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

Maybe the Port Authority could take the lead with a project like this...they already have the jurisdiction, paperwork, whatever to operate between states and it's a pretty well-run organization.

And heck, they'd probably have the money too. Three days wroth of bridge tolls should do the trick!

lirr42 wrote:Maybe the Port Authority could take the lead with a project like this...

....And heck, they'd probably have the money too.

Not these days they don't

Tommy Meehan wrote:Fifty years actually sounds too quick to me!

This might be this century's version of the Second Avenue Subway, which is taking almost one hundred years to go from the original proposal to completion.

Well they are already 30 years into the planning stages. Amtrak and NJ Transit sat down in the early 80s and started to talk about how with increasing ridership they were going to need new tunnels.... by 2010 or so. That was assuming things like MidTown Direct grew at a stately pace instead of being innudated with riders within a few months.

Tommy Meehan wrote:Fifty years actually sounds too quick to me!

Adirondacker wrote: Well they are already 30 years into the planning stages. Amtrak and NJ Transit sat down in the early 80s and started to talk about how with increasing ridership they were going to need new tunnels.... by 2010 or so. That was assuming things like MidTown Direct grew at a stately pace instead of being innudated with riders within a few months.

I agree with that except, in this thread we're talking about extending NYCT's No. 7 train to New Jersey. Only come to think of it, the idea of extending the IRT Flushing line to New Jersey goes back at least as far as the 1920s. The idea then was to bring all the steam-powered New Jersey commuter rail lines to a loop in the Meadowlands and build a terminal where riders would change to the IRT.

But I don't think extending the 7 has ever been part of Amtrak or NJ Transit's planning.

The provincialism between NJ and NY is putting a drain on efficacy and productivity in the region as a whole. NYC is the only metropolitan area in the country with such fragmented transportation administration. St. Louis makes Metrolink work on both sides of the Mississippi, and WMATA functions seamlessly between Maryland, DC, and Virginia. A super-regional organization is needed covering the current MTA district, Fairfield County CT, and Hudson, Bergen, Essex, Passaic, Morris, Middlesex, Somerset, Monmouth , Mercer Counties in NJ. (New Haven County, Ocean County, and Warren/Sussex will still get their rather limited share of NYC oriented services through contract agreements). The stupid disputes between NJ Transit and MTA and the Port Authority are rather counterproductive.

We have one, it's called the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, yet that have shown no desire to take over the circus act that is New York area public transit.

M&Eman wrote:... The stupid disputes between NJ Transit and MTA and the Port Authority are rather counterproductive.

I'm not sure what disputes you're talking about. But the agencies are beginning to cooperate and all of them have said regional coordination is the next "big thing" they need to get involved in. Don't forget, NJ Transit and the MTA took over systems that had suffered decades of inadequate investment. Getting them into a state of good repair took years and billions of dollars to accomplish. That job is just being finished now.

Another problem is funding. If adequate funds were in place we'd already have Scranton-Hoboken passenger service. Both the Northeast Pennsylvania Rail Authority and NJ Transit are ready to do it. To cooperate on a bi-state operation to be jointly funded. The problem is they don't have the money.

The Port Authority got involved in PATH for a variety of reasons that had nothing to do with transit. "Empire on the Hudson" by Jameson Doig explores this in very well-researched book. The Port Authority is not a transit agency or a even a government agency. It's jurisdiction does not extend over the entire New York Metropolitan Area, it has no involvement at all in Connecticut. The PA can't just take on any project they want. They are privately funded through bond sales and have all kinds of restrictions on what they can do. Most of the bondholders are dead set against the PA taking on any additional role in transit since it doesn't produce income. By contract law the PA has to respect those wishes.

The other examples you cite, MetroLink and WMATA, came along years after New York's systems had been built. Originally, in the pre-auto era, NYCTA was prohibited from extending into the suburban areas outside the city as a way of controlling sprawl. That was a good reason at the time. Now deep into the auto era, transit is seen as a good way to control sprawl.

I think eventually we will see a regional agency, at least in terms of funding. Think about this. Would a super-agency be as responsive to local concerns as what we have now?

So are you saying that even in a damaged economy that the Port Authority would be willing to sell bonds to fund a seven line extension into New Jersey, and could even sell bonds for new Gateway Tunnels?

Thomas wrote:So are you saying that even in a damaged economy that the Port Authority would be willing to sell bonds to fund a seven line extension into New Jersey, and could even sell bonds for new Gateway Tunnels?

No! Mr. Meehan just said that the Port Authority doesn't want to take on any further role in transit because it's not profitable. Selling bonds for the 7 Hudson Yards extension and the Gateway project means that the Port Authority would be taking on a further role in transit...something they don't want to do.

Thomas wrote:So are you saying that even in a damaged economy that the Port Authority would be willing to sell bonds to fund a seven line extension into New Jersey, and could even sell bonds for new Gateway Tunnels?

You mean just as a way of providing funding? Without having any financial responsibility for subsidizing the service once running? Yes they could probably do that. After all they did provide over a billion dollars in funding for ARC.

I think they can do that as long as they don't get involved in operations. In the past the PA has acquired commuter MU cars to be leased to the MTA and transit buses to lease to NJ Transit. I'm not aware if they're still involved in that. There might've been a bondholder suit over it.

The PA has been, in the past, sued by bondholders over potential transit involvement. The bondholders contended that by trying to go "outside" the Port Authority's core mission -- to improve and coordinate the Port of New York -- the Authority would be taking on risks that were not envisioned when the bondholders bought PA bonds. In other words, the PA couldn't sell bonds on the basis it was a port authority and all of a sudden turn around and become a transit operator. The courts upheld the bondholders. One case went all the way to the US Supreme Court.

The PA sought to get around that by earmarking the transit-related bonds. The bondholders objected that no matter how they tried to separate the transit involvement it presented an overall risk to all PA investors. I think the courts upheld that too.

The bondholders even argued that the transit involvement was unfair as it would distract PA officials from their main mission.

However the PA did provide over a billion dollars for the ARC project so they obviously have some leeway. I don't recall if those were bonds, or an outright grant. I'm not sure how things have changed.

But lirr42 is correct, I'm sure. The PA won't be taking over NYCTA anytime soon!

It seems to me that whichever agency will be in charge and whereever the money will be coming from, it's problematical to get funding for transport expansion. Cases in point: A. Extending the Queensboro IRT just to WSY is costing huge money - and adding only 1 new station after plans for another were scrapped due to cost. B. Regarding the SAS - it's costing billions just to build a stub from 62nd Street to 105th Street, with only 3 new stations. And that with part of the tunneling in place since 1975. And it's dubious whether work on Phase II will ever start - even though part of the tunneling in already in place from the '70's and that it's separated from the end of Phase I by barely more space than where one of the promised stations should go.

But with Phase 2 of the Second Avenue Subway be a much more likely segment to get built? Also, which new project has a higher probability of being funded in the next MTA Capital Plan--Second Avenue Subway Phase 2 or the Seven Extension to Secaucus?

MTA Capital Construction may need to take a bit of a break till ESA gets finshed off,finsh off the 2nd Ave line as well
Then get South Ferry done. The budget is streached out real thin now
#7 to NJ is a pipe dream for now!

Tommy Meehan wrote:Only come to think of it, the idea of extending the IRT Flushing line to New Jersey goes back at least as far as the 1920s. The idea then was to bring all the steam-powered New Jersey commuter rail lines to a loop in the Meadowlands and build a terminal where riders would change to the IRT.

If you believe everything you read on nycsubway.org on of the plans floating around in the 1880s/90s was tunneling across Manhattan and to keep on going to New Jersey.