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

But that would be a much more expensive tunnel. Also, where would you terminate NJT trains? It will be a lot more expensive than it already is to tunnel under Midtown 20 years from now.

Jeff Smith wrote:The L sounds like a good idea, and I believe is the only "isolated" line in the system, with no other connections with other lines except for perhaps a yard connection. Still, it's not "mid-town" however you define that.

I consider Midtown to run from 14th to 59th Street, although I do consider the Midtown CBD to run from 34th to 59th. That would put the 7 in a better position to serve it, in theory. In reality, it may have a tough time doing so with smaller trains and overcrowded platforms. There's not much that can be done about the trains themselves, but they may need to either widen the existing island platforms or build new auxiliary side platforms to deal with the potentially huge crowds the line will face.

#5 - Dyre Ave wrote:

Jeff Smith wrote:The L sounds like a good idea, and I believe is the only "isolated" line in the system, with no other connections with other lines except for perhaps a yard connection. Still, it's not "mid-town" however you define that.

I consider Midtown to run from 14th to 59th Street, although I do consider the Midtown CBD to run from 34th to 59th. That would put the 7 in a better position to serve it, in theory. In reality, it may have a tough time doing so with smaller trains and overcrowded platforms. There's not much that can be done about the trains themselves, but they may need to either widen the existing island platforms or build new auxiliary side platforms to deal with the potentially huge crowds the line will face.

The 7 may not be ideal, but it goes *directly* to where people want to be...the #1 and #2 and #18 stations in the system (Times Sq., GCT, 5thAve).

Meanwhile, the L is overbuilt for the locations it serves but that ends up speaking against its extension, not in favor.

Arlington wrote: 4) Once Phases 1 and 2 have been tried and fallen short, only then spend the extra billion or so for a grade-level route from Hoboken to Secaucus via the line (abandoned?) next to Pulaski Highway in Hoboken.

Where exactly is the Pulaski Highway in Hoboken?

If you're talking about the Pulaski Skyway which ends in Jersey City, then routing the 7 line extension parallel to it would not make sense.

Tom V wrote:Before the NJ transit train even leaves the station to continue on to Hoboken someone connecting to the 7 train could already be on the escalator to the 7 train platform.

You'd have to be a pretty quick runner for that to be the case. Additionally, just because you could be on the escalator doesn't mean that the train will leave as soon as you get on (or that it will even be there at all).

Tom V wrote:NJ Transit's own schedules list the time between Secaucus jct and Hoboken between 11 and 17 minutes, then add the connection at Hoboken.

Real running time is about 10 mins. Anything more than 12 mins is pure schedule padding.

cruiser939 wrote:

Arlington wrote: 4) Once Phases 1 and 2 have been tried and fallen short, only then spend the extra billion or so for a grade-level route from Hoboken to Secaucus via the line (abandoned?) next to Pulaski Highway in Hoboken.

Where exactly is the Pulaski Highway in Hoboken?
If you're talking about the Pulaski Skyway which ends in Jersey City, then routing the 7 line extension parallel to it would not make sense.

You're right (on a couple of levels):
1) It is "skyway" (and does have a rail ROW unused next to it)
2) My idea for a Hoboken line is a loser, not so much for the circuitous routing, but because it would require the construction of a deep, cavernous station that would cost too much

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.

Arlington wrote:

oknazevad wrote:

Arlington wrote:PATH doensn't do midtown manhattan. The benefit here is NJ-to-Midtown, not just NJ-to-places south of 34th street (such as PATH and ARC offer/offered)

I would consider the 33rd St PATH station as much Midtown as the one-block-away Penn Station. In fact, herald square is about as centered in Midtown as one gets, nearly as much as Times Square..[snip]... So to say the PATH doesn't do Midtown is incorrect.

When town is divided just Down/Mid/Up, you're right, because Mid goes from 14th to 59th, just like NYC Dept of Planning's Zone 5. (see http://www.nyc.gov/html/dcp/pdf/neighbor/neighbor.pdf). But when they put names on their zones, the planners don't back you up: they put Penn at a far south corner of "Midtown South"

Meanwhile, the official planners' "Midtown" is farther north, focused on an axis from Times Sq-Bryant Park-GCT. Wikipedia too: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Ma ... ghborhoods). Most say Penn best serves the Garment District and the Tenderloin. This view has Midtown between 40-59th St and 3rd-9th Ave

Ok, so you found some random maps that you think back up your claim, but still show Hearald Sq. as part of midtown. So what?

Herald Sq. is very much in midtown. You don't have to listen to the masses, but that's what they'll tell ya.

Arlington wrote:

cruiser939 wrote:

Arlington wrote: 4) Once Phases 1 and 2 have been tried and fallen short, only then spend the extra billion or so for a grade-level route from Hoboken to Secaucus via the line (abandoned?) next to Pulaski Highway in Hoboken.

Where exactly is the Pulaski Highway in Hoboken?
If you're talking about the Pulaski Skyway which ends in Jersey City, then routing the 7 line extension parallel to it would not make sense.

You're right (on a couple of levels):
1) It is "skyway" (and does have a rail ROW unused next to it)
2) My idea for a Hoboken line is a loser, not so much for the circuitous routing, but because it would require the construction of a deep, cavernous station that would cost too much

Where is there an unused rail ROW parallel to the Pulaski Skyway? It doesn't exist, trust me.

cruiser939 wrote: Where is there an unused rail ROW parallel to the Pulaski Skyway? It doesn't exist, trust me.

Between Palisade Blvd and JFK Highway, Hudson NJ. (just south and west of the line drawn here http://goo.gl/maps/BoPR )

That's the "Covered Roadway", Route 139, built before the Skyway. The abandoned right-of-way is the Bergen Arches. See here: http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=40.73 ... 6&layers=M

In any case this is rather off-topic for a Flushing Line extension, being rather far to the south.

NE2 wrote:... The abandoned right-of-way is the Bergen Arches. See here: http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=40.73 ... 6&layers=M
In any case this is rather off-topic for a Flushing Line extension, being rather far to the south.

Thanks! I suggested it originally for an alignment that would save a lot of $ on tunneling (only about 2 miles of tunnel from W24th/11Ave to Hudson Terminal, before 3.5 miles of surface running) versus 4 miles of nearly 100% tunnel in the "straight shot" alignment.

Arlington wrote:

cruiser939 wrote: Where is there an unused rail ROW parallel to the Pulaski Skyway? It doesn't exist, trust me.

Between Palisade Blvd and JFK Highway, Hudson NJ. (just south and west of the line drawn here http://goo.gl/maps/BoPR )

As NE2 said, that's not the Pulaski Skyway. I noticed that google maps calls it that so I can understand your confusion but it is indeed Rt. 139 aka "the covered roadway".

Using the Bergen Arches is a good way to mitigate tunneling but it angles away from Hoboken and eventually, in order to reach Hoboken Terminal, you're going to have to tunnel under Hoboken and have a deep station.

cruiser939 wrote:Using the Bergen Arches is a good way to mitigate tunneling but it angles away from Hoboken and eventually, in order to reach Hoboken Terminal, you're going to have to tunnel under Hoboken and have a deep station.

Right, which is why I've stopped promoting it if its a stop on the way to Secaucus..everything you save on tunnel, by tunneling only to Hudson terminal, you end up spending on a big underground station. It also would get opposition from NYC because a Hudson terminal would "drain" more office development out of Manhattan, while Secaucus can't because of the wetlands.

So for NYC's money, a tunnel all the way to a surface station in Secaucus is probably the best option.

For Jersey's money (assuming there was any, and could be with Tax Increment Financing) they should prefer to guarantee themselves a develop-able intermediate site with ties to HBLR and the shoreline

Arlington wrote:

cruiser939 wrote:Using the Bergen Arches is a good way to mitigate tunneling but it angles away from Hoboken and eventually, in order to reach Hoboken Terminal, you're going to have to tunnel under Hoboken and have a deep station.

Right, which is why I've stopped promoting it if its a stop on the way to Secaucus..everything you save on tunnel, by tunneling only to Hudson terminal, you end up spending on a big underground station. It also would get opposition from NYC because a Hudson terminal would "drain" more office development out of Manhattan, while Secaucus can't because of the wetlands.

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.