New Delays Pushing Revenue Service on 7 Line Extension To 2014

Once again, the MTA has fallen behind on another one of its major capital projects. This time, the MTA wont meet its December 2013 deadline to initiate revenue service on the 7 Line extension into Hudson Yards on the West Side. Instead, it will be hoping for a July 2014 open, though parts wont be done until 2015 (more than 12 months late):

The No. 7 subway line extension to 11th Avenue and West 34th Street won’t carry passengers until mid-2014 — six months later than was widely expected — and the new station won’t be entirely finished until the end of 2015, the MTA said yesterday.
The agency had long cited a December 2013 target opening.

But “passenger train service [to the new station] is scheduled for June 2014,” an MTA spokesman told us.

The six-month delay is hopefully not a sign of greater trouble at a project that’s of paramount importance to Gary Barnett’s Extell Development Co. and Stephen M. Ross’ Related Cos.

It’s also crucial to City Hall, which heralds it as the mass-transit gateway to a redeveloped Far West Side.

The station’s at the doorstep of One Hudson Yards, the 56-story office tower Extell plans to build on 11th Avenue and 33rd and 34th streets.

There's no reason given for this latest setback, but it echoes similar problems with other MTA projects, including the East Side Access and 2d Avenue Subway line projects. The projects continue to come in over budget and are delayed long past when they were initially expected to be completed.

These delays are going to affect the real estate developers who were hoping to capitalize on the new service by building skyscrapers in and around Hudson Yards, but the real problem is that the MTA still can't seem to keep its capital costs and deadlines on schedule.

It's a problem that isn't confined to the MTA, or even the New York metro area. Nationally, it's rare to find major infrastructure projects that are coming in on budget and on schedule. We have to do better, and the problems aren't the result of greedy unions either. The companies that are providing the backbone of the work are repeatedly low-balling offers to get the work and then continue to charge overages for work until it is completed. The replacement Oakland Bay Bridge project is one such example. Back when the project was bid, it was expected to cost $1.75 billion. The low bid at the time was a joint American bid (American Bridge Company and Fluor Corporation) for $1.8 billion. The state then rebid and a the same bidder (American Bridge Company and Fluor Corporation) won the bid with a $1.43 billion offer with the state seeing this as a savings for taxpayers. American Bridge and Fluor sought to save money by using Chinese-fabricated steel. Now, the work looks like it will cost at least $1.85 billion and everyone's harping about the potential jobs that were not created by going with the Chinese steel.

Yet, the real question is why anyone thought that we'd see the same bidder with essentially the same bid coming in at $400+ less than its original figure stick to that lower figure when it knew or had reason to know that the final cost would have been closer to the final figure. Costs weren't going to drop. Construction costs only increase over time.

We've got a bunch of competing interests, but the problems start with unrealistic bidding. Everyone wants to see the bidding low-balled; politicians need to get projects started to show that they're doing stuff, and companies need the projects to get work started. Once work is underway, there's not enough incentives to keep the projects on budget - everyone figures that taxpayers will soak up the difference since politicians don't want to be on the hook for an unfinished project. Inertia drives the projects through to completion, but at tremendous cost.

Would the American bid have stayed on budget? That's doubtful given that most projects go overbudget. Would it have created more jobs in the states? That's quite possible. But would California have gone ahead with the project had the up front cost been at the $1.8 billion point? We're talking about a $500 million difference, which in a cash-strapped state is big money (including on lending terms, bond offerings, etc.).

MTA Kills 7 Train Proposal To Secaucus, Leaving Gateway As Only Proposed Cross-Hudson Transit Expansion Project

MTA Chairman Joe Lhota has effectively killed any chance for the 7 Train to be extended to Secaucus. He cites the costs of building out the line and the need to build a maintenance yard in New Jersey.

Lhota has a point - the MTA can barely afford its existing system and is already over budget on existing expansion or renovation projects, including the 7 Line extension to the Javits Center, the Second Avenue Subway that is only funded through completion of the phase 1 stub, and the Fulton Street Transit Hub. It can't afford to take on a major undertaking such as the extension to New Jersey without any funding in place.

New York City isn't ponying up the funds, nor is New York State. New Jersey has been open to the idea, particularly after Gov. Christie killed the abortive ARC tunnel project because cost overruns could run from a conservative $1 billion over budget to $5 billion or more, with New Jersey taxpayers on the hook for any overages, but the real transit expansion option is the Gateway tunnel project.

That's not funded to any degree worth speaking about. It barely has enough funding to get to keep the name, despite the critical need to eliminate a bottleneck on the Northeast Corridor and to expand high speed rail for Amtrak and NJ Transit traffic. Amtrak would be the lead agency, which makes sense on an interstate project, but funding is caught up in politics and isn't likely to be in place anytime soon.

Gov. Cuomo's Queens Convention Center Plan Takes Flak From Trade Show Industry

When Gov. Andrew Cuomo indicated his intention to pave the way for Genting International to build a new and larger convention center at its Aqueduct casino facility, lots of people perked up. While everyone understands that there are serious limitations with the Javits Center on the West Side of Midtown Manhattan, the idea that the City would raze the site and open it up for redevelopment in favor of a new convention center in the far reaches of Queens sounded farfetched.

Now comes word that the very trade show industry that would be users of whichever facility exists, actually wants to stay at the Javits Center.

They pointed to the risk that the trade-show industry faces if the plan first proposed by Gov. Andrew Cuomo in January also results in tearing down the Jacob K. Javits Convention Center and building a smaller trade show center in Manhattan.

“The jury is out in my mind on this project,” said Carl Weisbrod, a clinical professor of real estate at New York University and a board member of the Convention Center Development Corp., the state-run entity responsible for the on-going renovation of the Javits Center.

“It seems to me,” Mr. Weisbrod said, addressing Mr. Goode, “that your facility will cannibalize a public facility.”

A major fear for the meetings industry is that the Queens project will upend a decades-old system of doing business at Javits, alienating show producers and attendees who may defect to other cities as a result.

“If Javits were torn down and I had a big show in New York, I would consider moving it to another city, such as Philadelphia, before I'd consider Aqueduct,” said Jeff Little, the former president and owner of George Little Management, a major tradeshow producer. Mr. Little recently formed a new company after last year's purchase of GLM by Providence Equity Partners.

Genting also faced critics who say that building a large convention center does not make sense when so many mega centers across the country are struggling to book shows.

Over the last decade there has been an enormous decline of attendees at conventions, said Steven Malanga, senior fellow at Manhattan Institute, a conservative think tank. What's more, he said that just 27% of the 2.3 million people who attended shows at Javits last year were from out of town.

“The rest were day-trippers,” he said. Genting, he predicted, won't be able to attract large trade shows because the industry is simply not growing.

There are long term trends within the convention industry that work against building a new and larger facility, including the fact that bookings are down and large centers are struggling to find events. That hasn't been an issue with the Javits Center, despite the Center's deficiencies.

Some of those issues are being resolved in a major refurbishment and small expansion project to the north side of the main halls.

The MTA is busy expanding the 7 Line to the Javits Center, which is a major boost for transit connectivity. The Aqueduct site lacks any appreciable transit and that means that convention-goers would have a hard time getting around since there are few other tourist destinations near the Ozone Park location. The Javits Center is a short walk to Times Square and other major landmarks - a key to luring tourists and convention planners. While airport access may be seen as a bonus for a Queens convention center, even that's relatively limited and Genting has thus far not committed to paying for transit connections that would improve transit in the area.

I'd say that Cuomo's plans are likely to stall, especially now that trade show organizations are suggesting that they want to keep the Javits where it is.

Costly To Build; Costly To Maintain; And No Way To Pay For All of It

I agree with much of what Benjamin Kabab writes on transit issues, and I don't disagree with his posting about how Amtrak lacks the operational funding to operate the Moynihan transit center for Penn Station in New York City. Money is in place to build out the Farley Post Office as a transit center to replace the decrepit Penn Station beneath Madison Square Garden, but it doesn't actually expand transit capabilities.

Moreover, Amtrak lacks the funds to operate out of the Farley Post Office should it be force to pay rent on the space. That's why Amtrak is asking for rent abatements or other reductions to its costs so that it can take advantage of the space.

Kabab closes with the following:

In a time when transportation money is scarce, the available dollars are being burned on things that look good instead of things that deliver better transportation service. If that seems backwards to you, well, that’s because it is, and until things change, we’ll be left with fancier train stations and no better service than what we already have.

The whole mess points out something that I've riffed upon for years. Politicians love to have ribbon cutting and will push for construction of projects but don't follow through with funding maintenance and operations for mass transit, even though those are key to the long term maintenance of infrastructure and mass transit. This is far from a new problem either. It's a problem that goes back decades and we're still dealing with bad decisions.

This problem is severe in New Jersey, where NJ Transit built the Secaucus Transfer and blew apart its budget, and where it had hoped to build the ARC Tunnel, but was thankfully cancelled by Gov. Christie over cost overruns that would have inured to New Jersey taxpayers. NJ Transit lacks the ability to maintain its current level of service, and as part of the latest round of fare hikes, it cut service. If it couldn't maintain the current level of service even with fare hikes, how would it ever have been able to provide service with the ARC tunnel project? It couldn't and it never could explain how it would maintain the space underneath Herald Square that it was proposing, let alone how it would expand rail service via ARC for Northern New Jersey rail riders when it was busy cutting service for those same riders.

At the same time, NJ Transit and Amtrak have let the Portal Bridge project get wrapped into other projects, even though everyone knows it must be replaced. So it continues to decay and act as a bottleneck on the Northeast Corridor because it can't get rebuilt as a separate project despite funding that should be in place for this critical infrastructure.

Elsewhere, the Port Authority is in the midst of building out its PATH transit hub at the World Trade Center and the MTA is building out the Fulton Street Transit Center and both are over budget and overdue on their construction deadlines as originally proposed by several years.

Building projects that would leave or restore monumental hubs for transit are all well and good, but detract from the nuts and bolts of maintaining and expanding critical infrastructure. Spending $3.4 billion for a PATH hub that was originally expected to run $2.2 billion (and which will expand capacity not one whit over the temporary PATH terminals at the WTC that have been rebuilt twice since the 9/11 attacks at an additional cost of over $500 million) makes little sense except that the Port Authority wanted a designer hub and monumental architecture to accompany the station rebuilding. That's money that could have just as well gone to building a replacement for the Goethals Bridge, better access to LaGuardia Airport, or averted fare/toll hikes on the bridges and tolls. As it is, nearly all of the fare/toll hike can be explained by the cost overrun for the PATH terminal - not any of the ongoing capital construction work being carried out by the Port Authority.

The Fulton Street Transit Hub cleans up a mess of multiple transit lines and connects them in a more rational manner. It also connects the N/R and PATH with the numbered lines for the first time in Lower Manhattan, and that's a vast improvement over the warren of tunnels and connectors that was there previously. However, massive cost overruns and delays have pushed back the completion date time and time again. The station headhouse (the part we see above ground) will look spectacular when it's done, but it again doesn't affect the usability of the station. The costs that could have been saved by scaling back the above-ground portion - then selling off air rights, all while cleaning up the mess underground, could have then been used to rehabilitate stations elsewhere in the system, or used to build out another station on the 7 line extension in Hell's Kitchen that was dropped due to cost concerns.

Politicians Jumping All Over Cross-Hudson 7 Line Expansion

The stupidity is strong with some local politicians who are quick to jump ugly with Mayor Mike Bloomberg's proposal to extend the 7 Line to Secaucus. Apparently some have never seen a map before and think that the 7 Line should somehow be extended to Hoboken. That amazingly stupid idea comes from New Jersey Assemblyman Harold Ramos, who represents the city.

Here's that map:

View Larger Map

No one bothered to ask Ramos how that passes a cost-benefit analysis - and why anyone would spend billions of dollars to run a subway line from Manhattan to Secaucus and then to Hoboken. That's a massive duplication of service and doesn't make sense even if the money was available to do such a boondoggle.

Hoboken already has a well used PATH terminal and has NJ Transit's terminal as well. It is well situated with ferries and buses. There's no reason for extending the line except to grab attention for himself. At the same time the ARC project that he mentioned was never going anywhere near Hoboken.

Then, you've got Staten Island residents and local politicians complaining about Bloomberg ignoring the plight of Staten Island residents who lack a direct mass transit connection to the rest of the City.

Here's I'm far more sympathetic. The Verrazano-Narrows Bridge was designed and built by Robert Moses who was notoriously opposed to mass transit and isn't capable of running mass transit. There has been talk of including mass transit on the rebuilt Goethals or raised Bayonne Bridge, but that's taken a back seat to other projects. Neither would provide a direct connection with Manhattan or Brooklyn, which leaves most Staten Islanders driving or taking the ferry to get to work.

That has to change, but that wouldn't come cheap. A cross-harbor tunnel to Manhattan would be prohibitively expensive and could potentially run into competing plans for a cross-harbor rail tunnel linking Brooklyn with New Jersey that has been a long-cherished proposal that raises its head from time to time.

A tunnel across the Brooklyn Narrows to connect with the R train in Bay Ridge would be prohibitively expensive, even though it would likely service hundreds of thousands of people a day and finally incorporate Staten Island Rail into the rest of the MTA subway network. It would be cheaper than a direct link to Manhattan, but would likely run to $10 billion or more and there's no indication that anyone has the money for that proposal either.

Mayor Bloomberg Pushing Ahead With 7 Line Expansion To Secaucus

While New York is looking at the replacement of the Tappan Zee bridge and Amtrak is contemplating the Gateway tunnel project, New York City's Mayor Mike Bloomberg is forging ahead with a proposal to expand the 7 Line to Secaucus along much of the right of way that would have been utilized by the cancelled ARC tunnel.

In fact, Gov. Chris Christie, who killed the ARC project, appears to be for the project and is letting Bloomberg take the lead.

The cross-Hudson tunnel would connect to the 7 train, which is being extended from Time Square to a new terminal at 11th Avenue and 34th Street. The current project will be completed in 14 months.
The next steps in the process are a full business plan and environmental-impact study, which have not yet been commissioned.
During his weekly radio appearance on WOR Friday, Bloomberg didn’t reveal his enthusiasm for the project, saying only, “If there’s money for it and it makes sense, I’d certainly support it.”
But yesterday, Bloomberg spokeswoman Julie Wood sounded a more optimistic note: “Since we began exploring this idea, we continue to think it has a lot of potential as a way to cost-effectively improve regional transportation and also create thousands of jobs.”
Officials in the Christie administration and the Port Authority are working with City Hall on the No. 7 concept, but insist that the mayor take the lead.
Christie spokesman Michael Drewniak said yesterday, “We have been intrigued all along by this as a potential alternative.”

A year ago, Bloomberg was reluctant to pony up any dough when Christie killed a New York-New Jersey tunnel project called ARC, or Access to the Region’s Core. That project called for a new tunnel for NJ Transit commuter trains to be built from Secaucus to Herald Square.

Christie said ARC’s design was flawed, and its price tag was no longer reasonable after ballooning to a range of $11 billion to $14 billion -- up from $8.7 billion.

Early estimates say a No. 7 tunnel could be built for less than $10 billion, a sum that would be split among the city, the PA and New Jersey. Officials are also planning to hit up the feds for cash.

Extending the No. 7 to New Jersey would quickly become a key talking point in the mayor’s legacy.

The 7 Line is already being extended to 11th Avenue and 34th Street from Times Square. That segment is likely to go into revenue service in less than 2 years. If the 7 Line ran from Secaucus, a New Jersey commuter could transfer at Secaucus (the first stop) and have a one-seat ride into Queens (including Citifield) for Mets games.

Critics may complain that this doesn't provide the kind of one-seat ride that commuter rail across the Hudson would do, but that's rediculous. The NYC MTA subways operate 24/7/365, and that's far better service than NJ Transit provides. It would be a tremendous increase in cross-Hudson passenger capacity; far in excess of what NJ Transit would ever hope to achieve. Further, it would make true use of the Secaucus boondoggle - turning it into a true first-class transit hub ripe for development in New Jersey. It would mean that commuters would no longer have to go into Manhattan to catch the subway; they could do so from Secaucus and not have to hassle with bridge and tunnel tolls and traffic.

It's a win-win for everyone involved, but for the costs. The MTA is still cash-strapped, and they have other projects on their plate that are oft-delayed, including East Side Access and the 2d Avenue Subway. The debt load by the MTA is particularly concerning, especially since the state and city have raided the MTA coffers and/or reduced commitments for mass transit over the years. More and more of the MTA budget is being used for debt service, rather than capital budget or operating budget purposes. That will require an infusion of money to bring the system onto solid fiscal ground.

Sens. Lautenberg and Menendez Attempt To Resuscitate Trans-Hudson Tunnel Project

After Gov. Chris Christie killed the ARC tunnel project because New Jersey taxpayers would be on the hook for all cost overruns, and it was already estimated to go $1 billion over the $8.7 billion budget, Sen. Frank Lautenberg was among Christie's harshest critics. He complained about how commuters would be harmed by the loss of a key project.

Never mind that Christie was absolutely right to protect taxpayers from a project that would benefit New Jersey and New York, but put the entire risk of overruns on New Jersey while New York contributed no funds to the project. Even federal efforts to keep the project on track amounted to nothing more than additional loan guarantees to cover a portion of cost overruns.

The project, which was originally proposed as a $5 billion project, had already ballooned to $8.7 billion, and the most conservative estimate for overruns was $1 billion beyond that amount. Other estimates could have pushed the New Jersey share to $5 billion.

So, now Lautenberg and Menendez are back touting that they've got another plan to build a trans-Hudson river rail tunnel.

This time, they've got Amtrak on board with the proposal, and it would lead to an expanded Penn Station, rather than a dead-ended annex under Herald Square.

The cost of the project is still huge, and they expectation is that the tunnel will run $10 billion or more, but the issue will be who will cover what costs. With Amtrak involved this time, there will be additional cost sharing, and this proposal shows that the NJ Transit claim that the new tunnels could not be built to Penn Station were nothing but bureaucratic domain protection. It wasn't based on anything but NJ Transit trying to expand its own infrastructure at tremendous cost even though the agency's operating budget is incapable of handling the existing traffic.

The Gateway tunnel would allow 13 additional NJ Transit trains per hour — from 20 to 33 — and eight more Amtrak trains. The ARC project would have allowed 25 extra NJ Transit trains per hour.

"I’m in my late 60s, and I was just hoping and praying I’d see the day when there would be another Hudson River tunnel," New Jersey transportation expert Martin E. Robins said. "My hopes have been rekindled."

Many hurdles will have to be overcome, including finding federal and local funding for a project that could cost upwards of $10 billion. But Amtrak officials say they believe the tunnel fits in well with President Obama’s vision for infrastructure improvements in America and high-speed rail in the Northeast Corridor from Boston to Washington, D.C.
gateway-tunnel-project.jpgView full size

The hope is to have the Gateway tunnel built in a decade.

News of the announcement was first reported today on NJ.com, The Star-Ledger’s real-time news and information site.

Amtrak this week is expected to ask the federal government to fund a $50 million engineering study on the Gateway plan. The project also could benefit from the engineering work done previously for ARC.

Amtrak President and Chief Executive Officer Joseph Boardman, Amtrak board member Anthony Coscia, Lautenberg and Menendez are expected to present the alternative tunnel plans during a news conference at 11 a.m. Monday at the Hilton Newark Penn Station.

Amtrak had intended to build another tunnel to improve capacity in the nation’s most congested rail corridor, but not until 2040. The killing of the ARC tunnel expedited the Gateway tunnel plans.

Citing projected cost overruns that would leave New Jersey taxpayers on the hook, Christie pulled the plug on the nation’s largest public works project on Oct. 27.

Lautenberg immediately began working with Amtrak to revive the trans-Hudson rail tunnel project, which he says will benefit New Jersey’s commuters by giving them transfer-free train rides to prosperous jobs in Manhattan, increase property values along the rail line and put contractors to work.

"New Jersey is facing a transportation crisis," he said. "Our commuters are fed up with train delays that make them late to work and endless traffic that traps them on our highways when they want to be home with their families. When the ARC tunnel was canceled, it was clear to me that we couldn’t just throw up our hands and wait years to find another solution."

New Jersey always rises above challenges, Menendez said in a statement tonight. "While some choose to do nothing and accept delays, the people of New Jersey cannot, will not, and must not wait. We are moving full steam ahead with this strong investment in New Jersey and the region. We are on a path to create good-paying jobs and move people and goods more quickly."

Some transportation officials think the Gateway plan makes more sense than expanding the No. 7 subway line from New York City to Secaucus Junction, an idea floated over the last three months by the staff of New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg. Under Amtrak’s best-case scenario, the No. 7 line would also be extended to Penn Station, between 31st and 33rd streets, two blocks west of the Empire State Building.

Along with the Gateway project would be a plan to raise and replace the decrepit, century-old train Portal Bridge between Kearny and Secaucus over the Hackensack River. The condition of the bridge limits train speeds and the span is so low that it often has to be opened to allow commercial boats to pass under, causing more delays.

When the ARC project was being considered in the 1990s, Amtrak was in a fight for survival with the federal government and couldn’t assist New Jersey. The Gateway tunnel represents a historic change of direction for Amtrak, Robins said.

The $1.3 billion Portal Bridge project should be going ahead regardless of what happens with the tunnel project, because it is one of the worst bottlenecks on the entire Northeast Corridor, and that work isn't contingent on what happens with the tunnel project.

NJ Transit's dealing with an aging infrastructure and an operating budget that can't cover the existing schedule. I have serious doubts over its scheduling claims from North Jersey when there have been a reduction in train service, and debt service on the Secaucus Transfer continues to be a drain all while the proposed tunnel would include a Transfer bypass allowing trains to travel directly into Manhattan from North Jersey. That would severely limit the ridership that would utilize the Transfer unless the existing parking facilities are greatly expanded.

What remains to be seen is who will be paying for what and what the New Jersey share will be. Moreover, the key questions will be whether New York actually ponies up any funds to cover construction costs, and who will bear the risk of cost overruns.

This new project is already starting at a much higher price point, and it's more than double the original ARC tunnel cost projection.

UPDATE:
I wonder if the costs for the new tunnel project are including the Portal Bridge costs, which at last check was a totally separate and distinct project that was scheduled to cost $1.344 billion. Construction is scheduled to begin next year and run through 2017 in building two new bridges and five tracks to handle traffic on the Northeast Corridor as well as reconfigure about 10 miles of track between Newark and Secaucus Transfer to handle high speed rail (80-90 mph, from the current 60 mph limitations). That work has to be done regardless of what happens with the tunnel project, and monies were already set aside by Amtrak, the ARRA of 2009, and other funding sources to get the project underway.

It's notable that there isn't any mention of where the money is coming from under the new proposal, and it's further notable that neither of New York's senators, including Chuck Schumer were around to agree on a joint New York/New Jersey plan to fund the project. That would once again suggest that New York is not going to be putting up monies to get the project done.

There's a further question of how exactly this new proposal (which actually is a step back to the original intent of the ARC tunnel when first proposed) will take the sails out of the study by New York City to extend the 7 Line to Secaucus.

UPDATE:
Reuters is reporting that the cost for the project would be $13.5 billion. That would put it significantly above the costs for the canceled ARC tunnel, and more than double the original cost estimate for the ARC tunnel when first proposed despite being little different from the original design and scope. Even if the $13.5 billion includes the $1.344 billion for the Portal Bridge, we're talking about the upper range from the cost estimates that led Christie to kill the project.

As a reminded, when the ARC tunnel was first proposed years ago, it was seen as a $5 billion project. By the time Christie killed it last year, it was up to $8.7 billion but widely expected to go at least $1 to $5 billion over that budget.

Now, we're looking at a $13.5 billion to achieve the same goal as the original budget and it's riding on the hope that President Obama's Amtrak capital initiatives get adopted.

The one question that seems to be missing from the reporting is how and why this latest attempt to build new capacity is costing so much more than the original project? Those are the unanswered questions that reporters have yet to ask in any critical fashion.

UPDATE:
Digging through the Amtrak Northeast Corridor master plan, Amtrak and NJ Transit believe that as of May 2010 that the cost of the Portal Bridge will cost $1.8 billion (page 29) or $1.9 billion (page 101 overall/page 28 of Part II), which is significantly above the $1.344 billion as per the Portal Bridge site information. There's a further backlog of $214 million to rehabilitate the existing two Hudson River tunnels and rehabilitation of the overhead catenary system and replacing electrical substations would cost another $350 million. That's despite a $453 million infusion of federal stimulus monies. Overall, Amtrak says that they're short $5.2 billion to bring the system into a state of good repair.

New York To Study Extending 7 Line To Secaucus

After Gov. Chris Christie killed the ARC tunnel project and riled the likes of Sen. Chuck Schumer of New York, one of the alternative proposals was that the MTA should extend the 7 line to Secaucus.

Well, the MTA and New York City are going to conduct a study whether it makes sense to do so.

The city hired engineering firm Parsons Brinckerhoff this week to analyze how many riders the line could serve, how they would connect to the NJTransit train hub in Secaucus and - most importantly - how much it would cost.

Their study is due in three months, which Deputy Mayor Robert Steel said will help show government and transportation agencies in the region whether to go forward.

"All of [them] are focused on trying to understand, is this a good alternative?" Steel said. "It's a matter of months, not years."

Other officials in New York and New Jersey are looking at the idea, but haven't put up any cash to make it happen.

It could give New Jersey residents their first direct train line to Grand Central Terminal, as well as to see the Mets or the U.S. Open in Queens.

"City Hall really does want to explore it," said one person involved in the multiagency talks.

"They have an incredibly reluctant MTA partner, and an incredibly wary New Jersey state government," the source cautioned. "[MTA Chairman] Jay Walder doesn't have enough money to finish what they're already doing."

The city is paying $2.1 billion to extend the 7 train to 34th St. and 11th Ave., where it will serve a massive office and housing development planned for the West Side rail yards.

Schumer, along with New Jersey's Sen. Lautenberg have been hypercritical of Christie's shutdown of the ARC tunnel over expected cost overruns that would likely leave New Jersey on the hook for an excess of $1 billion (some estimates put it as high as $5 billion).

Schumer and Lautenberg were unable to find additional funding to cover potential overruns, and the federal DOT could only provide additional loans to cover potential overruns. All they could do was snipe at Christie looking at the state's financial health and seeing that the state could not afford to cover cost overruns that were beyond its control. No one else was willing to step in to cover the overruns, which should be a warning sign that Christie was right to reconsider the project since if the costs could be contained, it should have been easy to convince other entities (the federal government, or New York) to cover potential cost overruns directly.

It's inexcusable on their part to not find the funding or ways to enable New York to pony up the overruns. New York state finances are in shambles as I've repeatedly warned and argued, but a new rail connection was critical to reducing congestion and improving service along the Northeast Corridor. Further, the new tunnels could support additional traffic that could be generated by a link to Stewart Airport in Newburgh. The Port Authority bought the airport in an attempt to reduce congestion at the other area airports but hasn't found a way to integrate it into the long term airport strategy. It needs a high speed rail link to make that a credible option, but no one has the money to make it happen.

That's where the federal stimulus funds should have come into play - using the federal government's funding to build major infrastructure that would help bring relief to the millions of commuters and travelers who rely on an aged and decrepit system.

The 7 line extension would be less costly than the ARC tunnel project, and would bring a more direct routing for commuters looking to get to the East Side of Manhattan and the rest of the City and it's an option worth seriously considering, even if a portion of the ill-conceived Xanadu looks like it will collapse under the strain of the latest snowstorm.

Moreover, the 7 line extension would likely be able to use much of the real estate procured for the ARC tunnel and the engineering expenditures and other work on the tunnel before it was cancelled. That will further reduce the New Jersey tab that it would owe to the federal government for canceling the project.

The Rebuilding of Ground Zero, Part 121

This has been something that has been bugging me for more than a year. Since the federal government enacted the ARRA of 2009 (the federal stimulus package), I've been saying that funds set aside by that package should be used to help expedite and complete the Ground Zero reconstruction.

It now appears that Silverstein Properties has recognized the funding source and may be applying for $200 million in Recovery Zone bonds to help finance 3 WTC. The New York region was entitled to $550 million in Recovery Zone bonds, but those bonds may go unused before they expire.

The bonding would be a lower interest rate than bonding and financing obtained elsewhere, which can further reduce the construction and repayment costs at Ground Zero.

At the same time, one has to wonder why the Recovery Zone bonds haven't been utilized in the ARC Tunnel/7 Line extension debate as a way to further the construction efforts at a time when infrastructure spending is considered a top priority by the Obama Administration. It would have come in handy to complete a mid-stop on the 7 Line extension to 34th Street at 11th Avenue, but yet the City and MTA didn't seek use of those funds.

Meanwhile, the NY Post is reporting on a rather old story - that the Port Authority is spending $600 million in upgrading the security on its PATH tunnels under the Hudson River. The Port Authority approved the upgrades several years ago and the purpose is to make the tunnels less likely to flood in a terror attack or natural disaster. It was spurred by the experience after 9/11 when the WTC tubes were flooded for months after the collapsing towers severed major water mains and severely damaged the tunnel infrastructure and then by thwarted terror plots targeting the PATH system. The upgrades include flood prevention doors and bomb proofing the tunnel lining, which are sensible steps considering the fact that the PATH system has been repeatedly targeted by al Qaeda.

On a happier note, it appears that the construction workers on 1WTC (Freedom Tower) have installed Christmas colored lights on some of the lower floors. Green and red tinted lights now mark some of the lower floors after dark.

Gov. Christie Warms To Bloomberg's 7 Train Extension Proposal

Any proposed extension of the 7 Train to Secaucus would require New Jersey's support. It seems that Gov. Christie, who killed the ARC tunnel project because of out of control costs and that the state would be on the hook for overruns that could reach anywhere from $1 to $5 billion over the already inflated $9 billion cost (originally proposed as $5 billion), is receptive to the idea that the MTA be able to extend the 7 Line to the Secaucus Transfer.

One of the reasons that he'd support this particular mass transit option is that the city and state of New York would be directly involved in the financing. The ARC tunnel, despite its interstate nature, would have been funded disproportionately from New Jersey, and New Jersey taxpayers would have been on the hook for all cost overruns.

Proponents of the ARC tunnel focus on the lack of a one-seat ride into Manhattan for North Jersey commuters, but ignore that this proposal would give even quicker and greater access to all MTA routes, including those on the East Side of Manhattan - direct access to Grand Central Station on the 7 Line, to say nothing of direct access to Queens and the outer boroughs. One-seat rides aren't nearly as important to commuters as the availability of rides, and NJ Transit has shown that it can't afford its existing infrastructure by cutting service on buses and trains. It had no way to afford one-seat rides into Manhattan without curtailing existing service to Hoboken.

The 7 Line proposal still needs to arrange financing and for the various Congressional delegations to get behind the proposal to line up federal funding in addition to Port Authority monies that were allocated to the project. Sen Lautenberg, who would rather carry out investigations into Christie canning the ARC tunnel, has yet to weigh in on this more worthy and cost-effective project. Christie's predecessor, Jon Corzine broke ground on the project despite opening the state's taxpayers up to potential cost overruns of billions - a bad deal that would only get worse as costs mounted and would saddle NJ Transit with yet another white elephant and boondoggle to go along with its Secaucus Transfer.

For his part, New York Senator Chuck Schumer has said that he would seek the necessary funding for the project. At least someone in the New York and New Jersey delegations has the foresight and understanding of the importance of expanding mass transit in a more efficient and cost effective manner.

Still, the MTA capital budget is itself stretched thin and the MTA has seen its share of service cuts and fare hikes. Yet, the MTA is better situated to handle the project than NJ Transit given it already has the equipment and land available for the tunnel without additional condemnations - a major cost savings.

Here Come Criticisms of Bloomberg's Plan to Extend 7 Line to Secaucus

It comes as no surprise that the critics of Mayor Bloomberg's plan to extend the 7 Line to Secaucus has come under fine. You've got absolutely clueless criticisms from Daily News columnist Michael Daly who thinks that the PATH trains are sufficient and that the line to Secaucus makes no sense for New Yorkers who want to go to New Jersey for shopping (and the complaint centers around the tax benefit for shopping at Newport Center rather than outside the enterprise zone in Jersey City - when all New Jerseyans benefit from lower sales tax than New Yorkers - including on clothing).

Moreover, Daly presumes that the only reason New Yorkers go to New Jersey is for shopping. He ignores sports fans who would attend football, hockey, and basketball games or conventions at the Meadowlands facilities. There are no Giants or Jets fans in New York? Right now, most of them trek to New Jersey by car because the trains are impossible to coordinate and if you live in Queens, you'd practically have a 1-seat ride to the Meadowlands stadium. This would improve the utility of those facilities for both New Yorkers and New Jerseyeans.

Jay Walder who heads the MTA complains that the MTA doesn't have the money in its capital budget to handle the project and that it can't manage yet another major project while it has three projects underway (Fulton Terminal, Second Avenue Subway and the 7 Line expansion to 34th and 11th Avenue). Of course, the capital funds for this project would be coming from a combination of sources including, federal monies, Port Authority, and one could potentially expect some New Jersey funds at the same time for a project that would cost about half what the ARC tunnel cost.

Meanwhile, there's a claim that the $3 billion that New Jersey passed up after Gov. Christie killed the ARC tunnel has disappeared is a curious one. Is that money not going to be distributed to other worthy mass transit projects at all or does the New York delegation think that they can't get the money? Where is the pull from the New York delegation to line up those funds? Instead, it will be spread out among other projects that move far fewer people than the 7 Line expansion would see.

NYC Floats Tunnel Plan To Secaucus

This is a plan I can definitely get behind. Not only would this result in a more than doubling of mass transit capacity across the Hudson River, but it would inject a real purpose and utility to the Secaucus Transfer. Mayor Mike Bloomberg has floated a plan to further extend the 7 line from its current planned terminus at 11th Avenue and 34th Street to the Secaucus Transfer using some of the right of way previously allocated to the ARC tunnel.

Like the project scuttled by Mr. Christie, this proposed tunnel would expand a regional transportation system already operating at capacity and would double the number of trains traveling between the two states during peak hours. It would do so at about half the cost, an estimated $5.3 billion, according to a closely guarded, four-page memorandum circulated by the city’s Hudson Yards Development Corporation.

Unlike the old project, the new plan does not require costly condemnation proceedings or extensive tunneling in Manhattan, because the city is already building a No. 7 station at 34th Street and 11th Avenue, roughly one block from the waterfront. In July, a massive 110-ton tunnel boring machine completed drilling for the city’s $2.1 billion extension of the No. 7 line from Times Square to the new station.

Still, the proposal faces a number of daunting political, financial and logistical hurdles in an era of diminishing public resources. Mr. Christie, Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg and Governor-elect Andrew M. Cuomo of New York would have to agree to make the tunnel a high priority and work in lock step to obtain the city, state and federal money needed to make it happen.

“Extending the 7 line to New Jersey could address many of the region’s transportation capacity issues at a fraction of the original tunnel’s cost, but the idea is still in its earliest stages,” said Andrew Brent, a spokesman for the deputy mayor for economic development, Robert K. Steel. “Like others, we’re looking at — and open to discussing — any creative, fiscally responsible alternatives.”

Mr. Christie had not yet received a formal briefing on the idea, but his office said it was curious to hear more. “We’ve been open to ideas for solving the trans-Hudson dilemma, ideas that are affordable and fair amongst the interested jurisdictions,” said Michael Drewniak, a spokesman for Mr. Christie.

Last month, Mr. Christie, a Republican, put an end to the long-planned Hudson rail tunnel project after the estimated cost climbed to at least $11 billion, from an initial $8.7 billion. The project would have created two new tracks for New Jersey Transit from Secaucus to a new station deep under 34th Street, near Pennsylvania Station. The federal Transportation Department had pledged $3 billion, as had the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey. New Jersey was responsible for the rest.

Consider the possibilities: a sports fan from Queens would no longer have to drive to the Meadowlands to see a Jets or Giants game. They could simply hop on their local 7 train for the ride out. Commuters would have access to the entire MTA subway system via the 7 train connections at Times Square.

This proposal would have tremendous political and bureaucratic hurdles to overcome since it would extend the MTA's subway presence into territory normally serviced by NJ Transit (MTA trains on Metro North operate to Port Jervis, NJ on NJ Transit's Main/Bergen Line from Suffern to Hoboken). I think Gov. Chris Christie would be receptive to the project since its cost is nearly half the cost of the ARC tunnel project he killed, and it would vastly enhance the purpose and necessity of the Secaucus Transfer - in fact it would breath new life into the surrounding areas, which would have the potential of being a boom town of residential and commercial properties that are linked via the Transfer to the heart of Manhattan.

Not only would New York and New Jersey commuters benefit, but this would be a much more effective use of mass transit funds than the killed ARC tunnel project since it would potentially service far more people at a much lower cost. The cost savings are largely achieved because the MTA would not need to engage in costly condemnations in Manhattan, and the rights of way have largely been allocated.

Benjamin Kabab at 2d Ave. Sagas is wary of the plan and focuses on the one-seat ride aspect of the project, which is a consideration only if you think that the sunk costs of the Secaucus Transfer being made obsolete in the process isn't something that should be ignored. However, he thinks it is a plan that thinks big and outside the box when it comes to mass transit in the region. I think more people would use a MTA stop at Secaucus than trying to catch an already packed subway at Penn Station, and it gives the added benefit of direct access to the East Side and the rest of the City for New Jersey residents.

The benefits of a one-seat ride are overblown when factoring in the reality that the 7 line would potentially operate far more regularly than the NJ Transit service - giving 24-7 rides which is something that NJ Transit doesn't do - particularly for North Jersey.

Gov. Christie may want to tack the $3 billion originally designated for the ARC tunnel to other infrastructure projects in New Jersey, but he might be open to this proposal since it is more cost effective than the project he killed. Getting NJ Transit would be a tougher task, although I think the Port Authority would go along with the plan. Getting the feds to kick in the balance would be the trick since it isn't clear whether the 7 train plan would get the funding for the project.

Moreover, it isn't clear whether the 7 train plan would need to start from scratch on its environmental impact statement or whether the ARC tunnel plan could be rejiggered to match the repurposing.

UPDATE:
The Record reports on the proposal, and like several other outlets and critics, complains that this would not create a one-seat ride for commuters. This is a non-argument for most people considering that unless your destination is Penn Station, you are going to have to transfer to another mode of transportation if you're taking NJ Transit into Manhattan. You have to switch to PATH in Hoboken to reach Lower Manhattan. You most certainly have to switch to the subways to reach anywhere else in Manhattan or the outer boroughs. Not everyone works at Penn Station.

An added bonus would be that the cost of traveling into Manhattan would be significantly reduced - because the MTA allows free transfers within its system, so someone coming to Secaucus could go anywhere in the City after paying the fare at Secaucus. It would also be significantly cheaper for commuters coming from North Jersey than taking NJ Transit all the way into New York. You have to believe that this is going to factor into the potential opposition to the project.

7 Line Extension Gets One Step Closer To Completion

While the 7 Line extension will not be open to the public until 2013, the tunnel boring machines that are excavating the project completed a major hurdle today.



The second of two tunnel boring machines broke into the cavern underneath the Port Authority Bus Terminal, where it will join up with the existing 7 line.

Mayor Michael Bloomberg said extending the subway line will encourage growth in the city's far West side.

"It will revitalize that area of the city with new business and residences and parks and open spaces and most importantly, particularly now, jobs," Bloomberg said. The city spent $2.1 billion dollars on the project.

The subway now ends at 42nd Street and Seventh Avenue and is being extended to go to 34th Street and 11th Avenue near the site of a 26-acre property along the city's Hudson waterfront.

Plans for the subway extension originally planned for a second subway stop at 41st St. and 10th Ave., but it was postponed because the cost of the project was getting too high. Bloomberg said he wants the state and federal governments to pay for the additional subway station.

This project was meant to help open up the Hudson Yards area and facilitate the construction and development of an expanded Javits Center and sports facility (originally meant for the Olympic bid) and it will still help expand the transit system's reach to the West Side.

My chief concern is how the city will manage the ongoing operating costs once the project is complete given the MTA's recent hikes and service cuts. It's an issue that the MTA has yet to address substantively.