Comments on: NJ, the far West Side, and LIC should pay for the No. 7 subway expansion

By: Visitez le site

Visitez le site — Tue, 25 Feb 2014 10:31:18 +0000

… [Trackback]

[…] Read More Infos here: marketurbanism.com/2010/11/18/nj-the-far-west-side-and-lic-should-pay-for-the-no-7-subway-expansion/ […]

By: Today’s briefs « west north

Today’s briefs « west north — Tue, 21 Dec 2010 02:01:43 +0000

[…] #7 extension would be operationally superior to an additional NJT tunnel [adapted from comment at Market Urbanism] The two proposal’s “dead ends” have quite different contexts. The ARC […]

By: BenRoss

BenRoss — Sun, 21 Nov 2010 15:59:00 +0000

Actually, the Washington Metro is doing this. The authority owns much land around its suburban stations, purchased when the system was built for surface parking or in some cases for construction staging. FTA now allows transit agencies to keep funds raised by developing land purchased with its aid (instead of demanding repayment of the original grant).

Ben Ross

By: Payton

Payton — Sat, 20 Nov 2010 19:16:00 +0000

The Herald Square dead-end would still have to figure out how to distribute a huge stream of passengers within the already overwhelmed area. Instead, the Secaucus dead-end is at the Lautenberg station — making use of an already-built white elephant built to distribute passengers between the various NJT lines. A subway, with its higher-frequency and higher-capacity service, probably also activates greater TOD opportunities in the areas Stephen mentions.

By: Adam

Adam — Sat, 20 Nov 2010 07:58:00 +0000

Another externality / internalizing data point. Condos on the east coast of Singapore, otherwise pretty swish and near the beach, but a public transport black hole, often put on private buses to town or the MRT (subway). They would otherwise rent for much less.

By: Urbanist1100

Urbanist1100 — Fri, 19 Nov 2010 21:51:00 +0000

Is it really better to have a NYC Subway line that dead-ends in Secaucus than to have a NJ Transit line that dead-ends at Herald Square?

By: Stephen

Stephen — Fri, 19 Nov 2010 06:14:00 +0000

I was exaggerating, but I must admit, that's a lot deeper than I thought it was. I used to live in Georgetown and would cross the Potomac to go to the Rosslyn Metro station, which was only 100 feet deep but it took forever to get down (Wikipedia says the escalator takes 159 seconds). Can it really be true that the ARC station would have been four times as deep?

By: Thatdurcholaguy

Thatdurcholaguy — Fri, 19 Nov 2010 02:38:00 +0000

To improve discourse, it is important to state facts correctly. The ARC station was not proposed to be a “mile deep”. It was to be 150′ deep. A number of transit stations around the world, including some in Manhattan, are deeper.