HCResident wrote:
Quote:

ahal wrote:
I think by 'connect,' people meant that there would be an underground connection between the two systems, that you could walk across. Not that the rail systems would be integrated with each other.

something akin to how there is a connection between the F train and the PATH at 23rd street

Quote:

HCResident wrote:
As somewhat of a former NYC Subway enthusiast, I can pretty much tell you that connecting the PATH to the Lexington line would have not likely worked no matter who was for it.

The Lexington line (4, 5 and 6) was the first subway built in NYC and was a private business (the IRT) when it first opened. It later grew to include the what are now the 1, 2 and 3 lines as well as the 7 and Time's Square Shuttle lines.

What is now the N and R lines was also a private company (the BMT) that competed with the IRT. Later, the city got into the game and built the IND lines (A, C and E and B, D, F and Q lines).

It was not until the 1940's that the city purchased the private lines to integrate the entire subways system. Why is all this important?

Because it was never constructed as a single system, each line was built to different specifications. Pay close attention to each of these lines the next time you are on them. The tunnels, the track bases and the cars are all different sizes.

For example, the IRT cars are 8.6 ft wide. The BMT and IND cars are 9.77 ft wide. As for the PATH, their cars are 9.275 ft wide. So the PATH cars would not fit in the IRT tunnels, which is what was being proposed.

You could argue that it might be possible to run smaller cars on the PATH line, but that is assuming the track base is the same. My guess is that it is not. That would require changing all of the tracks in the PATH system, and probably all of the signaling equipment as well. Who is paying for that; especially in this political climate?

This is a pipe dream. I will admit that it is one that I personally like, but it's not a realistic probability.

Now maybe if they had designed the new 2nd Avenue line to match the specs of the PATH system they could connect them when it finally reaches that far downtown. But who can even imagine what it might take to go through all of that other infrastructure that is already in place running north and south.

We can harp, complain and blame each other's political sides all we want, but this is merely griping for griping's sake. The best we can probably ever expect out of this situation is an eventual free transfer between the two systems. But don't hold your breath for that either. My understanding is that the PA must hold on to the PATH as part of their original charter.

Like I said earlier, I wish it could all come to pass, but logistically is probably just can't.

The article in the original post calls it a "one seat ride." That seems like an actual connection of the rail lines to me. Maybe I misinterpreted.

HCResident wrote:
As somewhat of a former NYC Subway enthusiast, I can pretty much tell you that connecting the PATH to the Lexington line would have not likely worked no matter who was for it.

The Lexington line (4, 5 and 6) was the first subway built in NYC and was a private business (the IRT) when it first opened. It later grew to include the what are now the 1, 2 and 3 lines as well as the 7 and Time's Square Shuttle lines.

What is now the N and R lines was also a private company (the BMT) that competed with the IRT. Later, the city got into the game and built the IND lines (A, C and E and B, D, F and Q lines).

It was not until the 1940's that the city purchased the private lines to integrate the entire subways system. Why is all this important?

Because it was never constructed as a single system, each line was built to different specifications. Pay close attention to each of these lines the next time you are on them. The tunnels, the track bases and the cars are all different sizes.

For example, the IRT cars are 8.6 ft wide. The BMT and IND cars are 9.77 ft wide. As for the PATH, their cars are 9.275 ft wide. So the PATH cars would not fit in the IRT tunnels, which is what was being proposed.

You could argue that it might be possible to run smaller cars on the PATH line, but that is assuming the track base is the same. My guess is that it is not. That would require changing all of the tracks in the PATH system, and probably all of the signaling equipment as well. Who is paying for that; especially in this political climate?

This is a pipe dream. I will admit that it is one that I personally like, but it's not a realistic probability.

Now maybe if they had designed the new 2nd Avenue line to match the specs of the PATH system they could connect them when it finally reaches that far downtown. But who can even imagine what it might take to go through all of that other infrastructure that is already in place running north and south.

We can harp, complain and blame each other's political sides all we want, but this is merely griping for griping's sake. The best we can probably ever expect out of this situation is an eventual free transfer between the two systems. But don't hold your breath for that either. My understanding is that the PA must hold on to the PATH as part of their original charter.

Like I said earlier, I wish it could all come to pass, but logistically is probably just can't.

HCResident wrote:
You could argue that it might be possible to run smaller cars on the PATH line, but that is assuming the track base is the same. My guess is that it is not.

ahal wrote:
I think by 'connect,' people meant that there would be an underground connection between the two systems, that you could walk across. Not that the rail systems would be integrated with each other.

something akin to how there is a connection between the F train and the PATH at 23rd street

Quote:

HCResident wrote:
As somewhat of a former NYC Subway enthusiast, I can pretty much tell you that connecting the PATH to the Lexington line would have not likely worked no matter who was for it.

The Lexington line (4, 5 and 6) was the first subway built in NYC and was a private business (the IRT) when it first opened. It later grew to include the what are now the 1, 2 and 3 lines as well as the 7 and Time's Square Shuttle lines.

What is now the N and R lines was also a private company (the BMT) that competed with the IRT. Later, the city got into the game and built the IND lines (A, C and E and B, D, F and Q lines).

It was not until the 1940's that the city purchased the private lines to integrate the entire subways system. Why is all this important?

Because it was never constructed as a single system, each line was built to different specifications. Pay close attention to each of these lines the next time you are on them. The tunnels, the track bases and the cars are all different sizes.

For example, the IRT cars are 8.6 ft wide. The BMT and IND cars are 9.77 ft wide. As for the PATH, their cars are 9.275 ft wide. So the PATH cars would not fit in the IRT tunnels, which is what was being proposed.

You could argue that it might be possible to run smaller cars on the PATH line, but that is assuming the track base is the same. My guess is that it is not. That would require changing all of the tracks in the PATH system, and probably all of the signaling equipment as well. Who is paying for that; especially in this political climate?

This is a pipe dream. I will admit that it is one that I personally like, but it's not a realistic probability.

Now maybe if they had designed the new 2nd Avenue line to match the specs of the PATH system they could connect them when it finally reaches that far downtown. But who can even imagine what it might take to go through all of that other infrastructure that is already in place running north and south.

We can harp, complain and blame each other's political sides all we want, but this is merely griping for griping's sake. The best we can probably ever expect out of this situation is an eventual free transfer between the two systems. But don't hold your breath for that either. My understanding is that the PA must hold on to the PATH as part of their original charter.

Like I said earlier, I wish it could all come to pass, but logistically is probably just can't.

HCResident wrote:
As somewhat of a former NYC Subway enthusiast, I can pretty much tell you that connecting the PATH to the Lexington line would have not likely worked no matter who was for it.

The Lexington line (4, 5 and 6) was the first subway built in NYC and was a private business (the IRT) when it first opened. It later grew to include the what are now the 1, 2 and 3 lines as well as the 7 and Time's Square Shuttle lines.

What is now the N and R lines was also a private company (the BMT) that competed with the IRT. Later, the city got into the game and built the IND lines (A, C and E and B, D, F and Q lines).

It was not until the 1940's that the city purchased the private lines to integrate the entire subways system. Why is all this important?

Because it was never constructed as a single system, each line was built to different specifications. Pay close attention to each of these lines the next time you are on them. The tunnels, the track bases and the cars are all different sizes.

For example, the IRT cars are 8.6 ft wide. The BMT and IND cars are 9.77 ft wide. As for the PATH, their cars are 9.275 ft wide. So the PATH cars would not fit in the IRT tunnels, which is what was being proposed.

You could argue that it might be possible to run smaller cars on the PATH line, but that is assuming the track base is the same. My guess is that it is not. That would require changing all of the tracks in the PATH system, and probably all of the signaling equipment as well. Who is paying for that; especially in this political climate?

This is a pipe dream. I will admit that it is one that I personally like, but it's not a realistic probability.

Now maybe if they had designed the new 2nd Avenue line to match the specs of the PATH system they could connect them when it finally reaches that far downtown. But who can even imagine what it might take to go through all of that other infrastructure that is already in place running north and south.

We can harp, complain and blame each other's political sides all we want, but this is merely griping for griping's sake. The best we can probably ever expect out of this situation is an eventual free transfer between the two systems. But don't hold your breath for that either. My understanding is that the PA must hold on to the PATH as part of their original charter.

Like I said earlier, I wish it could all come to pass, but logistically is probably just can't.

Monroe wrote:

The ARC tunnel wasn't signed off, they had only started a pilot hole. Is a project really underway when the financing isn't agreed upon? Nope.

No one knew about it, why not? It sounds like a great idea that would've served a great purpose. Why didn't McGreevey push it? Murky? Even under McGreevey the PA wasn't transparent it seems.

moobycow wrote:
Munro,

The point being that asking why or why not people are pointing fingers is way down on the list of what is import, yet it is always your first comment. Knowing your primary concern is partisan politics makes every single thing you post suspect.

moobycow wrote:
Quote:

Monroe wrote:
Wasn't McGreevey the NJ Governor when this project was killed?

Where is the fauxrage over his PA influence to kill this project when he was governor?

Could have something to do with the project not already being underway before it was killed, that no one knew about it at the time and the details are completely murky.

When your first comment is always a partisan snipe of some kind it is really very easy to tune out anything substantive you might have to say.

Monroe wrote:
Wasn't McGreevey the NJ Governor when this project was killed?

Where is the fauxrage over his PA influence to kill this project when he was governor?

Conformist wrote:
Amusing that the Port Authority at once hates the PATH for being a money-loser but refuses to surrender authority over PATH as it would have had to do for PATH-Lex to work.