It was reported that the extension would serve both Hoboken Terminal and Secaucus jct, great connectivity at both locations.
Railroad Forums
Moderator: GirlOnTheTrain
Roadgeek Adam wrote:7 to Secaucus in my opinion is a waste money. I know somewhere on else the 7 should be extended to in New York alone, my old NYC hometown of Whitestone. I may regret making that suggestion in 40 years, but it has absolutely no service. My mom when I was young had to take a bus to Flushing (including one time watching a gunfight in front of the bus stop) then take the 7. Oy. If I interpreted the proposals correctly, the Whitestone stopped proposed in 1929 would be right in front of where I lived.How would it be a waste? The problem, as seen by njt & others is the congestion @ the NEC tunnels due to increased patronage of the njt lines into NYC. If said patrons could transfer to #7 @ secaucus for a direct ride to the east side or other subway lines, it would significantly reduce the need for additional slots for njt @ Penn. It would also raise the importance of secaucus junction. SJ could become the busy station it was meant to be!!!!!! Don't crash a plane into my Pie In The Sky!
Tom V wrote:It was reported that the extension would serve both Hoboken Terminal and Secaucus jct, great connectivity at both locations.Have a link? WSJ article (and everything else I've read) said only Secaucus. Frankly the Hoboken Hudson Terminal gets you almost everything you're looking for as far as connectivity is concerned. If it were my $, I'd only go to Hudson Terminal initially and then leave options for a station in Manhattan at 10Ave/14St ('cause its on the way) and a later extension to Secaucus.
korbermeister wrote: It would also raise the importance of secaucus junction. SJ could become the busy station it was meant to be!!!!!! Don't crash a plane into my Pie In The Sky!The airspace over this forum is too crowded, you can not fly you pie here.
Tom V wrote:Serving both Hoboken and Secaucus would be terrific, it could use the Bergen arches to transit between Hoboken and Secaucus jct.Oh boy, the Bergen Arches! Now we're really in foamer fantasy land. Have any of you thought to consider the implications of running to Hoboken and also the Meadowlands? The PANYNJ won't be thrilled about losing revenue on PATH service to Hoboken and NJT sure won't like having to compete with a subway system from Hoboken to the Meadowlands. Not to mention the necessary fare restructuring, revenue sharing agreements, union negotiations, and policy changes which would have to been considered.
A 2 seat ride to get to Citi Field to watch the Mets lose.....NICE!Taking that idea to the next level, if the 7 train were to be extended to Secaucus it could then go all the Way to the Meadowlands. A high frequency/high capacity subway spur to the Meadowlands sports complex would better suite the mass exodus of of fans/spectators, the existing row through the complex could be converted to Subway standards. That would allow a one seat ride to the Stadium from Manhattan and Queens.
Frankly the Hoboken Hudson Terminal gets you almost everything you're looking for as far as connectivity is concerned.It gets you everything except a direct connection to NJ Transit's busiest line, the NEC. I too would prefer Hoboken Terminal as the transfer point for the 7 train and NJ Transit, however Secaucus jct might be better suited to facilitate such connections.
Tom V wrote:Right, but at this, a "Hoboken Only" plan isn't as inferior as it seems.Frankly the Hoboken Hudson Terminal gets you almost everything you're looking for as far as connectivity is concerned.It gets you everything except a direct connection to NJ Transit's busiest line, the NEC. I too would prefer Hoboken Terminal as the transfer point for the 7 train and NJ Transit, however Secaucus jct might be better suited to facilitate such connections.
Steve F45 wrote:why not just keep going up to the northern branch!The Northern Branch, heck why stop there, why not the Poconos?
Tommy Meehan wrote:But one sad fact is.....it would serve everybody except people riding the RVL. They'd still be looking at a four-seat ride to get to GCT.How's that? Couldn't you do RVL to Newark, connection to Secaucus, 7 to Grand Central?
Tommy Meehan wrote: They're the Rodney Dangerfields of NJ Transit ridership.Not they're not, it's us disenfranchised tomato farmers in South Jersey
Right, but at this, a "Hoboken Only" plan isn't as inferior as it seems.While the Suffern/Port Jervis lines do terminate at Hoboken, they stop at Secaucus jct first. It would be significantly quicker for commuters to transfer to the 7 train at Secaucus then to ride all the way to Hoboken to make the connection. Diverting NEC trains to Hoboken is not that simple, it would require significant invesment to the Waterfront connection. Right now only a handful of trains use the connection and they tend to crawl for the most part between Newark and Hoboken.
1) NEC is the busiest, but also the least in need of better connection to Manhattan, so the marginal loss of not connecting to it is smaller. Besides, its busiest in part because it gets to Manhattan where it connects with the Subway...bring the subway to Hoboken in "phase 1" and test how people's preference changes.
2) If NEC users want a Subway connection, "phase 2" could be to divert some NEC trains to Hoboken (at almost no capital cost, since current NJT trackage and electrification would support it.)
3) The Suffern/Port Jervis line only goes to Hoboken...This would benefit a lot of New York State folks.
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.