Prospects for any NJT Capital projects

Steampowered wrote on » Fri Dec 10, 2010 7:14 pm

Just throwing this out there, but why cant the existing PATH tunnels be converted to handle NJT trains to Manhattan, and use the existing infrastructure , to find there way to NYP ?

The PATH, formally Hudson and Manhatten RR TUBES under the Hudson are CAST IRON TUBES and there is no way to enlarge them to accomidate "heavy rail", PATH cars are only 51 feet long and about 9 feet wide compared to a typical NJT passenger car length of 85 feet and 10' 6" width (C-IV, C-V) .

NY&LB wrote:Steampowered wrote on » Fri Dec 10, 2010 7:14 pm

Just throwing this out there, but why cant the existing PATH tunnels be converted to handle NJT trains to Manhattan, and use the existing infrastructure , to find there way to NYP ?

The PATH, formally Hudson and Manhatten RR TUBES under the Hudson are CAST IRON TUBES and there is no way to enlarge them to accomidate "heavy rail", PATH cars are only 51 feet long and about 9 feet wide compared to a typical NJT passenger car length of 85 feet and 10' 6" width (C-IV, C-V) .

Aside from the weight difference, the turns that PATH cars on the uptown line(Tunnels A + B) currently negotiate, would never permit the comet sized cars. Don't even think about squeezing ML's in those tunnels either...oh and no catenary would ever fit in there either with the whole DC traction thing...

Getting back to the The Tunnel, many folks have said one of its flaws is that it has no east side access, and would have been a better plan if trains could go to Grand Central.
How did those Grand Central proponents expect their proposal to negotiate the turn from the east-west route to the Penn Station area to a north-south route to Grand Central?
Amtrak from their Empire Corridor-West side route, and SEPTA from Market East east-west to 9th St ex Reading north-south, but in both cases they use quite a bit of real estate that has no large buildings above.

The reason option G, Grand Central, was eliminated from ARC is that the Water aquaducts of NYC are in the way of the route. The Acquaducts are ancient, and NYC didn't want any construction anywhere near them. Any damage to those acquaducts would be catostrophic to the City, it would cut off water service to millions of City residents.

south jersey trains wrote:Fund the light rail line from Camden to Glassboro/Rowan U.Traffice is horrible on rt 42.The Patco line does excellent and this will to.

The population density of Camden county is 2,289 people per square mile, the population density of Gloucester County is 784 people per square mile.

Compare that with;

Hudson County= 13,044 people per square mile
Bergen County= 3,776 people per square miles
Essex County= 6,285 people per square mile
Passaic County 2,680 people per square mile
Middlesex County 2,422 people per square mile.

Obviously the State of NJ should be focusing it's dwindling resources where they are needed the most, the Northern Counties have much great needs for public transportation than the Southern Counties. It's a fact, based on population density and over population the North's needs outweigh the Southern counties significantly.

Hudson County with a population density of 13,044 people per square miles should get all future light rail development funding. With a population density of 784 people per square miles there's really no justification to send those funds to Gloucester County over any of the Northern Counties.

Tom V wrote:

south jersey trains wrote:Fund the light rail line from Camden to Glassboro/Rowan U.Traffice is horrible on rt 42.The Patco line does excellent and this will to.

The population density of Camden county is 2,289 people per square mile, the population density of Gloucester County is 784 people per square mile.

Compare that with;

Hudson County= 13,044 people per square mile
Bergen County= 3,776 people per square miles
Essex County= 6,285 people per square mile
Passaic County 2,680 people per square mile
Middlesex County 2,422 people per square mile.

Obviously the State of NJ should be focusing it's dwindling resources where they are needed the most, the Northern Counties have much great needs for public transportation than the Southern Counties. It's a fact, based on population density and over population the North's needs outweigh the Southern counties significantly.

Hudson County with a population density of 13,044 people per square miles should get all future light rail development funding. With a population density of 784 people per square miles there's really no justification to send those funds to Gloucester County over any of the Northern Counties.

Look, the Northern counties need more transit, but that's no excuse for us having next to nothing. The current options are not viable alternatives to driving at all. The towns this line goes through are very dense and would be fantastic areas for "TORD" (Transit-oriented-Re-Development). You're acting like the entire county is evenly spread out. This line goes through relatively dense towns and cities that are not as close together. This is no justification to leave Gloucester County with nothing, while furthering areas that already have transit.

Tom V wrote:The reason option G, Grand Central, was eliminated from ARC is that the Water aquaducts of NYC are in the way of the route. The Acquaducts are ancient, and NYC didn't want any construction anywhere near them. Any damage to those acquaducts would be catostrophic to the City, it would cut off water service to millions of City residents.

Just curiosity, where did it run into these aqueducts?

WaitinginSJ wrote:

Tom V wrote:The reason option G, Grand Central, was eliminated from ARC is that the Water aquaducts of NYC are in the way of the route. The Acquaducts are ancient, and NYC didn't want any construction anywhere near them. Any damage to those acquaducts would be catostrophic to the City, it would cut off water service to millions of City residents.

Just curiosity, where did it run into these aqueducts?

That's New York Water Tunnel #1, and the answer is directly beyond the tail end of the deep version of the 34th street terminal. As I understand it the city stipulated that NJT couldn't dig within 100 feet of it, which forcefully eliminated the tail tracks and essentially made any future expansion that way impractical. Regardless, the whole thing is dead now, so there's not much need to discuss it further. Dig through the ARC threads if you want more commentary.

North Jersey does get most of the transit money,but Tom since you think sj should get nothing, maybe we should not pay anything into the transit budget and fund our own train system.Sorry your population is so dense but you already have 600 miles of passenger track to our 100 miles.Just because you have more people does not mean you are entitled to all the transit funds.Your mismanaged tunnel project(by the northern leaders) has already cost roughtly 10x more than it would cost to fix the track to Cape May.Plus the 480 and hour to pay a lawyer to fight against it.Thats about 128 railroad ties a day.It wont take to long to fix the track.But back to the Glassboro to Camden line,we had the approvel and lots of money was spent already on it,it should be finished.Thanks

Patrick Boylan wrote: How did those Grand Central proponents expect their proposal to negotiate the turn from the east-west route to the Penn Station area to a north-south route to Grand Central?

Tom V wrote:The reason option G, Grand Central, was eliminated from ARC is that the Water aquaducts of NYC are in the way of the route.

Taborite wrote: Regardless, the whole thing is dead now, so there's not much need to discuss it further. Dig through the ARC threads if you want more commentary.

Tom, I appreciate that you have given one of the reasons why the The Tunnel couldn't go to Grand Central, but you didn't answer my question.

Taborite, I have already dug through the ARC threads and I don't remember reading anything about how they planned to turn mainline railroad sized trains 90 degrees under Manhatten even if there were no aqueduct in the way.

IIRC, there is a right of way in existence as an easement between PSNY and GCT. However, to build the extension, you would need all sorts of above ground construction for emergency access and ventilation. It is about a mile as the crow flies between PSNY And GCT, which seems like plenty of space in which to turn a full-sized train 90 degrees.

Patrick Boylan wrote: How did those Grand Central proponents expect their proposal to negotiate the turn from the east-west route to the Penn Station area to a north-south route to Grand Central?

I've only seen some very rough maps that show it. Because it was never advanced further in the process, no engineering was done (other than the minimum needed for an alts analysis) so no detailed maps would exist.

It seems to me that this thread is mostly about the now cancelled ARC, and other proposals that have not made their way to the drawing board as of yet (i.e. running NJT on PATH tracks, etc.). I hardly see anything about other potential capital projects on the drawing board: MOM, Northern Branch, Lackawanna, or even the potential elimination of the Princeton Dink, etc.

I like the idea of a combined thread weighing the pro's and con's of each project against the other, but this thread doesn't seem to be doing it. If you want to discuss a specific project or it's status, Nick has a nice sticky thread that will point you to that project's topic at the top of the forum.

There's nothing really to discuss on the ARC here.

I'm going to pause this topic for now, although as I said, I like the idea of a "what's going to happen to other projects thread."