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

R36 Combine Coach wrote:

Tommy Meehan wrote:Extending HBLR you don't have an NYCT connection. The train only goes to the West Side. At any rate the major problem with it is, none of the agnecies involved have proposed it.

Btw, there already is a large bus terminal at Secaucus, served by about ten routes.

SEC is a major rail hub (the former Erie lines to Bergen/Rockland counties meeting the Newark Division and Midtown Direct service, all NJT lines but ACL and RVL), but in terms of buses, only #2, 78, 129 and 329. #2 is a Jersey City local, #78 is a connector to Newark Penn Station intended mainly for the UPS terminal in Secaucus, #129 to PABT and #329 local shuttle to Harmon Cove (added after the Harmon Cove station on Bergen Line closed in 2003).

Exactly, it could be a major bus terminal, like port authority (which is what is envisioned with #7 service to Secaucus). Its true, the single seat is alluring, but so is the idea of a single seat ride for all of the HBLR commuters. Plus with the ride into Manhattan, there will be more riders than ever and more reasons to expand into abandoned rights of ways.

Perhaps both ideas are good and there can be economies of scale by connecting them together, like the 63rd street tunnel with the subway and LIRR.

Tommy Meehan wrote:The plan to extend the No. 7 service to Secaucus is primarily aimed at New Jersey bus riders not NJ Transit rail commuters.

Then why send it to Secaucus? Send it someplace the buses can get to more easily.

My concern is that once Bloomberg leaves office, that no political administration will be talking at all about the need to address trans-hudson capacity...

FRN9 wrote:Perhaps both ideas are good and there can be economies of scale by connecting them together, like the 63rd street tunnel with the subway and LIRR.

I see many problems with extending HBLR to PABT. At any rate it's not NY City Transit so I guess it belongs in the NJ Transit Light Rail forum. It really has nothing to do with the ongoing progress (or lack thereof) of the proposal to extend the NYCT No. 7 line to Secaucus.

Regardless, extending the 7 to Secaucus isn't an idea I came up with. It's been proposed by the City of New York and studied by the city, NJ Transit, PANYNJ and the MTA. Recently the NJ legislature's Transportation, Public Works and Independent Authorities Committee passed a resolution in support of the No. 7 extension.

I agree with the last post. I think Mayor Bloomberg wanted to get this project far enough along so by the time he leaves office it will be unstoppable. However, I don't think he succeeded. I think it may die on the vine because no one in a position of power will be pushing it.

Thomas wrote:But why are NJ Politicians more interested in investing in the Seven Subway Extension than the Gateway Project?

But here you claimed that NJ politicians are interested in both the 7 subway and Gateway, you said "why are", not "why would". And you never answered my question about what made you think they were interested in investing in either. A committee passing a resolution is not the same as investing.

Thomas wrote:My concern is that once Bloomberg leaves office, that no political administration will be talking at all about the need to address trans-hudson capacity...

Now you're claiming that Bloomberg's is the only administration talking at all about the need to address trans-hudson capacity.

How did you go from NJ interested in investing to no administration soon to be interested in even talking about it?

For somebody who asks a lot of questions, you sure don't answer many. Again, you previously said that NJ politicians are interested in investing in 7 extension, at least more so than they're interested in investing in Gateway. Unless you thought their Gateway interest was zero or negative, you must feel they're interested in investing in Gateway, just not as much as you feel they're interested in 7 extension.
Tommy Meehan agrees with your conclusion, but I don't remember where he ever said that he thought New Jersey was interested in the first place. Maybe he did say it, but I don't remember where.
So why do you now feel that NO POLITICIANS will be interested in any trans-hudson help, since you felt that New Jersey were interested?

Patrick Boylan wrote:...Tommy Meehan agrees with your conclusion, but I don't remember where he ever said that he thought New Jersey was interested in the first place?. ..

Are we still talking about the 7 extension? The NJ Legislature recently voted to support the plan and Christie has indicated he would support it and thinks it's a better plan than ARC.

I like this idea a heck of a lot better and here’s why: it would do what the ARC tunnel was originally supposed to do, which is to connect New Jersey with the East Side of Manhattan and that makes this project infinitely better than the ARC Tunnel. Secondly, we’re approaching this as a partnership, unlike the ARC tunnel. The ARC tunnel was a partnership just between the federal government and the state of New Jersey and the federal government was paying about 30 percent of the cost and New Jersey was paying about 70 percent. Here, we’re looking at this as a partnership between New Jersey, New York City, New York state and the federal government. Interview with Chrsi Christie two years ago

When Gateway was first announced -- I don't know about now -- Christie liked Gateway too. Gateway is Amtrak's tunnel but would accommodate a lot more NJ Transit trains. The 7 extension is transit and would appeal primarily to people living in eastern and northern Hudson County and people who can't afford or refuse to pay the steep monthly fares NJ Transit rail trains charge.

TRENTON — Gov. Chris Christie is "thrilled" with the new Gateway tunnel proposal for a trans-Hudson River rail line, but that doesn't mean he's ready to write a check with the money that was slated for the similar tunnel he canceled last year. Christie Feb. 2011

I don't see a conflict between supporting both plans. If capacity between New Jersey and New York is going to be expanded to accommodate future growth there has to be new infrastructure. Essentially the last capacity addition was the second (lower) deck on the George Washington Bridge in 1962. That's fifty years. For rail it was a century ago!

It may take years but I'm sure Amtrak will get Gateway built. The 7 extension I'm not too sure about.

But where has Christie shown any recent leadership regarding both types of trans-hudson plans?

Someone is going to really have to lobby to get Gateway or Seven Extension to Secaucus after Bloomberg leaves office...

Gateway has plenty of backers. It's a critical project for Amtrak.

The 7 train extension to Secaucus is going to have a tough time I think. Two years ago the New York Post reported:

Mayor Bloomberg is pushing forward with a proposal to extend the No. 7 train to New Jersey and get the project locked in before he leaves City Hall in two years, The Post has learned...Bloomberg’s enthusiasm grew in recent weeks after he saw the findings of a preliminary feasibility study from engineering firm Parsons Brinckerhoff....Officials in the Christie administration and the Port Authority are working with City Hall on the No. 7 concept, but insist that the mayor take the lead. Link

Sad to say I don't think Bloomberg was able to push it far enough along. I don't want to say it's dead but IMO the 7 extension is barely breathing.

Thomas wrote:Are we still talking about the 7 extension?

I'm talking about your prior statement, which I'll repost for the 3rd time

Thomas wrote:But why are NJ Politicians more interested in investing in the Seven Subway Extension than the Gateway Project?

I ask for the 3rd time, Why do you think NJ Politicians ARE INTERESTED IN INVESTING IN THE 7 subway? I haven't seen anything that shows they're interested in INVESTING in it. I haven't seen anything that says they're interested in INVESTING in Gateway either. Why do you think their supposed interest in investing is greater for 7 extension than it is for their supposed interest in investing in Gateway?

Thomas wrote:The NJ Legislature recently voted to support the plan and Christie has indicated he would support it and thinks it's a better plan than ARC.

I'll repeat this for the 3rd time: a COMMITTE, not the full legislature, passed a resolution supporting the 7 extension. I don't believe that's INVESTING, it's just legislative hot air, which is not even worth the paper it's printed on. Why do you conclude that they're investing?

Thomas wrote:

I like this idea a heck of a lot better and here’s why...

Nowhere here do I see where he said he'd INVEST in the 7 extension. I agree that he says it's better than ARC, but your quote doesn't mention anything about money.
In fact you then followed up with a quote that says he's not committing any money. You're again contradicting yourself, you said NJ's interested in investing in 7 extension, and that interest is greater than their interest in Gateway, yet you've shown testimony that doesn't indicate any investment, and here you're saying Christie would support Gateway, but quoted that he's not ready to put any money behind it/

Thomas wrote:

TRENTON — Gov. Chris Christie is "thrilled" with the new Gateway tunnel proposal for a trans-Hudson River rail line, but that doesn't mean he's ready to write a check with the money that was slated for the similar tunnel he canceled last year.
Christie Feb. 2011

Thomas wrote: I don't see a conflict between supporting both plans.

Neither do I, but I'm not the one who said NJ's MORE interested in investing in one over the other. I'm saying NJ hasn't shown ANY CONCRETE signs of investing in either of them, just words.

Thomas wrote: But where has Christie shown any recent leadership regarding both types of trans-hudson plans?

I don't see where Christie has shown any recent leadership regarding ANY trans-hudson plans. You're the one who said NJ's interested in investing in 7 extension and Gateway, and you said their 7 extension investment interest is greater than their Gateway interest.

I'm going to give up after this. I've asked you 3 times now to explain YOUR STATEMENT, and you haven't, instead you, who are famous for asking questions, have evaded mine. If you're not willing to answer a simple question about your statement, not someone else's, please don't take my future silence to mean I agree with you.

All I said at the time, though, was that I do not expect the Christie Administration taking the lead to determine new trans-hudson capacity once Bloomberg leaves office in January... (Christie is more focused on 2016 than he is on improving transportation capacity into NYC). Amtrak, NJ Transit, and even the Port Authority, will really have to lobby for financial backing of the Gateway Project (or Seven Extension to Secaucus).

Patrick Boylan's last post attributes to Thomas quotes that are actually mine. In fact one quote he attributes to Thomas is actually a quote of something Governor Chris Christie said.

I'm terribly sorry about that, and fall back on the lame excuse that I shouldn't post after my bedtime. When I have a chance I'll try to fix the quotes.

Pat it's no problem from my end.

But I do think the recent action by the legislative committee is interesting because it sounds like they still want this project, extending the 7 Line to Secaucus. I think you'd really have to be involved with the political process to know why the committee did this now. Perhaps they're signaling to De Blasio that they want the project to keep going forward? There's a lot of moderate-income people in Essex and Hudson Counties who would probably be better served by rail transit than by commuter rail or buses.

True it's only a resolution but it's too soon for the legislature to approve funding. There's no formal plan to fund. However, it's all part of the legislative process necessary to get to the point where there will be a formal proposal. I think it's pretty clear that persons in the legislature and Gov. Christie are interested in extending the 7 to Secaucus and have indicated they would fund their part of it. I don't know if they used the word invest but I don't see that as critical.

Can the TTF fund part of these projects? (It is my understanding that the this TTF expires in June of 2016).