Bunker station public hearings
March 27th 2008 08:45 am
NJ Transit will hold two public hearings about the change in plans to the bunker station proposed as part of the T.H.E. Tunnel. The changes involve reducing the station to 6 tracks and placing it almost 20 stories underground.
One public hearing is in Newark on Monday, March 31. The other is in New York City on Tuesday, April 1. Details here.
Comments on the ARC SDEIS can also be submitted in writing to: Tom Schulze, NJ TRANSIT ARC Project Director, One Penn Plaza East, 8th Floor, Newark, NJ 07105 or via email to sdeis@accesstotheregionscore.com. Comments must be submitted to NJ TRANSIT by April 28, 2008.
eglantine responded on 27 Mar 2008 at 12:54 pm #
Almost 20 stories underground? Through solid Manhattan bedrock? Without true interoperability/connection with the current (or new) NYPS? Consider this for a moment: MTA NYC Transit can’t figure out how to extend its #7 train line three city blocks from 8th Ave to the Javits Center. It’s somehow not a manageable project. But on our side of the Hudson, the NJT engineers are attempting to ANYTHING is possible. They will tell us this project will be nothing short of an engineering marvel. But what it will actually prove is that NJT has lost all touch with reality. Geez. Gov. Corzine can reduce MOM to “MO” in one short soundbite. He should do the same here (with greater effect). To coin a phrase, the emperor has no clothes, but who will tell him?
Joe Versaggi responded on 27 Mar 2008 at 1:37 pm #
They got the #7 figured out, especially the part about going right through the IND at the former 42nd Street / lower level station, though they have not financed the 10th Av intermediate station. The TA knows what it is doing a lot better than NJT, but digging subways in mid-Manhattan in the 1960’s - 1980’s was hell, even extending the 63rd Street line under Central Park. Second Avenue subway construction managed to crack a lot of building foundations.
When researching for Freedom Tower construction in lower Manhattan, which will mean blasting down 110′, they discovered that granite only extends 70′, then the bedrock turns to Quartz.
It would be far simpler, cheaper, and utilitarian to keep extending the #7 out to Secaucus, and forget trying to extend commuter railroads through mid-Manhattan. That’s why God invented PATH and subways. The mid-Manhattan rail distribution system is there. Use it, especially in the reverse peak direction where the trains are far emptier.
Clark Morris responded on 27 Mar 2008 at 2:29 pm #
After reading the DEIS I believe that substantial rethought is needed. I support either of 2 options.
1. Assuming that having connections into the existing Penn Station raises an insurmountable set of problems, then convert the new line into a connection with either Metro-North or the LIRR at Grand Central (or vicinity) with ALL trains through routed AND electric multiple unit. The stations should be 2 track 3 platform so that all doors in the cars could be used. This of course means a complete rethink in operations by both the MTA and NJT. The electrification on the new route could be 12.5KV or 25KV 60 cyles (or even 750V DC 3rd rail if that allows cheaper tunnels). Savings from a simpler station near Penn Station could help pay for the connection.
2. If the new tunnels can be solely connected to the existing Penn Station, tracks 1 - 4 extended East and a new Kips Bay station (existing East River Tunnel alignment between 1st or 2nd and Park Avenue) built for all but Amtrak trains, could relieve Penn Station by spreading the On-off points. Again all NJT trains should be through routed with either the LIRR or MTA. This obviously would require cooperation and a complete rethink of how to extend the NJT EMU fleet but not completely impossible. Among other things, this would allow the elimination of the Hudson River Yard.
With either of the alternatives, no dual power equipment should be considered. I seriously question the viability of any connection to the ex-Erie lines (Main, Bergen, etc.) with the NEC or new line given the circuity. It should save at most 2 minutes over a transfer. While it may well be desirable to have the connections to the new tunnel solely from south of the current NEC, could not this be accomplished by having the southernmost 2 track in the current Secaucus Transfer station go to the new line while the northern tracks go to the existing Penn Station.
Related to Portal Bridge, I don’t understand the value of having two bridges as opposed to one fixed four track bridge.
The new tunnel should be 60 cycle since I assume the corridor will slowly convert to that anyway.
Through routing of trains will save money and increase travel opportunities.
I also don’t see the need for the improved West End wye.
MainLiner responded on 28 Mar 2008 at 9:51 am #
I agree with Mr. Versaggi that a 7 train extension to Secaucus makes a lot more sense than ARC in its present form, at least for improving service to Main/Bergen/Pascack passengers. I also think it it’s more politically and technically feasible than any through-running commuter rail scheme, which, in a perfect world, would indeed be the best option.
I don’t think we Main/Bergen/Pascack commuters are put off by the idea of changing trains to get to NY. What DOES bother us, or me anyway, is having to wait more than 15 minutes for a connection at Secaucus, particularly in rush hour, not getting a seat on the connecting train or even a good place to stand, not having connections held at Secaucus on the way home and getting stuck there for an hour or so, enjoying a slower commute than I had 20 years ago, and still having to walk 1/2 mile crosstown or take two subways to get to my office across the street from GCT. ARC has the potential to slightly speed my commute, and would certainly make it more convenient by eliminating connection hassles, but, beyond the silliness of the bunker mentality and no connection between the new tunnels and NYP, I don’t trust NJT to get the dual-mode technology right. I also expect they would find a way to make my commute even longer than it is now, as occurred on the M&E and Montclair/Boonton Lines after introduction of Midtown Direct service. How anyone can trust NJT after all of their broken promises at this point is beyond me.
If I could change to the 7 instead of NJT at Secaucus, I’d end up right in the basement of my office building. I know there are plenty of other commuters who make the same crosstown trek that I do, who would also appreciate the frequent service, high capacity, connections with all north/south subway lines, and east side access that could be provided by the 7 train. Heck, we could even get to new job opportunities in LI City and northern Queens with no trouble! And people from Queens could get to new jobs in Secaucus! We might even see some NEC passengers transferring to the 7 at Secaucus, to avoid the pedestrian congestion and hassle of subway connections at NYP. Find a way to swing it by Xanadu and the sports complex, and you’ve got a real winner for New York AND New Jersey.
Joe Versaggi responded on 28 Mar 2008 at 10:48 am #
In addition:
• Most of the costs and risks of boring in Manhattan are assumed by NYC and the MTA, not NJ.
•There could also be an intermediate stop at Lincoln Harbor to intercept NJT buses and HBLRT.
•No regional rail form of ARC, weather it be the current NJT version or the officially dead Alternative “G”, does a thing about access to the Gold Coast. Furthermore Citibank and Metlife have large installations in Long Island City and they are not coming back to Manhattan.
•With a #7 service split between Javits and Secaucus, you’d have an 11 car rush hour train available with 440 fiberglass seats available every 4 minutes. OTOH, when boarding a north-south subway in Manhattan, nobody knows what a seat is.
• That is the lesser of 2 evils, the other being sweating out the NJT service at Secaucus with their, loose, sloppy, and inconsistent performance at any hour of the day or night. PATH’s 7 car trains handle double the trans-Hudson market share of NJT, as does the XBL into PABT as well. That proves the concept that the customer chooses speed and convenience over comfort.
http://www.subwaytosecaucus.com/
Eine Kleine Multi-level responded on 29 Mar 2008 at 8:58 pm #
The “Subway to Secaucus” proposal: While not being familiar with all the particulars, it does highlight the historic provinciality when it comes to the NYC subway system, save the PATH (former H&M). Certainly, by comparison, if the Washington DC Metro had been limited to the city, its usefulness would have been heavily curtailed and the commuters in Maryland and Virginia would have been short-changed. (Another thing it highlights is the dearth of crosstown subway routes within Manhattan; the few that exist either terminate before they reach the West Side, or they feed into the uptown/downtown main lines.)
Who is sponsoring this project?
Any proposals about a similar extension of the L train into Hudson County?
Joe Versaggi responded on 30 Mar 2008 at 12:01 pm #
Basically, nobody is sponsoring the S-2-S proposal except the several of us who put that website put up. Most rail advocates have done at least one of the following and rejected the concept: turned their nose up at it since it’s a “subway” (as though PATH were not), claimed impossible to overcome Secaucus NIMBYism, scoff at it because it does not represent a “one-seat ride”, demand regional-rail access to the east side as an entitlement issue since MN has it, and LIRR will some day get it, and “they did it” in London with Crossrail and in Philly with SEPTA RR. But then of course we have TA buses going to Bayonne and Valley Stream, and Metro North running out of state to Connecticut. Evidently, MTA accountants can handle an interstate and out of city operation.
So we have this dead Alternative “G” repeatedly being dragged out regardless of cost, risk, construction difficulties, and GCT access issues, and the fact that landlord MN and MTA have said emphatically “no”.
Jim Greller once said he thought the “L” should be extended to Hoboken. For the cost of T.H.E., we could have both the #7 and “L” extended to New Jersey, and do something for Cruiser bus passengers, which carry double the market share of the North River tunnels.