Yet they didn’t require 25kv in the RFP which I find shocking, as it makes expansions of the network more expensive for what’s a rounding error when building stock now
24.02.2026 18:59
👍 1
🔁 0
💬 0
📌 0
Yet they didn’t require 25kv in the RFP which I find shocking, as it makes expansions of the network more expensive for what’s a rounding error when building stock now
Last I checked NJT had those timed connections in the schedule
No, I was answering two separate questions.
The track that connects the NEC to the Hoboken bound line is called the waterfront connection
There have been less cars south of Trenton for years, and the second waterfront track is in the NJT capital backlog
We also have discussed this project and the rest of NJT in several pieces since then.
Extending the Second Avenue subway across 125th St is a great concept, but the current project is deeply flawed:
* At $7.7B for 1.3mi, it will cost an order of magnitude more than similar lines in other global cities.
* Deep stations will waste a lot of time—over 10 min across 125th.
The western extension of the Second Avenue Subway has a $7.7-billion price tag that calls into question the very logic of building it at all — but advocates and researchers say the train is a good idea that could cost a lot less with some minor alterations.
NYCT only builds new lines to B Division specs. None of this discounts expanding the 7, and at the costs involved, i'd rather just extend both across the Hudson, if anything goes from the village/chelsea across.
you could also do HBLR + heights, as a HBLR connection is helpful regardless to relieve the transfer loads to the path
you have two options, one is you put a single station at 9th st HBLR, the other is you put a station in central hoboken, and another to cover the heights south of the split point. there are pros/cons to both. and I haven't really analyzed them enough to have picked one
yes, My plan would have them share several stops, one near Chelsea piers, Stephens, 1-2 intermediate stops, then they split near JFK
My question is really what’s the deepest station that you can do and get under the river?
The path underlining is another complexity here. That, and ALM through the arches up to the meadowlands also fit into this, as do future through running tunnels. There are a few key pieces that have to get built, which services use them is a whole other problem.
And the circulation issues are fixable at some of those stations for the L.
What geometry problems are you referring to?
Part of this is a third issue that gets fixed regardless, if you have 2+ lines, one is going from JSQ up JFK till it can go up bergenline or central at least to Nungessers to handle north/south issues in north Hudson and southern Bergen counties.
The Q is not going to help downtown JC at all, you would need to go uptown to 125th and back down to use it for most destinations. If you send it across, it’s got to help communities further north.
Need to run the math on this one with 5.5% grades, and tunnel depths the same as the shallowest Hudson crossing to see what’s possible.
Which goes north/south would depend on loads, yards, and o/D pairing, but yes, one would go up Bergenline/ central and the other down JFK to Bayonne also relieving JSQ in the process
My current thought is to send both the 7 and L across from near Chelsea piers up to Stephens, and split them near JFK. The geometry isn’t relevant you would build to IND standards regardless, and JC/Hoboken/Bayonne, and other towns nearby can use the extra capacity from 2 lines plus the Q/T north
I think you are solving different issues here. The 7 and L would serve JC and Hoboken far before they help north Hudson towns and south Bergen ones. Either way, future proofing the terminal to be able to cross the river is not a difficult task.
If you get it across the river and route it to a new build bus hub at Nungessers it would be a huge net positive to NJ. At a bare minimum it should be future proofed to go across the river.
"ALBANY — Gov. Kathy Hochul is expected to veto a controversial bill that would have required two operators aboard every subway train with more than two cars, sources told Streetsblog."
W/Streetsblog's Man in Albany, Austin Jefferson -- nyc.streetsblog.org/2025/12/19/h...
Great news: Gov Hochul has reportedly decided to veto a bill requiring two-person train operation.
This poorly-considered bill would've mmediately impacted services that are currently run with one person, and would've make it impossible to fully automate new lines like the IBX.
The bill on Hochul's desk mandating 2PTO on the MTA, Assembly Bill A4873, still hasn't been vetoed. If it's not by the end of the day it will automatically be law and worsen service on small shuttle trains and off-peak services as a result
Call her office at (518) 474-8390 and demand she veto this
With all this, I’d really like to see updates on how we generate ridership estimates for rail projects considering just how many have vastly improved over projections as of late, it makes the economics that much easier regardless of the need to lower construction costs
It’s definitely good news overall, but I would like to see more concrete info on if or how they are planning on avoiding accidentally selling off land needed for service expansions and electrification in future.
Something like this tech from the Netherlands infrafoundations.nl/en/project-h... which they also use for catenary foundations or precast foundations you can just bury in the ground would be quite helpful if attempted nowadays
I have still not seen those either. I’d love to learn more on how that project was executed