeller Center. This would provide many commuters with rail options that take them closer to their intended destinations, relieve existing congestion at Penn station, and from a security perspective, provide alternate access and egress routes to/from New York.

   The above proposal would provide NJ Transit access options to midtown. Downtown access can more easily be provided if a PATH train service were to be established between Secaucus Junction and downtown NY. Many passengers currently go the overcrowded New York Penn station and then transfer to the equally crowded downtown subway. I would rather transfer at a quieter Secaucus Junction. Such a PATH service would also provide New Jersey commuters (today) with an alternate route when there are problems at Penn Station or delays in the busy north east corridor tunnels. This could be the quick 2009 fix that leverages and enhances the value of Secaucus Junction, with relatively little expense.

   The suggestions above would turn Secaucus Junction into a mass transit hub that provides New Jersey commuters with clean, convenient access options to multiple Manhattan destinations.

   Reply
   1. January 21, 2009

      Alon Levy

      The problem is that the further the tunnel strays from Penn Station, the higher the costs. By far the least expensive option is to build a new tunnel paralleling the North River tunnels, feeding into the same station. It’s relatively good for mass transit connections, in the sense that Penn Station is well-served by subway, and has good LIRR and Amtrak connection; it’s also the most flexible option in case there’s a problem or delay in the existing tunnels.

      In addition, having multiple terminals actually reduces ridership, by reducing the amount of service to each terminal. This is true in general. For example, in California, the high-speed rail EIS found that including a spur from San Jose to Oakland would reduce ridership, by reducing the amount of service to San Francisco. A similar thing would happen in New York, where Midtown East destinations are too expensive to reach, and other destinations, such as Lower Manhattan, have fewer inbound commuters than Midtown West.

      Connecting from the west to the new Grand Central cavern is impossible – there’s a water tunnel in the way. That’s NARP’s main concern with the ARC cavern – it can’t be extended to the east.

      What is possible is to connect Penn Station and Grand Central, by means of a spur from the tunnels east of Penn Station to the Grand Central tracks. NARP in fact calls for that in the statement Cap’n Transit linked to at the beginning of this thread. This will not cost more than direct NJ-GCT connection, and enable the same train to serve both Penn Station and GCT. It will also reduce crowding at Penn Station, since fewer people will disembark at it.

      Reply
10. January 22, 2009

    anonymouse

    This is a very unfortunate choice of project, and I seriously hope it does not get built. It has far too many flaws: surprisingly enough, the deep cavern station is just one of them. The ARC project does not include any extra tracks between CP Swift (the Midtown Direct connection) and Secaucus: that section will remain as double track over the rickety old drawbridge, replacing which is an entirely separate billion dollar project. And the connection from the Main/Bergen County/Pascack Valley lines is designed in the dumbest way possible: a loop track connecting Secaucus Juntion (lower level) to Secaucus Junction (upper level). It would probably take at least 5 minutes to traverse, and if passengers could get off at the low level station, they’d be able to catch the train before theirs at the upper level.

    Reply
11. January 22, 2009

    Eric

    Alon,

    I do understand the issue that multiple destinations could dilute the number of trains to a specific destination, which could then result in a drop in the number of passengers. I do however think that the NY situation may be somewhat different from other cities:

    1 In this case we already have maximum traffic flow to Penn Station, and we do need extra capacity.
    2 The number of trains from various destinations to NYC need not be reduced at all. All the current trains can still run, and passengers can, if required, transfer at Secaucus Junction to either of the midtown destinations (Penn or Port Authority / Grand Central), or to the proposed Downtown PATH.
    3 With the use of a transit hub such as Secaucus, one could still maintain regular service to multiple destinations in NYC. This flexibility and regularity may even increase the ridership.
    4 Assuming that New Jersey Transit currently runs 20 trains an hour into Penn Station. If this were to be equally divided between Penn Station and PA/GC then there would be still be 10 trains per hour, which would mean 1 train every 6 minutes. And this is before we consider the fact that the current system is overloaded, and needs more trains.

    You also mention the water tunnel that prevents the ARC line going from the Port Authority to Grand Central station, but if the 7 Line extension’s route is followed this can surely be overcome, albeit not to the new cavern?

    The fact still remains that from a security and overall customer service perspective we should not be taking more passengers to Penn Station. Surely a better alternative can be found?

    Reply
    1. January 22, 2009

       Alon Levy

       The 7 extension is at a shallower level. The 7 is about 50 feet deep, compared with 175 for the proposed new station. The water tunnel was deliberately put at such a depth in order to not clash with the existing east-west subway and utility lines.

       As for security and crowding, many subway stations are more crowded than Penn Station, including the two Penn Station stops, as are many subway trains. Just shifting people away from Penn Station would not stop an attack on the trains themselves. In contrast, for relatively little money New York could improve ventilation in the tunnels; London had done so prior to the 2005 Underground bombing, which helped keep casualties to a minimum, but New York has not.

       Re your other points, I’m mostly saying that the ARC project and similar alternatives involving new stations are worse than simply four-tracking the existing NJ-Penn Station connection. The reason I prefer doing nothing to ARC is that doing nothing might spur four-tracking, whereas ARC will kill the idea while providing little bang for the buck.

       The problem with PATH to Secaucus is that there really is no difference between transferring to PATH at Secaucus and transferring at Hoboken; conversely, it will divert trains away from people living in Newark and Jersey City. If the intention is to provide a new link from Secaucus to Midtown then the best bang for the buck is to extend the 7 directly to the west, replacing the Javits Center extension.

       Finally, at rush hour there are 24 trains per hour, but they’re spread across several lines, with multiple stopping patterns. The outlying stations with the most service, the express stations on the Northeast Corridor Line, get 7 tph at most.

       Reply
12. January 23, 2009

    Eric

    Alon,

    The security issue is not just attracting a physical attack on a large station, but:
    1 An attack (chemical, biological, radiological) on the city could affect access to the station area, thus eliminating the primary exit route for many.
    2 If the city needs to evacuate (hurricane?) then one does not want to have a stampede to one area. Multiple mass transit exit routes are needed.

    The difference between transferring to PATH at Secaucus and transferring at Hoboken is that I can use a Midtown Direct train to Secaucus and then transfer to go to Downtown. There are more Penn Station trains than Hoboken trains. NEC trains already offer that capability at Newark, and this need not change. As work progresses at the WTC site more trains will be needed to/from downtown.

    As an example, from my own perspective (South Orange, NJ) I would like to take any train that arrives, regardless of whether it is a Midtown Direct or Hoboken train, and know that I will get to my destination in Manhattan in a quick and convenient manner. If the train does not go to the preferred Manhattan destination, then I would like the option to transfer at Secaucus Junction to either Midtown, or take a PATH to Downtown. Many more trains pass through Secaucus Junction (24 p/h Midtown plus the Hoboken trains) than through South Orange, and the use of Secaucus Junction as a Penn Station/PATH Downtown hub would provide me with alternatives that I would not otherwise have. I would rather transfer at a less crowded Secaucus than have to go into Manhattan to transfer to a downtown subway.

    This proposed Secaucus downtown PATH link can mostly use existing track facilities and can be provided quickly (2009?) and with relatively low capital outlay. This is low-hanging fruit that could relatively easily provide visible and tangible benefits.

    Reply
    1. January 23, 2009

       Alon Levy

       Now I think I understand your point of view. You’re right that PATH to Secaucus will help people on the Morris and Essex and Montclair-Boonton lines. The problem is that it won’t help the other NJ-to-Manhattan commuters, and will hurt many.

       The Secaucus link will not be better than NJT if your destination is Midtown: it will take longer because the route is less direct and has more stops, and it will only land you one block to the east of Penn Station. It’s more helpful if your destination is Lower Manhattan, but Midtown employs far more people. Even then, the total commuter population of the areas that this link will serve is lower than this of Hudson County, whose residents will see reduced service if there’s a third branch serving Secaucus Junction, where no one lives.

       Basically, it goes like this. 28% of the people in New Jersey who work in Manhattan live in Bergen and Passaic Counties, whose residents almost universally drive to Manhattan. The link won’t help them, since they already can transfer to Midtown at Secaucus, or take PATH from Hoboken. 29% live in Union, Middlesex, Mercer, Monmouth, and Ocean Counties, and have direct service to Midtown and a connection to PATH in Newark. 23% live in Hudson County, and will be adversely impacted. Only 19% live in Morris, Essex, Hunterdon, Somerset, Warren, and Sussex Counties, and fewer live in these counties and work in Lower Manhattan.

       On another note, you mention evacuation as a good reason to support a separate station from Penn. I think that on the contrary, in an evacuation a four-track line is invaluable, as it can be run 3-and-1 with relatively little harassment. Stampedes are a function of orderliness more than crowding: the more crowded NYC subway, as well as the crush-loaded rail operations in Paris and Tokyo, is stampede-free.

       Terrorist attacks, too, are not that big a problem. Anyone with the ability to take down the entire Penn Station area can also take down all of Midtown, affecting all train stations. At most, that’s an argument for adding track capacity between New Jersey and Lower Manhattan.

       Reply
13. January 25, 2009

    Eric

    Alon,

    RE: More thoughts on Secaucus Junction to WTC PATH link: There is another way of looking at this:

    1 What is the quickest way of getting from the east side to the west side of Manhattan?
    2 Where is the highest concentration of subways in NY?

    The answer to both of these is (arguably) WTC, Dey Street, and Fulton Street that serves the PATH, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, A, C, E, J, M, R and W lines. (OK, it will be quicker “across town” down at Whitehall Station). Using a Secaucus to downtown service, will allow patrons to get “across town” and to transfer to a line that provides access to all of Manhattan, the Staten Island ferry, Brooklyn, and even Queens.

    Conversely, for many persons up on the east side, or somewhere below 23rd street, it might be easier/quicker to get to the WTC PATH station, than getting to Penn Station, just by using their closest subway. So, if there were a WTC PATH link to Secaucus (start with peak times only?), then many people could connect to their NJ Transit trains, that originate from Penn Station, at Secaucus Junction to get to their various New Jersey destinations. This could increase PATH ridership without detracting from and jeopardizing the existing PATH services. If we take a look at the long delays at the Holland and Lincoln tunnels every day, then it shows a huge potential, and pent up demand, for convenient, affordable and regular mass public transportation to Manhattan. Who wants to sit in those long lines every day, pay tunnel toll fees, and in addition pay exorbitant parking fees?

    It seems to me that providing a PATH service between Secaucus Junction and the new downtown, can be done with relatively little expense, and maybe still in 2009.

    Now, if we add to this the forthcoming opening of Xanadu and New Giants/Jets stadium, the same service could be extended to provide easy access for NY patrons to these facilities. And this can work in reverse too, by having a park-and ride at the Meadowlands, and providing mass rail transportation to Manhattan midtown and downtown via Secaucus Junction.

    Reply
    1. January 25, 2009

       Alon Levy

       The answer to 1 is the 42nd Street Shuttle. For people working between 34th and 59th, i.e. most people who work in Manhattan, the fastest way to get to work from New Jersey by transit is to get to Penn Station, and then take the uptown 1/2/3 (with possible shuttle connection) or the E, or possibly walk to 6th and take the B/D/F/V. There’s really no point in detouring through Lower Manhattan, which adds 15-20 minutes to the trip.

       As for the traffic jams at the tunnels, what they show is that people have weighed their options and decided that the cost of tolls, parking, and congestion is less than the cost of taking transit. Adding PATH to Secaucus will only reduce the cost of transit for a small minority of New Jersey commuters, so it won’t do much to relieve congestion; conversely, by increasing the cost of transit for people in Newark and Hudson County, it will increase congestion.

       Reply