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

[FRN9]

Not only do those who live in NJ and wik in NYC pay taxes to NY and NYC, here's another thing to consider...

THEY DO NOT VOTE IN NY.

In essence, New York gets "free money" from people to whom they do NOT have to answer as there is NO representative from NJ on any NY city council or in Albany.

So the next time you think that 'benefitting' NJ commuters are for some "lazy dope", just remember - YOU are benefitting from HIS tax dollars without so much WHISPER on how to spend it. HE is subsidizing YOU and helping pay for YOUR fire, YOUR police, YOUR schools - but he leaves the city at quitting time.

That's the kind of parochial thinking that prevents things from getting done - an inability to see past one's own borders for the greater good. (Says the guy who lives in NH and works in MA so I see this every day)

If it weren't for the pedantic purists, we wouldn't have any entertainment. And those who are small minded can't help it. They probably never had exposure to bigger thinking when they were younger. We can feel good about ourselves for tolerating them.

[uzplayer]

This is a good idea. Obviously, there are many different things that need to be worked out on this arrangement. But this could have the potential to reduce congestion within the current tunnels. Of course, it still might be more of a band-aid to do this but something is better then nothing.

The only thing I would be concerned about is how the 7 Train will finally end up intersecting at Secaucus. The place is in the middle of a swamp. Are they proposing to use the work already done on the ARC to finally get there? Will it be above ground or truly underground when it hits New Jersey?

[NE2]

It's not like it will be the first swamp on the line (Flushing Meadows used to be one).

[Arlington]

It's not like it will be the first swamp on the line (Flushing Meadows used to be one).

Ah, but in 1936 you could fill in swamps. Today they're "wetlands"

I assume that they'll be required to have minimal footprint for any terminal (and probably restore wetlands elsewhere as an offset) which also means no Transit Oriented Development (indeed the Secaucus Transfer, despite its perfect rail-and-turnpike access has not spawned any...likely because its just too hard to build on wetlands today).

From a cost standpoint, it seems like you'd want to stay in tunnel from W23rd all the way to Secaucus, letting a tunnel-boring machine bypass any fights over abutters and wetlands, but then pop up for a surface station at the last minute.

[#5 - Dyre Ave]

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. The only thing really lacking there is a crosstown subway line. So to say the PATH doesn't do Midtown is incorrect.

If it's feasible to build a new crosstown PATH line around all of the existing subway, PATH, commuter rail and water tunnels, then I say that should be considered as an alternative to a 7 extension to Secaucus. My biggest concern, as a everyday 7 rider, is that the existing Manhattan platforms will get severely overcrowded with both Queens- and Jersey-bound commuters, especially if there's even just a slight delay. Also, due to width of the Steinway Tunnels, the 7 runs with smaller, narrower trains that may have a hard time coping with an even heavier passenger load. I'm not completely against extending the 7, but I just think they're going to have to find better ways of dealing with heavy crowds on that already-heavily used IRT line.

If the ultimate goal is to benefit both Secaucus and Hoboken, perhaps an L train extension should be considered. At least then, you'd have larger, wider trains and the L could finally have a much better place to turn trains than the current 8th Avenue station, which is failing miserably at doing that.

[Jeff Smith]

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.

[CLamb]

Wouldn't the entire subway system be subject to additional Federal regulations once a part of it crosses a state line?

[goodnightjohnwayne]

Kamen, many NJ residents pay NYS taxes since they work in NY.

Yes, but they're not paying property taxes in NYS, or sales taxes in NYS, or even the higher gas taxes in NYS. A lot of revenue and employment have been lost to NJ in recent decades.

They get a credit for the tax paid to NYS on their NJ income tax (it's called reciprocity).

If reciprocity ended, both NY and NJ would see higher income tax revenues without raising rates.

Bringing people from NJ to NY on subsidized transit on some level makes economic sense. They work there, eat there, shop there, etc.

It depends on who's paying for it. For NYS, there is a net outflow of revenues to NJ. Sure, much of the fault goes to taxing authorities in NYS. Consumers are simply motivated by economics. If lower gas taxes result in lower fuel prices in New Jersey, even with full service, why would any commuter want to pay more just to pump their own gas in NYS? High NYS taxes have caused an exodus to NJ, so why should NYS spend even more just to encourage more residents to flee to NJ?

[goodnightjohnwayne]

Not only do those who live in NJ and wik in NYC pay taxes to NY and NYC, here's another thing to consider...

THEY DO NOT VOTE IN NY.

In essence, New York gets "free money" from people to whom they do NOT have to answer as there is NO representative from NJ on any NY city council or in Albany.

So the next time you think that 'benefitting' NJ commuters are for some "lazy dope", just remember - YOU are benefitting from HIS tax dollars without so much WHISPER on how to spend it. HE is subsidizing YOU and helping pay for YOUR fire, YOUR police, YOUR schools - but he leaves the city at quitting time.

To put it another way, those NJ commuters are not paying property, sales or gas taxes in NYS. So yes, they might be paying income taxes, but there are other state and local taxes they aren't paying.

To New Yorkers who fund the MTA, it is a big deal. If the residents of NJ want to fund the MTA, in addition to NJT, then let them fund this tunnel to Secaucus with NJ taxpayer money.

[goodnightjohnwayne]

Well this forum is getting nationwide publicity by way of NPR:

The proposal set off fierce debates on online transit forums like SubChat.com and RailRoad.net, with many New York posters calling the idea a waste of money.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/stor ... =131466659

I think it's too soon for New Yorkers to dismiss this proposal as a "waste of money," since the details aren't fully known. In reality, it's impossible to surmise why Mayor Bloomberg has stepped forward after Governor Christie stepped back from a similar tunnel project. Similarly, we have yet to find out where the money would be coming from? Unless Bloomberg plans on self-funding in the same way that he won his most recent re-election, it's hard to imagine either Washington or Albany jumping in. Another mystery is the relatively small pricetag of $5.3 billion. If the ARC tunnel was advancing towards the tens of billions and stretching into the 2020s before it was cancelled, what makes Bloomberg think that this project is going to be any more attractive than the recently nixed dead-end tunnel to nowhere?

[Jeff Smith]

Partially my fault, and I see your points, GNJW, even if I don't concede them, but let's move on and discuss the transit aspects.

[Arlington]

what makes Bloomberg think that this project is going to be any more attractive than the recently nixed dead-end tunnel to nowhere?

7th Ave project does not require the construction of ARC's gigantic new 3-level, 4 platform, 6-track terminus deep deep under an active train station in the middle of manhattan, ARC's "doubling down" on rush-hour capacity into Penn probably amounted to $3b to $4b of the projects cost...cost which the #7 completely does away with

The elegance of the #7 is that it
1) Uses unused station and train capacity (in the current empty/backhaul direction from its current rushes)
2) Spreads the load over multiple stations
3) Delivers people to the places they actually work.
4) Goes from W23rd&11Ave (not congested like 34th&8th) and through places that are much easier to get to and cheaper for construction to be staged.

[keyboardkat]

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. The only thing really lacking there is a crosstown subway line. So to say the PATH doesn't do Midtown is incorrect.

If it's feasible to build a new crosstown PATH line around all of the existing subway, PATH, commuter rail and water tunnels, then I say that should be considered as an alternative to a 7 extension to Secaucus. My biggest concern, as a everyday 7 rider, is that the existing Manhattan platforms will get severely overcrowded with both Queens- and Jersey-bound commuters, especially if there's even just a slight delay. Also, due to width of the Steinway Tunnels, the 7 runs with smaller, narrower trains that may have a hard time coping with an even heavier passenger load. I'm not completely against extending the 7, but I just think they're going to have to find better ways of dealing with heavy crowds on that already-heavily used IRT line.

If the ultimate goal is to benefit both Secaucus and Hoboken, perhaps an L train extension should be considered. At least then, you'd have larger, wider trains and the L could finally have a much better place to turn trains than the current 8th Avenue station, which is failing miserably at doing that.

You know, when the Flushing line was originally built, it was built as a BMT line, with larger wider rolling stock. Perhaps the possibility of reverting to the IND-BMT configuration should be studied. Some station platforms would have to be cut back a bit, and the automatic train stop trippers would have to be relocated to the left side of the track instead of the right. Could larger cars make the curves closer in to Manhattan? If not, could this be resolved?

[#5 - Dyre Ave]

The Flushing line was not built as a BMT line. It was a joint BMT-IRT service that used IRT and BMT el cars, both of which were built to the narrower IRT dimensions. The IRT el service ran via the Queensboro Bridge. IRT Flushing service also used steel IRT subway cars (same length and width as the el cars, but not made with wood) the Steinway Tunnels to get to Times Square then as now. Those tunnels cannot accommodate BMT sized-cars so there is no way the Flushing Line can "revert to IND-BMT configuration." IND trains never ran on the Flushing. I would love for that to be the case, but new tunnels between Queens and Manhattan would have to be built to make that happen.

[NE2]

Eh, just build it like the 63rd Street Tunnel with an unused lower level. Then NJ Transit can move in in a couple decades