|
|
| Hudson River rail tunnel project has new name, but same concerns over funding (1162040) | |
 |
|
| Home > SubChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
|
|
| (1162049) | |
Re: Hudson River rail tunnel project has new name, but same concerns over funding |
|
|
Posted by Rockparkman on Sat Jun 16 00:46:00 2012, in response to Hudson River rail tunnel project has new name, but same concerns over funding, posted by Gold_12TH on Fri Jun 15 23:29:39 2012. Looks like a good idea. States shouldn't have a say in projects like this. Just build the Goddamned thing and strip highway funding to do it. |
|
|
| (1162062) | |
Re: Hudson River rail tunnel project has new name, but same concerns over funding |
|
|
Posted by WillD on Sat Jun 16 03:23:19 2012, in response to Hudson River rail tunnel project has new name, but same concerns over funding, posted by Gold_12TH on Fri Jun 15 23:29:39 2012. At the very least this should be the final nail in the coffin of the 'ARC Alt G woulda been cheaper' meme some of our posters are so enamored of. |
|
|
(Sponsored) |
iPhone 6 (4.7 Inch) Premium PU Leather Wallet Case - Red w/ Floral Interior - by Notch-It |
|
| (1162064) | |
Re: Hudson River rail tunnel project has new name, but same concerns over funding |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Sat Jun 16 05:16:02 2012, in response to Hudson River rail tunnel project has new name, but same concerns over funding, posted by Gold_12TH on Fri Jun 15 23:29:39 2012. Hmm. More reporters not getting facts straight. The Gateway thingy was a plan by Amtrak that would have gone ahead even if ARC had. |
|
|
| (1162070) | |
Re: Hudson River rail tunnel project has new name, but same concerns over funding |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Sat Jun 16 06:36:13 2012, in response to Re: Hudson River rail tunnel project has new name, but same concerns over funding, posted by WillD on Sat Jun 16 03:23:19 2012. I don't remember reading many Alt "G" threads here. That is more of a planners wet dream like RPA. |
|
|
| (1162080) | |
Re: Hudson River rail tunnel project has new name, but same concerns over funding |
|
|
Posted by merrick1 on Sat Jun 16 08:03:39 2012, in response to Hudson River rail tunnel project has new name, but same concerns over funding, posted by Gold_12TH on Fri Jun 15 23:29:39 2012. I thought THE Tunnel was a catchy name. |
|
|
| (1162081) | |
Re: Hudson River rail tunnel project has new name, but same concerns over funding |
|
|
Posted by Dutchrailnut on Sat Jun 16 08:27:25 2012, in response to Re: Hudson River rail tunnel project has new name, but same concerns over funding, posted by Joe V on Sat Jun 16 06:36:13 2012. a way wet dream Alt-G is physicaly impossible for two reasons.reason 1 Water tunnel no 1 would need to be passed at over 220 feet down as tunneling is not allowed within 100 feet of water bore. reason 2 as Alt-G is based on through service all 3 MNCR lines would need to be electrified with Catenary or NJT would need to go third rail. as there is no clearance for catenary in park avenue tunnels or bronx, I would assume you want NJT to change. |
|
|
| (1162091) | |
Re: Hudson River rail tunnel project has new name, but same concerns over funding |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Sat Jun 16 11:11:10 2012, in response to Re: Hudson River rail tunnel project has new name, but same concerns over funding, posted by Dutchrailnut on Sat Jun 16 08:27:25 2012. Then there is the 3 + 1 operational issue on MN Park Avenue tunnels. What does one do with these NJT trains in GCT once they get there ? They either swim upstream like pregnant Salmon, or they flip back to NJ.This nitty-gtitty is not something these "professional" certified planners can get their arms around, just accuse all the RR's of "not cooperating". |
|
|
| (1162093) | |
Re: Hudson River rail tunnel project has new name, but same concerns over funding |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Sat Jun 16 11:13:13 2012, in response to Re: Hudson River rail tunnel project has new name, but same concerns over funding, posted by Dutchrailnut on Sat Jun 16 08:27:25 2012. < reason 1 Water tunnel no 1 would need to be passed at over 220 feet down as tunneling is not allowed within 100 feet of water bore. >I wasn't aware that vertical clearance had to be that much. There's also the 6th Av Express tracks south of 34th dropping down, and the local tracks start dropping lower to make way for one of Robert Moses highway disasters. |
|
|
| (1162094) | |
Re: Hudson River rail tunnel project has new name, but same concerns over funding |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Sat Jun 16 11:13:46 2012, in response to Re: Hudson River rail tunnel project has new name, but same concerns over funding, posted by merrick1 on Sat Jun 16 08:03:39 2012. That's about all that was good about it. |
|
|
| (1162108) | |
Re: Hudson River rail tunnel project has new name, but same concerns over funding |
|
|
Posted by Henry R32 #3730 on Sat Jun 16 13:11:06 2012, in response to Re: Hudson River rail tunnel project has new name, but same concerns over funding, posted by Joe V on Sat Jun 16 11:11:10 2012. Then there is the 3 + 1 operational issue on MN Park Avenue tunnels.If through running were achieved, this is not an issue. One MN train from the north can proceed into NJ for every NJT train that is proceeding into MN territory. If the LIRR and NJT/Amtrak can play nicely in Penn with 2 tracks west and four tracks east, why can't the smaller MN and NJT/Amtrak play nicely with a similar setup? |
|
|
| (1162121) | |
Re: Hudson River rail tunnel project has new name, but same concerns over funding |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Sat Jun 16 14:25:30 2012, in response to Re: Hudson River rail tunnel project has new name, but same concerns over funding, posted by Henry R32 #3730 on Sat Jun 16 13:11:06 2012. LIRR has Hunterspoint service that does not operate on the NEC west of Harold. That is the show-stopper, and matters will get more extreme when ESA opens.If you shoe-horn all MN service into 2 tracks, 28% rush hour service cut is required. They have documents saying as much on the website somewhere. NJT is hardly a business model anyone should follow anyway. |
|
|
| (1162149) | |
Re: Hudson River rail tunnel project has new name, but same concerns over funding |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Sat Jun 16 16:59:20 2012, in response to Re: Hudson River rail tunnel project has new name, but same concerns over funding, posted by merrick1 on Sat Jun 16 08:03:39 2012. Yeah; it was great for coming up with derogatory nicknames such as "THAT Tunnel", but that was about it. |
|
|
| (1162151) | |
Re: Hudson River rail tunnel project has new name, but same concerns over funding |
|
|
Posted by WillD on Sat Jun 16 17:01:34 2012, in response to Re: Hudson River rail tunnel project has new name, but same concerns over funding, posted by Joe V on Sat Jun 16 06:36:13 2012. Well it's mostly been one poster's meme, although others have joined in from time to time with less fervor. Admittedly ARC G is still more useful and convenient than forcing a transfer to the subway in the middle of the Meadowlands, but the cost projections are wildly optimistic.With any luck Amtrak will at least provide provisions for new deep-bore tunnels under Manhattan to provide a real increase in commuter train capacity throughout Manhattan. |
|
|
| (1162152) | |
Re: Hudson River rail tunnel project has new name, but same concerns over funding |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Sat Jun 16 17:02:12 2012, in response to Re: Hudson River rail tunnel project has new name, but same concerns over funding, posted by Henry R32 #3730 on Sat Jun 16 13:11:06 2012. Back when Amtrak was using GCT, Metro-North wasn't even using the lower level except during rush hours.Metro-North just doesn't know what they're doing. And that's aside from West Side Yard . . . |
|
|
| (1162153) | |
Re: Hudson River rail tunnel project has new name, but same concerns over funding |
|
|
Posted by WillD on Sat Jun 16 17:03:30 2012, in response to Re: Hudson River rail tunnel project has new name, but same concerns over funding, posted by Joe V on Sat Jun 16 11:13:46 2012. Yeah, sure, other than you know, doubling the number of commuters using cost effective trains rather than overly subsidized express buses, or providing NJ with somewhere on the order of 20 billion dollars in new property tax receipts. Something a forced subway transfer in the middle of the Meadowlands would have *never* accomplished. |
|
|
| (1162154) | |
Re: Hudson River rail tunnel project has new name, but same concerns over funding |
|
|
Posted by WillD on Sat Jun 16 17:11:20 2012, in response to Re: Hudson River rail tunnel project has new name, but same concerns over funding, posted by Olog-hai on Sat Jun 16 05:16:02 2012. The Gateway thingy was a plan by Amtrak that would have gone ahead even if ARC had.Except that the Gateway project was in Amtrak's 2020-2035 capital project proposal up until Chrisco killed ARC. That ignorant decision made Gateway a much more urgent project as we have done nothing to alleviate the demands on NYP. And if ARC had been completed the two of them would have provided NJ with a more than adequate capability to move commuters into Midtown. With Gateway as the sole remaining option we'll be lucky to have a barely adequate trans-Hudson commute in 2030 when the project is completed. We will require a means to increase the number of trains utilizing the tunnel without the extreme cost associated with building terminals within Manhattan. Thankfully there is at least one alternative. |
|
|
| (1162157) | |
Re: Hudson River rail tunnel project has new name, but same concerns over funding |
|
|
Posted by WillD on Sat Jun 16 17:26:34 2012, in response to Re: Hudson River rail tunnel project has new name, but same concerns over funding, posted by Dutchrailnut on Sat Jun 16 08:27:25 2012. reason 1 Water tunnel no 1 would need to be passed at over 220 feet down as tunneling is not allowed within 100 feet of water bore.... while it remains in service. Once Water Tunnel 3 is completed there will be periods in which Water Tunnels 1 and 2 are to be taken out of service for inspection, maintenance, and modernization. During the period in which Water Tunnel #1 is taken out of service it will apparently be possible to build well within the NYDEP's current envelope without the risk of leaving half of NYC high and dry. reason 2 as Alt-G is based on through service all 3 MNCR lines would need to be electrified with Catenary or NJT would need to go third rail. as there is no clearance for catenary in park avenue tunnels or bronx, I would assume you want NJT to change. Which is why Amtrak's proposal would more than likely call for a new-build cavern terminal next to the LIRR ESA terminal. If this is being done as part of a high speed rail line then saddling those trainsets with third rail equipment and tossing them into the MNCR morass would be a bigger nightmare than the Eurostar's crawl into Waterloo. Admittedly the M42 Substation and ESA escalator shafts get in the way, but there's probably room under there for a 6 track terminal station as described on page 14 of Amtrak's Vision for High-Speed Rail in the Northeast Corridor. But how that terminal would integrate with the Park Avenue tunnel/el, and how it'd be any faster than the Hell Gate would remain to be seen. If it's being done for commuters then, again, Grand Central cannot help NJ commuters without royally screwing up MNCR service. It would be better (and probably cheaper) to avoid deep station caverns altogether and just mine stations out like TBM-built subway lines under Manhattan. There is a way to do just this without sacrificing the capacity a large, inordinately expensive terminal would confer. |
|
|
| (1162161) | |
Re: Hudson River rail tunnel project has new name, but same concerns over funding |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Sat Jun 16 17:58:59 2012, in response to Re: Hudson River rail tunnel project has new name, but same concerns over funding, posted by WillD on Sat Jun 16 17:03:30 2012. < Something a forced subway transfer in the middle of the Meadowlands would have *never* accomplished. >I don't feel like getting into another subway to Secaucus argument with you but: 1) No one is FORCING a subway transfer int the Meadowlands 2) You fail to recognize transfers in Manhattan as just as obnoxious 3) You fail to realize the subways at Penn Station cannot handle a doubling of NJ commuters 4) You fail to realize that 36 #7 train per hour has far more capacity then 13 NJT trains per hour. 5) You fail to understand that many commuters cannot take NJT trains because of municipal parking issues and limitations 6) You fail to understand that there in not one dime in Gatway for parking decks 7) You fail to understand that NJ is a Home-Rule/NIMBY state and most communities do not want to become the next MetroPark or Hamilton - just ask Ridgewood, Westfield, and Annandale. 8) You fail to understand that the Route 9 buses run in the black and Cruiser buses can achieve break even with just 40 passengers Mr Willd, you are all engineering, but no clue about markets or practicality. |
|
|
| (1162162) | |
Re: Hudson River rail tunnel project has new name, but same concerns over funding |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Sat Jun 16 18:07:39 2012, in response to Re: Hudson River rail tunnel project has new name, but same concerns over funding, posted by Joe V on Sat Jun 16 17:58:59 2012. You can't engineer without the right data, too. |
|
|
| (1162165) | |
Re: Hudson River rail tunnel project has new name, but same concerns over funding |
|
|
Posted by Dutchrailnut on Sat Jun 16 18:20:24 2012, in response to Re: Hudson River rail tunnel project has new name, but same concerns over funding, posted by WillD on Sat Jun 16 17:26:34 2012. WillD no one knows if No 1 tunnel can be shut off, its never tried.the restriction is still same, no tunneling or digging within 100 foot of tunnel bore. other as fantasies for nincompoops , alt G is dead. |
|
|
| (1162171) | |
Re: Hudson River rail tunnel project has new name, but same concerns over funding |
|
|
Posted by Rockparkman on Sat Jun 16 19:29:04 2012, in response to Re: Hudson River rail tunnel project has new name, but same concerns over funding, posted by Olog-hai on Sat Jun 16 18:07:39 2012. What the fuck do you know about shit. |
|
|
| (1162204) | |
Re: Hudson River rail tunnel project has new name, but same concerns over funding |
|
|
Posted by WillD on Sat Jun 16 23:09:18 2012, in response to Re: Hudson River rail tunnel project has new name, but same concerns over funding, posted by Joe V on Sat Jun 16 17:58:59 2012. 1) No one is FORCING a subway transfer int the MeadowlandsExcept that you are. Because you are not providing additional capacity into PSNY the additional trains must be terminated at Secaucus, a role it was never designed for. The passengers unfortunate enough to get stuck on those trains must transfer to reach Manhattan regardless of whether they want NYP or GCT. 2) You fail to recognize transfers in Manhattan as just as obnoxious Which is why we should work on improving the transfers within Manhattan, not making another ill-conceived transfer in the Meadowlands. 3) You fail to realize the subways at Penn Station cannot handle a doubling of NJ commuters Yes, which is why it's better to combine the LIRR and NJT into a commuter tunnel which distributes their load across the city and enables cross platform transfers between major destinations. 4) You fail to realize that 36 #7 train per hour has far more capacity then 13 NJT trains per hour. Pretty sure they only contemplated half of the #7 trains running over from Manhattan due to the excessive empty VMTs those trains would rack up deadheading to and from the Secaucus transfer. NJT operating at the same throughput would carry a greater number of passengers, and that's not overly ambitious in commuter rail operations. 5) You fail to understand that many commuters cannot take NJT trains because of municipal parking issues and limitations And NJ has a statewide effort to implement transit oriented developments. Once Chrisco is no longer obstructing those projects we'll stand a chance at redevelopment. 6) You fail to understand that there in not one dime in Gatway for parking decks So follow the East Brunswick station model and integrate the parking deck into the new TOD. 7) You fail to understand that NJ is a Home-Rule/NIMBY state and most communities do not want to become the next MetroPark or Hamilton - just ask Ridgewood, Westfield, and Annandale. But they do want to attract 'Transit Villages' and the property tax revenue with fewer children that they bring. 8) You fail to understand that the Route 9 buses run in the black and Cruiser buses can achieve break even with just 40 passengers Sure, that's why NJT has a 40% fare recovery rate, all those "profitable" bus lines. It's worth noting that the same is true of NJT's commuter trains on the NEC. And it is far easier to add capacity for the future with rail based improvements into NYC rather than trying to add buses. |
|
|
| (1162207) | |
Re: Hudson River rail tunnel project has new name, but same concerns over funding |
|
|
Posted by WillD on Sat Jun 16 23:23:56 2012, in response to Re: Hudson River rail tunnel project has new name, but same concerns over funding, posted by Dutchrailnut on Sat Jun 16 18:20:24 2012. WillD no one knows if No 1 tunnel can be shut off, its never tried.It need not be shut off and emptied for inspection, maintenance, and modifications to take place. They've been doing work with ROVs for the past few years, so eliminating flow along the tunnel will make it that much easier to complete their work on the tunnel even as it remains filled and pressurized. Either way NYC needs to address the need for crosstown transit construction in the near future. The first water tunnel cannot be allowed to obstruct tunnel construction perpendicular to it forever. |
|
|
| (1162219) | |
Re: Hudson River rail tunnel project has new name, but same concerns over funding |
|
|
Posted by Henry R32 #3730 on Sun Jun 17 02:46:24 2012, in response to Re: Hudson River rail tunnel project has new name, but same concerns over funding, posted by Joe V on Sat Jun 16 14:25:30 2012. Who said anything about shoehorning? A train from the north enters Grand Central. Instead of deadheading out, it heads into Jersey. At the same time, a train from Jersey enters Grand Central. It heads up, using the slot the MN train would have used as a deadhead. |
|
|
| (1162231) | |
Re: Hudson River rail tunnel project has new name, but same concerns over funding |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Sun Jun 17 06:47:12 2012, in response to Re: Hudson River rail tunnel project has new name, but same concerns over funding, posted by WillD on Sat Jun 16 23:09:18 2012. But nothing you suggest as remediesis going to happen. Deal with the hand you are dealt.As far empty reverse peak #7's heading to/from Seacucus, think of the waste of deadhead miles most NJT trains will have to go through in having to get out of NYPS-South to some place. NJT has 200+ bus lines. There is a big difference between the Newark based locals which are to get the axe, and the 12 Cruiser routes that make money. Again, you have no patience with marketing data, and no clue as to what to do with the Lincoln Tunnel XBL situation which handles twice as many passengers as the North River tunnel, and far closer to bursting at the seams, and pissing away $15B at Gateway isn't going to do much about it. Whether you like it or not, NJT is actually way ahead of you, is rebuilding the Uptown Bus Terminal, got an FTA grant to add bus bays at Secaucus, and will be diverting some Bergen XBL buses to Secaucus. |
|
|
| (1162241) | |
Re: Hudson River rail tunnel project has new name, but same concerns over funding |
|
|
Posted by Dutchrailnut on Sun Jun 17 09:06:52 2012, in response to Re: Hudson River rail tunnel project has new name, but same concerns over funding, posted by WillD on Sat Jun 16 23:23:56 2012. ohh but it will, NYS DEP has way more power than any agency, state or federal when it comes to protecting water source of nearly 20 million people.as for your personal feelings the study of many agencies still beat your personal feelings or knowledge..... |
|
|
| (1162242) | |
Re: Hudson River rail tunnel project has new name, but same concerns over funding |
|
|
Posted by Dutchrailnut on Sun Jun 17 09:09:11 2012, in response to Re: Hudson River rail tunnel project has new name, but same concerns over funding, posted by Henry R32 #3730 on Sun Jun 17 02:46:24 2012. and since there is no catenary or clearance for catenary in either park avenue tunnel or in bronx on either hudson or Harlem line how is that NJT equipment gone run ..................................... |
|
|
| (1162245) | |
Re: Hudson River rail tunnel project has new name, but same concerns over funding |
|
|
Posted by merrick1 on Sun Jun 17 09:31:42 2012, in response to Re: Hudson River rail tunnel project has new name, but same concerns over funding, posted by Dutchrailnut on Sun Jun 17 09:09:11 2012. Put M8 guts in a Silverliner V body and you would have a car that can go anywhere. |
|
|
| (1162248) | |
Re: Hudson River rail tunnel project has new name, but same concerns over funding |
|
|
Posted by Dutchrailnut on Sun Jun 17 10:09:57 2012, in response to Re: Hudson River rail tunnel project has new name, but same concerns over funding, posted by merrick1 on Sun Jun 17 09:31:42 2012. one problem the M-8 guts are to pricy for NJT |
|
|
| (1162249) | |
Re: Hudson River rail tunnel project has new name, but same concerns over funding |
|
|
Posted by Henry R32 #3730 on Sun Jun 17 10:17:28 2012, in response to Re: Hudson River rail tunnel project has new name, but same concerns over funding, posted by Dutchrailnut on Sun Jun 17 09:09:11 2012. Wasn't really intending to address that part, just the notion that tunnel throughput is an issue preventing it...As for catenary, if there is a political will for it, they will find a way to *make* it work. Maybe instead of catenary through the low clearance areas they do some sort of roof-rail, or for park ave only wire up the middle two tunnels (IIRC they have better clearances). As for the Bronx clearance issues... some bridges could be replaced as part of a road work project. For "bridges" with buildings on top, they could lower the ROW... it all depends on how much $political will$ there is. A combination of factors could push it over the hump (Amtrak routing flexibility; NJT's newfound desire to serve multiple stops in the city as shown with their musings on the bus side; Hudson line HSR bringing catenary over there). The icing on the cake is that all those multilevels would be useless in such an arrangement, and NJT would need to go back to buying single level coaches or MUs for it... and really, to make MN's schedule it would have to be MUs... |
|
|
| (1162250) | |
Re: Hudson River rail tunnel project has new name, but same concerns over funding |
|
|
Posted by Henry R32 #3730 on Sun Jun 17 10:37:18 2012, in response to Re: Hudson River rail tunnel project has new name, but same concerns over funding, posted by Henry R32 #3730 on Sun Jun 17 10:17:28 2012. Actually forget what I just said... they could just buy M8s configured for their power requirements. Of all the current electrified NJT trackage, there's only 3 low platform stations left, Jersey Ave (which is already skipped by many trains due to its unusual configuration), Monmouth Park (seasonal), and Little Silver. If it comes down to it, GCT bound trains will simply skip those stops... |
|
|
| (1162258) | |
Re: Hudson River rail tunnel project has new name, but same concerns over funding |
|
|
Posted by Dyre Dan on Sun Jun 17 11:52:56 2012, in response to Re: Hudson River rail tunnel project has new name, but same concerns over funding, posted by Joe V on Sat Jun 16 14:25:30 2012. The majority of MN service would still terminate at GCT. The possibility of a few trains continuing to NJ would simply add flexibility, it wouldn't change that. But for other reasons that have already been discussed, it is certainly not going to happen anytime soon, and probably never will. |
|
|
| (1162262) | |
Re: Hudson River rail tunnel project has new name, but same concerns over funding |
|
|
Posted by Dutchrailnut on Sun Jun 17 12:15:26 2012, in response to Re: Hudson River rail tunnel project has new name, but same concerns over funding, posted by Henry R32 #3730 on Sun Jun 17 10:37:18 2012. don't forget that for Alt G the entire fleet of M7a's would need to be replaced with M-8's too, plus all NJT equipment.Alt G will never ever happen. |
|
|
| (1162263) | |
Re: Hudson River rail tunnel project has new name, but same concerns over funding |
|
|
Posted by Dutchrailnut on Sun Jun 17 12:16:44 2012, in response to Re: Hudson River rail tunnel project has new name, but same concerns over funding, posted by Dyre Dan on Sun Jun 17 11:52:56 2012. With AltG there would not be any option to terminate at GCT, it requires all trains to continou.so it will never ever happen. |
|
|
| (1162306) | |
Re: Hudson River rail tunnel project has new name, but same concerns over funding |
|
|
Posted by WillD on Sun Jun 17 15:41:08 2012, in response to Re: Hudson River rail tunnel project has new name, but same concerns over funding, posted by Dutchrailnut on Sun Jun 17 09:06:52 2012. What agency's study? You didn't cite any study. You just stated what you *thought* the NYDEP would require with no proof that it was the case. Where is it written that a tunneling project must clear the first water tunnel by 100 feet and that this requirement will never change? |
|
|
| (1162309) | |
Re: Hudson River rail tunnel project has new name, but same concerns over funding |
|
|
Posted by WillD on Sun Jun 17 16:05:53 2012, in response to Re: Hudson River rail tunnel project has new name, but same concerns over funding, posted by Joe V on Sun Jun 17 06:47:12 2012. But nothing you suggest as remediesis going to happen. Deal with the hand you are dealt.Except that it does. You claim people object to parking garages, even as NJ's towns fall all over themselves for Transit Village funding to improve their property tax base. Hell, once Chrisco is gone and some of the COAH provisions are reinstated they'll be desperate for TODs. I'm not sure why you're focused on the automobile as the only means of accessing transit stations when we can just as easily develop the area around the station to achieve the same number of passengers within much smaller walkable catchment area. But then since your solution to North Jersey's transportation problem is to force a transfer on everyone in the Meadowlands while dumping the express buses it's pretty clear all you're interested in is reinforcing the status quo. As far empty reverse peak #7's heading to/from Seacucus, think of the waste of deadhead miles most NJT trains will have to go through in having to get out of NYPS-South to some place. Yes, a roughly equal number of trains to the 18 or so trains per hour with which the 7 train would serve Secaucus. Except that the NJT trains would already be making most of the trip back to the Meadowlands yards from Secaucus after terminating there to serve your PABT-West there. The marginal cost of increasing that distance to 6th Ave within Manhattan is much more minor than the creation of the trip to begin with, and with the 7 train extension you get two trains deadheading to serve one continuing commuter trip. There is a big difference between the Newark based locals which are to get the axe, and the 12 Cruiser routes that make money. Again, you have no patience with marketing data, And you ignore the fact that the NEC also creates an operating surplus (after all, those bus lines are not *profitable*, they merely generate a surplus). pissing away $15B at Gateway isn't going to do much about it. It will get people to Manhattan, which is a hell of a lot more than can be said for forcing people to transfer in the Meadowlands. If we want to run empty trains there are cheaper ways to do it than blowing 15 billion dollars on a subway to nowhere. Whether you like it or not, NJT is actually way ahead of you, is rebuilding the Uptown Bus Terminal,got an FTA grant to add bus bays at Secaucus, and will be diverting some Bergen XBL buses to Secaucus. That's all fine and well, but those changes do nothing to address the increasing ridership on the NEC, NJCL, M&E, and RVL which was, after all, the primary market which ARC was to serve. And of course there's nothing wrong with sending express buses to Secaucus. It's an excellent way to reduce the operational cost of those very low turnover routes. But it's absolutely foolish to spend 15 billion dollars digging a subway tunnel there when they can just as easily board NJT trains which provide a one seat ride into Manhattan for at least *some* commuters. |
|
|
| (1162314) | |
Re: Hudson River rail tunnel project has new name, but same concerns over funding |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Sun Jun 17 16:40:48 2012, in response to Re: Hudson River rail tunnel project has new name, but same concerns over funding, posted by Henry R32 #3730 on Sun Jun 17 10:37:18 2012. Of all the current electrified NJT trackage, there's only 3 low platform stations leftFalse. Most of the stations on the Hoboken Division's electric trackage are low platform. And why would NJT "buy M8s" with their anti-MU culture? |
|
|
| (1162315) | |
Re: Hudson River rail tunnel project has new name, but same concerns over funding |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Sun Jun 17 16:43:17 2012, in response to Re: Hudson River rail tunnel project has new name, but same concerns over funding, posted by Henry R32 #3730 on Sun Jun 17 10:17:28 2012. Maybe instead of catenary through the low clearance areas they do some sort of roof-railThe tunnels need only be three feet taller, FWICS. Continuing to cite this as an impossibility is an insult to tunnel engineers. and really, to make MN's schedule it would have to be MUs Do MUs run to Poughkeepsie? |
|
|
| (1162317) | |
Re: Hudson River rail tunnel project has new name, but same concerns over funding |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Sun Jun 17 16:44:40 2012, in response to Re: Hudson River rail tunnel project has new name, but same concerns over funding, posted by Henry R32 #3730 on Sun Jun 17 02:46:24 2012. How long do you want a one-way journey to be? Over 100 miles long, all local stops? |
|
|
| (1162320) | |
Re: Hudson River rail tunnel project has new name, but same concerns over funding |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Sun Jun 17 17:27:26 2012, in response to Re: Hudson River rail tunnel project has new name, but same concerns over funding, posted by Dutchrailnut on Sun Jun 17 09:06:52 2012. Boy howdy on that. :(If you live along the watersheds in the Catskills, they even tell you what color of toilet paper you can use and how many times you're allowed to flush. :( |
|
|
| (1162332) | |
Re: Hudson River rail tunnel project has new name, but same concerns over funding |
|
|
Posted by Henry R32 #3730 on Sun Jun 17 18:41:08 2012, in response to Re: Hudson River rail tunnel project has new name, but same concerns over funding, posted by Olog-hai on Sun Jun 17 16:40:48 2012. Yeah I totally forgot about Hoboken division... I keep forgetting midtown direct exists. |
|
|
| (1162348) | |
Re: Hudson River rail tunnel project has new name, but same concerns over funding |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Sun Jun 17 19:32:34 2012, in response to Re: Hudson River rail tunnel project has new name, but same concerns over funding, posted by WillD on Sun Jun 17 16:05:53 2012. You are making wild assumptions about transit villages with no basis. They tend to be over-priced 1 and 2 bedroom apartments, seldom condos, and unsuitable for anyone except singles or couples without children, or will put pressure on boro school budgets. They are not going to happen in any sizable quantity. It is not the magic bullet that will put any measurable shift of bus passengers on trains.It is far cheaper to deadhead subway trains with a 2 man crews than NJT trains. That is a silly argument. And there is no Boonton Yard in Gateway either. You can get 2nd use out of a Subway train if all it has to do is get back to Flushing. Very unlikely for trains that have to go minimally to Summit or South Amboy. West Winsdor has been arguing over Transit Village for 20 years and nothing has come of it. The NIMBY"s are afraid the Hamilton gangs will move in. Your assumption that parking decks will rise up like crab grass are ridiculous, and there is no funding to do them anyway. You still have no way to absorb all the PABT bus people onto subways at NYPS, and there are twice as many of them as rail passengers. The NYC transit system has no plans to run 12 and 14 car trains. The NEC has a cost recovery of 90%. It is goes down from there. Nothing on the rail side runs in the black. Where did you get $15B to dig a subway to Secaucus ? It shows you have no clue as to what really costs: it is not the tunnel under the river. Penn Station South is a multi-billion dolar pig. P-B hasn't even completed Bloomberg's study and nothing need to be done east of 11th Avenue. Bob Previdi, a transporation consultant, gave us a cost figure at a NARP meeting for #7 to Hoboken, and it is just $6B. People destination is WORK, not a train terminal. Focus on moving people, not playing train. Sorry Wilbur, you are simply an hysteric obsessed with philosophy. |
|
|
| (1162349) | |
Re: Hudson River rail tunnel project has new name, but same concerns over funding |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Sun Jun 17 19:35:14 2012, in response to Re: Hudson River rail tunnel project has new name, but same concerns over funding, posted by merrick1 on Sun Jun 17 09:31:42 2012. Oh no it can't - no 25 cycle transformer on an M-8. It would have doubled the weight of the transfortmer and put the car over 80 tons. I don't even know if the lighter frame of an SL_V could handle all that plus 3rd rail gear. |
|
|
| (1162350) | |
Re: Hudson River rail tunnel project has new name, but same concerns over funding |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Sun Jun 17 19:37:15 2012, in response to Re: Hudson River rail tunnel project has new name, but same concerns over funding, posted by Olog-hai on Sun Jun 17 16:40:48 2012. < And why would NJT "buy M8s" with their anti-MU culture? >SAD but all so TRUE. The M&E has the worst of both worlds: low level platform which slows boarding with out auxiliary doors and 68 ton coaches. |
|
|
| (1162351) | |
Re: Hudson River rail tunnel project has new name, but same concerns over funding |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Sun Jun 17 19:39:19 2012, in response to Re: Hudson River rail tunnel project has new name, but same concerns over funding, posted by Dutchrailnut on Sun Jun 17 12:16:44 2012. Oh but is sound so Your-Rup-Pee-An, the RER, etc.No it can't happen. |
|
|
| (1162369) | |
Re: Hudson River rail tunnel project has new name, but same concerns over funding |
|
|
Posted by WillD on Sun Jun 17 23:31:48 2012, in response to Re: Hudson River rail tunnel project has new name, but same concerns over funding, posted by Joe V on Sun Jun 17 19:32:34 2012. You are making wild assumptions about transit villages with no basis.And you're making wild assumptions that the status quo will not change in the face of rising energy costs. NJT's bus operations are not sustainable in the long term. They tend to be over-priced 1 and 2 bedroom apartments, They're sold at market rate outside of those which were set aside for COAH. It's not the developer's fault that those units are particularly desirable. It is far cheaper to deadhead subway trains with a 2 man crews than NJT trains. That is a silly argument. And there is no Boonton Yard in Gateway either. You can get 2nd use out of a Subway train if all it has to do is get back to Flushing. Very unlikely for trains that have to go minimally to Summit or South Amboy. That is a ludicrous supposition. NJT still has the land north of the MMC set aside to build a yard. Just because it will not be funded by Amtrak as part of the Gateway project does not mean it will not be built. Hell, if you're going to get people to Secaucus then those trains still need somewhere to lay over throughout the day. West Winsdor has been arguing over Transit Village for 20 years and nothing has come of it. The NIMBY"s are afraid the Hamilton gangs will move in. Great, one example in 20 ongoing projects to create greyfield development around train stations and in-fill stations. But of course that one example means the entire program is a failure. Your assumption that parking decks will rise up like crab grass are ridiculous, and there is no funding to do them anyway. No it's your assumption that in order for ridership to increase on the rail lines that increase must come in the form of park and rides. It is my point that the increase in the number of passengers within rail station catchment areas can come as a result of increasing transit oriented development. Again, I'm not sure why you're so committed to the suburban status quo. You still have no way to absorb all the PABT bus people onto subways at NYPS Ditto the passengers travelling from Secaucus. The 7 train stations in Manhattan cannot accommodate those passengers in addition to its load coming in from Queens. And of course the ultimate solution to our woes is to distribute NJT and LIRR commuter trains throughout New York City. The NEC has a cost recovery of 90%. It is goes down from there. Nothing on the rail side runs in the black. Lets see some numbers, because the last time I looked, the NEC generated an operating surplus. Where did you get $15B to dig a subway to Secaucus? It's not going to be any cheaper. You're lying if you think it will be. The construction of the junction cavern within Manhattan alone will be a billion dollar project unto itself. Then you have to add tracks to Secaucus to terminate trains there, and the overbuilt station NYCT wanted NJ to build for them. At the very least you're looking at $10 billion, and chances are it'd grow from there to consume the available budget. Bob Previdi, a transporation consultant, gave us a cost figure at a NARP meeting for #7 to Hoboken, and it is just $6B. Yes, for about half the length. People destination is WORK, not a train terminal. Focus on moving people, not playing train. Yes, and more people are served with more direct rides to their workplace from PNSY than from a forced subway transfer in the middle of the Meadowlands. Sorry Wilbur, you are simply an hysteric obsessed with philosophy. And you're a crank obsessed with a plan which everyone who matters has already dismissed on its merits, or complete and utter lack thereof as is the case here. |
|
|
| (1162449) | |
Re: Hudson River rail tunnel project has new name, but same concerns over funding |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Mon Jun 18 16:43:51 2012, in response to Re: Hudson River rail tunnel project has new name, but same concerns over funding, posted by WillD on Sun Jun 17 23:31:48 2012. Your credibility is down to about zero.1) NJTBO has been around since the beginning, they are 75% of NJT's customers, and will be around forever. Your beloved NYPS can't aborb a 200% increase in traffic. You opinion of "not sustainable" is ridiculous. 2) There will be no mass exodus from McMansions and suburban town homes into transit villages just to ride a choo-choo train. A couple of hundred new apartments in Somerville won't fill one coach on one train, and the surrounding Bridgewater has 45,000 residents. 3) The #7 already handles east-west passengers off the buses to GCT. They can get on them sooner. There are not net additions to the system. 4) I have the quarterly ridership and revenue pdf's - you don't. 5) Gateway project costs $15B, which is 4 tracking the whole NEC between Newark and Manhattan. If you are assuming the costs of that including NYPS-South and twin Portal Bridges, you are dumber than I thought. You are simply creating numbers to reach your conclusions. 6) #7 stations in Manhattan handled far more passengers during WWII and the Worlds Fair than they do today. 7) Your prohibition of transfers to rapid transit at anywhere except the Manhattan rail terminal is 1910 thinking. You should be distributing people on multiple access points. You can't get it thru you skull that the destination is WORK, not NYPS. 8) Mayor Bloomberg has not dismissed it. Your folk hero Lhota has, but he is a proven idiot, reinforced by the nonsense he spoke of here. He has no clue as to how his subsidiary LIRR or NYPS operates: http://transportationnation.org/2012/06/14/ny-mta-chief-says-railroads-need-to-work-together-to-overcome-maxed-out-hudson-river-crossings/ 9) "distribute NJT and LIRR commuter trains" is physically and financially impossible. You sound like one of hapless idiot planners from RPA or Voorhees with no patience for details or reality. Again, you are focused on playing choo-choo, not moving people. |
|
|
| (1162537) | |
Re: Hudson River rail tunnel project has new name, but same concerns over funding |
|
|
Posted by WillD on Tue Jun 19 00:43:09 2012, in response to Re: Hudson River rail tunnel project has new name, but same concerns over funding, posted by Joe V on Mon Jun 18 16:43:51 2012. Your credibility is down to about zero.I'd say much the same thing. Except you're the one flogging the idea everyone else has seen fit to let die because it has virtually no merit. 1) NJTBO has been around since the beginning, they are 75% of NJT's customers, and will be around forever. Your beloved NYPS can't aborb a 200% increase in traffic. You opinion of "not sustainable" is ridiculous. It's the profitability of those few routes you singled out as being profitable which are not sustainable in the long term given their greater energy consumption on a per-passenger basis than NJT's commuter rail lines. My apologies for taking a shortcut in my argument which resulted in the ambiguity. 2) There will be no mass exodus from McMansions and suburban town homes into transit villages just to ride a choo-choo train. A couple of hundred new apartments in Somerville won't fill one coach on one train, and the surrounding Bridgewater has 45,000 residents. That's more than likely correct and it's not much of a problem. The TODs will more than likely be occupied by a different generation of people than the auto dependent subdivisions which are even now seeing their property values continue to fall. 3) The #7 already handles east-west passengers off the buses to GCT. They can get on them sooner. There are not net additions to the system. Plenty of people arriving at PABT from NJ get on the North-South subway lines at Times Square. You'd now face the prospect of transporting those people on the 7 train, and worse, accommodating their movement through TSQ's byzantine transfer arrangement. They'd be better off riding to NYP and getting on the subway there than wandering through Times Square. 4) I have the quarterly ridership and revenue pdf's - you don't. That's nice, but unless you're going to share them with the class I don't see why any of us should take your word on faith, especially given how fast and loose you've played with the truth in the past in your quixotic goal to ruin NJ resident's ability to commute into NYC. 5) Gateway project costs $15B, which is 4 tracking the whole NEC between Newark and Manhattan. If you are assuming the costs of that including NYPS-South and twin Portal Bridges, you are dumber than I thought. You are simply creating numbers to reach your conclusions. I'm not creating numbers, I'm pointing out that the costs will grow to consume the willingness to pay of the organization in question. Sure, they can lowball it today and claim it'll be 6 billion, but by the time it's actually built we'll end up paying $12-$15 billion, because that's the amount we were prepared to pay for its vastly superior alternative. You're deluding yourself if you think the consultants, engineers, and contractors are going to be completely forthright and only charge their cost for the project. 6) #7 stations in Manhattan handled far more passengers during WWII and the Worlds Fair than they do today. But they still handled pulsing loads from one direction with negligible load in the opposite direction. Going to an arrangement which could potentially leave two trainloads of passengers on a platform at the same moment is a major impact which needs to be accounted for in any analysis done on the project. Dismissing the possibility of overcrowding and the resultant potential for injury is simply ignorant and foolish. 7) Your prohibition of transfers to rapid transit at anywhere except the Manhattan rail terminal is 1910 thinking. You should be distributing people on multiple access points. Huh? Did you miss the link I've been flogging this entire thread? I've been arguing that exact point for the past 4 years. Except that while you want to overload a subway line and force a marginal transfer in the Meadowlands, I want to distributed the commuters throughout Manhattan with easy cross platform transfers to reach major job centers regardless of whether one comes from Long Island or New Jersey. ESA and ARC clearly illustrate that the expensive portion of the tunneling project is the cavern construction, so by minimizing that we can create a much longer tunnel serving more job centers, looping around to achieve very high throughputs, all without greatly increasing project budgets. 8) Mayor Bloomberg has not dismissed it. Your folk hero Lhota has, but he is a proven idiot, reinforced by the nonsense he spoke of here. He has no clue as to how his subsidiary LIRR or NYPS operates: Well I think a lot of people would have ample reason to argue that Mayor Bloomberg may not have the firmest grasp of policy either. And at this point he's the only politico still pushing this particular loser of an idea. Even Chrisco backed off once the Feds said they'd kick more money in for Gateway. 9) "distribute NJT and LIRR commuter trains" is physically and financially impossible. You sound like one of hapless idiot planners from RPA or Voorhees with no patience for details or reality. Sure it is, you just don't ever mix the NJT and LIRR trains. Keep them on their own tracks, but allow passengers to freely transfer between the two services via easy cross platform transfers. That also cuts the cost to construct the stations with fewer job centers within their catchment areas by reducing the amount of platform access capacity to that required for passengers actually utilizing the station to begin or end their trip. |
|
|
| (1162658) | |
Re: Hudson River rail tunnel project has new name, but same concerns over funding |
|
|
Posted by Henry R32 #3730 on Tue Jun 19 19:43:36 2012, in response to Re: Hudson River rail tunnel project has new name, but same concerns over funding, posted by Olog-hai on Sun Jun 17 16:44:40 2012. What does it matter? MNRR would not allow NJT crews to operate past GCT, so there would be a crew change their anyway. The equipment itself wouldn't care that it went 100 miles before reversing... |
|
|
