Subway Extension to Secaucus (Flushing #7 or L Canarsie)

cruiser939 wrote:Secaucus can be built up. The station is built with the intention to support 3 office buildings on top of it. That is why the station is so massive.

...As you say, but what I've seen of Secaucus Transit Oriented Development is only directly on top (i.e. hemmed in by wetlands):

In this explanation from the North Jersey Transportation Planning Authority says they don't seem to be thinking it could be a whole neighborhood, like Exchange Place (pictured here on the Jersey City waterfront)

cruiser939 wrote:

Tom V wrote:

Ok, I'm sold on tunneling straight to Secaucus, with zero intermediate stops, and perhaps only the barest provision for one on the NJ shoreline in the (far) future to tie with HBLR.

A stop at Lincoln harbor in Weehawken would provide a connection to the HBLRT, and it's directly in the path of a direct line between 24th street in Manhattan and Secaucus jct.

If you look at a map, you'll realize that that isn't correct. A station around the 9th St. stop for the HBLR (in Hoboken) would be much closer to a tunnel from 23rd St. in NYC (since I'm assuming a station there would be practical) to Secaucus. Please don't tell me about the added benefit of connecting to the ferry since no one is going to ride the ferry from Manhattan to transfer to the 7 line or vice versa.

Tunneling directly west from 23rd Street would put you about midway between Lincoln Harbor and 9th Street on HBLR. But if you continue south from 11th Avenue then turn west when you run out of land, that will put you closer to the 9th Street HBLR stop. You could then continue west from there to a surface station at Secaucus Junction on the lower level.

Arlington wrote:[tunnel] straight to Secaucus, with...perhaps only the barest provision for [a station] on the NJ shoreline in the (far) future to tie with HBLR.

Tom V wrote:A stop at Lincoln harbor in Weehawken would provide a connection to the HBLRT, and its [on] a direct line between 24th street in Manhattan and Secaucus jct.

cruiser939 wrote: A station around the 9th St. stop for the HBLR (in Hoboken) would be much closer to a tunnel from 23rd St. in NYC [...] to Secaucus. Please don't tell me about the added benefit of connecting to the ferry

#5 - Dyre Ave wrote:Tunneling directly west from 23rd Street would put you about midway between Lincoln Harbor and 9th Street on HBLR.[launching further south would] put you closer to the 9th Street HBLR stop.

All true, and all mostly premature 'til we hear more from Bloomberg and Christie. Reaching 9th St, or Lincoln Harbor, or a new HBLR stop (in between) would add less than 0.2 miles to the length of a 4 mile tunnel, especially given flexibility at the NYC launch point. The routing and even a new HBLR station are cheap ($100m to $300m on a $5,000m project). Its the extra #7 Station (which I swag at $1,000m) that might be off the table for now.

Here's a google map showing Lincoln Harbor, 9th St, and Hoboken Terminal alignments

But I will talk about the ferry...not for its service to W39th Street (which Cruiser939 rightly says would be of little benefit) but for a ferry's ability to serve Wall Street directly. Lincoln Harbor has (and 9th st does not have) two proven ingredients for development:
1) An existing nucleus of office development with Manhattan views
2) The option for Ferry service to Wall Street (World Financial Center / Vesey St)...not for commuting, but for trips to meetings during the day.

So waterfront developers would probably pay TIF taxes to pay for a station, something important to Bloomberg (its how the 7 extension is financed) and Christie (who won't use general revenues) if they were looking to fund an intermediate station.

1. Empty NJ Trains between Secaucus and Penn Station: Everyone will get off NJ Transit trains in Secaucus so they get ride the 7 all the way to midtown/Grand Central and transfer as they please.
2. Too much cost savings...not enough corruption for contractors to reward NJ politicians. What is Christie thinking?
3. Overcrowding on the 7 line [see #1 above].
4. Another passenger railroad not controlled by NJ Transit. Isn't PATH enough of an indignity?
5. Integration of transit systems in the NY area doesn't sufficiently segregate New Jerseyans from New Yorkers.
6. 7 line ridership may reduce tolls at the bridges and tunnels.
7. NJ Transit may discover just how unpopular Penn Station really is [see #1 above]
8. Fewer train sets for NJ Transit to play with, compared to ARC.
9. Infringement by the NYC government [through the MTA] on NJ territory.

"1. Empty NJ Trains between Secaucus and Penn Station: Everyone will get off NJ Transit trains in Secaucus so they get ride the 7 all the way to midtown/Grand Central and transfer as they please."

Doubtful. Penn Station is still a viable destination. Does Madison Square Garden ring a bell?

"2. Too much cost savings...not enough corruption for contractors to reward NJ politicians. What is Christie thinking?"

Free's up money for other construction project. Lautenberg came out and said that he would endorse it and secure federal funding provided NJ and NY can secure local funding (Source: Wall Street Journal Article)

"3. Overcrowding on the 7 line [see #1 above]."

That's normal for any train.

"4. Another passenger railroad not controlled by NJ Transit. Isn't PATH enough of an indignity?"

We need a diverse transportation system. That's like saying NJTransit should control all of the bus lines in the state... Not going to happen.

"5. Integration of transit systems in the NY area doesn't sufficiently segregate New Jerseyans from New Yorkers."

We are all part of the New York area. Plus, this will provide a great opportunity for New Yorkers to reverse commute to jobs in New Jersey.

"6. 7 line ridership may reduce tolls at the bridges and tunnels."

And is there actually something wrong with that? I pay a lot to cross into New York.

"7. NJ Transit may discover just how unpopular Penn Station really is [see #1 above]"

See my response to #1.

"8. Fewer train sets for NJ Transit to play with, compared to ARC."

With all the expansion projects out there, I doubt that will happen. NJTransit already has orders in for dual modes locomotives and bi-levels. Even with the budget cuts, I doubt these will be freezed anytime soon.

"9. Infringement by the NYC government [through the MTA] on NJ territory."

NJ infringes into NY through bus and train. This is not much different. Refer to the Washington Metropolitan Transit Authority. This happens quite a bit.

At the very least, there should be a connection between the 7 and HBLR. It would speed up the commute for so many people who use HBLR for part of their commute.

uzplayer...
I can't believe you actually gave a line-by-line reply to my post. I guess you missed that I was trying to be constructively sarcastic...I really like the 7 line extension proposal.

ccutler wrote:uzplayer...
I can't believe you actually gave a line-by-line reply to my post. I guess you missed that I was trying to be constructively sarcastic...I really like the 7 line extension proposal.

While uzplayer's response wasn't that well crafted, you did a pretty poor job of making your original post sound sarcastic. You might consider going back and editing it to say so...

#5 - Dyre Ave wrote:At the very least, there should be a connection between the 7 and HBLR. It would speed up the commute for so many people who use HBLR for part of their commute.

If it added 2 minutes to 10,000 people's commute, would you do it to save 20 minutes on 1,000 people's commute? Since it would likely require a deep (tunneled) station, it might cost a lot and produce only small net time savings.

Not a NJT topic; merged into existing topic.

Arlington wrote:

cruiser939 wrote:Secaucus can be built up. The station is built with the intention to support 3 office buildings on top of it. That is why the station is so massive.

...As you say, but what I've seen of Secaucus Transit Oriented Development is only directly on top (i.e. hemmed in by wetlands)

3 large buildings can provide a lot of space and attract a lot of jobs. Just saying...

Arlington wrote:But I will talk about the ferry...not for its service to W39th Street (which Cruiser939 rightly says would be of little benefit) but for a ferry's ability to serve Wall Street directly. Lincoln Harbor has (and 9th st does not have) two proven ingredients for development:
1) An existing nucleus of office development with Manhattan views
2) The option for Ferry service to Wall Street (World Financial Center / Vesey St)...not for commuting, but for trips to meetings during the day.

So waterfront developers would probably pay TIF taxes to pay for a station, something important to Bloomberg (its how the 7 extension is financed) and Christie (who won't use general revenues) if they were looking to fund an intermediate station.

Perhaps you might have overlooked this "Arlington", but the only ferry service from Lincoln Harbor is to the midtown terminal. I really don't think that a financially struggling ferry company is going to institute a new service on the off chance that people will take the 7 line from NY to NJ to work and then perhaps take the ferry to a meeting in the financial district. Thinking like that is just absurd. You need to think realistically, not ideally, in order to get things accomplished. That's just the way things go. If people were to really need to go to a meeting in the financial district, then they can take to the HBLR to Hoboken Terminal where they can choose to take the ferry or the PATH.

cruiser939 wrote: I really don't think that a financially struggling ferry company is going to institute a new service on the off chance that people will take the 7 line from NY to NJ to work and then perhaps take the ferry to a meeting in the financial district. Thinking like that is just absurd. You need to think realistically, not ideally, in order to get things accomplished. That's just the way things go. If people were to really need to go to a meeting in the financial district, then they can take to the HBLR to Hoboken Terminal where they can choose to take the ferry or the PATH.

I was explicitly clear that waterfront provides an *option* for a ferry. Ferries are quite unlike rail in their ability to put routes wherever the demand is, and cut it where its not (as long as there's a river). 9th St will never have that.

Arlington wrote:

cruiser939 wrote: I really don't think that a financially struggling ferry company is going to institute a new service on the off chance that people will take the 7 line from NY to NJ to work and then perhaps take the ferry to a meeting in the financial district. Thinking like that is just absurd. You need to think realistically, not ideally, in order to get things accomplished. That's just the way things go. If people were to really need to go to a meeting in the financial district, then they can take to the HBLR to Hoboken Terminal where they can choose to take the ferry or the PATH.

I was explicitly clear that waterfront provides an *option* for a ferry. Ferries are quite unlike rail in their ability to put routes wherever the demand is, and cut it where its not (as long as there's a river). 9th St will never have that.

And I was explicitly clear that a ferry company on the verge of bankruptcy is not going to start instituting a new all day service just for your fantasy commuters who might travel from NY on the 7 line to work in NJ and might have a meeting in lower Manhattan and who might not take the already existing option of the HBLR to the ferry which is really quite convenient. This all goes back to what I was saying about being realistic. If you bog a project down in all your fantasy what-if's, it'll never happen.

cruiser939 wrote:[If you bog a project down in all your fantasy what-if's, it'll never happen.

I'm sorry if I'm bogging down your 9th St transfer station, and your towers on top of Secaucus Transfer. Let me know how that goes.