A rough sketch of the proposed 7 line extension to Secaucus. (Via The Wall Street Journal)
Updated (1:55 p.m. with Sen. Lautenberg’s reaction): Now that he doesn’t have to pony up much state money for a rail project, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie has hopped aboard the 7 expansion plan. In an appearance yesterday on 101.5’s Millenium Radio, Christie endorsed New York City’s nascent plans to send the 7 to Secaucus and even pledged some New Jersey dollars to the project. “I think it’s a much better idea than the ARC,” he said, citing the supposed $5.3 billion price tag.
During the radio appearance, Christie spoke out against his detractors who claimed that his actions in killing the ARC Tunnel would lead to decades of stalled progress on a cross-Hudson rail tunnel. “They said nothing was going to be done for generations, nothing would happen, there’s no other way we could do this,” Christie said.
“Within weeks,” he continued, “we have New York City coming forward with an idea. You know why? Because it’s good for New York City. And once they knew that New Jersey wasn’t going to be the stooge that paid 70% of the cost of this project with no contribution from them, and they weren’t going to get that access of New Jerseyans going to New York, now they decide to step up and come forward with another idea.”
Of course, Christie is all in favor of a plan that doesn’t require his state to fund a project that, by and large, is a benefit to his constituents. If someone else is, as he put it in a similar context, willing to be “played for a patsy,” why not have them foot the bill and offer nominal political support and minimum economic aid?
Christie, who bashed N.J. Sen. Frank Lautenberg for his ARC support, wanted to hear capitulation from his political foe but got only a perfunctory statement. Said New Jersey’s federal representative via a statement, “The senator strongly supports expanding rail across the Hudson River and is closely examining the 7 line proposal.”
Lautenberg calls for firm fiscal support
In a letter sent today from Lautenberg to Gov. Christie, the New Jersey Senator urged the governor to pledge New Jersey dollars to the project. Noting that he’ll continue to fight for federal dollars, Lautenberg writes, in part:
While the No. 7 Subway proposal is not perfect — for example it does not offer New Jerseyans new direct rides to New York City from their local trains — it merits serious consideration…As I’m sure you’re well aware, before Federal transit funds can be sought for a new transit project, state and local funding sources need to be identified first. Under U.S.C. § 5309(d)(2)(C), the law governing Federal funding of new large transit projects, local financial commitments of funding must be identified before these projects are eligible for federal fudning. Therefore, please inform me of the amount and nature of New Jersey’s financial commitment to this project. Specifically, please verify that the $1.25 billion in New Jersey Turnpike Authority funding that was slated for the ARC Tunnel would be available for this new project.
I anticipate that you will aggressively seek comparable local commitments from New York City and/or State as well. Together with Federal resources, if local sources fo revenue are identified, an impressive financing package could be put together to make the No. 7 Subway proposal or another trans-Hudson crossing a reality.
I’ve posted the full letter after the jump, but it’s worth noting two aspects of it: First, it’s clear that Lautenberg and Christie have a chilly relationship at best. Second, if New Jersey ponies up some dough — and that’s a big “if” — and if Lautenberg can again secure federal financing for a cross-Hudson tunnel, this crazy 7-to-Secaucus idea just might have wings after all.
After the jump, the letter from Lautenberg to Christie in full.
81 comments
The post over-simplifies Christie’s objections. New York benefited from the ARC proposal too. It’s not just the benefit of New Jerseyans coming into the city and paying New York taxes.
Remember too, by freeing up capacity in Penn Station, ARC would make way for the possibility of Metro-North trains coming into the West Side, and it would have given Amtrak more rush-hour slots. (It’s not JUST people from NJ who ride Amtrak.)
Now, couple the inequity of the funding arrangement with the many design flaws of ARC, and you can see why he canceled the project. I haven’t forgotten the disingenuousness of his decision. As Ben noted in a prior post, the problem wasn’t Christie’s objections, but his utter unwillingness to DO anything about them.
I’m just characterizing Christie’s objections to ARC as he put it. Those were his words in talking about the project yesterday. He didn’t even consider doing anything about the problems with the ARC plans, and I think it had a lot to do with the fact that NJ had to pick up billions while NY’s only contributions came via the Port Authority.
The plan for ARC was that both the cavern and the original tunnel would hit capacity by 2030. If anything it would make the track issues at Penn worse, because NJT trains would be replaced by Amtrak trains, which dwell at Penn even longer. The official excuse for not including a connection to Penn was that it was not useful because Penn’s station tracks would remain at capacity.
Penn Station should simply not be a terminal station for any service.
True, but my point is that even if you assume NJT is irredeemable and modernity can only be done on the MTA side of the station, ARC does not actually give the MTA more capacity.
I guess, though my understanding was LIRR slots made available by trains moved to ESA that were the only ones expected to go to MNRR. And that involved some ifs – like, if MNRR feels like it.
Right, well, he engaged in what could best be called dickswinging to please his teabagger fans. He probably would have gotten a lot of support if he proposed a viable alternative.
New Jersey is the stooge? New Jersey is the stooge?!?! That arrogant, fat, right-winged moron. As much as I think expansion across the Hudson is crucial to the region’s development, I’d rather burn the money than submit and spend it on someone whom cancelled such a crucial project just so he wouldn’t have to increase taxes to pay for it; he actually thinks New York was solely going to benefit from this project.
If we expand this 7 train to Secaucus Junction, ladies and gentlemen, we are the true stooges. How elitist (and that word does get tossed around,) for him to think that we need that all-too-precious supply of New Jersyians into our City. Please.
The ARC tunnel was an irreplaceable asset that would have greatly eased capacity for both NJ transit and Amtrak combined. A subway tunnel, (and an IRT subway tunnel, mind you), in no way is going to stop the inevitability and necessity of another rail tunnel. This bum didn’t want to raise gas taxes, and he ended up screwing his state, and everyone who uses the Northeast Corridor, from Boston to D.C., who will be subject to terrible delays in the future.
I say, to hell with Governor Christie! If Bloomberg allows this to go forward, I’m willing to picket his office! We need to apply for that ARC money so we can expand our subway system!
There’s a lot of cross-river finger pointing about that. New York probably would have benefited from ARC roughly in proportion to its contribution (via the Port Authority) too. But that’s besides the point these days.
I think the 7 to Secaucus is a worthy idea, overall. Like it or not, the region does need to be connected by something other than roads. It doesn’t replace another tunnel, but it does have the potential to alter commuting patterns enough to make both the current Penn tunnel and a future Penn tunnel more viable for regional and long-distance traffic, while getting the many, many travelers to midtown to exactly where they need to go. I just hope the feds, PA, and NJ can put up most of the remaining cost of the project – because, frankly, NYC already did most of its part.
(I suspect that’s partly what this about, BTW. I think Bloomberg discovered a shrewd way to get outside financing for the 10th Ave. station.)
Almost definitely. Bloomberg had this up his sleeve the whole time. He’s one smart cookie, I’ll give him that.
I know that both New York and New Jersey would’ve benefitted, but let’s face it, if there were one whom benefitted over the other, it was New Jersey, clear as a bell.
I still want this to happen. It could potentially increase revenue to the MTA if they institute higher fares for trans-hudson travel, and it would make the region a lot more interconnected. We could use that second station in Manhattan, and we still could really use a subway to Jersey.
Queens, Brooklyn, and Staten Island also could really benefit from that $3 billion in terms of rapid-transit, but New Jersey is a problem that still deserves a lot of attention.
I just don’t want us to pay for it. Really, I don’t want to. At least not more than 15% of it.
I do think it would be nice if we can all these agencies (nevermind the states) to actually work together and play nice on cross-river projects.
But yes, in this case, NYC certainly did it share. Had Christie not pissed off the feds, this might have been relatively straightforward.
Why this blanket objection to all of New Jersey? As a New Yorker, I’d trade Hudson County for Staten Island any day.
I, quite frankly, wish NY had got Hudson and Bergen Counties as well, but that’s just not the way it panned out. Staten Island is ours. We should at least provide it the service it needs. I want to help out Jersey, really I do. We’re not in a blood feud, for God’s sake. I’d just rather see that $3 billion for their project, (And I mean THEIR project) that they just threw away go towards something like a Tunnel to Staten Island or an elevated to LaGuardia, rather than us suddenly ponying up dough to put the 7 in Secaucus. Our subways should be built to serve our guys, our workers, our policemen, our doctors, our fellow New Yorkers, first.
I was born in Queens, in Elmhurst. And you know what? I can count on my hands the number of times I went to SI. I never really went to places like Whitestone or collegepoint. But I have worked in NJ, and greater connectivity to NJ would benefit me than greater connectivity to desolate residential neighborhoods in parts of Queens and SI. A lot of businesses operate in Jersey right across the Hudson River, and people tend to forget that commuting can go both ways.
I only hope that Christie is referring to the extension of the Flushing Line to 11th Avenue as New York’s contribution.
Not one more dime.
New Jersey is richer than New York, and insists on being subsidized by New York whenever possible. New Jersey isn’t paying for East Side Access to improve transit for Long Island. New York should not have to pay to improve transit to New Jersey.
Mostly agreed, but NYS does benefit from the 7 to Secaucus, so it makes sense for the state to contribute. Port Jervis Line travelers will be able to transfer there.
New Jersey needs to pay us back for Port Authority policies in the 1990s.
Im wondering what the ridership projections are for this. Could this turn a profit, either with the current fare, or with a special trans-hudson fare? (they could automatically charge this fare on entrance in NJ, and add a swipe on exit on the NJ side only)
Honestly, if i was running the subway, automating the system would be top priority. With seriously reduced labor costs, wouldnt that put the system as a whole at the edge of profitability?
The answer to the second question is no. The total wages and benefits of train drivers and conductors on NYCT are $450 million a year, give or take. NYCT’s operating loss, even before depreciation, is measured in the billions.
That’s interesting to hear: if not payroll and depreciation, what are the MTA’s major costs?
Alon’s citing only train drivers and conductors. Transit’s overall labor costs are in excess of $4.5 billion annually, and the MTA’s overall labor costs are around $7 billion annually.
As Ben said, most payroll is not train employees. Before the service cuts, NYCT had 47,000 employees, of whom 6,500 were train drivers or conductors. I forget the exact number of station agents, but it’s not that high, either – it’s four figures of which the first is a 2. The various layoffs proposed for those positions, including OPTO and booth closures, are still worth pursuing because they’re relatively cheap to implement for the savings, but they don’t come within a factor of 10 of covering the MTA’s operating losses.
I think the most egregious number is the number of administrative and clerical workers, but I don’t know for sure. Any breakdown of the NYCT/MTA workforce by category (bus driver, train driver, call center worker, manager, etc.) will be deeply appreciated.
Perhaps he needs to clarify the scope of his question. It stands to reason that NYCTA’s buses would be more labor intensive than the NYCTA’s subways – which aren’t profitable, but do come pretty close sometimes already (north of 70% farebox recovery). For y’all still saying subways should be replaced by buses, NYCTA’s buses don’t do much better than 50%.
A big problem is that costs continue to rise faster than the fares. At least part of that reason, I suspect a big part, is the union is able to grow its wages and payroll faster than fares and new subsidies can keep up.
Farebox operating, not farebox recovery. Farebox recovery includes depreciation; do that and NYCT (buses plus subways) drops from a ratio of 55% to 40%.
Anyway, the companies I’m implicitly comparing NYCT with, the Japanese transit agencies, do run buses. The subway/bus ratio is higher than in New York, but they run buses. I believe Toei has about one fifth to one quarter of its passengers using buses (the English statistics got zapped in a website redesign), versus about 30% for NYCT. It’s still pretty comparable.
The subway hasn’t been profitable for many decades, like practically all forms of passenger rail in the U.S. The IRT and BMT went bankrupt in 1940, and they were in deep trouble long before then. The formerly for-profit railways that are the forerunners to NJ Transit, the LIRR, Metro-North, and Amtrak, all went broke in the 1960s, or thereabouts.
Of course, government policy led directly to putting the railroads out of business. I don’t see that changing: there are too many obstacles in the way.
The BRT supposedly spent its last year as profitable, actually.
Theoretically, there’s little reason NYCTA’s rail operations shouldn’t be profitable. But everybody seriously needs to get off his/her collective ass to reform it, and it’s not happening soon.
It was always my understanding that the IRT and BMT began losing money when the IND came into existence coupled with gov’t regluation preventing them from ever raising their fare?
The IRT’s original contract, and the BRT/BMT deal that followed, locked the two companies into a 5-cent fare for the subway that worked OK in the early going, but became unfeasible in the wake of the post-World War I inflation. The city’s refusal to approve a fare hike from 1920-1940 helped steer both companies towards bankruptcy (the BRT in the early ’20s, after which they re-emerged as the BMT and were marginally profitable into the 1930s, while the IRT was insolvent by the late 30s, due in part to their by-then unprofitable west side Manhattan el operations that the IND’s opening along Eighth Avenue made superfluous).
As with Ms. Palin, Christie clearly has a promising future as a Fox News “Contributor”.
The 7 extension to Secaucus should be paired with the HBLR extension from Bayonne to Staten Island. Connecting the 7 to Secaucus would reduce the number of NJT passengers transferring to PATH at Hoboken, which would then free up space on PATH to handle more HBLR passengers entering the system at Jersey City who are bound for midtown or the WTC station.
Both states benefit. Both states contribute money to both projects, which in turn should make it easier to get federal transportation funds for the projects.
Sure. If NJ pays most of the bills, I’m all for it.
I always thought the city should pay NJT to operate an extended HBLR on 42nd St..
New Jersey should pay the bulk (or in co-operation with the real estate interests in the Hudson Yards area, who are the ones salivating at the idea of having both an east side and a N.J. connection to their new complex), while New York should contribute a share based on the costs to extend HBLR from 8th Street into Staten Island, and a percentage of whatever real estate valuation/sales tax collection increase the city would expect to see thanks to a bi-directional subway link to Hudson Yards, instead of a uni-directional one.
That still leaves New Jersey and/or the feds to pick up the bulk of the cost, because they would still get the bulk of the benefits by making the state more attractive for commuters. But Jersey access to Hudson Yards isn’t a zero-sum benefit game for the city or New York State, either, so there should be some contribution to the project(s).
This should be done right after the Southeast Queens line is built and passenger rail service is provided to the north shore of Staten Island.
OK kids, let’s get real: there is no money for, and there NEVER will be, a subway to NJ or Staten Island. Everyone is getting all breathless and drawing maps on looseleaf paper for absolutely nothing. And really, calling Gov Christie a fat pig, porker, and right-wing moron would be fine if we were all in second grade. About the only thing I haven’t heard him called is “doody-pants.”
NJ residents are just going to have to stand while riding NJT or wait for the next NJT/PATH train. Staten Islanders will either squeeze onto the ferry, ride the express bus, or drive over the VZ. Let’s move on.
Listen, You’ve got to dream big. If you were alive 125 years ago, and you said that New York City would be as big as it is, with a subway system of 490 stations (Including Staten Island), that ran 24/7, who would’ve believed you?
This country used to have a can-do attitude, where we built things that were marvels of the world. Now we can’t even build a dinky little tunnel. “It’s too much money.” “It’s too much time!” “Buses are good enough.”
Buses will NEVER be good enough! We need investments for the future!
And for the record, Staten Island’s tunnel has already started construction, and has the potential connections to the BMT 4th Avenue Line, and more importantly would operate within the state and city limits. That it makes it much easier to build, and thusly, much more likely to happen than the 7 train to Secaucus.
One day we’ll get more lines further into Queens, and the Nostrand Avenue Line into Brooklyn, and the tunnel to Staten Island. Its not a matter of if but when.
And also for the record, I meant to write ‘fat-headed’, as in stupid, and I never said pig or porker, and neither did anyone else on this board.
Staten Island’s tunnel did start construction, but that was back in the 1920’s. Let’s be realistic. You’re starting all over again if you had to build anything.
The tunnel still exists you know. My uncle works for the MTA, and he’s actually seen it.
There is no reason the portion already built cannot be used for future construction, underground, things stay pretty well preserved. Just look at the Chrystie St. Connection. Not in use for more than 40 years, but they got it back into service no problem.
Besides, the tunnel is only 150 feet into the harbor anyway. There’s still plenty of work to be done there.
The Verrazanno Bridge makes things very difficult
The Staten Island portion of the tunnel was filled in when the St. George Ferry Terminal was rebuilt in the early 1950s, so I don’t think your uncle saw much except the stub end near the BMT 59th St station in Brooklyn. It ain’t exactly shovel-ready.
A subway to NJ can happen for one reason. Extending the 7 line to NJ means a lot of people could potentially come to lower Hells Kitchen from Jersey or Queens. And developing lower Hells Kitchen (around 34th Street, the Hudson Yards area0 was Bloomberg’s pet project. All the real estate developers back him. It likely will happen.
The IND happened decades ago because it would bring large numbers of people to Rockefeller center.
A subway to Staten Island will not happen, however, because no big business interests happen. Extended the E and F further into Queens won’t happen as they go close enough to the LI border (just short bus rides away, plus there’s the LIRR).
Those, and SAS, and a 125th Crosstown, and Utica, and Triboro.
And the Nostrand Extension.
And a Utica Ave subway
Yeah, I forgot it. (My point in mentioning those is that I believe those are higher priorities than extending the E and F deeper into Queens.)
Even though extending the E and F deeper into Queens in badly needed?
Yep. It’s badly needed, but so are those other extensions. The Utica bus has about the same number of riders as First/Second Avenues; the buses on 125th have twice that ridership.
I think the B46 now has the highest passenger count in the country.
No they don’t. The four bus routes that serve 125th may have twice that ridership, but most of those riders probably don’t ride the 125th segment at all.
As for extending subway lines, be careful – do you really want the E to be more crowded than it is already?
The limiting factor to the E’s capacity is boarding and alighting, and not on-train space. That’s why it only gets 60′ cars – they have less space per train, but more doors. An E extension would decongest Jamaica Center, leaving only Lex as a problem station; there, Spanish platforms could be installed at much less cost than building new stations further out in Queens.
I don’t know about you, but I think New York City Transit should aim to get people to ride it, not to limit ridership to maximize managers’ convenience. The alternative is more driving and pollution, and less space for inner-urban growth, raising rents; both of these problems are much harder to solve than train crowding.
I’m not sure what you’re talking about. E trains are currently very close to their guideline capacity of 1450 passengers per train. Substantially increasing boardings in eastern Queens would lead to consistently severe overloading at Roosevelt, with many passengers simply unable to board. That isn’t very helpful!
(The reason for the 60′ cars on the E is to reduce dwell times. They actually have slightly more space per train – 1450 passengers
rather than 1400.)
What Queens needs is another trunk line.
(Yes, I know it’s about the dwell times; this is an issue of boarding/alighting capacity.)
The guideline capacity is not a hard number – for one, it could be cut with walk-through trains, increasing standing space. Even then, it’s exceeded by 13% on the 4/5 and about 100% on multiple lines in Tokyo.
Queens needs a new trunk line, yes, and that would be a higher priority than extending the E and F further east. On the other hand, the most useful trunk lines would serve parts of Queens that are closer to the 7 than to the E and F. Easiest thing to do would be to make the LIRR more useful in urban service, i.e. high off-peak local frequency, no ticket punchers, affordable short-distance fares.
It’s not a hard number, but it can’t be summarily ignored.
http://www.nytimes.com/1987/10.....mfort.html
http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onli.....t_13-b.pdf (scroll down to chapter 5)
Why do you say it’s exceeded by 13% on the 4/5? I don’t think that’s correct. (If you’re looking at cordon count data, that combines the E and V!)
I agree that the commuter railroads should be made more useful within NYC – with a unified (zonal) fare with the rest of the transit system and with modifications to car design to better suit a mix of trip durations (take out the middle seat, which nobody likes anyway, to allow for reasonable standee space, and modify the loading guidelines to allow for standees). But Nassau and Suffolk would push back strongly, so I don’t see it happening any time soon.
The SAS EIR states that the Lex is beyond capacity, giving a 13% over capacity number for the express trains.
Nassau and Suffolk would push back, yes. But at least the standees would mostly be within the city. Off-peak it could also be mitigated with high frequency, which would become possible if the LIRR dumped the ticket punchers and went POP. Biggest pushback against such a reform would come from old-timers who think that that’s not how railroads are supposed to work; that’s what doomed SEPTA’s attempt to run Regional Rail like urban transit.
Depending on where the zone boundaries are set, there could also be pushback from people right outside a zone boundary. If the MetroCard fare zone extended only to the edge of the subway (as it should) and not to the edge of the city, Eastern Queens would be pissed. But that’s relatively easy to fix (“It’s still less than what you’re paying now and the trains are finally usable off-peak”); the old-timers are the hard nut to crack.
Oh, so you’re not comparing 4/5 loads for a given year with E loads for the same year. You’re comparing 4/5 loads for an unstated year with an assumption of E loads, and deriving from that the precise number 13%.
My proposal includes reducing the number of seats on the train. That’s mostly what would lead to pushback.
(What exactly are you referring to with SEPTA Regional Rail? I’m not aware of any plan to run Regional Rail at shorter headways, or anything like that.)
If we’re going to institute a zone system, we should do it right. The existing subway system is vast, and fares shouldn’t be fixed regardless of distance. Besides, even under your proposal, anybody who currently rides the bus to the subway would be paying more to shift to the LIRR.
When SEPTA took over the rail lines thirty years ago, it had a lot of plans to run the commuter trains like urban transit: higher frequency, through-running, even severing the Reading lines from the national FRA-regulated system. But the managers, who had background in urban transit got immense pushback from the workforce, which viewed them as not real railroaders. At the end all that came of it was the through-running, and even that has been in decline recently.
Reducing the number of seats would get some pushback, yes, but it’s surmountable. It doesn’t really require state approval; it’s between the MTA and the FRA.
A zonal system for the rail network should probably leave most of the urban system in one zone. In Germany the zones are independent of mode, but in Paris all subway trips cost the same, even ones spilling over to the next zone for RER service. Unless all of NYC (minus Staten Island and the Rockaways) were one zone, it would probably make sense to use the Parisian system and make bus-subway trips cost the same, even if commuter rail trips cost more – otherwise people would have to remember where zones begin and end in Eastern Queens.
You know, if we’re just going to get two-track line extensions from now on, they should probably be new ROWs that intersect current ROWs. I don’t see what sense it makes to just keep expanding out terminals where it already takes ~1.5hrs to get to Manhattan.
That’s the point: the E and F run super-express in Central Queens; the 7 crawls, but is very short. All three lines take half an hour to get from their Queens terminals to Midtown, compared with 40-45 minutes for the IRT lines coming from the Bronx and 35 for the A from Lefferts to Lower Manhattan.
This is all political theater.
New Jersey is the stooge? New Jersey is the stooge?!?! That arrogant, fat, right-winged moron.
come on now, you haven’t read much on Westchester County executive Rob Astorino or Nassau County’s Ed Mangano. There all cut from the same loincloth.!
Question. Is there a way for Hudson tunnels to be built to serve both #7 subway and NJT commuter trains, the latter terminating at some new terminal on Manhattans westside? I’m sure there’s a lot of good reasons not to do this, but I’m curious if the law allows mixed traffic.
The big cost for NJ Transit is the new terminal – there’s no budget to build that anymore. Ideally, they build a 2 level tunnel (like the east river one that will carry LIRR on the lower level to Grand Central). And running both services on the same tracks would not be a good idea at all.
Berk my question was about the law. Do you have any info on that?
What I do not understand is why Bloomberg wouldn’t want to connect the 7 to LaGuardia instead of this extension to Jersey? That would probably take a lot more cars off the road, then connecting it to the Secaucus Junction.
That’s a good idea.
Because that would cost NYC lots of $…. and this proposed idea attempts to get federal $, the Port Authority, and NJ to pay for most of the extension and the 10th ave station (as NYC has already covered most of their end with the latest tunnel extension)
The 7 goes to Flushing; it would be awkward to connect it to LGA. Best that could be done there is a shuttle train along Junction.
Now, Giuliani did propose to connect the N/W to LGA. The Astoria NIMBYs raised hell and defeated the project.
Not so awkward if you split the line off around Willets Pt. or 111th Street and ran it up the north side of the Grand Central Parkway. Since the GCP runs past Citi Field and along the south shore of Long Island Sound between Roosevelt Avenue and LGA, your NIMBY problems with an elevated/highway level line would be limited (unless the marine life and seagulls in the area can form their own community action group).
The main question would be if Main Street could afford the diversion of X number of trains per hour to LaGuardia, given that there’s no other subway line in that part of Queens. And that’s also where your main protests would come from (unless you could somehow create a new platform around Citi Field for the LGA spur line that would allow some of the buses now discharging at Main Street to discharge at Willets Point instead).
Flushing is the 12th busiest station in the system, and the busiest outside Manhattan. Forget protests in Flushing; this idea wouldn’t work technically, either. On the laundry list of next-priority subway extensions I gave replying to Researcher, I forgot but should have mentioned extending the 7 north or east to decongest the station.
If that would solve it, what about a U branch for the 7? One branch goes to LGA and one to Main Street – and they both intersect east or north of Main Street. Break it into a 7/8.
No matter how it’s done, you would be cutting service to the 12th-busiest station in the subway system. People going to Main Street would not ride that “U”. The political reaction to any plan like this would be enormous and no Governor or Mayor could withstand it, much less the MTA.
Manhattan to LGA via Willets Point doesn’t sound very attractive.
As for diverting some trains, already, about 1/4 of rush hour trains terminate at 111th or Willets Point, since they can’t all fit into Main Street. During rush hours, those trains could be the ones to go to LGA in your proposal. Unfortunately, they’re all locals, making it even less attractive.
Some of that might have been unhappiness with an elevated service.
This isn’t really about taking cars off the road. Bloomberg wants to develop the Hudson Yards area. So in addition to having a direct train connection to Queens, Hudson Yards under this proposal will now have direct connections to New Jersey. it makes the area a much better place to invest in, so property developers and businesses would love Hudson Yards if the 7 train went to NJ.
There really wouldn’t be much of a benefit to businesses or developers if a branch off the 7 or the N train were extended to LaGuardia, therefore this isn’t that much of a priority.
Why not extend the 7 even further along the ROW of the NEC with stations at Newark , Newark Airport, Bayonne, and then back to New York City in Northern Staten island via the Bayonne Bridge, then available transfer to North Shore branch and finally terminal at SI mall. In this way with the minimum amount of money Staten Island will get 7-8 stop ride to Times Sq. PATH could pitch in having in mind the EWR will get more accessible than ever. And with shuttle service from Willets point, the 7 could connect to LGA too…
and who’s gonna pay for that?
If the tunnel under the Hudson is funded, 6-7 miles of tracks shouldn’t cost that much… I ‘m suggesting running it on grade… NJ should pay for the stations in NJ. And revenues from real estate taxes in SI will jump into new heights. It is an incredible opportunity to connect the disconnected borough..!
I’ve always thought about this. But I mean, the problem is running a State agency over state lines. But if they can send the 7 to Secaucus, surely they can use an at-grade right of way to at least Bayonne. The only problem is the Bayonne bridge was built with provisions for light, not heavy, rail. Unless a new bridge is built, this is where the 7’s going to have to stop.
May as well just give them PATH. It’s not an awful idea, but it’s very indirect.
You know, I’m looking at the layout of Hudson-Bergen, and a 7 train may not be too implausible; it’s the same distance through Jersey to Staten Island as through Brooklyn; but quite frankly, the right of way is already being used by Hudson-Bergen, plus all the DC substations we’d have to build for the 7.
Coming to terms with this, I think it would be entirely fair for Jersey to extend Hudson-Bergen down Richmond Avenue to Eltingville Station in Staten Island with 7-9 stations in exchange for us building a 7 train west to Secaucus Junction. Everyone’s a winner. Hudson-Bergen can be done cheaply, and provide more rail to Staten Island, the 7 train expansion will get an extra station, and run out to Secaucus Junction for easy transfers, everyone’s square, and everyone walks away satisfied, with more business and commerce for both states.
Having in mind that Bayonne Br is going to go through a major reconstruction in the near future (this is definitely going to happen if PANYNJ doesn’t want to loose more cargo traffic to other east coast ports) a consideration of “heavy” rail can be taken. I knew consideration was taken for transit tracks. I didn’t know it was specifically for light rail. Anyhow if it could happen it would be a one seat ride to midtown, and I’m guessing the the fear-box revenues would reach a new record with around 1/4M more passengers on the 7.