It is true that I have no idea what the Port of Authority of New York and New Jersey is.
On the other hand, I have known and continue to know a great deal about the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey – its history, its mandates, and its plans. From when it was still called the Port of New York Authority, as a matter of fact.
I take it that you are interpreting Article VI of the Compact of 1921 in thinking that ‘full power and authority’ is a mandate; it is not. It simply confirms that the Port Authority is capable, just as any other entity, of undertaking improvements in its own name.
If there are questions about exactly where the power, the real power, lies, I suggest
which lays things out in terms that even Van Schnooken Raggen should be able to comprehend.
BTW, for those interested in specifically where the Port Authority goes, here is a snip from the Compact (long, so don’t come whining TL;DR to me!) :
The district is included within the boundary lines located by connecting points of known latitude and longitude. The approximate courses and distances of the lines inclosing the district are recited in the description, but the district is determined by drawing lines through the points of known latitude and longitude. Beginning at a point A of latitude forty-one degrees and four minutes north and longitude seventy-three degrees and fifty-six minutes west, said point being about sixty-five hundredths of a mile west of the westerly bank of the Hudson river and about two and one-tenth miles northwest of the pier at Piermont, in the county of Rockland, state of New York; thence due south one and fifteen-hundredths miles more or less to a point B of latitude forty-one degrees and three minutes north and longitude seventy-three degrees and fifty-six minutes west; said point being about one and three-tenths miles northwest of the pier at Piermont, in the county of
Perhaps a more interesting follow-on question is this:
The Port Authority has made some clear indications that a priority is a ‘one-seat ride’ between the area airports, and that the #7 line and improvements to it constitute one alternative to accomplish that (now that the ARC and “THE” Tunnel project is stopped).
How you’d extend the 7 line from Secaucus/Lautenmund (that’s a joke, son) down to Newark with third rail is an interesting question; in my opinion, yes, it would CERTAINLY involve co-operation with PATH at some point, perhaps connecting around Newark Penn Station. (You would have the option at Newark, coming from EWR, of taking PATH directly to where it goes, the 7 line directly to where it goes, or shuttling to Secaucus and transferring to where all those liines go, including NYP).
Far less likely is the advantage of such heavy capitalization, particularly the portion of ‘subway-grade’ track that would provide non-FRA-compliant access across the Meadows, just for the ‘one-seat ride on transit’ approach. It might be better (for example) to establish some running rights from Secaucus to Newark via some of that prospective Portal Bridge improvement, perhaps sharing ROW with the NYCR, and then making the ‘hub’ of EWR access somewhere around Newark Penn… figuring out wherever you go with joint H&M and subway clearances.
Somewhere in here we should probably also consider what combination of running rights and new line might be used for the #7 system to connect via the general Cranford Junction route with the SIRT bridge to Staten Island, and thereby give a direct rail connection from Staten Island to the airport system and to midtown Manhattan. (Don’t bother me with the clearance issues; I’ve worked that out in principle…)
Where the real fun starts is in how you get a one-seat ride between the fourth airport (ex-Stewart AFB) and the others. Now, it would look like a sl
The Port Authority has no jurisdiction over the 7 train or any other MTA operation, subway or heavy rail. The MTA has no jurisdiction to dig a hole under the Hudson River to NJ for any reason. The Port Authority operates by a board of directors appointed by the governors of the states of New York and New Jersey and therefore are controlled by that chain of command or whimsy. What part of this set up do you not understand?
You seem to be laboring under the misapprehension that the “MTA” is building the 7 line extension. That isn’t true even for the little piece under the Bus Terminal to the Yards; why would you even assume MTA oversight would be involved in letting the tunnel contract, or even arranging for the portion of extended-line operation in the new tunnel?
I certainly understand the ‘setup’, indeed, I have no particular problem understanding interagency communication and ‘collaboration’ in this area, or how it would be applied for this project. Had you actually read what I posted, you might get a better idea of what the situation of the 7 line construction, and then operation, and then administration, would entail.
Let me reiterate that the PA had no great desire to assimilate the H&M, and in fact uses a separate corporation to administer it (this is the PATHC entity that you seem to think would control all trans-Hudson operations). It is just as likely (imho) that the New York and New Jersey Railroad Corporation is the PA ‘entity’ that would be involved with this 7 line extension. Or that a new corporation would be formed to administer the bi-state aspects of the line.
I am under the understanding that no one is building the 7 train to NJ but that many are wagging as an idea. I am also under the understanding that MTA can’t tunnel under the Hudson to NJ. And that only the Port of Authority has the authority to do so whether as part of PATH or any other part of their powers. And if it isn’t the MTA building it, it ain’t the 7 train…
We’re getting into nitpicks here that don’t really matter.
When everyone talks about the ‘7 line extension’ they mean a railroad that connects the end of the existing “7 line” in Manhattan with New Jersey points. Trains going into the tunnel to get over there need no more be “7 trains” than the ‘Train to the Plane’ trains were A/Rockaway trains. And in fact, any one-seat ‘shuttle’ service between airports would not be run with normal MTA subway stock interiors (remember that point in the PA strategic plan about luggage space?), or on ‘typical’ 7 line schedules.
So no, the extension to New Jersey ‘ain’t the 7 train’ to begin with. (If the MTA wanted to secure trackage rights to use the tunnel and the extension for actual continuation of ‘regular’ 7 iine trains, I’m sure something could be arranged either allowing MTA crews to run such service or provide a change of crew and, perhaps, signage at the Yards or wherever that would get around the issue. But the advantage of that alone as an excuse to spend All That Tunnel Money, with the (rather weak, to me) argument about lower tunnelling cost for a transit-quality and size structure, is not particularly promising when one applies the wire brush.
We could kvetch about who owns the actual train cars, but here too nothing more serious than some kind of interagency lease solves the problem in principle… as does PA funding of all or part of “subway” equipment subsequently operated by, say, one of the other transport agencies or operating corporations.
Why you are hung up on what the MTA isn’t supposed to be able to do, I’m not sure. It’s not important whether the extension of the 7 line is nominally MTA controlled, or MTA owned, or not… it’s that a one-seat ride from midtown (or further out!) can be made to New Jersey points. MUCH simpler to work that out with some paper contract
What a waste a present day subway or PATH tunnel system would be. Based on the proposed costs of the aborted ARC tunnels I would suspect that 2 subway clearance sized tunnels would cost $10 B ? Access to NJ and NYC may have limited locations to build. Anything other than full Bi-level clearance tunnel (s ) will probably be needed in the future . Costs would not be that much more % wise. Very penny wise and # foolish. For instance there is no reason that some day PATH will have to replace the H & M tubes and why not allow for much higher capacity full bi-level trains when that happens. The new world trade center station certainly already has those clearances. I cannot remember if Journal Square already has that required vertical clearance ? Too much looking only at short term instead of long term ?
But Blue Streak, the idea is different if we talk bus terminal in NJ to meet the tunneled trains…you could also bring NJT to the terminal, say, to the Park N RIde at Rt 3(?) and Tonnelle Ave.
There is one problem with expanding the #7 line under the Hudson to give a one seat ride to Newark Airport… IT DOES NOT CONNECT TO LaGUARDIA AIRPORT AT THE OTHER END. Since LaGuardia has gone 3/4 of a century without rapid transit, I would not hold my breath waiting for subway expansion west of the Hudson. And we will be driving flying cars before Stewart Airport is connected.
I like this general idea, if we’d be using the 7 tunnel to alleviate traffic going through the Lincoln Tunnel (which I think is a reasonable idea even preserving the existing counterflow busway in rush hour). i wonder, though, if you wouldn’t want to establish the actual ‘bus hub’ further out from where 3 crosses Tonnelle – I recall 3 backing up past that point fairly often in rush hour, so you’d need more dedicated busways inbound if you were going to put a facility of any particular size there for this purpose.
Much cheaper, of course, to build these lanes than to update the elevated approach to the Lincoln vehicle tunnels, and interestingly enough the trans-Hudson route would go neatly under the 40th St. bus facility itself on its way to Grand Central, so you have enhanced access both places to, say, Carey going eastbound to LGA and JFK.
One of the prospective places I see self-driving cars being most useful is in facilities like this, where a driver can proceed (through a gate that confirms parking space is available and can spec its location) and go through the “kiss 'n ride” lane, where he just gets out and heads into the terminal (under reasonable cover). The car itself then navigates to the parking spot chosen and parks itself. Reverse this upon return. Pay for it with the PA’s merged system for EZpass and C-vision or whatever it will be called. Adding BEV charging and some other ‘amenities’ would not be particularly difficult, either, and this scenario removes some of the latent objections to the use of battery mode in hybrids in the New York/New Jersey area.
The other question: Rt. 3 and Tonnelle is only about 1000’ from where I used to park to
PA has said there’s a priority on developing a one-seat ride between the major airports, that also serves major zones in midtown. I don’t see any route that does this without involving the 7 line, and by extension its car size and clearances. The only other line I see in contention for a ‘rail’ LGA extension is the Q train, and there’s a hell of an issue getting that line over there compared to a branch off the 7 (there are already MTA indications about ‘Airtrain’ in the official map listing, and you can bet these aren’t for JFK!) Meanwhile accessing, say, the southbound IND line around 8th Avenue is scarcely unthinkable… and there you would be. You even get the choice of airport branch right at the bus terminal… how useful is that?
Stewart is the Port Authority’s official ‘fourth airport’ choice – don’t argue with me, argue with them, they’ve set it up already so (good or ill) that’s where the development will go. I don’t see anything of great importance either about the runway alignment or the possibility of placing parallel runways a la Memphis, especially with 15,000’ available on the main strip and plenty of dedicated land.
Since the trip from the Port Jervis line over to Stewart is not very far and I don’t see dramatic terrain from the satellite, even fully elevated viaducting for access ought to be thinkable within the scope of the airport development budget PA is looking at, particularly as no intermediate stop or passenger access would be necessary. I confess that I have not looked at the detailed topo information for that area, but if you branched off at the curve above Beaver Dam Lake and went generally northeast, there isn’t much… yet… that reasonable eminent domain wouldn’t get you. Combined with the fact that NJT/MNCR have upgraded the track all the way from Secaucus up to this point – well en
Blue Streak – remember that this proposed subway extension is in PARALLEL to the Gateway tubes that Amtrak is doing. I would be very, very surprised if the new Gateway tunnels were not built to ‘bilevel’ clearance or perhaps even beyond, given the capabilities of the existing TBMs that are, handily, available for this work.
All the existing materials I’ve seen give the cost of the ‘subway’ tunnel, all the way under the Palisades, as less than $5 billion. It literally does not matter if you have additional tunnel clearance for the transit proposal, except (marginally) insofar as you might want to build it to clear IND-size equipment for some potential future uses (and I believe the extension tunnels are oversize already, so this is not unthinkable).
The nice thing about the transit tunnel is that HYDC is on board with the idea, as it benefits their work both directly and indirectly, and if motivated they are a potential source of capital.
If I understand the situation correctly, and I think I do, the chief reason Christie cancelled the NJ side of ARC was that he was receiving insufficient guarantees that the State of New Jersey – not the PA, not any entity in New York – was going to be left with $1B or more of overall cost without any budget in place for that. This indicates to me that even if the transit tunnel is only a couple billion short it would not face objection like that for ARC, and WITH THE PRESENCE OF GATEWAY it would provide some valuable services that would be far less practical, or even impossible, with full-size commuter stock (let alone bilevels!)
Now, something this at least brings up again is allowing subway-size stock to access the PRR tubes once Gateway is in place. I am tempted to mention that third rail is still in the tunnels (for cat maintenance) and it wouldn’t be terrifically difficult to arrange things so that '7 line" trains could go via the Empire Connector and thence (even with a reversi
IRT subway cars are not going to operate on NJT or Amtrak tracks for one simple reason. The prohibitive cost of installing ATC-PTC indication and control equipment compatible with what Amtrak and NJT both are using now and what is required by the new FRA PTC program. A large fleet of subway cars would require this equipment, and it would be in use only a fraction of the time. An across the platform or other exchange would be so far more economical that any one-seat ride promises would not be kept.
Blue Streak – remember that this proposed subway extension is in PARALLEL to the Gateway tubes that Amtrak is doing. I would be very, very surprised if the new Gateway tunnels were not built to ‘bilevel’ clearance or perhaps even beyond, given the capabilities of the existing TBMs that are, handily, available for this work.
All the existing materials I’ve seen give the cost of the ‘subway’ tunnel, all the way under the Palisades, as less than $5 billion. It literally does not matter if you have additional tunnel clearance for the transit proposal, except (marginally) insofar as you might want to build it to clear IND-size equipment for some potential future uses (and I believe the extension tunnels are oversize already, so this is not unthinkable).
The nice thing about the transit tunnel is that HYDC is on board with the idea, as it benefits their work both directly and indirectly, and if motivated they are a potential source of capital.
If I understand the situation correctly, and I think I do, the chief reason Christie cancelled the NJ side of ARC was that he was receiving insufficient guarantees that the State of New Jersey – not the PA, not any entity in New York – was going to be left with $1B or more of overall cost without any budget in place for that. This indicates to me that even if the transit tunnel is only a couple billion short it would not face objection like that for ARC, and WITH THE PRESENCE OF GATEWAY it would provide some valuable services that would be far less practical, or even impossible, with full-size commuter stock (let alone bilevels!)
Now, something this at least brings up again is allowing subway-size stock to access the PRR tubes once Gateway is in place. I am tempted to mention that third rail is still in the tunnels (for cat maintenance) and it wouldn’t be terrifically difficult to arrange things so that '7 line" trains could go via the Empire C
1. You cannot just place any tunnel just at a whim as there are many impediments such as buildings, cemetarys ?, train tracks, etc.
2. AMTRAK has already expressed concern that unless they can under ground rights for the Gateway tunnels those tunnels will not be built.
3. Yes build these # 7 proposed tunnels – but.
4… The H & M PATH tubes ( 4 ) ( not by any imagination tunnels ) were built 100 + years ago using cast iron sections bolted together. I believe these tubes were just laid in trenchs on the bottom of the Hudson and then covered ?
5. Since “SANDY” pushed salt water up the Hudson how much salt water got on the tubes and has stayed is anyone’s guess ? Note; ‘SANDY’ even put salt water further up the hudson into the north river tunnels. Were the PATH tunnels even built for salt water ? Cast iron – how does it handle salt water ?
6. So there may be soon a new need for 1 or more of the tubes to be replaced by another tunnel. Any PATH slowdown /shutdown now would be disastorous as there is no spare capacity in any of the Hudson river rail tunnels.&
Salt water is found in the Hudson almost to West Point…to the Bear Mt. Bridge I think. Tide effects all the way to Albany and Troy. Sandy did not produce any new limits in and around the City.
More important to all the comments is that you cannot have a single track or set of tracks which would handle intercity rail, commuter rail and rapid transit rail together…at least the rapid transit would need separate right of way. Yes, PATH, or the Tubes, are actual tubes on the bottom of the Hudson and now covered with silt at least. North River bores and Lincoln and Holland tunnels are under the river itself. (But I say that with caution because I have heard the highway bores referred to as tubes for each separate bore but as tunnels when describing location and name.)
You cannot compare the ARC to a rapid transit tunnel. At least without comparing use and application variables you can’t; they cannot be equal because of equipment and use. PATH has, ironically, had opportunities to rebuild and repair the tubes and tunnels over the years. Nine Eleven was used to make improvements between Exchange Pl and World Trade Center and the Hoboken to Christopher Street Tubes have had improvements and repairs over the years with single tracking especially nights and weekends. I believe PATH has done a great job of keeping the tunnels and tubes in safe order.
What has to be decided and weighed are: Amtrak tunnels; commuter train tunnels, bus tunnels, and rail rapid transit tunnels. Each has a different purpose by design, each has different equipment and operating characteristics. The terminating point in NYC itself could be different for each . Commuters from Northern North Jersey and adjacent NY state may have to go downtown instead of mid town, so a 7 train configuration or connection may not make as much sense as an A train connection…plus with the A train northern and central Queens, all of the west side of Manhattan, plus Brooklyn could
1. You cannot just place any tunnel just at a whim as there are many impediments such as buildings, cemetarys ?, train tracks, etc.
Most, if not all, of the ‘impediments’ to a prospective 7 line tunnel are either overcome (in the case of the virtually-finished extension boring) or not yet built (in the case of any transition section under the Hudson Yards site) or under the Hudson or the Palisades (neither of which have serious infrastructure at tunnel level).
Extension of the 7 line to the Empire Corridor, on the far West Side, poses much less difficulty than in midtown. A transfer station directly to service to the north does not represent a particularly great engineering exercise; the vertical distance between the Corridor line of track and the extension track cannot be substantial, and incorporating this into the prospective design gives additional incentive to complete the Tenth Avenue station.
I doubt that relocation of utilities or structures at the Meadowlands end, even if it is run as Henry indicated, would involve any great marginal cost or pose particular difficulty. The line of the tunnel exiting the tunnel has more option vertically as well as horizontally compared to what would be required for full-length and weight conventional equipment. I don’t see this objection as critical, certainly not in the sense that any more direct connection between GCT and Penn would be.
2. AMTRAK has already expressed concern that unless they can under ground rights for the Gateway tunnels those tunnels will not be built.
Did you not read what I posted about the establishment of the rights in 1935? For TUNNEL RIGHT-OF-WAY New Jersey has full authority under the Hudson up to the agreed division line; New York on the other side. No more issue, and no more permissions, are required under applicable law and precedent. There may b
Hungerford, the author of Men Of Erie, Men of the NYC, producer of the railroad shows at Chicago Expo and the 1939 World’s Fair also wrote a book in the mid 30’s about some of this same material concerning subways, Tubes, railroads, and connections in Manhattan…I believe it was published in the mid 30s’s. Unfortunately I no longer have access to the book…but if anyone does, read it and compare notes please.