5 ms·

One of the things the NYC region could do is unify operations and planning of NJ transit, LIRR, and Metro North into one through running network with a tunnel f

by erentz 9y ago

One of the things the NYC region could do is unify operations and planning of NJ transit, LIRR, and Metro North into one through running network with a tunnel from GCT south with two more Manhattan stops then across the Hudson to another main station where the Hoboken terminal is (a bit more inland likely). Overtime the systems and fleets can merge. Instead you get this absurd patchwork of expensive stand alone projects, ARC, the huge building over of of a cap on the LIRR Hudson railyards which required maybe a billion in spending. Talks about a new Penn Station. Etc. As a plus you reduce the demand on the existing Penn tunnels used by Amtrak. If this had all be planned as one system the money already spent or being proposed to be spent on these disparate/disconnected things could provide do wonders.

JumpCrisscross 9y ago
> One of the things the NYC region could do is unify operations and planning of NJ transit, LIRR, and Metro North into one through running network How would this address the principal problem identified in the article, the rising cost per mile of building new track?
- erentz 9y ago
  That unfortunately is an American centric problem, it’s particularly bad in NY but other parts of the country aren’t immune to it either. There’s a lot written about that elsewhere. My point in this instance is that even at the inflated construction costs you could still accomplish a lot more with better planning and linking these systems up. A tunnel and new stops in manhatten connecting them is going to accomplish a lot more for the same price as capping a huge rail yard. Building new tunnels that terminate three separate systems in different locations. And building a new Penn station.
wil421 9y ago
Does any cross state combined public transit effort even exist in the US? Maybe DC, I am not familiar with Washington DC. It’s a nightmare in my city just between neighboring counties. Only 2 counties were included in the initial build out of public trains and not any significant expansion since. The other counties vehemently reject any such proposals. One county is going through expansion talks again but the train will only go one stop to their bus hub. I bet they will end up rejecting all of it. NIMBYism isn’t very strong in my city but it certainly is regarding public transport, trains especially.
- officialchicken 9y ago
  > Does any cross state combined public transit effort even exist in the US? Yes, AMTRAK [0] [0] https://history.amtrak.com/amtraks-history/historic-timeline https://history.amtrak.com/amtraks-history/historic-timeline
  - wil421 9y ago
    Amtrak is the federal government. I am talking about one states public rail system connecting with another states rail system. New York to New Jersey was given as an example in the parent post. Amtrak is great for vacations or other travel but I don’t thinks its use case is daily commuters. At least it’s not the use case for the majority of the US.
    - tspike 9y ago
      The Amtrak Cascades line is actually state owned and operated: http://www.amtrakcascades.com/about http://www.amtrakcascades.com/about One example, at least!
- jcranmer 9y ago
  There's not a lot of places in the country with "true" interstate integrated transit needs. Places like Chicago have far suburbs and exurbs within the commute shed in other states but are still generally within state. Even cities like St. Louis generally have a clear dominant locus in one state, which limits the ability of the other state(s) to play off the other state. The general exceptions to this rule are Kansas City and Washington, DC, where the workplace loci are truly distributed among multiple jurisdictions so that no one state is dominant. In DC, the standard subway (WMATA) runs across all three jurisdictions, although there is some amount of political football over funding. The commuter rail systems are not integrated, but that is largely due to limited capacity over the Long Bridge. (MARC, the Maryland system, is participating in the Long Bridge replacement project in part because they do intend to extend service to Alexandria once there's capacity to do so). NYC is a truly special case because it's simply so massive. In terms of geographical boundaries, there are roughly three natural independent sheds: trans-Hudson, trans-East, and trans-Harlem rivers. Each of these sheds is massive enough to let each of the three commuter systems that focus on their own sheds to not have to coordinate. These sheds also happen to largely coincide with different states: NJ is trans-Hudson, NY (or, rather, Long Island) is trans-East, and CT (as well as parts of NY) is trans-Harlem.
Nav_Panel 9y ago
>unify operations and planning of NJ transit, LIRR, and Metro North Everyone agrees but insiders who know about the current state of the transit organizations consider this suggestion so absurd as to write an April Fools post[1] about it. 1: https://pedestrianobservations.com/2018/04/01/new-york-area-governments-to-form-a-coordinated-transportation-planning-agency/ https://pedestrianobservations.com/2018/04/01/new-york-area-...
- JumpCrisscross 9y ago
  > insiders who know about the current state of the transit organizations consider this suggestion so absurd as to write an April Fools post The difficulty comes down to regional politics. The regional rail systems (LIRR, Metro-North and NJTR) were set up to give those on Long Island, upstate/in Connecticut and in New Jersey, respectively, a dedicated regional transit authority. A politician attempting to unify operations would need to convince those voters should risk giving up their regional transit control.
- erentz 9y ago
  Oh that’s golden, thanks for sharing. :-)
jseliger 9y ago
An excellent point. This is also congruent: https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/1/1/14112776/new-york-second-avenue-subway-phase-2 https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/1/1/14112776/ne.... Oddly, the GAO effort to figure out why infrastructure costs so much isn't in the budget, last time I checked: https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/5/24/15681560/gao-report-transit-construction-costs https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/5/24/15681560/g...
btown 9y ago
> GCT south then across the Hudson to... Hoboken Effectively the PATH & 4/5 train already do this with a transfer at Fulton Street. And while unifying the system may look good on paper, I'd hate for the PATH to descend to the MTA's low standards of reliability and cleanliness. Better part of the system work well than all of it work poorly.
- biscuitt 9y ago
  I'm always amazed at how clean the Path train and stations are especially when transferring onto them from the subway. It's a completely different experience
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
officialchicken 9y ago
> As a plus you reduce the demand on the existing Penn tunnels used by Amtrak. Amtrak has owned and operated the HRT (tunnels built in 1905) since 1976 when it took over the NEC from the failing Penn lines in the early 70's. It's the busiest segment of track (Interlock-A) in the world and out of the busiest train station in the world (NYP). You could reduce demand on the existing tunnels by building ARC.
closeparen 9y ago
Commuter rail ought to optimize for seating and ride comfort on long journeys with infrequent stops. Subways ought to optimize for capacity and efficiency on short, mostly standing-room trips within densely populated areas. Unification with subway rolling stock would be awful for commuter rail riders’ comfort and willingness to use the system. Unification with commuter rail rolling stock would be awful for subway crowding.
- erentz 9y ago
  No one is suggesting unifying subways and commuter rail. Note that LIRR, Metro North, and NJ Transit are all commuter rail. (FWIW commuter rail is a bad term we use here in the states - something like “regional” rail would make more sense.)
InclinedPlane 9y ago
Seriously. I visited NYC last year and spent a few days hanging out with some friends out on Long Island. Traveling on LIRR is a very unfriendly process for anyone who doesn't do it basically every weekday and integrating LIRR travel with subway travel can be a non-trivial optimization problem. It's not super complicated once you get the hang of it, but otherwise it is just not obvious where you can get on and off trains, where the trains go and when, etc.

by erentz 9y ago

JumpCrisscross 9y ago

> One of the things the NYC region could do is unify operations and planning of NJ transit, LIRR, and Metro North into one through running network How would this address the principal problem identified in the article, the rising cost per mile of building new track?

erentz 9y ago
That unfortunately is an American centric problem, it’s particularly bad in NY but other parts of the country aren’t immune to it either. There’s a lot written about that elsewhere. My point in this instance is that even at the inflated construction costs you could still accomplish a lot more with better planning and linking these systems up. A tunnel and new stops in manhatten connecting them is going to accomplish a lot more for the same price as capping a huge rail yard. Building new tunnels that terminate three separate systems in different locations. And building a new Penn station.

wil421 9y ago

Does any cross state combined public transit effort even exist in the US? Maybe DC, I am not familiar with Washington DC. It’s a nightmare in my city just between neighboring counties. Only 2 counties were included in the initial build out of public trains and not any significant expansion since. The other counties vehemently reject any such proposals. One county is going through expansion talks again but the train will only go one stop to their bus hub. I bet they will end up rejecting all of it. NIMBYism isn’t very strong in my city but it certainly is regarding public transport, trains especially.

officialchicken 9y ago
> Does any cross state combined public transit effort even exist in the US? Yes, AMTRAK [0] [0] https://history.amtrak.com/amtraks-history/historic-timeline https://history.amtrak.com/amtraks-history/historic-timeline
- wil421 9y ago
  Amtrak is the federal government. I am talking about one states public rail system connecting with another states rail system. New York to New Jersey was given as an example in the parent post. Amtrak is great for vacations or other travel but I don’t thinks its use case is daily commuters. At least it’s not the use case for the majority of the US.
  - tspike 9y ago
    The Amtrak Cascades line is actually state owned and operated: http://www.amtrakcascades.com/about http://www.amtrakcascades.com/about One example, at least!
jcranmer 9y ago
There's not a lot of places in the country with "true" interstate integrated transit needs. Places like Chicago have far suburbs and exurbs within the commute shed in other states but are still generally within state. Even cities like St. Louis generally have a clear dominant locus in one state, which limits the ability of the other state(s) to play off the other state. The general exceptions to this rule are Kansas City and Washington, DC, where the workplace loci are truly distributed among multiple jurisdictions so that no one state is dominant. In DC, the standard subway (WMATA) runs across all three jurisdictions, although there is some amount of political football over funding. The commuter rail systems are not integrated, but that is largely due to limited capacity over the Long Bridge. (MARC, the Maryland system, is participating in the Long Bridge replacement project in part because they do intend to extend service to Alexandria once there's capacity to do so). NYC is a truly special case because it's simply so massive. In terms of geographical boundaries, there are roughly three natural independent sheds: trans-Hudson, trans-East, and trans-Harlem rivers. Each of these sheds is massive enough to let each of the three commuter systems that focus on their own sheds to not have to coordinate. These sheds also happen to largely coincide with different states: NJ is trans-Hudson, NY (or, rather, Long Island) is trans-East, and CT (as well as parts of NY) is trans-Harlem.

Nav_Panel 9y ago

>unify operations and planning of NJ transit, LIRR, and Metro North Everyone agrees but insiders who know about the current state of the transit organizations consider this suggestion so absurd as to write an April Fools post[1] about it. 1: https://pedestrianobservations.com/2018/04/01/new-york-area-governments-to-form-a-coordinated-transportation-planning-agency/ https://pedestrianobservations.com/2018/04/01/new-york-area-...

JumpCrisscross 9y ago
> insiders who know about the current state of the transit organizations consider this suggestion so absurd as to write an April Fools post The difficulty comes down to regional politics. The regional rail systems (LIRR, Metro-North and NJTR) were set up to give those on Long Island, upstate/in Connecticut and in New Jersey, respectively, a dedicated regional transit authority. A politician attempting to unify operations would need to convince those voters should risk giving up their regional transit control.
erentz 9y ago
Oh that’s golden, thanks for sharing. :-)

jseliger 9y ago

An excellent point. This is also congruent: https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/1/1/14112776/new-york-second-avenue-subway-phase-2 https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/1/1/14112776/ne.... Oddly, the GAO effort to figure out why infrastructure costs so much isn't in the budget, last time I checked: https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/5/24/15681560/gao-report-transit-construction-costs https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/5/24/15681560/g...

btown 9y ago

> GCT south then across the Hudson to... Hoboken Effectively the PATH & 4/5 train already do this with a transfer at Fulton Street. And while unifying the system may look good on paper, I'd hate for the PATH to descend to the MTA's low standards of reliability and cleanliness. Better part of the system work well than all of it work poorly.

biscuitt 9y ago
I'm always amazed at how clean the Path train and stations are especially when transferring onto them from the subway. It's a completely different experience

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

officialchicken 9y ago

> As a plus you reduce the demand on the existing Penn tunnels used by Amtrak. Amtrak has owned and operated the HRT (tunnels built in 1905) since 1976 when it took over the NEC from the failing Penn lines in the early 70's. It's the busiest segment of track (Interlock-A) in the world and out of the busiest train station in the world (NYP). You could reduce demand on the existing tunnels by building ARC.

closeparen 9y ago

Commuter rail ought to optimize for seating and ride comfort on long journeys with infrequent stops. Subways ought to optimize for capacity and efficiency on short, mostly standing-room trips within densely populated areas. Unification with subway rolling stock would be awful for commuter rail riders’ comfort and willingness to use the system. Unification with commuter rail rolling stock would be awful for subway crowding.

erentz 9y ago
No one is suggesting unifying subways and commuter rail. Note that LIRR, Metro North, and NJ Transit are all commuter rail. (FWIW commuter rail is a bad term we use here in the states - something like “regional” rail would make more sense.)

InclinedPlane 9y ago

Seriously. I visited NYC last year and spent a few days hanging out with some friends out on Long Island. Traveling on LIRR is a very unfriendly process for anyone who doesn't do it basically every weekday and integrating LIRR travel with subway travel can be a non-trivial optimization problem. It's not super complicated once you get the hang of it, but otherwise it is just not obvious where you can get on and off trains, where the trains go and when, etc.