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

[Arlington]

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.

I don't see this. What are your assumptions? Here are mine:

Routing:
- A straight line from W23rd to Secaucus Jct is about 4 miles but would have to be nearly 100% tunnel
- A tunnel from W23rd to Hoboken is 1.6 miles
- The surface route from Hoboken to Secaucus is 4 miles
- Adding Hoboken is only 1.6 miles out of the way (50%), and would involve half the tunneling (lower cost)
- I'm advocating either that the 7 go from W23rd to Hoboken only, or W23rd-Hoboken-Secaucus

Terminal time during transfer:
- I'm assuming that whether a rider transfers at Secaucus or Hoboken their walk & wait would be the same
- There's no reason for anyone to end a trip at Secaucus (100% transfer)
- Some trips can end at Hoboken (office development)
- Hoboken offers additional connections to PATH & HBLR
- Transfers are more likely to get an empty NJT seat at Hoboken (outbound) but would get an empty 7 seat at Secaucus (inbound)

Train Speeds
- Subway trains don't do higher speeds well (too many wheels/ too much vibration / bad seats / standees)
- Commuter rail would be faster and/or more comfortable for the 4 mile trip from Secaucus to Hoboken

[Arlington]

I don't think enough details are known to understand the routing, other than it starts at 32nd or so.

The tunnel (and eventually tail tracks) on the 7 extend to 26th Street. I assume it'd start there, and they'd leave space for a 23rdSt sta

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.

Hoboken offers PATH and Hudson-Bergen Light Rail (HBLR). PATH doensn't do midtown manhattan. The benefit here is NJ-to-Midtown, not just NJ-to-places south of 34th street (such as PATH and ARC offer/offered)

[Tommy Meehan]

How's that? Couldn't you do RVL to Newark, connection to Secaucus, 7 to Grand Central?

Okay yes, you're right. A three-seat ride. That's progress!

[Tom V]

Again transfering at Secaucus would be quicker because the Main/Bergen/PVL trains are stopping there anyway before continuing on to Hoboken. By the time those NJ Transit trains reach Hoboken a rider who transfered at Secaucus could already be on the 7 train, it has to be at least a 15-20 minute savings. Think about it, the NJ transit trains are stopping at Secaucus anyway. Before the NJ transit train even leaves the station to continue on to Hoboken someone connecting to the 7 train could already be on the escalator to the 7 train platform.

NJ Transit's own schedules list the time between Secaucus jct and Hoboken between 11 and 17 minutes, then add the connection at Hoboken.

[Jeff Smith]

Add'l stops = additional time in schedule.

Go direct from 26ht St as you point out to Secaucus. You get transfer there from all of NJT's lines, right? Including Hoboken bound? That's an assumption. I don't know about HBLR. In any case, the primary point is to get the highest number of passengers to the GCT area/east side. They can get to Penn, Hoboken, WTC already. Penn would only be served since the line already ends there.

[Arlington]

Add'l stops = additional time in schedule.
Go direct from 26ht St as you point out to Secaucus. You get transfer there from all of NJT's lines, right? Including Hoboken bound? That's an assumption. I don't know about HBLR. In any case, the primary point is to get the highest number of passengers to the GCT area/east side. They can get to Penn, Hoboken, WTC already. Penn would only be served since the line already ends there.

Ok, I'm sold on tunneling straight to Secaucus, with zero intermediate stops, and perhaps only the barest provision for one on the NJ shoreline in the (far) future to tie with HBLR.

The problem with Hoboken is that an excavated station below Hudson Terminal would eat up any savings from a shorter tunnel to get there.

Better to tunnel straight to Secaucus, beneath both city and wetland, and then be able to build an above-ground station snuggled up against the station there.

[Jeff Smith]

Arlington, some of what you say has merit; I just think the idea of the plan is to get folks to the GCT area. Yeah, Hoboken could use a run up to GCT no doubt, but that's not the area with capacity issues. The NEC is. This would be the NJ version of ESA.

I'm trying to remember what the original RPA vision was for mobility. Besides much of what we consider implausible these days (commuter rail running on subway tracks, conversion of lines from one mode to another, etc.), there was something about a loop if I recall. Now, the old main line now shuttle/"H" would not do, as it's not on the same level as the crosstown tracks at 59th.

My guess is the 7 is not on the level of the IND either (I recall it being very deep, both at TSQ and GCT), and in order to pass the IND and IRT to get over to the West Side.

Is the 7 deep enough that you could run a loop up to say 57th? Pure foam here, I realize.

[WaitinginSJ]

They're the Rodney Dangerfields of NJ Transit ridership.

Not they're not, it's us disenfranchised tomato farmers in South Jersey

HEY!! We grow other things too!

I think a better way of putting it is that we wish we were the Rodney Dangerfield of NJ Transit ridership, at least then we'd be on the radar.

Anyway, I doubt this will go through, mainly because it sounds too ludicrous and I agree that the PANYNJ will do all they can to block this.

[Ken W2KB]

They're the Rodney Dangerfields of NJ Transit ridership.

Not they're not, it's us disenfranchised tomato farmers in South Jersey

HEY!! We grow other things too!

I think a better way of putting it is that we wish we were the Rodney Dangerfield of NJ Transit ridership, at least then we'd be on the radar.

Anyway, I doubt this will go through, mainly because it sounds too ludicrous and I agree that the PANYNJ will do all they can to block this.

If the Governors of NJ and NY agree on it, the Port Authority has no say in the matter.

[Tom V]

Ok, I'm sold on tunneling straight to Secaucus, with zero intermediate stops, and perhaps only the barest provision for one on the NJ shoreline in the (far) future to tie with HBLR.

A stop at Lincoln harbor in Weehawken would provide a connection to the HBLRT, and it's directly in the path of a direct line between 24th street in Manhattan and Secaucus jct.

[Arlington]

Arlington, some of what you say has merit; I just think the idea of the plan is to get folks to the GCT area. Yeah, Hoboken could use a run up to GCT no doubt, but that's not the area with capacity issues. The NEC is. This would be the NJ version of ESA.

I think we're in violent agreement It is all about folks on NJT getting Midtown access in general and GCT area access in particular.

The 7, which runs deep beneath 42nd, is really quite ideal (except for center platforms that could get a bit crowded). It will absorb New Jerseyans off the NEC line and from all over the Subway system and divert them onto now-empty trains running in the "non-rush" direction, and then spread them across 4 stations, delivering them much closer to where they need to go.

ARC had two flaws:
1) needing to build a 4-level, 6 track, cavern as deep as the Statue of Liberty (it was over-sized because it assumed it was a dead end)
2) Being at Penn only (a place people can already get to, but which (increasingly) isn't their destination)

[cruiser939]

Why not plan for more capacity to secaucus and terminate RVL there? Same could be true for other diesel service trains.

You'll still face a capacity issue. In case you didn't realize, the same 2 track bottle neck under the Hudson River is present on the whole alignment from the East end of DOCK interlocking to PORTAL interlocking. Not too mention that Secaucus isn't designed to have trains terminating and turning at the platform...

[Jeff Smith]

LOL violently agreed to! I wonder how much the 7 extension as it is now will attract ridership FROM GCT to points west. I imagine there are shuttle riders who would love to avoid TSQ, even if it means a longer walk at Penn.

[Arlington]

I wonder how much the 7 extension as it is now will attract ridership FROM GCT to points west. I imagine there are shuttle riders who would love to avoid TSQ, even if it means a longer walk at Penn.

My guess is "some but not much" The 7 (even without a tunnel to NJ) will be the best way to go from GCT to the Convention Center and vice versa, but its interesting that the 7 is inferior to a two major routes it Parallels:
- The Shuttle is fast & frequent & nonstop & near the surface from TSq to GCT
- The NEC is fast & seated (but infrequent, crowded and bad for standees) from Penn to Secaucus

Its all the other combos that it excels:
5th Ave to Javits
Queens to Javits
Times Square to Javits

And if extended, strike Penn/Javits and put in "all points in NJ off the NEC"

[Kamen Rider]

#7 Extension is Superior to ARC in a number of ways:

1) Free Station Capacity: No cost for a giant subterranean terminal (as with ARC), because there will be 10 mid-town platforms already built (at 34th, 42nd, 5th Ave, and GCT), and will use those platforms on the "non-rush" side.

Sigh

GCT, 5th and TSQ are island stations. One platform, and most of the time already filled to the brim.

anf guess what, if this is added, they become "Double Rush" with inbound passngers on both sides.