Could New Jersey Transit have designed Secaucus Junction with more efficient passenger movements? I have to go up two stories, pass through turnstiles, and then descend again one or two stories to reach my connection? Couldn’t it have been made to reduce the sheer distance of both walking and ascending/descending? No wonder it cost half a billion. They could have accommodated Amtrak, too. What a huge waste.
Besides the fact it’s not really a junction, of course.
I believe trying to fit the mezzanine, etc. between the Corridor level tracks and the Main/Bergen line tracks was impossible and digging down and putting it underneath it all made less sense and would be more costly and not watertight. What would you suggest they have done with the money they had and the physical layout they had to work with? You may be right that it is a pain sometimes, but what is the alternative?
I don’t have any ideas. Evidently they could not have built horizontally. The trips up and down escalators felt rather excessive.
Of course, Aegrotatio, it’s not really a junction. That is because the Pennsylvania Railroad would never consider offering the convenience of a direct transfer to riders on competing lines like the Delaware Lackawanna and Western and the Erie. Fortunately those bad old days are over and New Jersey Transit allows us to transfer there. That means, for example, that a person who lives, for example, on the Port Jervis line can get a fairly direct train to Trenton by transferring at Secaucus.
Frankly, I don’t know if the design of the station could be improved. But after all the years when selfishness ruled I am happy to accept what is there.
John
The structure at Seacaucus Junction was designed to allow the construction of a large office building above the railroad station. The foundation that was built for the station is massive, much more than is needed to support the structure that you see today. This may explain some of the design decisions.
Whether the office building is ever built, or not, is anyone’s guess. I haven’t heard anything about it in years.
AMTRAK has NO INTENTION of EVER stopping there. Why Should they? They are not commuter trains. I do not think that you can even buy an NYP NWK ticket on AMTK. Amtrak wants fewer stops further apart (about an hour between stops) so AMT Seacaucus is just not going to happen.
When built NJT was still thinking in terms of new tunnels under the North River, and wanted other lines to merge at that point for the new track.
Things are built with the future in mind and sometimes the future is an elusive thing that squirms away from you.
ROAR
It would seem to me that Secause Jct. has reduced traffic big time at the Erie-Laccawanna Hoboken Jct. Traffic was big at Hoboken now its a trickle of what it used to be. Its a shame too because they just got around to fixing up Hoboken
Hoboken is old. It requires a transfer to PATH, to ferry, or to a bus to get to Manhattan. Both Midtown Direct and Secaucus Jct. have improved service with passengers able to go into Manhattan. Hoboken being less crowded, more easily navigable has been a step toward efficiency. Also, with HBLR terminal added, Hoboken still sees a heavy number of passengers there daily. And as population grows as it has, there will be more and more passengers. Hoboken is old…but it is not dead unless all of NJ dies with it. There is a lot of future traffic in sight.
Seacaucus wasn’t that confusing when I went through there on vacation. Yes, it is a long walk, but it is well covered in direction signs.
(The reason I went through Secaucus was so I could ride NJT’s diesel and electric trains, see Hoboken Terminal, ride PATH and ride the Subway. Going from Newark Airport to catch an Amtrak train at Penn Station could have required less transfers, but what is the fun in that?)
NW
Actually both Secaucus and Hoboken are both under utilized by commuters but both are expected to be able to handle traffic and commuters for at least the next ten years of steady growth. One of the unspoken problems with Newark Penn and Hoboken is PATH. NJT could put more Coast Line and Raritan Valley line trains into Hoboken but that would rob PATH trains at Newark (never mind for the moment PATH beats the time to downtown hands down getting to WTC before NJT gets to Hoboken). There are lots of options open for the future and it is that same future that will make the choice when the time comes.
Bonadventure,
No doubt many people who used to go through Hoboken to get to New York now use NJT’s Mid Town Direct Service. If I am going into New York I always do even if it means changing trains at Newark Broad Street Station.
But, and it is a big but, a lot of people who work in New York work down town in the financial district. The best way to get there is still the PATH train from Hoboken to World Trade Center. And, as Henry points out, there is new traffic from the Hudson Bergen Light Rail Line.
However, New Jersey Transit still has a long way to go in repairing Hoboken Terminal from Sandy. The food court is still closed as are most of the shops. Tickets are sold from trailers outside the waiting room and NJT still has out houses outside the terminal because the rest rooms are not repaired. NJT foot dragging is the real problem at Hoboken.
Lion,
I agree with you that Amtrak has no plans to stop at Secaucus but it is not clear to me that Amtrak wants fewer stops further apart. In New Jersey Amtrak has added stops at Newark Liberty Airport and at Metropark, both of which are between Newark Penn Station and New Brunswick where some Amtrak trains traditionally stop. And there sure is not an hour between these stations. I also understand the New Carrollton is not all that far from Baltimore or Washington.
John
But Amtrak will also stop where traffic warrants. Newark Penn and Newark Airport are close because both provide passengers. NJT is charged with taking local people to local places and, when and where needed or convenient and sensible, transfer to Amtrak. And Amtrak uses the operating philosophy of Limiteds whereby not all trains serve all stations.
AMTK is a political animal: You pay them enough money and they will do what you want them to do.
AMTK wants (more or less) to run a train on the old NP line, and lots of people in North Dakota think that this is a great idea, but the legislature in Bismarck does not think that is is a good enough idea to spend state money on, and so it will not happen.
BTW The ND legislature meets for only 90 days every other year.
ROAR
Lion,
As far as I know the states along the Northeast Corridor Line do not subsidize Amtrak to run its trains there. Those state agencies that run trains on Amtrak’s tracks do pay rent to Amtrak in order to do so. But there is no division of costs between the Federal and state governments.
I did find some information that some people want to re start the North Coast Hiawatha which used to run on the Northern Pacific’s tracks. However, Congress seems unwilling to fund the train. It would be pretty expensive.
It seems to me that some people in Montana want to run a regional rail service just within that state and are trying to get the state to fund it. Whether or not they will succeed I don’t known.
Many States subsidize AMTK trains on routes where they (the states) want service over and above what AMTK would otherwise run. NYS subsidizes many runs within the state.
Many states have commuter or regional lines and contract AMTK to run them.
ROAR
I do understand New York Sate subsidizes Amtrak’s Empire Service, Lion. But as far as I know the Northeast Corridor is not subsidized at all. Since I live on the Corridor I am happy to be able to reach into your pockets and the pockets of many others to pay for the passenger service in my back yard. But Boston to Washington is about 450 miles so I don’t see why we are not talking about the states it serves chipping in for it.
They do. By their taxpayers subsidizing Amtrak. The way Congress seems to want it, the Fed. Gov. subsidizes interstate = long-distance routes, and states subsidize routes entirely within their states. Wjy the Chicago - Indianapolis train is not called long distance is a very good question, since it is obviously interstate. I think Indiana has a very very good case. But Boston - Washington, Boston - NY, NY - Washington are clearly interstate long distance, and the fact that it is a corridor doesn’t change that.
Boston to Washington is clearly interstate. But, within Congress’s current framework which requires 750 miles, I don’t see how the distance, about 450 miles, is sufficient.
Newport News/Norfolk - Boston?