|
|
| Re: Push to Replace Port Authority Bus Terminal (303532) | |||
 |
|||
| Home > BusChat | |||
|
[ Read Responses | Post a New Response | Return to the Index ] |
|
||
|
Re: Push to Replace Port Authority Bus Terminal |
|
|
Posted by kcram3500 on Thu Mar 19 12:18:31 2015, in response to Re: Push to Replace Port Authority Bus Terminal, posted by JAzumah on Thu Mar 19 12:00:10 2015. 61 seat buses are really efficient, but passengers hate them.NJT's original MC-9 order in 1982 was spec'd as 53 seats (same seat pitch as a 61-pass 45-footer). MCI found a charter operator in PA who had a 53-pass MC-9 and arranged to bring it to Newark for NJT to review. Executive Director Jerry Premo (6'4") boarded, sat in a seat, and promptly changed the contract spec to 49 seats because he felt it was too cramped. High efficiency is the goal, but we can't lose sight of the transportation objective. If you add another leg to their transit trip, they will drive. And this is why you can't take a "New York City" transit perspective at a New Jersey issue. New Yorkers think nothing of transferring between buses and/or subways for a single trip. NJ commuters have zero interest in that unless they have no choice. If a bus stops near their home and goes all the way to PABT, they are not interested in being short-sheeted to Secaucus, Hoboken, or Weekawken to change vehicles just to cross the river. The one thing no one is discussing is additonal road tunnel capacity. The Pennsylvania Railroad tunnels are old, but the Lincoln Tunnel is equally inadequate for the 21st century (as are the Holland, Battery, and Queens-Midtown). Designed today, those tubes would be four 12-foot lanes with 10-foot shoulders on both sides and 15-foot vertical clearance per tube. But no one wants to broach the subject of vehicle tunnel upgrades/replacement... not even a separate bus-only tunnel for PABT service. |
|
|
|