Railroad Forums 

Discussion relating to the past and present operations of the NYC Subway, PATH, and Staten Island Railway (SIRT).

Moderator: GirlOnTheTrain

 #872522  by Tom V
 
It was reported that the extension would serve both Hoboken Terminal and Secaucus jct, great connectivity at both locations.
 #872526  by Roadgeek Adam
 
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.
 #872532  by korbermeister
 
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!
 #872534  by Arlington
 
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.
 #872543  by cruiser939
 
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.

Secaucus Junction handles over 17,000 passengers a day. It's not exactly unused.
 #872544  by cruiser939
 
Tom V wrote:Serving both Hoboken and Secaucus would be terrific, it could use the Bergen arches to transit between Hoboken and Secaucus jct.
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.
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.
 #872578  by Tom V
 
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.
 #872594  by Arlington
 
Tom V wrote:
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.
Right, but at this, a "Hoboken Only" plan isn't as inferior as it seems.
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.
 #872638  by Tommy Meehan
 
Steve F45 wrote:why not just keep going up to the northern branch! :wink:
The Northern Branch, heck why stop there, why not the Poconos? :-D

Seriously, if the economy was booming and there was a real commitment to mass transit this idea would be irresistable. But the economy isn't booming and government still tries to cater to everybody........roads, airports, roads, trains.

This could boost ridership, get people to the East Side (wouldn't they have to triple track between -- at least -- Times Square and Grand Central and/or a Second Avenue station?), improve air quality, create quality jobs, boost development where we want development (in the CBD). It's such a good idea that it was first proposed by a government commission in 1925.

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.

They're the Rodney Dangerfields of NJ Transit ridership. :-)
 #872685  by NE2
 
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?
 #872707  by FRN9
 
Why not plan for more capacity to secaucus and terminate RVL there? Same could be true for other diesel service trains.
 #872764  by Patrick Boylan
 
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 :)
 #872767  by Tom V
 
Right, but at this, a "Hoboken Only" plan isn't as inferior as it seems.
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.
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.
 #872792  by Jeff Smith
 
I don't think enough details are known to understand the routing, other than it starts at 32nd or so. As for Hoboken; isn't that called PATH? That seems way out of the way to me.

I'd go direct accross right where it's at. If I had my druthers, I'd run it straight from 42nd accross, and skip Penn.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 29