# Seven Subway Line



## Andrew

Folks,

Thoughts?!

http://www.railwayage.com/index.php/passenger/rapid-transit/nj-committee-subway-to-hoboken-ok-by-us.html?channel=62


----------



## Ryan

NJ can pass resolutions until they're blue in the face, but it takes money to build a railroad.

We'll see what their tune is when it comes time to answer the call for some dough.


----------



## AlanB

The MTA has many other things that they need to do with their money than to build a subway to NJ. The MTA is NYC's agency and charged with improving things for NYC; not NJ.

Not to mention that going to Secaucus Junction via Hoboken would be downright silly. Not only does PATH already serve Hoboken, meaning that we'd be duplicating service, but it would add time to the run to Secaucus Junction.


----------



## Andrew

I am under the impression that NYC would chip in for the Extension by issuing bonds--not the MTA--as is currently occurring with Seven Subway Extension from Times Square to the Javits Center.

My question is, though:

WHICH project better meets New Jersey's Future Travel Needs:

Seven Subway Extension to Secaucus Junction

OR

Gateway Project and why?!


----------



## MattW

Well at least it's better than that plan to create a new Hudson terminal. As I said in that thread, if you're going to tunnel to Hoboken anyways, it'd be better to extend the 7 than extend the commuter rail.


----------



## AlanB

Andrew said:


> I am under the impression that NYC would chip in for the Extension by issuing bonds--not the MTA--as is currently occurring with Seven Subway Extension from Times Square to the Javits Center.


You're under the wrong impression; sorry! Why would NYC want to pay to move New Jersey residents? NYC needs to worry about moving the people who live here in the city; not people who live in another state.



Andrew said:


> My question is, though:
> 
> WHICH project better meets New Jersey's Future Travel Needs:
> 
> Seven Subway Extension to Secaucus Junction
> 
> OR
> 
> Gateway Project and why?!


Gateway. It means more trains from NJ to NY, and no transfers needed.


----------



## Andrew

1. But, if new trans-hudson tunnels are bored, than NYC would benefit because of reduced congestion on Manhattan's streets...

2. Someone mentioned that if Seven to Secaucus gets built, than expensive property acquisition within Manhattan can be avoided. But, if the Gateway Project includes a Deep-Level Annex underneath Block 780, wouldn't this also avoid expensive property acquisition?


----------



## AlanB

Andrew said:


> 1. But, if new trans-hudson tunnels are bored, than NYC would benefit because of reduced congestion on Manhattan's streets...


NY could fix that problem by simply charging a congestion tax and would need to spend nothing.



Andrew said:


> 2. Someone mentioned that if Seven to Secaucus gets built, than expensive property acquisition within Manhattan can be avoided. But, if the Gateway Project includes a Deep-Level Annex underneath Block 780, wouldn't this also avoid expensive property acquisition?


Yes, I've no doubt that a 7 would avoid major property acquisition. Still doesn't make it a good choice. After all, Gateway isn't just about NJ. It is about Amtrak too. Amtrak doesn't stop in Secaucus, so it doesn't benefit from an extended #7 line. And NYC benefits more from a Gateway than it does from an extended 7.


----------



## jerichowhiskey

I would rather see a tunnel to Staten Island finished. They have been getting the shaft for a long time and you can argue that those residents could use better commuting options and rise in real estate values (which is the whole purpose of this NJ extension anyway) when people realize they don't have to take the ferry.


----------



## Andrew

AlanB said:


> Andrew said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. But, if new trans-hudson tunnels are bored, than NYC would benefit because of reduced congestion on Manhattan's streets...
> 
> 
> 
> NY could fix that problem by simply charging a congestion tax and would need to spend nothing.
> 
> 
> 
> Andrew said:
> 
> 
> 
> 2. Someone mentioned that if Seven to Secaucus gets built, than expensive property acquisition within Manhattan can be avoided. But, if the Gateway Project includes a Deep-Level Annex underneath Block 780, wouldn't this also avoid expensive property acquisition?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, I've no doubt that a 7 would avoid major property acquisition. Still doesn't make it a good choice. After all, Gateway isn't just about NJ. It is about Amtrak too. Amtrak doesn't stop in Secaucus, so it doesn't benefit from an extended #7 line. And NYC benefits more from a Gateway than it does from an extended 7.
Click to expand...

1. Then why is the Bloomberg Administration so fixated on the Seven Extension to Secaucus?

2. As for the Gateway Project, what do you think is more likely to occur: a Penn Station South Expansion directly to the south of the current Penn Station, or a Deep-Level Penn Station South?


----------



## AlanB

Andrew said:


> 1. Then why is the Bloomberg Administration so fixated on the Seven Extension to Secaucus?


They're not what I would call "fixated" on it. The think it would be a good idea, and it would. But not if it means that Gateway doesn't happen. And not if NYC has to pay for the whole thing, as well as the operating costs.

But NYC needs to first deal with finishing the Second Avenue subway, the full length Second Avenue subway from end to end of Manhattan. And they need to finish a few other projects, some of which haven't even been started yet.



Andrew said:


> 2. As for the Gateway Project, what do you think is more likely to occur: a Penn Station South Expansion directly to the south of the current Penn Station, or a Deep-Level Penn Station South?


I don't think about things like that at all. There is no point to worrying about something that will never be built until Gateway is funded.


----------



## jis

The deep level station is just not going to happen in our lifetimes, if ever unless the political alignments in the country change to become massively pro-rail, even more so than it has ever been in our entire history.. It is there as a visionary thing, and will happen in conjunction with the $160 billion HSR project some day maybe, not before that. So just forget about it. The only extension, if any, will be the upper level. Even the folks who present those slides agree with that position. But it is their job to articulate options and costs. The Gateway cost that is mentioned does not include the cost of the lower level extension at all.

As for 7 to NJ, it would appear that at present if NJ was asked to pitch in it would more likely pitch in for the subway extension than for Gateway. The reasons for that are complex, but primarily because a subway extension is viewed as less risky, less expensive and less expensive to operate. But these are things that change pretty dynamically. So one can never tell what will actually happen when it happens. Suffice it to say that if any extension of a subway line to NJ happens it will be substantially if not entirely funded by NJ both for construction and operation.

Some of us are trying to keep all options on the table since we have no idea how the winds will blow and would like to have options to jump on when an opportunity permits.


And then there is of course the MagLev!  :help:


----------



## Andrew

Lolz, Maglev...

1. I worry, though, that people who are very supportive of the Gateway Project are actually very anti-Amtrak. In other words, these politicians trust that MTA would do a better job of improving service into Manhattan instead of Amtrak... I am also concerned that the Seven Subway Line will not carry as many people as the "128,000" prediction...Thus, how do we know that it is a good use of taxpayers money?

2. Is there any way that the Gateway Project Upper Level Option for Block 780 gets constructed Without tearing down the entire block?


----------



## jis

Andrew said:


> Lolz, Maglev...
> 
> 1. I worry, though, that people who are very supportive of the Gateway Project are actually very anti-Amtrak. In other words, these politicians trust that MTA would do a better job of improving service into Manhattan instead of Amtrak... I am also concerned that the Seven Subway Line will not carry as many people as the "128,000" prediction...Thus, how do we know that it is a good use of taxpayers money?


That numbers and "taxpayer money" game is a dangerous game to play since what is good for the goose is good for the gander. So what makes you think that Amtrak's Gateway number will materialize any more than any other project's? Afterall both projects are being consulted on by the same folks. Frankly there are already so many people quite convinced that throwing any money at any rail project is inappropriate use of taxpayers money, I think it is kind of silly to now start the same destructive argument within the rail supporter community pitching one project against another.

Amtrak is not designed to handle the sort of traffic that MTA handles. So it would stand to reason that MTA (or NJTransit) would do a better job at doing what its primary mission is and is not Amtrak's primary mission - local transit. Why is that so surprising? I have not heard anyone say that Amtrak should get into local transit business, and Amtrak itself has worked hard to remove itself from such in the New York area, by reducing the number of local stops etc., and that is fine.

I don't think even Amtrak will argue that they will do a better job of providing trans-Hudson local service than the various local transit agencies.

I am not sure where you get the idea that people who are supportive of Gateway Project are anti-Amtrak. And indeed there are many pro-Amtrak people who think that Amtrak should be given the freedom to develop true world quality regional corridor service without loading it down with responsibilities of handling local traffic any more than absolutely necessary.

What Gateway does is a good job of separating NJT traffic from Amtrak through traffic. It does not follow that it addresses the entire Trans-Hudson capacity problem.



> 2. Is there any way that the Gateway Project Upper Level Option for Block 780 gets constructed Without tearing down the entire block?


Not according to current plans.

According to current plans the tunnels and the NYPS South extension happens as a package. The project at present is not structured as two separate projects.

Here are some additional facts to consider.... The congestion problem in Lincoln Tunnel, GWB and PABT is far more severe than anything in Penn Station. This is relevant because as far as trans-Hudson local traffic goes, NJT Bus Operation carries more people each day across the Hudson than Amtrak and NJT Rail Operations combined. Any solution that does not bring significant relief to bus operations is only half a solution. Gateway does not even start to address the bus operations issues. This is one of the other complex reasons why there is interest in extending subway to NJ irrespective of Gateway.

In this context merely building something to Hoboken is also not a comprehensive solution. The bus traffic needs to be intercepted and transferred to rail before it gets to the Hudson County congestion. Secaucus is ideally located for that. Even after building Gateway there will not be enough capacity at Penn Station to absorb the current bus traffic and its projected growth.

Early diagrams of Gateway showed a 7 extension to Penn Station. The reason for that is the realization that Penn Station does not have the wherewithal to disperse the Gateway Tunnel borne traffic that will show up at Penn Station without adding significant subway capacity. Well, for various reasons the 7 to Penn Station is history. So it would be even more foolhardy now to dump a cartload of additional local traffic onto Penn Station beyond what is already planned by Gateway. Hence even if Gateway could get all the trains into Penn Station, beyond a point it won;t be able to handle and disperse the arriving local passengers in a timely fashion. At present there is not a single additional turnstile planned at 34th St on 7th or 8th Ave to handle the additional local traffic. Basically Penn Station needs to be relieved of foot traffic that it cannot handle. LIRR is doing its bit by moving some to GCT straight to a core employment district. NJ will need to figure out a way to do something similar.

So conclusion from this is that Gateway is a very good project which addresses Regionals concerns with some accommodation for local trans-Hudson traffic. But it comes nowhere near addressing the local trans-Hudson traffic needs. Hence irrespective of what becomes of Gateway NJ and NY need to look at additional alternatives to capture trans-Hudson traffic outside Hudson County congestion and be able to disperse them to multiple points within the Manhattan/Queens employment districts, and likewise be able to transport westbound traffic to Hoboken - Jersey City and Newark employment districts. One possible way to address that is 7 to Seaucus. There are of course other possibilities too.

But to claim that Gateway or 7 to Secaucus are an either/or proposition is to at least suggest a profound lack of understanding of the overall traffic flow problem that we face across the Hudson.


----------



## Andrew

1. First of all, I made an honest mistake. (I meant to say that politicians who are more supportive of the Seven Extension to Secaucus do not trust Amtrak with adding additional capacity into Manhattan). Perhaps Bloomberg and Christie think this?

2. If I am understanding you correctly, both Gateway and Seven to Secaucus would significantly improve trans-hudson capacity--but that Seven to Secaucus is better?

3. If this is the case, what makes you so convinced that commuters would be happy transferring from bus to subway in Secaucus, NJ? (The reason why I ask is because I almost believe that it makes sense to build a bus garage on top of the PABT to reduce congestion within the Lincoln Tunnel).

4. As for the Gateway Project, what is the estimated cost including property acquisition within Block 780?


----------



## jis

Andrew said:


> 1. First of all, I made an honest mistake. (I meant to say that politicians who are more supportive of the Seven Extension to Secaucus do not trust Amtrak with adding additional capacity into Manhattan). Perhaps Bloomberg and Christie think this?
> 
> 2. If I am understanding you correctly, both Gateway and Seven to Secaucus would significantly improve trans-hudson capacity--but that Seven to Secaucus is better?


No you did not understand me correctly! I did not say that. I said both are necessary and serve different purposes. You can keep trying every which way, but you will not get an unequivocal choice for one or the other from me. Such would be based IMHO on factors that have more to do with emotion than facts.


> 3. If this is the case, what makes you so convinced that commuters would be happy transferring from bus to subway in Secaucus, NJ? (The reason why I ask is because I almost believe that it makes sense to build a bus garage on top of the PABT to reduce congestion within the Lincoln Tunnel).


Building bus garage is not going to increase capacity of the tunnels. Any day one would prefer not to sit in buses for 30min to an hour stuck in traffic, which is the projection for where the bus traffic to PABT is headed. Remember most of them have to transfer to a subway at PABT anyway. So it is just a question of where you transfer. There is nothing holy about being able to transfer to a subway only in Manhattan. Also it is not like all bus service will cease. There will just be more choices of routing and transfers.


> 4. As for the Gateway Project, what is the estimated cost including property acquisition within Block 780?


Somewhere between $15 billion and $18 billion according to one estimate. It all depends on what one considers to be part of Gateway and what is not. Currently all components between NYP and NWK are generally considered to be part of Gateway. It will take a bit more than chump change to get the whole thing built. It also depends on what real estate will actually cost. Remember that is what primarily sank ARC, since they overran that budget even before any significant shovel was put into the ground. And that scared the heck out of people who would have to come up with the money to cover the cost overruns namely NJ State.


----------



## Andrew

1. I still do not understand why the proposed Seven to Secaucus does not include a station near Palisades Avenue?

2. The Seven Extension to the Javits Center is expected to open in 2014, and Amtrak's Tunnel Box is currently under construction beneath Hudson Yards. How likely is it that we get a decision on which Project gets the green light for construction over the next few years?


----------



## jis

1. It should.

2. Dunno


----------



## Andrew

Suppose that the Seven Extension to Secaucus gets chosen--would Amtrak's Board complain to the Fed's about funding the Project?


----------



## Ryan

Why do you think that they would?


----------



## Andrew

RyanS said:


> Why do you think that they would?



Perhaps Amtrak would assume that if the Seven Subway Extension gets chosen for federal funding, that it would delay construction of the Gateway Project for several decades?


----------



## afigg

Andrew said:


> Suppose that the Seven Extension to Secaucus gets chosen--would Amtrak's Board complain to the Fed's about funding the Project?


Who would "choose" the 7 line extension to Secaucus in that scenario? Let's be realistic. The 7 extension to NJ has had only 1 simple feasibility study done so far. Before such an extension to NJ would get get funded, it probably has a decade or longer of alternative route analysis, down selection, NEPA, PE, numerous public meetings, many questions of fiscal and operating responsibility to settle, and some serious bureaucratic turf wars ahead of it. We do not build major transit infrastructure projects quickly in the US. It takes a LONG time before construction even starts. Besides, with Bloomberg leaving office, who would fund and support the studies? The MTA has no apparent interest at this time because their plate is full for the next decade with ESA, Second Avenue Subway, system modernization, repair and flood prevention efforts from Sandy.

The Gateway project is much further along in the process of NEPA and PE, conceptual design because it is built on the many years of development for the ARC project. By Gateway, I mean the core project: 2 new tunnels under the Hudson with 2 new tracks to the south Portal bridge to create a 4 track line from Newark to NYP. Penn Station South is a future phase which may never get built as it would be for NJT. Maybe in 10-15 years, NJT would decide to support a 7 extension to Secaucus instead of Penn South.


----------



## jis

Gateway Project has no NEPA process in place. It has had a conceptual design and engineering done in addition to the Tunnel Box. nothing more. It cannot use of the ARC NEPA because the routing is different. The only NEPA that has happened is for the Tunnel Box, nothing else. The process has not started yet and is yet to be funded. So let us not get ahead of ourselves here. To keep claiming that Gateway is built on ARC, at least the tunnel part, is simply untrue. Specific question on that matter to the Chief Engineer has been answered in the negative. The previous work is being used for Portal Bridge, and that was not part of ARC.

NJT does not decide anything. NJ State does, if anyone does. And the agency involved may very well be PATH and not NJT.

Anyway all this is speculation so far afield that we could be spinning whatever story.

I don't think that the design team of Gateway thinks that Penn Station South is a future phase. Even last week at the NYMTC presentation on Gateway it was mentioned that they would not build the tunnels if Penn Station South is not built. They could not justify the cost of the tunnel without Penn South. That has been the position of the Gateway designers all along. Now of course things could change, but that is the current situation as far as we were informed by the presenter.


----------



## Andrew

1. What does NYMTC stand for?

2. Isn't true that Amtrak was planning on giving out an "Engineering and environmental review package for the proposed tunnels within FY 2014?"

3. To save time on the engineering contracts, can Amtrak give out engineering contracts to the same companies that originally worked on ARC?


----------



## Trogdor

Andrew said:


> 1. What does NYMTC stand for?


This link will give you info on NYMTC.


----------



## Andrew

jis said:


> Gateway Project has no NEPA process in place. It has had a conceptual design and engineering done in addition to the Tunnel Box. nothing more. It cannot use of the ARC NEPA because the routing is different. The only NEPA that has happened is for the Tunnel Box, nothing else. The process has not started yet and is yet to be funded. So let us not get ahead of ourselves here. To keep claiming that Gateway is built on ARC, at least the tunnel part, is simply untrue. Specific question on that matter to the Chief Engineer has been answered in the negative. The previous work is being used for Portal Bridge, and that was not part of ARC.
> 
> NJT does not decide anything. NJ State does, if anyone does. And the agency involved may very well be PATH and not NJT.
> 
> Anyway all this is speculation so far afield that we could be spinning whatever story.
> 
> I don't think that the design team of Gateway thinks that Penn Station South is a future phase. Even last week at the NYMTC presentation on Gateway it was mentioned that they would not build the tunnels if Penn Station South is not built. They could not justify the cost of the tunnel without Penn South. That has been the position of the Gateway designers all along. Now of course things could change, but that is the current situation as far as we were informed by the presenter.



1. Would the new De Blasio Administration support Seven Extension to Secaucus or Amtrak's Gateway Project?

2. Are you saying that if Penn Station South can not be acquired, than Seven Extension to Secaucus will be the solution to properly deal with Trans-Hudson Congestion?


----------



## jis

1. I don't know

2. No


----------



## Andrew

1. But, since Amtrak's Tunnel Box is currently under construction, does that mean that Gateway will probably get constructed before Seven to Secaucus?

2. In my opinion, bus riders to the PABT still have a good way to get to the East Side by transferring to the Shuttle or Seven Subway, or by taking the E train to East 53rd street; this is why I am more supportive of Gateway than I am of Seven Extension to Secaucus.


----------



## Ryan

1. Who knows.

2. Ok?


----------



## AlanB

_Second Avenue Sagas_, 11/29/13:



> Symbolic support from New Jersey for a 7 line extension
> 
> As Mayor Bloomberg’s last month in office dawns upon us this weekend, the plans to send the 7 train to New Jersey will likely exit the political arena along with hizzoner. Despite some feasibility studies, the proposal hasn’t generated much support from others on our side of the Hudson River, and the MTA has bigger, New York-centric fish to fry.


More here.


----------



## Andrew

Would this mean that once Bloomberg leaves in January, that NYC will likely focus more on Amtrak's Gateway Project?


----------



## jis

I can almost bet NYC won't focus on anything to do with Gateway for a long time, if ever. It will focus on what is already on their plate. ESA and SAS will take priority over everything. After the current SAS segment is completed there will be demand for completing the downtown segment. Also, I would not expect NYC to do anything about Gateway if at all. It would actually be amazing if it even comes around to funding the rest of Moynihan, which is not part of Gateway. But they are way more likely to do that than get involved in Gateway.

For the same reason that NJ is ambivalent about Gateway, NYC is even more ambivalent about it, just like they were with ARC. There is really not much in it for NYC directly, though indirectly it is a huge boon for it potentially. But for now at best it is a New York State matter as part of the overall NEC Commission related funding. LIRR's involvement as 50% operator of NYPS will remain in place, and MTA's involvement in NYPS will be limited to how to get Hudson and New Haven Line trains into NYPS. Rest of it - read all of Gateway - will primarily be for Amtrak and NJT to figure out.

In summary it is going to be a long and hard slog to get Gateway done. But the guys working the Gateway (who I personally know and have a lot of admiration for) are very capable and diligent guys and they will keep slogging at it. However, even there, the priority for the Amtrak guy who is in charge at present is roughly speaking in the order NJ HSR, Portal Bridge, and then Secaucus to NYPS + NYPS expansion. I would not expect NEPA work to begin until about 2015 at the earliest (optimistically). The rest happens after that.

This is not to say that it will be any easier to get any other alternative scheme done either. And as Alan has pointed out, any other scheme does not have a team or a person assigned to it yet either. I say any other scheme, because there are three different 7 to NJ schemes, and one mainline from Hoboken to Manhattan scheme kicking around, if you eliminate the one about light rail through Lincoln Tunnel + 42nd St Light Rail thing.

Anyhow, some might find this article interesting and informative:

http://mobile.philly.com/business/?wss=/philly/business/transportation/&id=233687561


----------



## Andrew

1.



jis said:


> I can almost bet NYC won't focus on anything to do with Gateway for a long time, if ever. It will focus on what is already on their plate. ESA and SAS will take priority over everything. After the current SAS segment is completed there will be demand for completing the downtown segment. Also, I would not expect NYC to do anything about Gateway if at all. It would actually be amazing if it even comes around to funding the rest of Moynihan, which is not part of Gateway. But they are way more likely to do that than get involved in Gateway.
> 
> For the same reason that NJ is ambivalent about Gateway, NYC is even more ambivalent about it, just like they were with ARC. There is really not much in it for NYC directly, though indirectly it is a huge boon for it potentially. But for now at best it is a New York State matter as part of the overall NEC Commission related funding. LIRR's involvement as 50% operator of NYPS will remain in place, and MTA's involvement in NYPS will be limited to how to get Hudson and New Haven Line trains into NYPS. Rest of it - read all of Gateway - will primarily be for Amtrak and NJT to figure out.
> 
> In summary it is going to be a long and hard slog to get Gateway done. But the guys working the Gateway (who I personally know and have a lot of admiration for) are very capable and diligent guys and they will keep slogging at it. However, even there, the priority for the Amtrak guy who is in charge at present is roughly speaking in the order NJ HSR, Portal Bridge, and then Secaucus to NYPS + NYPS expansion. I would not expect NEPA work to begin until about 2015 at the earliest (optimistically). The rest happens after that.
> 
> This is not to say that it will be any easier to get any other alternative scheme done either. And as Alan has pointed out, any other scheme does not have a team or a person assigned to it yet either. I say any other scheme, because there are three different 7 to NJ schemes, and one mainline from Hoboken to Manhattan scheme kicking around, if you eliminate the one about light rail through Lincoln Tunnel + 42nd St Light Rail thing.
> 
> Anyhow, some might find this article interesting and informative:
> 
> http://mobile.philly.com/business/?wss=/philly/business/transportation/&id=233687561





jis said:


> I can almost bet NYC won't focus on anything to do with Gateway for a long time, if ever. It will focus on what is already on their plate. ESA and SAS will take priority over everything. After the current SAS segment is completed there will be demand for completing the downtown segment. Also, I would not expect NYC to do anything about Gateway if at all. It would actually be amazing if it even comes around to funding the rest of Moynihan, which is not part of Gateway. But they are way more likely to do that than get involved in Gateway.
> 
> For the same reason that NJ is ambivalent about Gateway, NYC is even more ambivalent about it, just like they were with ARC. There is really not much in it for NYC directly, though indirectly it is a huge boon for it potentially. But for now at best it is a New York State matter as part of the overall NEC Commission related funding. LIRR's involvement as 50% operator of NYPS will remain in place, and MTA's involvement in NYPS will be limited to how to get Hudson and New Haven Line trains into NYPS. Rest of it - read all of Gateway - will primarily be for Amtrak and NJT to figure out.
> 
> In summary it is going to be a long and hard slog to get Gateway done. But the guys working the Gateway (who I personally know and have a lot of admiration for) are very capable and diligent guys and they will keep slogging at it. However, even there, the priority for the Amtrak guy who is in charge at present is roughly speaking in the order NJ HSR, Portal Bridge, and then Secaucus to NYPS + NYPS expansion. I would not expect NEPA work to begin until about 2015 at the earliest (optimistically). The rest happens after that.
> 
> This is not to say that it will be any easier to get any other alternative scheme done either. And as Alan has pointed out, any other scheme does not have a team or a person assigned to it yet either. I say any other scheme, because there are three different 7 to NJ schemes, and one mainline from Hoboken to Manhattan scheme kicking around, if you eliminate the one about light rail through Lincoln Tunnel + 42nd St Light Rail thing.
> 
> Anyhow, some might find this article interesting and informative:
> 
> http://mobile.philly.com/business/?wss=/philly/business/transportation/&id=233687561


1. But wasn't it true that Amtrak recently awarded some engineering Gateway Contracts to AECOM and Parsons Brinckerhoff?

2. If NYC won't fund Gateway, than how can Amtrak realistically receive so much funding from the Federal Government and the Port Authority?


----------



## Tokkyu40

> AlanB-"Why would NYC want to pay to move New Jersey residents?"


Because northern New Jersey has become a suburb of NYC. A large number of workers live in Jersey and commute across the river, so New York has a vested interest to see that they can get to work reliably and efficiently.

I see either of these projects as a joint operation of the two states. Although coordinating two transit authorities might be difficult, considering how hard it is to get one bureaucracy to work with itself.


----------



## AlanB

Tokkyu40 said:


> AlanB-"Why would NYC want to pay to move New Jersey residents?"
> 
> 
> 
> Because northern New Jersey has become a suburb of NYC. A large number of workers live in Jersey and commute across the river, so New York has a vested interest to see that they can get to work reliably and efficiently.
> 
> I see either of these projects as a joint operation of the two states. Although coordinating two transit authorities might be difficult, considering how hard it is to get one bureaucracy to work with itself.
Click to expand...

Until those living in NNJ pay all their taxes to NY State & City, NY has no interest in seeing that they can get here to work. NY State & NY City would be better off if they could get more people from Long Island, Westchester, Rockland, etc., to come into the city to take those jobs that people in NNJ currently have. So unless NNJ decides to succeed from NJ and join NY State, something I think highly unlikely, again NY really has no interest in making things better and easier for NJ residents to take their taxes across the river.

This is not to say that NYC's MTA wouldn't run #7 service to NJ provided that NJ pays 100% of the costs to operate it. And while you might get some help building such an extension from NY, I wouldn't expect much help. In fact, technically NY was contributing nothing towards ARC. Yes, via the Port Authority, NY State was sort of helping out. But not directly. But NY has much bigger things that it needs to be doing for it's own residents before it worries about helping out NJ residents.


----------



## Bob Dylan

That'll Teach People to Live in Jersey and Sponge Off New York and the Apple!  Let 'em Walk or Drive to the City Or Move to New York! :lol:


----------



## Andrew

AlanB said:


> Tokkyu40 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AlanB-"Why would NYC want to pay to move New Jersey residents?"
> 
> 
> 
> Because northern New Jersey has become a suburb of NYC. A large number of workers live in Jersey and commute across the river, so New York has a vested interest to see that they can get to work reliably and efficiently.
> 
> I see either of these projects as a joint operation of the two states. Although coordinating two transit authorities might be difficult, considering how hard it is to get one bureaucracy to work with itself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Until those living in NNJ pay all their taxes to NY State & City, NY has no interest in seeing that they can get here to work. NY State & NY City would be better off if they could get more people from Long Island, Westchester, Rockland, etc., to come into the city to take those jobs that people in NNJ currently have. So unless NNJ decides to succeed from NJ and join NY State, something I think highly unlikely, again NY really has no interest in making things better and easier for NJ residents to take their taxes across the river.
> 
> This is not to say that NYC's MTA wouldn't run #7 service to NJ provided that NJ pays 100% of the costs to operate it. And while you might get some help building such an extension from NY, I wouldn't expect much help. In fact, technically NY was contributing nothing towards ARC. Yes, via the Port Authority, NY State was sort of helping out. But not directly. But NY has much bigger things that it needs to be doing for it's own residents before it worries about helping out NJ residents.
Click to expand...


I disagree. Improving Trans-Hudson Rail Capacity is also NY's responsibility. Whether it's building the Gateway Project or Seven Extension to Secaucus, both NY and NJ are in this together. However, if nothing gets done, I believe that NJ will be the one who faces future higher levels of economic troubles (hence why NJ currently has one of the highest unemployment rates within the United States).

NY is already doing a ton of transportation expansion projects with two subway extensions as well as East Side Access. If the Seven Extension to Secaucus gets built, the MTA would probably not pay. Rather, NYC would foot the bill, just as they did with the Seven Extension to the Javits Center. (The Bloomberg Administration issued bonds, and the MTA will operate the new subway service when it opens). Which ever project gets chosen, both NJ and NY are in this together!


----------



## Ryan

You're free to disagree all you want, but there's no motivation whatsoever for NY to spend money to help people that live in NJ.


----------



## Andrew

RyanS said:


> You're free to disagree all you want, but there's no motivation whatsoever for NY to spend money to help people that live in NJ.


Than how do we get the state of NJ to fund Seven Subway Extension or Gateway Project?


----------



## Trogdor

Andrew said:


> RyanS said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're free to disagree all you want, but there's no motivation whatsoever for NY to spend money to help people that live in NJ.
> 
> 
> 
> Than how do we get the state of NJ to fund Seven Subway Extension or Gateway Project?
Click to expand...

That's New Jersey's problem to figure out.


----------



## Andrew

Trogdor said:


> Andrew said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RyanS said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're free to disagree all you want, but there's no motivation whatsoever for NY to spend money to help people that live in NJ.
> 
> 
> 
> Than how do we get the state of NJ to fund Seven Subway Extension or Gateway Project?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's New Jersey's problem to figure out.
Click to expand...

I disagree. I am a NY citizen, and I rely on NJ's infrastructure to travel--including earlier today. As I said before, both NY and NJ are in this together...


----------



## Ryan

Why is it in NY's interest to make sure that you can get to New Jersey?


----------



## Andrew

Because tourists from other parts of the Northeast come to NYC to spend money--and many of these tourists commute by train through the Hudson Tunnels' Bottleneck!!

Also, people who work in NYC but live in NJ are employed by businesses that pay NYC property tax; the trans-hudson capacity issue is BOTH NYC and NJ's problem.


----------



## Ryan

NY would be better served if those commuters chose to live in NY and paid NY income tax.


----------



## AlanB

Andrew said:


> Because tourists from other parts of the Northeast come to NYC to spend money--and many of these tourists commute by train through the Hudson Tunnels' Bottleneck!!


Tourists won't benefit from a #7 extension. Gateway, yes. But not the #7. Tourists would get more benefit from a full length 2nd Avenue subway.



Andrew said:


> Also, people who work in NYC but live in NJ are employed by businesses that pay NYC property tax; the trans-hudson capacity issue is BOTH NYC and NJ's problem.


And as I said earlier, and Ryan repeated, NY would get more benefit if those people in NJ couldn't get to NY to work anymore and therefore decided to move to NY. Or by having people already living in NY get those jobs, instead of people living in NJ.

NY benefits some from Gateway; but an extended #7 really doesn't provide any benefit to NY. Or at least a lessor benefit than if all those jobs went to people living in NY.

This is the same reason that CT pays the MTA to run Metro North trains into CT. NY doesn't pay for that. If NY had to pay for it, service would end at Port Chester.


----------



## Andrew

Although I do agree that Gateway is better than the Seven Subway Extension to Secaucus, both would help NYC compete better in the regional economy.

You stated, "...And therefore decided to move to NY."

But guess what, many people who live in NJ are planning on staying in NJ--not moving to NY!!


----------



## Ryan

That's their problem, not New York's


----------



## Ispolkom

In some places *Guest_Andrew*'s logic does prevail. Minnesota is building a bridge to make it easier to live in Wisconsin and commute to work in the Twin Cities. The project has never made sense to me.


----------



## jerichowhiskey

Andrew said:


> Although I do agree that Gateway is better than the Seven Subway Extension to Secaucus, both would help NYC compete better in the regional economy.
> 
> You stated, "...And therefore decided to move to NY."
> 
> But guess what, many people who live in NJ are planning on staying in NJ--not moving to NY!!


As I mentioned earlier in this thread, I can argue the same for Staten Island foregoing the ferry or driving for a one shot SIR ride into lower Manhattan or Brooklyn (where that unfinished tunnel lay dormant). At least in this case, any rise in property values and other taxes will be in NY. Yet, this may never happen for a looong time.

It's clear from the articles about the Secaucus extension that it is for real estate developers to make bank on the NJ side where it is the government that foots most of the bill in the end.


----------



## Andrew

jerichowhiskey said:


> Andrew said:
> 
> 
> 
> Although I do agree that Gateway is better than the Seven Subway Extension to Secaucus, both would help NYC compete better in the regional economy.
> 
> You stated, "...And therefore decided to move to NY."
> 
> But guess what, many people who live in NJ are planning on staying in NJ--not moving to NY!!
> 
> 
> 
> As I mentioned earlier in this thread, I can argue the same for Staten Island foregoing the ferry or driving for a one shot SIR ride into lower Manhattan or Brooklyn (where that unfinished tunnel lay dormant). At least in this case, any rise in property values and other taxes will be in NY. Yet, this may never happen for a looong time.
> 
> It's clear from the articles about the Secaucus extension that it is for real estate developers to make bank on the NJ side where it is the government that foots most of the bill in the end.
Click to expand...

But, the real estate developers are also supportive of the Gateway Program. After all, they are allowing the delay of construction of the one of the Hudson Yards' skyscrapers for Amtrak's "Tunnel Box."


----------



## jebr

Ispolkom said:


> In some places *Guest_Andrew*'s logic does prevail. Minnesota is building a bridge to make it easier to live in Wisconsin and commute to work in the Twin Cities. The project has never made sense to me.


Are you referring to the new Stillwater bridge? Granted, I'm not from the east metro, but I'll agree that it makes somewhere between zero and no sense to me. That money, in my opinion, would be much better spent on other investments *cough*Northstar extension or even east metro commuter rail*cough*


----------



## AlanB

Andrew said:


> You stated, "...And therefore decided to move to NY."
> 
> But guess what, many people who live in NJ are planning on staying in NJ--not moving to NY!!


You took my statement out of context. I said: "NY would get more benefit if those people in NJ couldn't get to NY to work anymore and therefore decided to move to NY."

If people in NJ don't want to pay for the #7 extension and can't get to their jobs in NY, then they will either look for a new job if they want to stay in NJ or they will move to NY. Either way, NY wins!

I live in NYC (Queens) and I'm pro-rail. I spend considerable amounts of time posting facts around the internet regarding rail, as opposed to only asking questions about Gateway, and I don't want my taxes going to a #7 extension to help NJ. I want my NY taxes to benefit me and other New Yorkers. I want to see the Second Ave subway finished over the full length of Manhattan, and preferably extended into both Brooklyn & the Bronx. I want to see the F train extended in Queens, as well as the #7 built further out in Queens like originally planned. I want to see more subway service in many other places within the 5 boroughs. I want to see a subway between Staten Island and either Brooklyn or Manhattan.

NJ is not NY's problem. That is for NJ to figure out how to fix and perhaps get some Federal help too. Gateway does provide more benefit to NY, so I can see & support some NY tax dollars going into that. But even there, NJ gets the bigger benefit and therefore should be paying a larger portion of the costs not covered by the Fed.


----------



## Andrew

But then how would NJ fund or finance a Seven Subway Extension to Secaucus or the Gateway Project?


----------



## jerichowhiskey

They can try asking Christie, oh wait, he denied ARC. :giggle:


----------



## Andrew

jerichowhiskey said:


> They can try asking Christie, oh wait, he denied ARC. :giggle:


Don't worry, that will HURT him in 2016...


----------



## AlanB

Andrew said:


> But then how would NJ fund or finance a Seven Subway Extension to Secaucus or the Gateway Project?


Well IMHO, they shouldn't be funding a #7 extension to NJ. I don't think its the right idea. Maybe, just maybe after all of NY City's needs are met, then one could consider it. But it should not be a priority. It will only serve to distract from Gateway, which IMHO is a far more superior project and far more needed that the #7 in NJ.

As for funding Gateway, that should come from multiple sources including but certainly not limited to: NY State, NY City, Amtrak, New Jersey, the Port Authority, and the Fed. And the final three will need to be the biggest contributors.


----------



## AlanB

jerichowhiskey said:


> They can try asking Christie, oh wait, he denied ARC. :giggle:


Well ARC wasn't really the right project. I still supported it since Gateway is far from becoming a reality, whereas ARC had shovels in the ground.


----------



## afigg

Andrew said:


> But then how would NJ fund or finance a Seven Subway Extension to Secaucus or the Gateway Project?


NJ can raise gasoline taxes to pay for transportation and transit projects. First, support and fund Gateway. Then in another 12, 15, 20 years, if extending the Number 7 line to NJ is still considered a worthy project and all the players by then are in agreement, then start the long NEPA and PE process.

VA, MD, PA, and MA all raised taxes and fees this year to increase funding for transportation and transit projects. VA and PA have Republican Governors who managed to get the tax increases through Republican controlled legislatures with a combination of Democratic and moderate Republican votes. The VA governor had presidential and vice presidential ambitions at 1 time, but after he got passed over for the VEEP slot by Romney, buckled down and got a transportation deal done early this year.

NJ now has the 49th lowest gas taxes in the US, ahead of only Alaska (which gets much of state revenue from oil royalties so their gas excise tax is low). But since the NJ Governor has presidential ambitions and his path to the Oval office leads through the Republican primaries, he is not about to support raising the gas tax in NJ. So NJ will face challenges in providing funding for big transportation and transit projects until after it gets a new Governor.


----------



## Andrew

1. I still do not see how NJ will fund Gateway. Will be through bonds or general appropriations?

2. Unfortunately, Christie has presidential ambitions, so that is why I do not see him raising the Gas Tax. But, since NJ has had one of the worst unemployment rates of all the 50 states, I do not see him becoming President...


----------



## AlanB

I have no idea how NJ will choose to fund Gateway, and I don't care how they fund it either. Even though I was born & raised in NJ, I now live in NY State, so I'm only concerned with how NY funds it and what value they get for that funding.


----------



## Andrew

I read that NYC could issue bonds and then partially fund Gateway through fees repaid back on property purchase near Penn Station.


----------



## AlanB

Besides, I see little point to worrying about how to fund something that no one even has permission to build yet; not to mention no actual plans. All we have right now is an outline of where things would go and how they might work. Your putting the cart before the horse.


----------



## jis

As I have said all along the earliest concrete action beyond protecting ROW related necessary work, is at least 4 to 5 years away. No one even knows for sure who will have jurisdiction of which part. My guess is nothing concrete beyond ROW protection will happen until the NEC Futures PEIS is completed. It is quite clear that no one is willing to stick their neck out without first having their rear ends covered by an LPA from the PEIS.


----------



## Andrew

Then why is Amtrak so confident that major construction can begin in 2017 (after both phases of the tunnel box get completed)?

How would this influence which type of Penn Station South options gets chosen?

Is there any chance that a new station gets built below the current Penn Station?


----------



## jis

Because being confident does not cost any money  What they are saying is that they would like to start construction in 2017, but that does not mean it will happen. by a long shot. Remember they first have to get money to do the EIS, for which they have exactly $0 at present.

Of course if they can get funding for it, the Portal North segment of Gateway can begin construction as soon as they get any funding for it. But the tunnel segment and the Portal to Bergen segment is is a different matter

There are no options to choose for Penn Station south, except apparently in your mind, unless of course we are to completely discount what the project manager and the chief engineer have said repeatedly. There is exactly one plan, and that is the upper level.

There is no chance that a new station will get built below the current Penn Station. The existence of a badly crumbled fault with very poor rock quality precludes boring under the station without grossly risking the station itself. That is part of the reason that ARC moved its station from the original MIS Alt P which was under the station over to it being under 34th St.


----------



## jerichowhiskey

It is probably a good idea to at least wait and see what the 2014 election brings anyway.


----------



## Andrew

jerichowhiskey said:


> It is probably a good idea to at least wait and see what the 2014 election brings anyway.


Are you talking nationally or just in NJ?


----------



## Fan Railer

Andrew said:


> jerichowhiskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is probably a good idea to at least wait and see what the 2014 election brings anyway.
> 
> 
> 
> Are you talking nationally or just in NJ?
Click to expand...

probably in general...


----------



## Andrew

What would NJ commuters prefer:

Seven Subway Extension or Gateway Project?


----------



## Fan Railer

Andrew said:


> What would NJ commuters prefer:
> 
> Seven Subway Extension or Gateway Project?


Why don't you conduct a survey and find out for us.../sarcasm


----------



## AlanB

Andrew said:


> What would NJ commuters prefer:
> 
> Seven Subway Extension or Gateway Project?


I can't imagine that most wouldn't much rather retain their far more comfortable seat on their faster commuter train with no further stops until they're in NY, and delay their transfer to any subway for as long as possible. And that requires Gateway.

And I can speak from experience, as again I grew up in NJ. The two reasons that I now live in NYC are my wife and the lack of a commuter rail option from where I lived.


----------



## jis

The issue of "one seat ride" to Penn Station as the case is, is a little more complicated than the simple minded analysis, or lack thereof that I have observed here regarding choice of commuters.

First of all the hypothesis that everyone has a deep desire to arrive at Penn Station and then get on a subway is clearly a myth, since the World Trade Center crowd usually abandons their one seat ride in Newark or Hoboken and hops on a PATH train (or a ferry from Hoboken) as a choice instead of staying on to get to Penn Station and then get a subway. So we can just discount that as not important. What is important is being able to get where one needs to go most efficiently.

A very small proportion of commuters arriving at NYP work within walking distance of NYP. So the rest get on subway or bus to get to wherever they need to go. I.e. they really dont have a one seat ride to where they want to go anyway. A large proportion go to the area north of Grand Central. This is the reason that the MIS done in the early 90s after a lot of surveying etc. chose Alternative G which would have some trains run through Penn Station, possibly even without stopping there through bypass tunnels and then proceed to a station in the vicinity of Grand Central.

Of course such would require funding a huge project in Manhattan upending lot of people's lives for many years, from somewhere other than New York. For parochial reasons amply exhibited in their postings here by some, that is unlikely to come to pass.

So then the question of getting people to GCT north still remains and Gateway does not address it at all, indeed it makes the situation worse by dumping another 20 trains worth of passengers per hour at Penn Station with absolutely zero additional capacity added to the subway system to disperse them to anywhere. Of course if all the 20 trains worth of new arrivals were going to the Gateway development, that would cease to be a problem, but no one believes that to be the case based on current projections.

The primary goal for a signification plurality of NJ Commuters has been to get to the upper east side, and even onto Queens. Currently they do so by taking E or F trains from the vicinity of NYP. As mentioned before there is no plan to significantly enhance this service. Foreseeing this problem the original Gateway plan had envisaged a 7 extension under 30th St to a station in the vicinity of NYP. That is pretty much not happening since the tail tracks now stretch down to 20th St.

That is why in NJ, based on feedback from NJ commuters of today, as opposed to from the last century, various schemes are being considered for getting people off the mainline trains, which go to the wrong part of New York, somewhere in NJ, and getting them onto an acceptable length of time journey to the upper east side by other means. And that is where 7 to Secaucus comes in.

Now I know there is a lot of invested emotion in a pair of tunnels to New York Penn Station, and I also think that that will be the first thing to happen. Indeed that is what at least one advocacy group that I am associated with (NJ-ARP) is not at all opposed to and it supports Gateway completely and is working closely with the Gateway team on this. Indeed it is at NJ-ARP's goading that NARP came out in full support of Gateway in the recent past. There are other rail advocacy groups who are much more openly hostile to the current Gateway plans.

But the same advocacy group (NJ-ARP) is also considering possibilities to address the ultimate goal of getting easily to upper east side while avoiding the utter mess and chaos that Penn Station is and is going to continue to be. No amount of lipstick on that pig that can be realistically applied will address the real problem, which is dispersal of the hoards once they arrive there. Hence the support for 7 to Secaucus and also for possible future extension from Penn Station to a station in the vicinity of GCT, with a general feeling that the subway option is more realistic and achievable.

The subway option is believed to be more achievable at least at present, because it is potentially cheaper* to build and operate, with fewer internecine problems to deal with. The new construction is almost entirely in NJ so it will be easier to fund and manage the construction, and real estate costs will be next to nothing. It clearly will be NJ's responsibility to build and fund operations of it.

Basically Gateway does not add any additional choices and actually makes the currently available choices arguably worse by increasing overcrowding at Penn Station. It just provides more of the same. So even after Gateway is built there will be need to provide alternatives. Gateway will just create a bigger chaos at Penn Station. It's primary purpose is to serve Regional Rail and that is a good thing that all should support. But it does not address the basic identified needs of NJ commuters, notwithstanding what one person with a last century experience of commuting when many fewer people actually used the system than what is projected to do, might think.  And of course the commuter rail option that was lacking back then continues as such, since not much will change as far as that goes, with Gateway.

* Cheaper to build because subway tunnels do not have to be the larger diameter mainline sized tunnels, and they can take much higher grades and degrees of curvature. Subways are cheaper to operate because of the less severe staffing requirements. The highest component of operations cost typically is labor for on board staff. And fortuitously, 7 happens to go to exactly the right places, and ironically, it even serves the Gateway development better than Penn Station does.


----------



## Andrew

jis said:


> The issue of "one seat ride" to Penn Station as the case is, is a little more complicated than the simple minded analysis, or lack thereof that I have observed here regarding choice of commuters.
> 
> First of all the hypothesis that everyone has a deep desire to arrive at Penn Station and then get on a subway is clearly a myth, since the World Trade Center crowd usually abandons their one seat ride in Newark or Hoboken and hops on a PATH train (or a ferry from Hoboken) as a choice instead of staying on to get to Penn Station and then get a subway. So we can just discount that as not important. What is important is being able to get where one needs to go most efficiently.
> 
> A very small proportion of commuters arriving at NYP work within walking distance of NYP. So the rest get on subway or bus to get to wherever they need to go. I.e. they really dont have a one seat ride to where they want to go anyway. A large proportion go to the area north of Grand Central. This is the reason that the MIS done in the early 90s after a lot of surveying etc. chose Alternative G which would have some trains run through Penn Station, possibly even without stopping there through bypass tunnels and then proceed to a station in the vicinity of Grand Central.
> 
> Of course such would require funding a huge project in Manhattan upending lot of people's lives for many years, from somewhere other than New York. For parochial reasons amply exhibited in their postings here by some, that is unlikely to come to pass.
> 
> So then the question of getting people to GCT north still remains and Gateway does not address it at all, indeed it makes the situation worse by dumping another 20 trains worth of passengers per hour at Penn Station with absolutely zero additional capacity added to the subway system to disperse them to anywhere. Of course if all the 20 trains worth of new arrivals were going to the Gateway development, that would cease to be a problem, but no one believes that to be the case based on current projections.
> 
> The primary goal for a signification plurality of NJ Commuters has been to get to the upper east side, and even onto Queens. Currently they do so by taking E or F trains from the vicinity of NYP. As mentioned before there is no plan to significantly enhance this service. Foreseeing this problem the original Gateway plan had envisaged a 7 extension under 30th St to a station in the vicinity of NYP. That is pretty much not happening since the tail tracks now stretch down to 20th St.
> 
> That is why in NJ, based on feedback from NJ commuters of today, as opposed to from the last century, various schemes are being considered for getting people off the mainline trains, which go to the wrong part of New York, somewhere in NJ, and getting them onto an acceptable length of time journey to the upper east side by other means. And that is where 7 to Secaucus comes in.
> 
> Now I know there is a lot of invested emotion in a pair of tunnels to New York Penn Station, and I also think that that will be the first thing to happen. Indeed that is what at least one advocacy group that I am associated with (NJ-ARP) is not at all opposed to and it supports Gateway completely and is working closely with the Gateway team on this. Indeed it is at NJ-ARP's goading that NARP came out in full support of Gateway in the recent past. There are other rail advocacy groups who are much more openly hostile to the current Gateway plans.
> 
> But the same advocacy group (NJ-ARP) is also considering possibilities to address the ultimate goal of getting easily to upper east side while avoiding the utter mess and chaos that Penn Station is and is going to continue to be. No amount of lipstick on that pig that can be realistically applied will address the real problem, which is dispersal of the hoards once they arrive there. Hence the support for 7 to Secaucus and also for possible future extension from Penn Station to a station in the vicinity of GCT, with a general feeling that the subway option is more realistic and achievable.
> 
> The subway option is believed to be more achievable at least at present, because it is potentially cheaper* to build and operate, with fewer internecine problems to deal with. The new construction is almost entirely in NJ so it will be easier to fund and manage the construction, and real estate costs will be next to nothing. It clearly will be NJ's responsibility to build and fund operations of it.
> 
> Basically Gateway does not add any additional choices and actually makes the currently available choices arguably worse by increasing overcrowding at Penn Station. It just provides more of the same. So even after Gateway is built there will be need to provide alternatives. Gateway will just create a bigger chaos at Penn Station. It's primary purpose is to serve Regional Rail and that is a good thing that all should support. But it does not address the basic identified needs of NJ commuters, notwithstanding what one person with a last century experience of commuting when many fewer people actually used the system than what is projected to do, might think.  And of course the commuter rail option that was lacking back then continues as such, since not much will change as far as that goes, with Gateway.
> 
> * Cheaper to build because subway tunnels do not have to be the larger diameter mainline sized tunnels, and they can take much higher grades and degrees of curvature. Subways are cheaper to operate because of the less severe staffing requirements. The highest component of operations cost typically is labor for on board staff. And fortuitously, 7 happens to go to exactly the right places, and ironically, it even serves the Gateway development better than Penn Station does.


Very interesting information.

1. Gateway does a great job of increasing capacity from high-demand places such as Washington D.C. and Princeton, NJ. But, I still strongly believe that Gateway is a good use of taxpayers money. After all, many people who currently take the Uptown E or F trains during the AM Rush Hour (and Southbound in the PM Rush Hour) are commuters from Long Island who will stop this routine once East Side Access opens. (LIRR trains will eventually travel to Grand Central Terminal which means that many commuters will simply have to exit their train there and walk 10 or so minutes to their offices). Also, CBTC is being installed on the E Line between the inter-lockings north of the 42nd street station and between East 53rd Street and Lexington Avenue--and actually even more east into Queens, too. Therefore, E Train service should become even more reliable then it currently is. Finally, how does the Seven Extension to Secaucus increase capacity between Newark and Trenton during Peak Hour Times?!

2. Did you read my last post on the Tunnel Construction forum?


----------



## jis

Since no one has said that Gateway is not a good use of taxpayer money, why are we trying to justify that point? But that does not change the point that Gateway is primarily a Regional intercity solution which also happens to help some in longer range commuters, but does not address short distance commuters too well or at all.

But E-trains service won't become any more frequent than it is. That is the critical issue. And furthermore there will not be a single new egress point to any of the subway station and not a single more turnstile installed anywhere. So running all the trains in the world as reliably as you like won't get the people traveling by them on and off the platforms any more than can be done now, which is at a saturation point. Designing railroads involves paying attention to pedestrian flow too, unless of course it is a freight railroad, in which case flow of goods is more appropriate to pay attention to.

Many LIRR commuters who want to get onto E do the transfer to E at Jamaica. So that part of the analysis is somewhat flawed.

As for the posting on tunnel construction, I don't have anything to say. We will know what the actual design is when it is presented. I tend not to waste time second guessing those who are doing the actual work regarding the nitty-gritty details.  If I wanted to do that I'd be working in that part of the industry, which I do not.


----------



## Andrew

1. But wouldn't you agree that CBTC will cut down on E Train delays?

2. My point on the Tunnel Construction Forum was that a "Penn Station Connector" can be built by connecting the Deep-Bore Tunnels with the current Penn Station through an extended tunnel box (beneath Hudson Yards). Which would take longer to build--Gateway or Seven Extension to Secaucus?


----------



## jis

1, So? What does that have to do with the inability to get people to the train at Penn Station 8th Ave subway stop. BTW the 8th Ave subway stop will be over a street block and and an avenue block away from Penn Station South. People will at least improve their health and can drop their health club membership and save some money I suppose.  Actually the E and the F stations will be about equidistant from PSNY South.

2. I see that you are into belaboring the obvious. That is the plan, so what's new that you have added to the discussion? AFAAICT nothing and hence there is nothing to say about it. If both were funded at proper levels on the same date, the 7 to Secaucus could be built much faster because it is a simpler project involving very little construction in areas where service has to be maintained during construction.


----------



## afigg

jis said:


> Because being confident does not cost any money  What they are saying is that they would like to start construction in 2017, but that does not mean it will happen. by a long shot. Remember they first have to get money to do the EIS, for which they have exactly $0 at present.
> 
> Of course if they can get funding for it, the Portal North segment of Gateway can begin construction as soon as they get any funding for it. But the tunnel segment and the Portal to Bergen segment is is a different matter


The Senate still has to pass it, but it appears that we have a 2 year budget deal for federal spending. Still an austerity level budget, but one that should allow some breathing room on funding transportation programs. The DOD appropriations are set, the allocations of appropriations for rest of the other discretionary spending has to be agreed to. If Amtrak were to remain stuck at $15 million a year for Gateway engineering in the direct allocations for the next 2 fiscal years plus whatever support and funding it can get from NJ, is that enough to advance the project through the next environmental review and preliminary engineering stages?
Is there a publicly stated ballpark estimate on what it will cost to advance the Gateway project to a Tier II FEIS and 30% design?

As for the north Portal bridge replacement, don't know what the prospects are for getting funding for it in the next 2 fiscal years if the federal budget is going to remain at tight levels. OTOH, I could see Senator Schuumer and other NE Senators inserting a line into the appropriations bill providing some funds for the bridge replacement.


----------



## jerichowhiskey

I think the main issue is if NJ commuters want a 7 extension, then they should pay all or most of it. Not that there aren't any benefits for NJ commuters.


----------



## jis

jerichowhiskey said:


> I think the main issue is if NJ commuters want a 7 extension, then they should pay all or most of it. Not that there aren't any benefits for NJ commuters.


I do agree with both you and afigg, so don;t get me wrong, but....

Since at least as far as I can tell there are very few that disagree with that principle, I am not sure why it is an issue either 

As a matter of fact at present the bigger issue is whether New York will make any significant contribution to Gateway at all, except through PANYNJ. Admittedly there is a similar worry about NJ too, and the reason for that is the sorry state of the state budgets in both states. And PANYNJ is of course completely focused on raising the Bayonne Bridge - literally!

I think it may be quite safe to say that NJ will just pay lip service to everything involving rail until this Governor is gone. OTOH if it is a road project he will find the money from somewhere pronto.

New York at least has a Governor who is more sympathetic to rail at present. But still he has not been able to staff his rail department adequately to actually take any leadership role in running the Empire Corridor, and instead is basically drifting along with the flow while minimizing the amount of money doled out to Amtrak, which his staff did an admirable job of, all three of them in the rail department of DOT handling Amtrak. So don;pt expect to see food service anytime soon on the NYP - ALB scoots, until something changes in Empire Plaza in Albany. Meanwhile they are yet to get a Final Draft of the NY State HSR EIS approved by the FRA for completely unknown reasons.


----------



## tp49

jis said:


> Many LIRR commuters who want to get onto E do the transfer to E at Jamaica. So that part of the analysis is somewhat flawed.


Just curious as to whether there is data to make this claim? Reason I ask is that when I was working in Manhattan (54th and 3d Ave) and commuting from Long Island on the LIRR the large majority of people I saw getting of at Jamaica were crossing over to the train to FBA not heading for the subway station. However, I did notice a good number of commuters getting off the train at Penn and taking the E from their to stops north of 42d Street. I also couldn't imagine getting off the LIRR and switching to the subway to Manhattan when doing so would extend the trip by at least fifteen to twenty minutes. Mind you my sample size isn't very large but I just don't see daily commuters who are very set in their ways doing the switch at Jamaica. However, I definitely see this changing once ESA opens up with access to GCT as the commute time to the East Side should be nicely reduced.


----------



## jis

I am trying to get the actual numbers from NYMTC, who ought to know. I have also sent an email to someone I know at Parsons. Since they are involved in ESA, Gateway and 7 to Secaucus, they probably have the core relative numbers and flows and projections handy.

It is possible that I might have spoken hastily regarding the transfers to E and will be proved incorrect. I can indeed believe that those bound for the vicinity of GCT would change at Penn Station rather than in Jamaica. And with the advent of ESA they will change at Jamaica to ESA thus relieving the E train a bit. But the E train access situation in the 8th Ave 34th St station remains quite critical and won;t improve by much given the narrow platform that cannot be made wider and the access points that are apparently not improvable too much. Though i can see how at least a few more turnstiles can be added. Bit providing access from those turnstiles to the E platforms is another matter I am told.


----------



## Andrew

1. But if the Seven Subway gets extended to Secaucus, than even way more crowding will occur at the 42nd street and 5th Avenue Station, which has a very narrow platform!

2. If Gateway gets chosen, then there is some talk of potentially extending the tunnels eastwards towards Queens. But wouldn't these tunnels be too shallow for TBM's within Manhattan?


----------



## AlanB

jis said:


> But the E train access situation in the 8th Ave 34th St station remains quite critical and won;t improve by much given the narrow platform that cannot be made wider and the access points that are apparently not improvable too much. Though i can see how at least a few more turnstiles can be added. Bit providing access from those turnstiles to the E platforms is another matter I am told.


Actually, one might see some small improvement for this situation if the City/MTA would restore & reopen the Gimbles' passageway. That would open up access to the 6th Avenue line without requiring a walk outside in the elements.


----------



## PRR 60

Gimbels.

PATH does a nice business from Newark to Lower Manhattan from both NJT and Amtrak. There is no reason to believe that a 7 Train extension to Secaucus would not be similarly patronized by passengers heading for the GCT and Upper East Side areas.


----------



## Andrew

Why are Schumer and Menendez leaning more towards Gateway than Seven Secaucus Extension?


----------



## Fan Railer

Andrew said:


> Why are Schumer and Menendez leaning more towards Gateway than Seven Secaucus Extension?


Why are you asking so many common sense questions?

...

You know as well as the rest of us that expanding capacity into Penn Station is going to be more beneficial in the long run than squeezing growth capacity onto a single subway line, where you would be asking commuters to cram into trains consisting of eleven 51' by 9'9" cars.


----------



## jis

Andrew said:


> Why are Schumer and Menendez leaning more towards Gateway than Seven Secaucus Extension?


Instead of yelling at you or giving you a non-answer, let me try to give you the big picture....

First of all, it is not clear that what _railner _claims is correct regarding what "_the rest of us know_".  In order to disprove his point, I need to find just one person who does not think that Gateway is the best idea, and I actually know dozens such. As a matter of fact in NJ the support level is somewhere between 60/40 and 40/60 depending on what impression people have of who is going to pay how much for it. But leaving such petty and pointless bickering aside.....

At present clearly Gateway has the momentum since it has a clear owner and they are competent people at Amtrak, way more so than many other parts of Amtrak would seem to be, that own this project on the NEC. So the pragmatic thing to do irrespective of what problem it solves or does not solve is to support it and get others to support it so that at least it gets built if not anything else. This position is a rational one without passing any specific judgement on which of the half a dozen or so ideas floating around for Hudson crossing are better than which else. As long as a proposal does not have any show stopping flaws (like the final version of ARC did IMHO, and even on that there is much disagreement, usually from many who have rather sparse understanding of what ARC was or was not) it is the rational thing to do to support it.

Now specifically as it comes to Schumer and Menendez the issues are somewhat different.

First Menendez. He is a Lautenberg protege. Gateway is Lautenberg's crowning achievement as a concept after the failure of ARC which also was a Lutenberg backed project. So it is quite natural for Menendez to support Gateway, and it is a good thing too, since we have no idea where Booker is, though I expect him to support Gateway when the time comes.

Next Schumer. Schumer's support is tied closely to the HSR to Stewart from Penn Station scheme, so as to make Stewart Airport become a viable 4th airport for the tri-state area. This involves building the so called Loop-de-loop connection from the old Erie lines at Secaucus Jct. to connect to the new tunnel approach lines. Lautenberg has gone so far as to hint that he'd work on getting NY State to pitch in for the Loop-de-loop addition cost since it benefits NY state in many ways. More power to him on that. Loop-de-loop is not part of the Gateway plan as far as Amtrak is concerned since it has nothing to do with Amtrak service.

Hope that gives a reasonable picture of how things stand relative to th question asked.


----------



## Andrew

Any updates on that email you sent to Parsons?


----------



## jis

No. With every passing day now fewer and fewer people are still at work. So I don't expect to hear anything until January. And then of course I will be away starting next week till the middle of January, enjoying some train rides of a very different kind in India.


----------



## Andrew

1. Have fun in India!

2. I read somewhere that the Gateway Tunnel Alignment is pretty much understand--but that it just needs an EIS. But what about engineering--to understand the depths, etc--and how long would the EIS take?

3. What do you make of Christie's recent "Bridgegate" Scandal?


----------



## jis

1. Thanks

2. EISs of this size usually take about 3 years, give or take, provided the work is adequately funded. Otherwise it can take much longer.

3. That would be inappropriate to discuss here since it has nothing to do with Amtrak or even Rail


----------



## Andrew

Someone stated that there is usually a "3 year limit" regarding environmental permits. Does this mean that once funding gets secured, that there is a 3 year window BEFORE EIS work can begin, or does it mean something else?


----------



## Fan Railer

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3H6RiLzW7ng


----------



## CHamilton

For a Mayor on His Way Out, a Subway Station on Its Way In



> For years, Michael R. Bloomberg has been a subway rider of singular distinction: a mayor who often took the train to work, as common New Yorkers do, albeit after a chauffeured drive from his townhouse to an express stop a mile away.
> So with less than two weeks left in his term, perhaps it was appropriate that a final, exclusive ride was waiting.
> 
> As Mr. Bloomberg’s valedictory tour turned to the rails on Friday, the mayor completed a maiden trip to a new No. 7 train station at 34th Street and 11th Avenue — the first subway extension paid for by the city in more than 60 years.


----------



## Andrew

I wonder how many more years it will be until a NYC Mayor rides the Seven Subway to Secaucus?


----------



## AlanB

Andrew said:


> I wonder how many more years it will be until a NYC Mayor rides the Seven Subway to Secaucus?


Hopefully it will never happen. It's not the job of the mayor of NYC to provide services to New Jersey.


----------



## PRR 60

AlanB said:


> Andrew said:
> 
> 
> 
> I wonder how many more years it will be until a NYC Mayor rides the Seven Subway to Secaucus?
> 
> 
> 
> Hopefully it will never happen. It's not the job of the mayor of NYC to provide services to New Jersey.
Click to expand...

But what if New Jersey pays for the entire Seven Train project, and makes sure that when it's done, we clean all the construction dirt off the Manhattan streets and pick up all out trash (and, of course, dump it in New Jersey)? Would it at least be OK for the mayor to take a ride over to Secaucus just for fun, or would New Jersey have to pay his fare as well? 

By the way, I hope New York enjoys all that Super Bowl revenue! _generated by a game being played in New Jersey_


----------



## Andrew

PRR 60 said:


> AlanB said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andrew said:
> 
> 
> 
> I wonder how many more years it will be until a NYC Mayor rides the Seven Subway to Secaucus?
> 
> 
> 
> Hopefully it will never happen. It's not the job of the mayor of NYC to provide services to New Jersey.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But what if New Jersey pays for the entire Seven Train project, and makes sure that when it's done, we clean all the construction dirt off the Manhattan streets and pick up all out trash (and, of course, dump it in New Jersey)? Would it at least be OK for the mayor to take a ride over to Secaucus just for fun, or would New Jersey have to pay his fare as well?
> 
> By the way, I hope New York enjoys all that Super Bowl revenue! _generated by a game being played in New Jersey_
Click to expand...

In a Stadium owned by the _NEW YORK _Jets and _NEW YORK _Giants!!


----------



## Bob Dylan

Andrew said:


> PRR 60 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AlanB said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andrew said:
> 
> 
> 
> I wonder how many more years it will be until a NYC Mayor rides the Seven Subway to Secaucus?
> 
> 
> 
> Hopefully it will never happen. It's not the job of the mayor of NYC to provide services to New Jersey.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But what if New Jersey pays for the entire Seven Train project, and makes sure that when it's done, we clean all the construction dirt off the Manhattan streets and pick up all out trash (and, of course, dump it in New Jersey)? Would it at least be OK for the mayor to take a ride over to Secaucus just for fun, or would New Jersey have to pay his fare as well?
> 
> By the way, I hope New York enjoys all that Super Bowl revenue! _generated by a game being played in New Jersey_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In a Stadium owned by the _NEW YORK _Jets and _NEW YORK _Giants!!
Click to expand...

They should be called the Jersey Giants and Jets! They Haven't Played in the Apple in Decades! YA Tittle is turning over in his Grave! Jersey gets all the Tax Money Generated and Should, they Paid for the Stadium! Wonder what the Dog Sleds and NY Cabbies will Charge to get to the Stadium if its an Icy/Cold Day in the NE??? :lol:


----------



## Andrew

Has Mayor de Blasio said anything about new trans-hudson infrastructure?


----------



## MattW

I was poking around Google Maps after reading a post about the Meadowlands Superbowl service, and I had an idea which relates to a 7 Subway extension to Secaucus. Namely, instead of the 7, why not PATH? What hit me is that PATH already crosses the Hudson river, and already has right of way in NJ. Here's a quick and dirty Google Map I created showing the line to Secacus, and the Meadowlands: http://goo.gl/maps/bjIax

However, as easy as this looks (HA!) I can see some problems in addition to the usual right of way, NIMBYism, etc., namely, you've just moved the transfer for Pascack, Main and Bergen County lines from Hoboken to Secaucus, and you still have to make the out of system transfer to the subway. In relation to this though, what's in the way of extending the PATH tracks to Times Square? The Broadway line?

This more a wacky idea of me trying to connect things than a serious idea, but I'm curious what others think of this. Unfortunately, the more I stare at the map, the more that I see the only real benefit is for access to the Meadowlands complex, which if it becomes a regular destination, is probably better served by NJT shuttle service due to the existing infrastructure.


----------



## Andrew

It is better for Main, Bergen County, and Pascack Valley Service to terminate at Hoboken (instead of Secaucus) because this also provides access to ferry service.

To come to think of it, though, if Seven Subway Extension to Secaucus had already opened for revenue service, than this would prove very HIGHLY USEFUL during events at the Meadowlands--including the Super Bowl!

I bet many out-of-towners will stay in Times Square, and would be more than happy using Seven to Secaucus if it had already opened. I just wonder since the only NJ Transit rail service is into Penn Station, if many out-of-towners will choose not to take the train to the Superbowl. I also wonder with the Denver Broncos playing the Seattle Seahawks in New Jersey, how that will impact NJ Train ridership on Super Sunday--and the days leading up to it.


----------



## Ryan

It's not like the Giants or Jets ever had a prayer of playing in the game.


----------



## AlanB

Andrew said:


> I bet many out-of-towners will stay in Times Square, and would be more than happy using Seven to Secaucus if it had already opened. I just wonder since the only NJ Transit rail service is into Penn Station, if many out-of-towners will choose not to take the train to the Superbowl. I also wonder with the Denver Broncos playing the Seattle Seahawks in New Jersey, how that will impact NJ Train ridership on Super Sunday--and the days leading up to it.


I bet most out-of-towners won't stay in Times Square since that area has some of the most expensive hotels in the entire area.

And since one had to buy tickets to the big game long before anyone knew which two teams would be playing in the Superbowl, that will have no impact on how many people ride the trains or don't. No one is going to spend that kind of dough on tickets and then not show up simply because they didn't like the two teams that ended up in the Superbowl.


----------



## PRR 60

Each participating team has an allotment of seats for the game that they distribute to season ticket holders usually using a lottery. Also, many seats and hotel rooms are pre-purchased by agents who now, with the teams known, will put them up for sale on the secondary market hoping to make a killing. There are some who will decide this week to attend.

I think it would neat to attend a Super Bowl, but I'm not sure it is worth the value of a new car to do so. And, Bruno Mars at halftime? Bon Jovi, Billy Joel, Bruce all in the neighborhood, and they came up with Bruno Mars? Really?


----------



## Bob Dylan

PRR 60 said:


> Each participating team has an allotment of seats for the game that they distribute to season ticket holders usually using a lottery. Also, many seats and hotel rooms are pre-purchased by agents who now, with the teams known, will put them up for sale on the secondary market hoping to make a killing. There are some who will decide this week to attend.
> 
> I think it would neat to attend a Super Bowl, but I'm not sure it is worth the value of a new car to do so. And, Bruno Mars at halftime? Bon Jovi, Billy Joel, Bruce all in the neighborhood, and they came up with Bruno Mars? Really?


Good Post Bill!  Who the Hell is Bruno Mars??? :help:


----------



## Andrew

I wonder how many more people will take the Seven Subway Line because of Super Bowl festivities that will take place within Midtown, Manhattan next week.


----------



## AlanB

Andrew said:


> I wonder how many more people will take the Seven Subway Line because of Super Bowl festivities that will take place within Midtown, Manhattan next week.


5.


----------



## jis

AlanB said:


> Andrew said:
> 
> 
> 
> I wonder how many more people will take the Seven Subway Line because of Super Bowl festivities that will take place within Midtown, Manhattan next week.
> 
> 
> 
> 5.
Click to expand...

Are you sure? It just may be 7 you know? :lol:


----------



## AlanB

jis said:


> AlanB said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andrew said:
> 
> 
> 
> I wonder how many more people will take the Seven Subway Line because of Super Bowl festivities that will take place within Midtown, Manhattan next week.
> 
> 
> 
> 5.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are you sure? It just may be 7 you know? :lol:
Click to expand...

:lol: :lol:


----------



## Ryan

I'll bet you it's 6.


----------



## jebr

I'm going all in, guys. There's going to be 8 more riders!

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Amtrak Forum mobile app


----------



## MikefromCrete

I think there will be more riders on the 4 than the 7.


----------



## tp49

My bet is on 3.


----------



## Fan Railer

How about -7


----------



## railiner

What I don't 'get' about the anticipated parking problem and need for special mass transit to reach the Super Bowl stadium is....since the participating teams receive an alotment of seats to sell, it figures that a larger percentage of fans attending will be coming from out of town, hence less auto traffic then normal hometeam games there....


----------



## Andrew

I read this earlier today...

http://www.nysenate.gov/files/pdfs/Letter%20to%20Governor%20re%207%20Train%20Extension.pdf


----------



## Fan Railer

Andrew said:


> I read this earlier today...
> 
> http://www.nysenate.gov/files/pdfs/Letter%20to%20Governor%20re%207%20Train%20Extension.pdf


Not a bad case from a quick skim. We'll have to see if this gets anywhere.


----------



## Andrew

Amtrak recently released an update on their tunnel box. It sounds like construction is progressing well, but if they run into serious delays, the Gateway Project could get abandoned.

Then what?


----------



## MattW

The tunnel box could probably be delayed for 10 years and still wouldn't impact Gateway in any meaningful way. Gateway is a VERY long way off for now as many other people have tried to tell you.


----------



## Green Maned Lion

... There isn't even a shovel in the ground yet, Andrew. Let me make this clear to you, since you are completely lost. GATEWAY IS NEVER GETTING BUILT EVER EVER EVER. GATEWAY MAKES NO SENSE AT ALL. ESPECIALLY THE BLOCK 780 STATION EXPANSION, which is ENTIRELY not needed. Why people sit around supporting senseless projects I will never know. Various people, not the least of which was me, fought tooth and nail to kill ARC as a stupid, senseless project that did not serve the needs of the region.

Gateway is worse, and I will fight tooth and nail, in New York, at the New Jersey Statehouse, in Washington, and at Amtrak itself, to prevent its construction. I WILL FIGHT THIS PROJECT TO THE DEATH OF IT OR ME. There is no need for additional station capacity at Penn Station New York. There is no need for two more tunnels. With all due respect to Drew Galloway, the North River tunnels are just fine. We need, possibly, a single additional tunnel, some equipment changes on NJ Transit, some platform cleanup to improve passenger flow, improved service to Hoboken and Newark Penn, and utilization of more of the shoulders and off peak hours for passenger movement, easily done by encouraging such movement with fare incentives.

Gateway is stupid.


----------



## afigg

Andrew said:


> Amtrak recently released an update on their tunnel box. It sounds like construction is progressing well, but if they run into serious delays, the Gateway Project could get abandoned.
> 
> Then what?


Relax. The Amtrak OIG report - that you linked to at rr.net - states that the project is on schedule. The issue is that costs are running higher than originally expected and they used up most of the contingency funds already. If the tunnel box project needs some additional funding, then US DOT will tap the Sandy mitigation funds as needed. There are billions left in the mitigation funds. There is too much political support to build the tunnel box to protect the critical right of way for future Hudson river tunnels, even if getting the really big bucks to build the Hudson tunnels and bridges in NJ has a long road ahead.


----------



## Andrew

afigg said:


> Andrew said:
> 
> 
> 
> Amtrak recently released an update on their tunnel box. It sounds like construction is progressing well, but if they run into serious delays, the Gateway Project could get abandoned.
> 
> Then what?
> 
> 
> 
> Relax. The Amtrak OIG report - that you linked to at rr.net - states that the project is on schedule. The issue is that costs are running higher than originally expected and they used up most of the contingency funds already. If the tunnel box project needs some additional funding, then US DOT will tap the Sandy mitigation funds as needed. There are billions left in the mitigation funds. There is too much political support to build the tunnel box to protect the critical right of way for future Hudson river tunnels, even if getting the really big bucks to build the Hudson tunnels and bridges in NJ has a long road ahead.
Click to expand...

I just hope that Phase 2 of the tunnel box will begin construction immediately following completion of Phase 1 of the tunnel box--or even before! I wonder if Amtrak could save money by tunneling directly under 31st between 11th and 12th avenues, instead of building another "concrete casing" southwest.

The reason why I originally asked my question is because I was wondering if Amtrak could not extend the tunnel box even more west if 7 to Secaucus would actually get built.


----------



## jis

Those two proposals (Gateway and 7 to Sec) are not connected in any direct way at all. Tunnel box phase 2 becomes an issue only when Hudson Yards project gets around to building their proposed building in that area, and not before that.

Sent from my iPhone using Amtrak Forum


----------



## Andrew

Andrew said:


> afigg said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andrew said:
> 
> 
> 
> Amtrak recently released an update on their tunnel box. It sounds like construction is progressing well, but if they run into serious delays, the Gateway Project could get abandoned.
> 
> Then what?
> 
> 
> 
> Relax. The Amtrak OIG report - that you linked to at rr.net - states that the project is on schedule. The issue is that costs are running higher than originally expected and they used up most of the contingency funds already. If the tunnel box project needs some additional funding, then US DOT will tap the Sandy mitigation funds as needed. There are billions left in the mitigation funds. There is too much political support to build the tunnel box to protect the critical right of way for future Hudson river tunnels, even if getting the really big bucks to build the Hudson tunnels and bridges in NJ has a long road ahead.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I just hope that Phase 2 of the tunnel box will begin construction immediately following completion of Phase 1 of the tunnel box--or even before! I wonder if Amtrak could save money by tunneling directly under 31st between 11th and 12th avenues, instead of building another "concrete casing" southwest.
> 
> The reason why I originally asked my question is because I was wondering if Amtrak could not extend the tunnel box even more west if 7 to Secaucus would actually get built.
Click to expand...




jis said:


> Those two proposals (Gateway and 7 to Sec) are not connected in any direct way at all. Tunnel box phase 2 becomes an issue only when Hudson Yards project gets around to building their proposed building in that area, and not before that.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Amtrak Forum


I should have been more clear: I meant that Seven to Secaucus would be get built and constructed if--and only IF-- Amtrak was not able to acquire more property to construct Phase 2 of the Tunnel Box. (In other words, Gateway would be the priority--but Seven to Secaucus is Plan B or a back-up plan should Gateway for some reason not work out).

What is the chance that the Hudson Yards Project does not construct their buildings in that area over Phase 2 of the Concrete Casing?


----------



## Andrew

Well, it appears that some very powerful people who work in the New York City area are definitely more supportive of the Seven Subway Extension to NJ than the Gateway Project...

http://www.nj.com/bergen/index.ssf/2014/09/study_into_no_7_subway_extension_to_secaucus_announced.html


----------

