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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.