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

Having a 7 train connection at Hoboken terminal would definitely encourage some of the travelers who currently transfer at Secaucus jct, Newark Penn and Newark Broad street to ride all the way to Hoboken. However it would also generate more demand than is currently available to Hoboken, particularly between Newark Penn and Hoboken.

The current NJCL weekday services would need to be doubled (10-12), and it would create demand for weekend services too. A long sought 2nd hourly train on the NJCL during the weekends could serve Hoboken. Raritan line trains that currently terminate at Newark Penn would need to be extended to Hoboken, including weekend service. Then there's the NEC, weekday and weekend service.

That's a lot of expansion, extra trains, more crews and major investment to the existing waterfront connection to both accomodate the additional trains but also to speed their trip.

Are they talking about looping through Hoboken Terminal? I haven't seen that. I presumed by Hoboken they meant the Lincoln Harbor area which is quite a ways from the NJ Transit terminal in southeast Hoboken. I'm not sure the plan is really that advanced but I would hope they don't do that.

The problem with this whole idea is, think about it, try and visualize yourself in say 2035. Getting on the train at Ridgewood, getting off at Secaucus with the rest of the mob. To the escalators (?) to the 7 train level. Hoping to find space to sit down on the hard slippery style bench type seats. Then the noisy jerky screeching ride. Sitting outside Javits ("There's a train ahead of us. We'll be moving shortly.") More people squeezing on at every stop. The train becoming 7 train-style jammed. Finally you arrive at Grand Central. The platform and corridors are mobbed with pushy obnoxious straphangers. To the escalators! Everyone beefed the ARC terminal would be too deep below ground. How far below the surface is the 7 train at Grand Central?

The more I think about it the more I prefer Macy's basement.

I commuted by subway from the Bronx to Manhattan for several years. I'm a transit fan so I mostly enjoyed it. Yet at the same time I recognized it was not a fun way to get to work.

The 7 is pretty far down in the Grand Central complex, but not as far down as the ARC terminal would be.

As far as handling the crowds at Grand Central, 5th Avenue and Times Square, one solution could be to build a side platform at all three of those stops, if possible. Trains in one direction would stop on the original platform and in the other direction on the new platform. This is similar to the setup at Bowling Green where Brooklyn-bound 4 and 5 trains stop on the original center platform and Bronx-bound 4 and 5 trains stop on the newer side platform. It would require stopping 7 service to construct the side platforms, of course.

Depending on the ridership they gain from the Javits extension plus Secaucus they might have to consider triple-tracking at least between Times Square and Grand Central. They might also want to look at building a station east of Grand Central at 2nd or 3rd Avenues (long overdue in my opinion). Possibly build a pocket track in there somewhere so they could turn Secaucus trains instead of running them all out to Queens.

The way it is now, the platform at Grand Central is a mob scene at rush hour. The Queens-bound trains in the PM rush are so crowded that friends I have who commute from Flushing often board a Times Square train in order to get a seat.

I've done that too and discovered I was not the only one doing it. Far from it in fact.

Again I support the plan on the grounds it's better than nothing. If you believe NJ Transit's Manhattan ridership will continue to grow once the economy picks up then they have to do something. Penn Station at rush hour is close to or at 100% of capacity.

But a subway extension to Secaucus is just providing the Jersey riders with basic transportation. I personally would not want to have to do it twice-a-day five times per week.

Tommy Meehan wrote:Depending on the ridership they gain from the Javits extension plus Secaucus they might have to consider triple-tracking at least between Times Square and Grand Central. They might also want to look at building a station east of Grand Central at 2nd or 3rd Avenues (long overdue in my opinion). Possibly build a pocket track in there somewhere so they could turn Secaucus trains instead of running them all out to Queens.

Interestingly enough, the MTA's Second Avenue Subway page currently lists the SAS 42nd St stop as being a potential connection with the Grand Central station, instead of building a new station there to service the T and 7.

cruiser939 wrote:

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...

@cruiser939: This is why I didn't waste much time with it.

Tommy Meehan wrote:The way it is now, the platform at Grand Central is a mob scene at rush hour. The Queens-bound trains in the PM rush are so crowded that friends I have who commute from Flushing often board a Times Square train in order to get a seat.

Since Secaucus passengers are unlikely to join the evening rush to Queens, I'd be interested in observations made when looking in the other direction. Things like:
- How crowded are 42nd-bound trains at the evening rush when viewed at GCT?
- How crowded are they when they end their run at 42nd?
- How many just rode to 42nd on the 7 to get a seat for the ride back?)
- How mobbed is 42nd's platform?

- How much of the GCT's center platform does the mob scene use? Measure from edge-to-opposite-edge.

By definition, GCT is mobbed in the rush direction for 100% of today's rush-direction users, but how many users could it still permit so long as they'd mob in the other (Javits/Jersey) direction?

Arlington wrote:I'd be interested in observations made when looking in the other direction. Things like:
- How crowded are 42nd-bound trains at the evening rush when viewed at GCT?
- How crowded are they when they end their run at 42nd?
- How many just rode to 42nd on the 7 to get a seat for the ride back?)
- How mobbed is 42nd's platform?
- How much of the GCT's center platform does the mob scene use? Measure from edge-to-opposite-edge.

First, today's western terminal is usually referred to as Times Square not 42nd. The line runs under 42nd Street with three stations -- Grand Central, Fifth Avenue and Times Square -- between the East River tunnel and the end of track.

The trains bound for Time Square in the PM rush are usually fairly empty. If you're asking would there be capacity on the trains to handle Secauscus ridership, yes there definitely would be I would think.

How mobbed is Grand Central's center platform? Even for a subway it's crowded. Would there be room to safely handle hundreds of additional Secaucus riders? I would say, realistically, no there would not be.

But by the time this extension would be in service (assuming the proposal doesn't just fade away as so many of these proposals eventually do) there will be other variables to consider. Once the Javits extension -- never mind the Second Avenue subway -- comes on-line the load factors will change. How much? Who knows?

Tommy Meehan wrote:First, today's western terminal is usually referred to as Times Square not 42nd. The line runs under 42nd Street with three stations -- Grand Central, Fifth Avenue and Times Square -- between the East River tunnel and the end of track.

Thanks for understanding what I meant. Is there a common set of abbrvs in use here like TS, 5A and GC?

Tommy Meehan wrote:How mobbed is Grand Central's center platform? Even for a subway it's crowded. Would there be room to safely handle hundreds of additional Secaucus riders? I would say, realistically, no there would not be.

It seems to me that the case can be made for an additional platform on the Flushing-bound side at GC for the evening rush. That's where the station needs to accumulate Queens-bound passengers during delays, because they have few other options beyond waiting for getting East. (whereas GC offers the Shuttle for getting West in the Morning and Eastbound morning people from Jersey won't accumulate...they'll go onward to their offices)

If overcrowding is such an issue then what about the idea of sending some 7 trains via the 60th street BMT tunnel to terminate at Whitehall? I understand that BMT equipment is too big for BMT /IND tunnels but the reverse works and perhaps this could reduce overcrowding at Grand Central as people could connect to other lines via the route.

You'd have to install gap fillers at every station from Lexington to Whitehall for that to work. It's not worth it. Also, it can be very slow-going on the Broadway line between Herald Square and Lex, especially after 57th Street where there are only two tracks. Adding a fourth service through there, which will then have to use the switch after Queensboro Plaza will be a real headache for many people, commuters and transit workers alike. And did I mention that there's no switch between the Flushing and Astoria lines in the Manhattan-bound direction?

#5 - Dyre Ave wrote:You'd have to install gap fillers at every station from Lexington to Whitehall for that to work. It's not worth it. Also, it can be very slow-going on the Broadway line between Herald Square and Lex, especially after 57th Street where there are only two tracks. Adding a fourth service through there, which will then have to use the switch after Queensboro Plaza will be a real headache for many people, commuters and transit workers alike. And did I mention that there's no switch between the Flushing and Astoria lines in the Manhattan-bound direction?

You need not say more.

Perhaps the answer could be to better sync trains so that it is easy to transfer across the platform and riders are made aware that this option could get them where they need to go faster and avoid the crush of GCT.

I realize I'm from the hinterland and often got sunburn on the roof of my mouth gawking around New York city, but Queensboro Plaza station has always amazed me. I'm not sure how one could better sync trains there than they do now. Maybe the efficiency has deteriorated since I was last there, but I often got the impression that both trains would pull into the platform side by side with doors mostly lined up and very little hassle transferring.

This is by far one of the more ridiculous and preposterous ideas I've ever heard, and I've heard a lot!

I think everyone who is for this lunacy is forgetting that secaucus junction is built in the middle of tidal marshlands, near a river, next to a large freight yard, and getting there from manhattan would have you somehow crossing a wide actively used river, though upper hudson county which is light urban in makeup, then magically ascend/descend or bore through basaltic rock... Ok, i'm going to stop there. My money is on PATH.