"What if" 9th st branch extended to Atlantic terminal?

Do you seriously think that these fantasy island expansions wouldn't be paid for by raising fares?

Take Frank's advice: it ain't happening ever. Just drop it, you just come off looking foolish.

Seriously, I have a ton of patience (I'm a high school teacher, it's a job requirement), but even I grow weary of the nonsensical posts.

OportRailfan wrote:It's been stated numerous times in this forum that the reason the failing/bankrupt H&M was taken over by the Port Authority was so that NJ would agree to let them build the world trade center in NY.

People have been quoting that Wikipedia article as the whole story for ages now.

Let me present some additional facts:

The Port Authority's "Study of the Hudson and Manhattan Railroad", which was formally commisioned in October, 1960 and released in January, 1961 says on page 2 "The Port Authority has long maintained that the H&M must be kept in operation. The railroad handles more than 31 million passengers annually; if it were to cease operations, trans-Hudson vehicular facilities would be incapable of handling the passenger load."

Regarding Hudson Terminal, it says on page 54 "We believe that with an accelerated modernization program in these buildings, a substantial net return on the operations of the buildings can be realized which would partially offset the anticipated losses from the railroad. It is believed that the buildings can be generally modernized, rehabilitated, and space leased at an increased average rental within three years after the Port Authority acquired the Hudson and Manhattan." (Underlining in original). "The buildings" refers to 30 and 50 Church St.

The NY Times of March 12, 1961 had an article titled "355 Million World Trade Center Backed by Port Authority Study" which sited the WTC along the East River. An earlier NY Times article of January 17, 1960 titled "A WORLD CENTER OF TRADE MAPPED OFF WALL STREET" confirms this.

The Port Authority needed something to be done with the H&M, and if neither state nor both states together was willing to do it, it had decided it would do it itself, well before there was any idea to move the WTC site.

Thanks for the assist, Terry.

Terry Kennedy wrote:

OportRailfan wrote:It's been stated numerous times in this forum that the reason the failing/bankrupt H&M was taken over by the Port Authority was so that NJ would agree to let them build the world trade center in NY.

People have been quoting that Wikipedia article as the whole story for ages now.

Let me present some additional facts:

The Port Authority's "Study of the Hudson and Manhattan Railroad", which was formally commisioned in October, 1960 and released in January, 1961 says on page 2 "The Port Authority has long maintained that the H&M must be kept in operation. The railroad handles more than 31 million passengers annually; if it were to cease operations, trans-Hudson vehicular facilities would be incapable of handling the passenger load."

Regarding Hudson Terminal, it says on page 54 "We believe that with an accelerated modernization program in these buildings, a substantial net return on the operations of the buildings can be realized which would partially offset the anticipated losses from the railroad. It is believed that the buildings can be generally modernized, rehabilitated, and space leased at an increased average rental within three years after the Port Authority acquired the Hudson and Manhattan." (Underlining in original). "The buildings" refers to 30 and 50 Church St.

The NY Times of March 12, 1961 had an article titled "355 Million World Trade Center Backed by Port Authority Study" which sited the WTC along the East River. An earlier NY Times article of January 17, 1960 titled "A WORLD CENTER OF TRADE MAPPED OFF WALL STREET" confirms this.

The Port Authority needed something to be done with the H&M, and if neither state nor both states together was willing to do it, it had decided it would do it itself, well before there was any idea to move the WTC site.

FWIW, it probably should be noted that the H&M had already been attempting to modernize the Hudson Terminal buildings for two years or so by that point (1960), and tenants were still moving out in droves.

To bring things back around to the expansion subject, it's interesting that one of the PA's proposals for the H&M back around that time was to build a new line from Hoboken to Secaucus. I believe it was actually authorized, but I don't know what became of the idea. Terry, do you know? And what was it supposed to connect with (if anything) in Secaucus?

JasW wrote:FWIW, it probably should be noted that the H&M had already been attempting to modernize the Hudson Terminal buildings for two years or so by that point (1960), and tenants were still moving out in droves.

Yes, this was noted in the study I mentioned. Of course, the H&M was bankrupt by then and the modernization consisted mostly of new wall, floor, and ceiling coverings in the hallways.

One of the largest tenants to leave was Western Electric, and they built their own skyscraper nearby (222 Broadway).

To bring things back around to the expansion subject, it's interesting that one of the PA's proposals for the H&M back around that time was to build a new line from Hoboken to Secaucus. I believe it was actually authorized, but I don't know what became of the idea. Terry, do you know? And what was it supposed to connect with (if anything) in Secaucus?

I haven't heard anything about that. The one that I know of was a plan to extend from Newark to Springfield. A number of PATH employees moved out there in the assumption that they'd be able to live in the 'burbs and still take the train to work. This would have been later on, though - late 60's?

Terry Kennedy wrote:

JasW wrote:To bring things back around to the expansion subject, it's interesting that one of the PA's proposals for the H&M back around that time was to build a new line from Hoboken to Secaucus. I believe it was actually authorized, but I don't know what became of the idea. Terry, do you know? And what was it supposed to connect with (if anything) in Secaucus?

I haven't heard anything about that. The one that I know of was a plan to extend from Newark to Springfield. A number of PATH employees moved out there in the assumption that they'd be able to live in the 'burbs and still take the train to work. This would have been later on, though - late 60's?

I found a couple of refrences to the Secaucus extension in the Times' archives -- here's one from Jan. 26, 1962. No mention after that year, though.

I have a dim recollection of a proposal to run PATH trains from Newark out to Summit on the Rahway Valley, which would've included Springfield. Also the airport. I can't recall if this was floated by a politician or the PA, though. It was around 1971 or so.

That would be one very, very very long ride on what is basically rapid transit equipment. Riding to citi field or coney island on a local for me is pushing it, i couldn't imagine riding from say 33rd to secaucus. That being said, i'm honestly all most glad they don't run to the airport from the city. Now, running just between newark penn & the rail link, that's fine, but going too off topical there.

I think for now, given the plan to expand new york penn, and extending the 7, i think GCT and new york to the airport are covered. I just really wish we could somehow bring a connection to atlantic terminal from journal square. I think it would just be a good idea to tie together new jersey with long island that isn't relying on NJT or the NEC. I mean even for just future emergencies, i say future because by the time this line could be hypothetically built, you'd have it be a popular cheaper alternative to the subway. If you need to get to the shore line (rail route) and for some reason you can't use the NEC, you could utilize the ferry at port jefferson or greenport.

This connection would have been great back when the LIRR's main service was connecting NYC with the ferries and service on to boston.

Atlantic Terminal ain't gonna happen, no many how many disgruntled Nets fans in NJ demand a connection there so they can travel by PATH to see their team after it has departed for Brooklyn.

Newark-WTC or Newark-33rd via JSQ is a considerably long run, certainly longer than any Secaucus-33rd via HOB would have been. But looking at the map accompanying the old Times article I linked above, what I can't understand is the need for the extension to Secaucus. The article describes the benefits of a transfer there -- indeed, it essentially describes what is now the Secaucus Transfer, with those on the Boonton and Bergen lines transferring to the PRR line into Manhattan. But why would anyone have gotten on a PATH to Hoboken at that point? If you were on the Boonton or Bergen line, you were already going to Hoboken. If you were on the PRR, you could have gotten off at Newark (or at the proposed Harrison connection described in the article) and taken PATH to Hudson Terminal (and you certainly wouldn't have cared about taking PATH to 33rd since you are already on a train headed to Penn Station).

Boy we have some thread drift here... but

To concur with Terry Kennedy post, The PA realized early on that the H&M could not be allowed to fail operationally as the impact on PA vehicle crosssings would be gridlock unheard of in the early 1960's.

{For example the 1980 PATH Labor Strike} A dedicated bus lane had to be established at the Holland Tunnel to bring bus riders into NYC to offset the loss of PATH. That was a severe hardship for the Porth Authority to manage both operationally and fianically.

The Port Authority Real Estate people knew the H&M Church St. property could be redeveloped into "prime commercial real estate". The power of Emiment Dominan is (was) a real tool the PA has that most public authoritys do not have.

The posting that relate to moving PATH west of Newark can be dvided into 3 seperate ideas.

1.) Moving to Newark Airport. Long term project that is considered viable and bantered about. Political and revenues have to mesh to make it a reality. WTC Redevelopment Project has to be complete before this will be on "front burner" again.

2.) PATH to Plainfield New Jersey. Considered in the mid 1970's, dropped due to money and operational concerns. Port Aurhoirty never was "truly" intrested.

3.) PATH to Morris County New Jersey. The most undeveloped of the three. PA visionary (and long term employee) Austin Tobin wanted to build a 4th major airport in Morris County. The idea was met with scathing resistance. I am guessing PATH was intially proposed as the mass transit option.

I'd never heard that the PA had any plans with the H&M in conjunction with the jetport debacle. At the time the PA was secretly planning the idea of the jetport in the Great Swamp, it was still at least a couple of years from even (publicly) considering taking over the H&M. Of course, given that it was planning the jetport in secret, it could have also been making other plans in secret. Still, I can't imagine how it would have extended the H&M out that far without building something entirely from scratch. The Chatham station on the M&E would have been the closest rail link, or perhaps Berkeley Heights or Gillette on the Gladstone Branch, and I believe the PA would have deemed that sufficient, if it thought about it at all. In that day and age, mass transit links to airports were not a much of consideration. They are still almost afterthoughts.

But Terry is right, there was definitely some noise -- he says late 60s, I think it was about '71 or so -- to extend PATH out to NW Union County, and I believe it was on the RVRR. I'm thinking it was a pol in the area, but it might have even been a commissioner on the PA board. (Too bad there aren't archives of the old Evening News online.) As I mentioned, I recall a Newark airport stop in the mix, but how that would have worked with the RVRR coming off (at Roselle Park) the LVRR mainline -- which runs through Weequahic Park on the west side of Route 22, nowhere near as close or convenient to the airport as the PRR and the current Air Link stop -- I don't know.

BTW, for those who couldn't access it, here is the map showing the extension to Secaucus (and the new Harrison connection) planned in 1962:

JasW wrote:I'But Terry is right, there was definitely some noise -- he says late 60s, I think it was about '71 or so -- to extend PATH out to NW Union County, and I believe it was on the RVRR. I'm thinking it was a pol in the area, but it might have even been a commissioner on the PA board. (Too bad there aren't archives of the old Evening News online.) As I mentioned, I recall a Newark airport stop in the mix, but how that would have worked with the RVRR coming off (at Roselle Park) the LVRR mainline -- which runs through Weequahic Park on the west side of Route 22, nowhere near as close or convenient to the airport as the PRR and the current Air Link stop -- I don't know.

BTW, for those who couldn't access it, here is the map showing the extension to Secaucus (and the new Harrison connection) planned in 1962:

For amusement value, here are some of the "what could have been" H&M drawings from pre-1914.

This first one has the as-built portions in yellow. You can see the diagonal tubes (in white, as un-built) coming across from Hudson Terminal and intersecting north of the Erie / Pavonia station. That's what the cross-section Scribner's Magazine view that nobody can figure out is showing. Those tunnel stubs now have signal and pump equipment in them. Also note that there's a provision to go straight, rather than left to Pavonia or right to Hoboken, in the junction when coming from 33rd St. There's also signal / power equipment on both levels there. That route (which would have remained in over/under trackage instead of side-by-side) would have headed west between 10th and 11th Streets, along with the un-built tracks from Hudson Terminal to Erie.


The red lines on this ones are ones that the H&M filed petitions for abandonment on (so they could get their security bonds back from the state). The interesting Branch No. 5 heading off the screen to the left) would have re-joined the existing line just west of Kennedy Blvd, bypassing Summit (now Journal Square) and of course Grove St. as well.

Terry Kennedy wrote:For amusement value, here are some of the "what could have been" H&M drawings from pre-1914.

This first one has the as-built portions in yellow. You can see the diagonal tubes (in white, as un-built) coming across from Hudson Terminal and intersecting north of the Erie / Pavonia station. That's what the cross-section Scribner's Magazine view that nobody can figure out is showing. Those tunnel stubs now have signal and pump equipment in them. Also note that there's a provision to go straight, rather than left to Pavonia or right to Hoboken, in the junction when coming from 33rd St. There's also signal / power equipment on both levels there. That route (which would have remained in over/under trackage instead of side-by-side) would have headed west between 10th and 11th Streets, along with the un-built tracks from Hudson Terminal to Erie.

That's odd, the Erie ran between 10th and 11th Streets -- how could the H&M have done so as well?

JasW wrote:

Terry Kennedy wrote:For amusement value, here are some of the "what could have been" H&M drawings from pre-1914.

This first one has the as-built portions in yellow. You can see the diagonal tubes (in white, as un-built) coming across from Hudson Terminal and intersecting north of the Erie / Pavonia station. That's what the cross-section Scribner's Magazine view that nobody can figure out is showing. Those tunnel stubs now have signal and pump equipment in them. Also note that there's a provision to go straight, rather than left to Pavonia or right to Hoboken, in the junction when coming from 33rd St. There's also signal / power equipment on both levels there. That route (which would have remained in over/under trackage instead of side-by-side) would have headed west between 10th and 11th Streets, along with the un-built tracks from Hudson Terminal to Erie.

That's odd, the Erie ran between 10th and 11th Streets -- how could the H&M have done so as well?

Underground, likely just below the surface using the iron ring construction as the area is brine saturated fill.

Just to clarify, this is strictly "what if", hypothetical, not based on anything but ideas. Doesn't matter if the PA has 300 billion in free cash laying around or not.

As for the trip to newark from wtc compared to a possible connection to secaucus (transfer station)... I see it being entirely redundant, especially with highway access as an option during any (unlikely) emergency system problems for PATH and NJT/amtrak at the sane time. As far as ride length, even if it is comparable distance, if something happens you're out in the middle of tidal wetlands. If you've ever seen those wetlands you'd be glad that dead NEC trains can be towed to newark.

HBLR wrote:

JasW wrote:

Terry Kennedy wrote:For amusement value, here are some of the "what could have been" H&M drawings from pre-1914.

This first one has the as-built portions in yellow. You can see the diagonal tubes (in white, as un-built) coming across from Hudson Terminal and intersecting north of the Erie / Pavonia station. That's what the cross-section Scribner's Magazine view that nobody can figure out is showing. Those tunnel stubs now have signal and pump equipment in them. Also note that there's a provision to go straight, rather than left to Pavonia or right to Hoboken, in the junction when coming from 33rd St. There's also signal / power equipment on both levels there. That route (which would have remained in over/under trackage instead of side-by-side) would have headed west between 10th and 11th Streets, along with the un-built tracks from Hudson Terminal to Erie.

That's odd, the Erie ran between 10th and 11th Streets -- how could the H&M have done so as well?

Underground, likely just below the surface using the iron ring construction as the area is brine saturated fill.

The H&M would have had to have bought the rights to tunnel underground there from the Erie, since the Erie owned the ROW.

I'd like to propose a slightly shorter extension of less than 1,000 feet from 9th street to Union Square. With that people would be able to transfer to the IRT and east side stops. Now from the realm of fantasy, let's not stop there but connect the PATH to the IRT and have the PATH trains run north to Grand Central or wherever. Neither idea mine but a combo of things I've seen people suggest elsewhere. But regardless you could at a much, much cheaper cost than ARC, Gateway or the 7 Train extension to Secaucus get people from NJ to the east side of Manhattan.

I'm not saying this eliminates the need for Gateway in particular but it would be much easier to construct.