# Options for 7 Train to NJ



## Andrew (Dec 8, 2018)

NYC Area transit agencies are once again studying the possibility of extending the 7 Train from Hudson Yards in Midtown, Manhattan to New Jersey. I would like to get your thoughts on where this train should go.

Maybe the 7 train:

should be extended to the Journal Square Train Station in Jersey City, NJ? (This could help reduce crowding on the PATH trains to 33rd street)?

be extended to Secaucus Junction, with a few stops in both Hoboken and North Jersey City? (And perhaps the Gateway Tunnels will be built to Penn Station, and NJ Transit will add 2 island platforms for a total of four additional tracks)?

I believe that extending the 7 Train to NJ should be built because of more residential development that will soon happen in NJ, and also because Amazon will build a massive HQ2 near the 7 Train in Long Island City, Queens.


----------



## Dutchrailnut (Dec 9, 2018)

the study is done by rail advocates, there is no way in hell NYCTA a state agency is going to extend into NJ. and untill you prove otherwise I am not aware of any MTA study.

running interstate open to many can's of worms.


----------



## cpotisch (Dec 9, 2018)

I’m sorry, but a subway extension to NJ is just not going to happen. There already is plenty of NJT service from that area, so I really don’t see why the MTA should invest the time and resources it would take to extend service into another state, especially when you consider the issues we’re currently having with the the subway system and preexisting infrastructure. The point of the subway is cheap and easy transport within NYC. This totally missed that purpose.


----------



## Maglev (Dec 9, 2018)

Does this involve new tunnels under the Hudson River?


----------



## jis (Dec 9, 2018)

Maglev said:


> Does this involve new tunnels under the Hudson River?


Yes


----------



## Anderson (Dec 10, 2018)

At least in theory, this concept might fit for a Port Authority project (with a required transfer/separate paid fare involved) since that's an interstate agency, but I don't think we want to go down that rabbit hole given the mess that the PA is.


----------



## Acela150 (Dec 10, 2018)

Let's at least get Gateway funded and then dream about the 7 train going to NJ.   Gateway is much needed right now.


----------



## jis (Dec 10, 2018)

Acela150 said:


> Let's at least get Gateway funded and then dream about the 7 train going to NJ. [emoji6] Gateway is much needed right now.


While Gateway does need to be funded, it actually solves very little of the trans Hudson commuter problem. 7 to Secaucus addresses that problem more effectively than Gateway by reducing congestion at Penn Station. Gateway only increases it and makes Penn Station an even bigger single point of failure.


----------



## jebr (Dec 10, 2018)

I also think the fare payment issue could be fairly easily solved if the respective parties were interested in doing so. By the time such extension would happen, the new NYCT fare instrument should be out, and it could be set up to support tap-out on the New Jersey side to pay the applicable Trans-Hudson/PATH fare if that's needed to make the financial arrangements work. On the inbound side, the full fare could be charged for "both" agencies if need be upon entrance into the system, with the tap-out within x minutes without any additional tap-ins allowing an automatic refund of the NYCT side of the fare. It would be ridiculous to force a transfer from one subway to another subway just for fare payment purposes.

Of course, perhaps at some point the political will could be found to have some sort of universal fare instrument that actually allows for a full-region pass without needing every agency's different fare medium, fare pass, etc., but I'd imagine that day is even further off than an extension of the 7.


----------



## Andrew (Dec 10, 2018)

jis said:


> While Gateway does need to be funded, it actually solves very little of the trans Hudson commuter problem. 7 to Secaucus addresses that problem more effectively than Gateway by reducing congestion at Penn Station. Gateway only increases it and makes Penn Station an even bigger single point of failure.




So what is the best way to deal with future trans-hudson demand?

1. 7 Train to Secaucus (instead of Journal Square) and Secaucus Junction could be expanded with a small bus terminal and a massive parking garage

2. Gateway Project (with Bergen Loop) and somehow expanding Penn Station in Manhattan one block south

3. Gateway Project (without Bergen Loop)

4. a combination of 7 Train to Secaucus and either option 2 or 3 

I am curious to get your thoughts on how necessary the future Bergen Loop really is?


----------



## AutoTrDvr (Dec 10, 2018)

cpotisch said:


> I’m sorry, but a subway extension to NJ is just not going to happen. There already is plenty of NJT service from that area, so I really don’t see why the MTA should invest the time and resources it would take to extend service into another state, especially when you consider the issues we’re currently having with the the subway system and preexisting infrastructure. The point of the subway is cheap and easy transport within NYC. This totally missed that purpose.


Yeah, both PATH and NJT have the market on cross Hudson Train travel.  And NY Wateway has the ferries from Hoboken and near Weehauwken as well.I don't see the need for the MTA to get involved. If anything, they should direct those $$ towards the NYPenn tunnel expansion so NJ Transit and Amtrak can get more trains across..


----------



## jis (Dec 11, 2018)

cpotisch said:


> I’m sorry, but a subway extension to NJ is just not going to happen. There already is plenty of NJT service from that area, so I really don’t see why the MTA should invest the time and resources it would take to extend service into another state, especially when you consider the issues we’re currently having with the the subway system and preexisting infrastructure. The point of the subway is cheap and easy transport within NYC. This totally missed that purpose.


Who said anything about MTA investing anything in NJ. If you make unfounded assumption you are inevitably likely to arrive at incorrect conclusions [emoji57]


----------



## PVD (Dec 11, 2018)

I seem to remember that the interstate compact creating the PA between NY and NJ gives them control of road bridges and tunnels between the states, and a distance up the Hudson (part of the reason for the siting of the TZ, NY could act w/o them) Does this still apply, and would it apply to a rail/commuter tunnel. Obviously it would not apply to the feds....


----------



## cpotisch (Dec 11, 2018)

jis said:


> Who said anything about MTA investing anything in NJ. If you make unfounded assumption you are inevitably likely to arrive at incorrect conclusions


Didn’t you say that they would have to build new tunnels to do this? Do you think that NJ would cover the cost of that?


----------



## jis (Dec 11, 2018)

cpotisch said:


> Didn’t you say that they would have to build new tunnels to do this? Do you think that NJ would cover the cost of that?


Port Authority is the one that has in its charter to build and improve trans-Hudson travel. Naturally both NJ and NY States would contribute some. But it won’t be MTA’s job to fund, build or operate it necessarily. They may be contracted to do some of it with funding, like the 7 West Side extension was. 

The bottom line is Gateway does not even come close to addressing a real solution to the trans-Hudson commuting problem. People are just dreaming because they find themselves powerless to work through the political mess in the Tri-State area to even come close to what actually needs to be done, instead of trying to stuff more trains into Penn Station.


----------



## Andrew (Dec 13, 2018)

jis said:


> While Gateway does need to be funded, it actually solves very little of the trans Hudson commuter problem. 7 to Secaucus addresses that problem more effectively than Gateway by reducing congestion at Penn Station. Gateway only increases it and makes Penn Station an even bigger single point of failure.


If 7 Train to Secaucus gets built, will the 10th Station be constructed?

And assuming Gateway gets built, how necessary is the Bergen Loop?


----------



## AutoTrDvr (Dec 13, 2018)

jis said:


> While Gateway does need to be funded, it actually solves very little of the trans Hudson commuter problem. 7 to Secaucus addresses that problem more effectively than Gateway by reducing congestion at Penn Station. Gateway only increases it and makes Penn Station an even bigger single point of failure.


I think the question then becomes, which would be more expensive to build, both in expense and time.  It seems more intuitive to me that a #7 extension would require more infrastructure to be built (or worked around) to support it, than the Gateway. Both would involve the infrastructural expense of digging under the Hudson River (I assume close to being a similar expense). But what will it cost to build the additional infrastructure to take the given train from the end terminus (NYP or NYP Annex) to NJ vs. the originating terminus for the #7 train (for me, that was always Times Sq. - not sure now).   I would suspect the later to be a little more expensive as it would be more complicated to dig underneath and around all those structures in Manhattan, already in place.  I would think it easier to do the gateway project  and, perhaps, get the trains to go into an above ground annex (same as NYP but nearby it and connected to it). I think they were thinking about the old Post office building as an annex???


----------



## jis (Dec 13, 2018)

Both need to be built eventually, specially if they are unable to pull off the additional platform tracks at NYP South in Block 780, and that in itself will cost way more than getting the 7 to NJ from its currents Javits Center terminus plus tail tracks close to the river. There is remarkably little “structures in Manhattan” between the 7’s current West Side terminus and the river.

Without the extension of NYP with NYPS merely building two additional tunnels will not increase the capacity of Penn Station as much as some are imagining.

And no, there are no trains going to any overground Annex.


----------



## Andrew (Dec 13, 2018)

AutoTrDvr said:


> I think the question then becomes, which would be more expensive to build, both in expense and time.  It seems more intuitive to me that a #7 extension would require more infrastructure to be built (or worked around) to support it, than the Gateway. Both would involve the infrastructural expense of digging under the Hudson River (I assume close to being a similar expense). But what will it cost to build the additional infrastructure to take the given train from the end terminus (NYP or NYP Annex) to NJ vs. the originating terminus for the #7 train (for me, that was always Times Sq. - not sure now).   I would suspect the later to be a little more expensive as it would be more complicated to dig underneath and around all those structures in Manhattan, already in place.  I would think it easier to do the gateway project  and, perhaps, get the trains to go into an above ground annex (same as NYP but nearby it and connected to it). I think they were thinking about the old Post office building as an annex???


I believe that Gateway will definitely get built.

I'm wondering which project should complement Gateway: ARC with Bergen Loop or 7 Train to NJ and why?


----------



## Andrew (Dec 13, 2018)

jis said:


> Both need to be built eventually, specially if they are unable to pull off the additional platform tracks at NYP South in Block 780, and that in itself will cost way more than getting the 7 to NJ from its currents Javits Center terminus plus tail tracks close to the river. There is remarkably little “structures in Manhattan” between the 7’s current West Side terminus and the river.
> 
> Without the extension of NYP with NYPS merely building two additional tunnels will not increase the capacity of Penn Station as much as some are imagining.
> 
> And no, there are no trains going to any overground Annex.


Is it possible to just add one island platform directly underneath 30th street between 8th and 7th Avenues?


----------



## MattW (Dec 13, 2018)

Would it be cheaper to tie PATH into the subway? You'd have to modify PATH's loading gauge, but would that be better than a new tunnel?


----------



## jis (Dec 14, 2018)

7 to Secaucus provides a direct access to the GCT area which is a major destination for commuters coming from NJ. PATH does not. 

After 9/11 there was a move to connect PATH to the IRT (4,5) at WTC. Physically the loading gauge of PATH and IRT lines are almost the same. The changes required to address that was determined to be minimal to nonexistent. But NY area transit fiefdoms are difficult to break. Same issues will arise with any idea to extend 7 to NJ too. 

Anyway connecting PATH to IRT was a good idea easily doable back the physically. Hard to do anymore.


----------



## cpotisch (Dec 14, 2018)

jis said:


> 7 to Secaucus provides a direct access to the GCT area which is a major destination for commuters coming from NJ. PATH does not.


Aren’t they already trying to get Metro North to NYP, though?


----------



## jis (Dec 14, 2018)

cpotisch said:


> Aren’t they already trying to get Metro North to NYP, though?


That does not provide any simpler access to GCT for passengers NJT service, nor does it help decongest NY Penn Station, indeed it helps further congest it. In any case that addresses a different issue


----------



## cpotisch (Dec 14, 2018)

jis said:


> That does not provide any simpler access to GCT for passengers NJT service, nor does it help decongest NY Penn Station, indeed it helps further congest it. In any case that addresses a different issue


Well I’m bringing it up because I’m sure that acccess to Metro-North is why an easy connection between NJ Transit and GCT is important, so if Metro-North and NJT both served Penn, there would be a direct connection between the two. Meanwhile a 7 extension to Secaucus would require two connections for anyone going between NJT and Metro-North, so it’s definitely a less convenient option.


----------



## jis (Dec 14, 2018)

Connection to Metro North was not even on the list of top items for either ARC Alternative-G (NYP - GCT main line connection) or 7 to Secaucus. It is all about getting people to their offices around GCT,  Jokingly we used to say that it is to address NJ's jealousy of LI getting ESA, without spending a huge amount to construct a new tunnel across Manhattan for the ARC Alternative G.

MN to NYP only partly addresses any transfer between NJT to MNRR Issue, which is not considered to be a significant issue at this time. It is currently mostly about getting MNRR passengers to the West Side development near Penn Station, niot to facilitate transfers between NJT and MNRR. Indeed there is very little coordination between NJT and LIRR at Penn Station either, to facilitate cross Manhattan transit.

All these changes are focused on getting people to work in Manhattan. All New York area Commuter Rail service is Manhattan (so called Urban Core) focused, not that it must be, but that is what it is so far. Amazon in LIC will modify that a bit, but it is still within the rather compact urban core, not cross core transfers and transit.


----------



## Andrew (Dec 14, 2018)

jis said:


> Port Authority is the one that has in its charter to build and improve trans-Hudson travel. Naturally both NJ and NY States would contribute some. But it won’t be MTA’s job to fund, build or operate it necessarily. They may be contracted to do some of it with funding, like the 7 West Side extension was.
> 
> The bottom line is Gateway does not even come close to addressing a real solution to the trans-Hudson commuting problem. People are just dreaming because they find themselves powerless to work through the political mess in the Tri-State area to even come close to what actually needs to be done, instead of trying to stuff more trains into Penn Station.


Gateway provides for the potential for more trains to operate into Penn Station.

Is 7 Train to Secaucus more likely to get built than the Block 780 Station expansion?


----------



## jis (Dec 14, 2018)

At present both seem unlikely. New York and New Jersey will first roast in their own stew for a decade or two before they will wake up and try to fix things. That is my current speculation.


----------



## Andrew (Dec 15, 2018)

jis said:


> At present both seem unlikely. New York and New Jersey will first roast in their own stew for a decade or two before they will wake up and try to fix things. That is my current speculation.


I think Gateway is going to begin construction in the near future.

What are your thoughts on a scaled down Block 780 station?


----------



## jis (Dec 15, 2018)

Not happening anytime soon in any scale unless something changes seriously. 

The Hudson Tunnel, which is now being handles completely separately from the rest of Gateway can start construction tomorrow if NJ, NY and PA choose to fund it without waiting for the Feds. With the feds who knows. Perhaps after the wall [emoji51]

Anyway, we have no idea about what or when of the rest of Gateway, other than Portal North, on which preliminary work has already started and it is at least half funded. The rest of Gateway remains to be seen.


----------



## Andrew (Dec 15, 2018)

jis said:


> Not happening anytime soon in any scale unless something changes seriously.
> 
> The Hudson Tunnel, which is now being handles completely separately from the rest of Gateway can start construction tomorrow if NJ, NY and PA choose to fund it without waiting for the Feds. With the feds who knows. Perhaps after the wall
> 
> ...


But if the proposed Block 780 Station does not get built, than NJ Transit can not add any peak hour trains into and out of Midtown Manhattan.

Is the proposed 7 Train to NJ better than building ARC to 34th Street?


----------



## keelhauled (Dec 15, 2018)

ARC has been deader than the dinosaurs for the better part of a decade, why is it even being brought up other than to further muddy the waters?


----------



## jis (Dec 16, 2018)

History of how we got here is useful to know. I apologize if that bothers someone. 

BTW, there are many that are carrying on about building the Alternative G, which is still technically feasible after the Hudson Tunnels and NYPSS is built, though most likely politically and financially not so much. BTW I am referring to the original ARC Scoping document which contained the alternatives, not the final NJT project. 

Of course 7 to Sec is better than the dead end station. But Alternative G is the direct alternative addressing the same issue. We at NJ-ARP who have championed 7 to Sec of course believe it to be better. But there is the other, smaller contingent that still pine for Alt-G. I have briefly mentioned the advantages of 7 to Sec earlier in this thread.


----------



## Andrew (Dec 16, 2018)

jis said:


> History of how we got here is useful to know. I apologize if that bothers someone.
> 
> BTW, there are many that are carrying on about building the Alternative G, which is still technically feasible after the Hudson Tunnels and NYPSS is built, though most likely politically and financially not so much. BTW I am referring to the original ARC Scoping document which contained the alternatives, not the final NJT project.
> 
> Of course 7 to Sec is better than the dead end station. But Alternative G is the direct alternative addressing the same issue. We at NJ-ARP who have championed 7 to Sec of course believe it to be better. But there is the other, smaller contingent that still pine for Alt-G. I have briefly mentioned the advantages of 7 to Sec earlier in this thread.


I just can't picture Block 780 being demolished to build Penn Station South.

When East Side Access opens, maybe NJ Transit could gain an island platform at Penn Station, which could add 6 Rush Hour trains?


----------



## jis (Dec 16, 2018)

LIRR (MTA) actually paid real money to buy the slots and platform space that it currently uses and owns (unlike NJT, which turned down a similar offer when Penn Station was being divvied out). They have stated that they have no intention of giving up any of it when ESA goes on line. At most some of that will be used to bring MNRR to NYP, but none of that will be available for NJT or Amtrak use.

Well maybe NJT may be allowed to lease3 some space, but at present that seems unlikely given LIRR and MNRR's plans to pretty much use up everything what with MNRR coming to NYP and LIRR's expanded service on the Main Line upon the completion of the third track.


----------



## Andrew (Dec 16, 2018)

I think Gateway will get built before 7 Train to NJ happens.

I hope that some type of Block 780 Expansion gets built to enable more Rush Hour NJ Trains to operate into Manhattan.

What would happen to Secaucus Junction if the Bergen Loop gets built?


----------



## jis (Dec 16, 2018)

You are still confusing Gateway with the Tunnels. The Tunnels are just a part of the overall Gateway project, which includes 780, Portal Bridge, Sawtooth Bridge, four mailine tracks to Newark Penn Station etc.

Nothing different will happen to Secaucus if Bergen Loop is built since even the expanded Penn Station won’t have room for everything from Main/Bergen/Pascak lines. There will be plenty of trains going to Hoboken and they will still stop at Secaucus, even more so if 7 to Secaucus is built. [emoji57]


----------



## cpotisch (Dec 16, 2018)

What is the Bergen Loop?


----------



## jis (Dec 16, 2018)

cpotisch said:


> What is the Bergen Loop?


A proposed loop that connects the lower level to the upper level at Secaucus Junction. The prposed loop to be built in the southwest quadrant between NEC, Bergen/Main lines and the Hackensack River.


----------



## Andrew (Dec 16, 2018)

jis said:


> You are still confusing Gateway with the Tunnels. The Tunnels are just a part of the overall Gateway project, which includes 780, Portal Bridge, Sawtooth Bridge, four mailine tracks to Newark Penn Station etc.
> 
> Nothing different will happen to Secaucus if Bergen Loop is built since even the expanded Penn Station won’t have room for everything from Main/Bergen/Pascak lines. There will be plenty of trains going to Hoboken and they will still stop at Secaucus, even more so if 7 to Secaucus is built.


I thought Block 780 would get built and the plan is for some NJ Transit trains to use The Bergen Loop to access Manhattan and terminate at Block 780.

Do you think 7 Train to Secaucus should stop near or at Hoboken Terminal, and how likely is 7 to NJ to actually get built?


----------



## Thirdrail7 (Dec 16, 2018)

Andrew said:


> Do you think 7 Train to Secaucus should stop near or at Hoboken Terminal, and how likely is 7 to NJ to actually get built?


I'm not sure why you're pushing this....on yet another board.  The only thing that was proposed was study...months ago.:

https://ny.curbed.com/2018/2/28/17062764/nyc-port-authority-mta-7-train-extension-new-jersey-study



> The agency is partnering up with the MTA, along with New York City Transit and New Jersey Transit to commission a long-term study on how rapid transit can expand across the Hudson River and increase commuting capacity over the next 20 years, reports the _New York Times_. *A 7 train extension is** just one of the many options that the agencies are hoping to explore,* but an option nonetheless.


Additionally, how would a SUBWAY to SECAUCUS have ANYTHING to do with HOBOKEN?  That doesn't even remotely make sense.

Instead of asking questions on pmb, not write your representative and ask THEIR opinions and ask THEM to lobby for this project?


----------



## Andrew (Dec 16, 2018)

Thirdrail7 said:


> I'm not sure why you're pushing this....on yet another board.  The only thing that was proposed was study...months ago.:
> 
> https://ny.curbed.com/2018/2/28/17062764/nyc-port-authority-mta-7-train-extension-new-jersey-study
> 
> ...


The 7 Train to Secaucus could stop in North Hoboken on the way to Secaucus.


----------



## Andrew (Dec 16, 2018)

jis said:


> You are still confusing Gateway with the Tunnels. The Tunnels are just a part of the overall Gateway project, which includes 780, Portal Bridge, Sawtooth Bridge, four mailine tracks to Newark Penn Station etc.
> 
> Nothing different will happen to Secaucus if Bergen Loop is built since even the expanded Penn Station won’t have room for everything from Main/Bergen/Pascak lines. There will be plenty of trains going to Hoboken and they will still stop at Secaucus, even more so if 7 to Secaucus is built.


If it was up to you in building Gateway Phase 2, do you think it would be necessary to include the Bergen Loop, or it would it make Secaucus Junction a white elephant?


----------



## jis (Dec 17, 2018)

Andrew said:


> If it was up to you in building Gateway Phase 2, do you think it would be necessary to include the Bergen Loop, or it would it make Secaucus Junction a white elephant?


No and No.


----------



## Thirdrail7 (Dec 17, 2018)

There is no way they would route that subway SOUTH to Hoboken and turn NORTH and head to Secaucus.


----------



## jis (Dec 17, 2018)

Thirdrail7 said:


> There is no way they would route that subway SOUTH to Hoboken and turn NORTH and head to Secaucus.


The proposed route for the #7 tunnel places it just south of the new NEC tunnels, so it passes under the border between Weehawken and Hoboken. Some have proposed a station in that area providing connection to the Hudson Bergen LRT, but it does not appear in any concrete documented plan.

The tunnel being South of the NEC tunnel makes sense if it is built as an extension from the tail tracks of #7 from the Javits Center terminus. OTOH, if it is built as a branch from m10th Ave. it becomes a different matter and a more expensive proposition, though it saves a few minutes on the journey from Secaucus to Times Square.

Thirdrail, the reason I consider things like 7 to Secaucus as important things to think about is because it does help decongest NY Penn Station. As I think you and I agree, the current trend towards stuffing everything into Penn Station is simply not sustainable and it is producing more and more reducuously expensive alternative that will eventually crash under their own weight. Just IMHO. What is needed is dispersal of arriving/departing commuter traffic, not concentration.


----------



## Thirdrail7 (Dec 17, 2018)

jis said:


> Thirdrail, the reason I consider things like 7 to Secaucus as important things to think about is because it does help decongest NY Penn Station. As I think you and I agree, the current trend towards stuffing everything into Penn Station is simply not sustainable and it is producing more and more reducuously expensive alternative that will eventually crash under their own weight. Just IMHO. What is needed is dispersal of arriving/departing commuter traffic, not concentration.


While I agree that something has to be done about  the congested mess that is NYP, I have to admit I'm completely on the fence about this.  Sure, it beats a blank and even if Gateway is completed, there will be a need for additional service to deal with the climbing numbers.

However, there is a cheaper solution. You could have a ferry deploy from that same station and go directly to Hoboken....among other places. All it would cost you is the pier in NYC as there are already ferry slips in Hoboken.

Why are we spending billions to tunnel to Hoboken when there is already infrastructure in place for Hoboken? Those funds could be used to expand other services...not duplicate other services...which still necessitate a transfer.


----------



## jis (Dec 17, 2018)

The tunnel is not to Hoboken. It happens to pass under the northern edge of Hoboken simply because that is the cheapest routing for such a tunnel.

Yes. Ferries have to be part of the mix, but they won't be great for getting people to Grand Central area where people need to go, absent some reorganization of either subways or BRT or something, the latter adding to street congestion in already congested streets. OTOH, ferries from Hoboken to LIC would be a great way to divert the Amazon traffic away from midtown, and even quite a bit of the Hudson Yard traffic (think Google traffic) can be handled by ferries from Hoboken. This would also relieve pressure on Penn Station and also Secaucus Jct., which gets pretty bad I am told at some rush hour times of the day..


----------



## Andrew (Dec 17, 2018)

But wouldn't 2 new hudson tunnels allow for more NJ Transit Rush Hour Trains to operate into and out of Manhattan, even without Block 780?

If the 7 Train to NJ gets built, at least 2 stations should be built between Secaucus Junction and Hudson Yards.


----------



## Thirdrail7 (Dec 17, 2018)

Andrew said:


> But wouldn't 2 new hudson tunnels allow for more NJ Transit Rush Hour Trains to operate into and out of Manhattan, even without Block 780?


That's the whole problem. What good are new tunnels if you don't expand NYP? You just have more traffic being stuffed into the existing 21 track plant. This will not do.



Andrew said:


> But wouldn't 2 new hudson tunnels allow for more NJ Transit Rush Hour Trains to operate into and out of Manhattan, even without Block 780?
> 
> If the 7 Train to NJ gets built, at least 2 stations should be built between Secaucus Junction and Hudson Yards.


I completely disagree. What would make people want to get off at SEC if they will get stuffed with additional NJ traffic? They may as well stay on the NJT and connect to the various subways at NYP.

Furthermore, I still maintain Hoboken should be bypassed at all costs and make those people utilize the ferry.  If you don't, you're just recreating the same problem in a smaller venue.

Diversify your options!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Andrew (Dec 17, 2018)

jis said:


> No and No.


Why do you think it is unnecessary to build the Bergen Loop?

And if 7 Train to Secaucus gets built, what are your thoughts on building some stations between Secaucus and Hudson Yards?


----------



## jebr (Dec 17, 2018)

Thirdrail7 said:


> I completely disagree. What would make people want to get off at SEC if they will get stuffed with additional NJ traffic? They may as well stay on the NJT and connect to the various subways at NYP.


Depends on their destination. If my destination is on the 7 line, or a line that connects to the 7 line but not to one of the Penn Station subway lines easily, the transfer is still a good option as it gets me to my destination sooner. I also doubt that intra-NJ traffic would overwhelm a standard 7 line consist.



Thirdrail7 said:


> Furthermore, I still maintain Hoboken should be bypassed at all costs and make those people utilize the ferry.  If you don't, you're just recreating the same problem in a smaller venue.
> 
> Diversify your options!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Wouldn't diversifying your options mean offering the subway as an option if routing allows? Forcing people to use the ferry means that, if for whatever reason the ferry service is inoperable or is overcrowded, there's no backup option. Whether or not routing the 7 train through Hoboken makes sense on the whole is one thing (the added time or the route difficulties may make it not a great option) but if the option is there and it doesn't significantly impact through traffic, let's add another option.

That all said, I don't see a ton of great stop options on a semi-direct route from the current terminus for the 7 and Secaucus. A transfer point to the Newark light rail makes sense (remove some traffic from Newark or Hoboken) but it's hard to find an obvious second stop that's even somewhat en route to Secaucus with the current NJT bus/rail network. Maybe a neighborhood stop on JFK Blvd.? Not sure how much that's built up, but there's at least some local bus service to offer transfer opportunities if desired.


----------



## Thirdrail7 (Dec 17, 2018)

jebr said:


> Depends on their destination. If my destination is on the 7 line, or a line that connects to the 7 line but not to one of the Penn Station subway lines easily, the transfer is still a good option as it gets me to my destination sooner. I also doubt that intra-NJ traffic would overwhelm a standard 7 line consist.


The proposal was planned prior to the Amazon HQ. The main purpose was to add additional connections to the subway system and provide additional trans Hudson capacity. This  only works if the train doesn't become crowded en route and provides a quick connection.  Adding stops will not really accomplish the goal.



jebr said:


> Wouldn't diversifying your options mean offering the subway as an option if routing allows? Forcing people to use the ferry means that, if for whatever reason the ferry service is inoperable or is overcrowded, there's no backup option. Whether or not routing the 7 train through Hoboken makes sense on the whole is one thing (the added time or the route difficulties may make it not a great option) but if the option is there and it doesn't significantly impact through traffic, let's add another option.
> 
> .


I have to be honest with you, Jebr. I like the idea of the subway but at the same time, I believe if they build it, people will come....and stuff the  train.  While this would seem like a good idea to a railroader, I think of the proximity to Hoboken this line will run. I remember that they spent all of this money to overstuff NYP like a young child at Build a Bear workshop. I think of the expense this tunnel will cause and will also compete for funds.

Therefore, the answer to me is the 7 train can stay right were it is and we can utilize the existing infrastructure to access it. I'm all for trains, but they are fixed and expensive. We have a cheaper, reasonable  option that is shovel ready: restore timely service to Hoboken and using connecting ferry service to not only connect to the 7 train, we can orbit Manhattan and operate a ferry DIRECTLY to LIC and the new Amazon HQ.  This will reduce congestion at NYP,in the NYC subway system (which is already straining to meet demand)and probably save BILLIONS..which we can use for other projects.

Ferries, are diverse....as long as the river isn't frozen.

If they fail, there is still the existing back up: train to NYP and disperse into the system that way or transfer at NWK, take PATH and disperse into the system.


----------



## Thirdrail7 (Dec 17, 2018)

Andrew said:


> Why do you think it is unnecessary to build the Bergen Loop?


You see, with a proper Gateway, a possible 7th ave extension and a robust ferry system, I'm all for the Bergen Loop.  This is another reason to push trains some of the Midclown, Raritan, NEC and NJC to the underutilized Hoboken. You can now repurpose Secaucus Jct as a massive park and ride. 

This will reduce stress on the Lincoln Tunnel and reduce the crush of cars that will soon look for a way to avoid congestion pricing in midtown Manhattan. It will also add additional cities that now have a one seat ride potential.

With NJT ordering new equipment, this can free up locomotives to allow those cities a ride and still have the capacity to accept the transfers.


----------



## jebr (Dec 17, 2018)

Thirdrail7 said:


> The proposal was planned prior to the Amazon HQ. The main purpose was to add additional connections to the subway system and provide additional trans Hudson capacity. This  only works if the train doesn't become crowded en route and provides a quick connection.  Adding stops will not really accomplish the goal.
> 
> I have to be honest with you, Jebr. I like the idea of the subway but at the same time, I believe if they build it, people will come....and stuff the  train.  While this would seem like a good idea to a railroader, I think of the proximity to Hoboken this line will run. I remember that they spent all of this money to overstuff NYP like a young child at Build a Bear workshop. I think of the expense this tunnel will cause and will also compete for funds.
> 
> ...


I'm generally in agreement that the primary focus of such an extension should be to facilitate trans-Hudson traffic, not intra-NJ traffic. That said, a stop that allows connections to Newark light rail makes sense; it likely won't add a ton of intra-NJ traffic but would facilitate another point for people to get into NYC without going through NYP.

Other than the Gateway project, what funds (in terms of trans-Hudson traffic) would a 7 extension be competing with? I'm not aware of much, and I'd hope that the Gateway project would take precedence over a 7 extension. Ferries are a decent short-term solution, but for many they'll add an extra transfer without much benefit (other than alleviating crowding on the trans-Hudson portion.) After all, unless your destination is within walking distance of the port, you'll still need to transfer to a different mode of transportation near the port. I'm not sure how much traffic is close enough to a port to be feasible to transfer, and I'd be surprised if most of the traffic well served by a 7 extension would be just as well-served by a ferry.


----------



## Thirdrail7 (Dec 17, 2018)

jebr said:


> Other than the Gateway project, what funds (in terms of trans-Hudson traffic) would a 7 extension be competing with? I'm not aware of much, and I'd hope that the Gateway project would take precedence over a 7 extension.


It largely depends on where the funding comes from but the NYC is ripe for overhaul.  For example, If the Port Authority is involved and they utilize revenue, I'd much rather see them work on replacing the aging OuterBridge Crossing.  They've already replaced the Goethal's, overhauled the Bayonne,  overhauled the GWB bus station, the GWB cables, assigned funds to rebuild the Pulaski Skyway and Tonnelle circle (to feed the Holland Tunnel) and the helix replacement for the Lincoln Tunnel is underway. That leaves the 1929 OuterBridge as one of the major assets that has not seen any real improvement. This bridge is 90 years old and is as narrow as the former Goethal's Bridge.

Any funds NJ uses should go to their bankrupt transportation trust fund for general use because there are plenty of roadways that need overhaul.

The same goes for NYC. Aside from the replacement bridge to City Island, the Mill Basin Drawbridge replacement and the Kosciuszko Bridge replacement, NYC's infrastructure is quite old. The Verrazano-Narrows Bridge is the newest asset and it was completed in 1964. Most of the rest of the major pieces (the Throgs Neck Bridge notwithstanding) were built in the early to mid 1900s.  Hell, the Brooklyn Bridge goes back to the 1800s!!!!  That is just the bridges. What about all of the old, obsolete highways? I've always stated (without citation) that one of the reasons Manhattan is so congested is the "bypasses" around it are too congested to utilize. BQE anyone? Belt Pwky to the Throgs Neck anyone???  Money must be available for these assets.

If Amtrak is taking in on, the Hell Gate bridge is crumbling, Pelham Bay drawbridge is still a piece of work, Mystic swing, Conn lift and Shaw's Cove allneed replacement..and that is the cheap stuff....when you compare it to the B&P tunnels, the Union tunnels, capacity upgrades in MD.

The bottom line is every dollar you spend on one thing, means it may not be available for something else.  As much as I believe in additional capacity trans-hudson, there are easier ways. NYC has added bike lanes and Citi Bike has expanded its reach.  The city should continue to work with Citi Bike (or some other entity) to make these bikes available at not only subway stations, but ferry slips as well.

We need a well rounded system.


----------



## Andrew (Dec 17, 2018)

What are the arguments for and against building the Bergen Loop?


----------



## Andrew (Dec 20, 2018)

jis said:


> Not happening anytime soon in any scale unless something changes seriously.
> 
> The Hudson Tunnel, which is now being handles completely separately from the rest of Gateway can start construction tomorrow if NJ, NY and PA choose to fund it without waiting for the Feds. With the feds who knows. Perhaps after the wall
> 
> ...


What do you think is not happening anytime soon?


----------



## Andrew (Dec 28, 2018)

jis said:


> While Gateway does need to be funded, it actually solves very little of the trans Hudson commuter problem. 7 to Secaucus addresses that problem more effectively than Gateway by reducing congestion at Penn Station. Gateway only increases it and makes Penn Station an even bigger single point of failure.


Or maybe instead of the 7 Train to NJ, new hudson tunnels won't terminate in Block 780. 

Instead, the concrete casing can act as the Penn Station connector, but the new deep tunnels can continue to 42nd street and 6th Avenue or near Rockefeller Center?


----------



## Andrew (Oct 3, 2020)

jis said:


> The proposed route for the #7 tunnel places it just south of the new NEC tunnels, so it passes under the border between Weehawken and Hoboken. Some have proposed a station in that area providing connection to the Hudson Bergen LRT, but it does not appear in any concrete documented plan.
> 
> The tunnel being South of the NEC tunnel makes sense if it is built as an extension from the tail tracks of #7 from the Javits Center terminus. OTOH, if it is built as a branch from m10th Ave. it becomes a different matter and a more expensive proposition, though it saves a few minutes on the journey from Secaucus to Times Square.
> 
> Thirdrail, the reason I consider things like 7 to Secaucus as important things to think about is because it does help decongest NY Penn Station. As I think you and I agree, the current trend towards stuffing everything into Penn Station is simply not sustainable and it is producing more and more reducuously expensive alternative that will eventually crash under their own weight. Just IMHO. What is needed is dispersal of arriving/departing commuter traffic, not concentration.



Why not send the 7 train in the future to Hoboken instead of Secaucus?


----------



## west point (Oct 3, 2020)

Andrew said:


> Why not send the 7 train in the future to Hoboken instead of Secaucus?


It could never handle the passenger load !


----------

