|
|
| Re: Push to Replace Port Authority Bus Terminal (303659) | |||
 |
|||
| Home > BusChat | |||
|
[ Read Responses | Post a New Response | Return to the Index ] |
|
||
|
Re: Push to Replace Port Authority Bus Terminal |
|
|
Posted by j trainloco on Sat Mar 21 22:35:48 2015, in response to Re: Push to Replace Port Authority Bus Terminal, posted by Joe V on Fri Mar 20 10:48:21 2015. 1) Nothing we want right now has any funding, including Gateway.It has an agency actively pursuing funding. I have sat through PPT presentations by the Parson Brinkerhoof project Manager (you have not). And I was employed by Parsons Brinckerhoff for 4 and 1/2 years, including when the presentation was produced. Neither of these facts has any bearing on this discussion. Every agency has endorsed it, especially NJT. They do not want to continue running all those buses to Manhattan. ... Except the agency who would build and operate it. Of course NJT is endorsing it: it would be someone else paying for a problem that is theirs to solve. 2) A subway across 42nd Street does not mean 3 seat rides. If it does, keep riding buses to PABT. It means 3 seat rides for anyone not destined for Hudson yards, or 42nd street. If the majority of riders are still taking the bus, then the solution is a failure. 4) Since Gateway funds no parking lots at rail stations, the NJT rail system is ill-equipped to take on a significant share of the bus market. There is also the issue of munciply w\owned lots. Paramus does not get to park at Ridgewood rail station very easily. Then maybe NJT should pony up some cash instead of letting the PA and Amtrak solve their cross Hudson problem. ) We run every other #7, which is 18,000 people per hour. Might as well make it commuter rail then... 6) I am not interested in increasing property. You brought that up, I didn't. I brought it up in the context of the value of making the new tunnel commuter rail. You made the assertion about buses. So best to think out of the box. The trend has already started in Camden/Philly. Svereal years gao, many NJT bus routes were truncated at Walter Rand for a ride on PATCO. The world did not crack. I agree, but I think it best to implement the solution that achieves the most good at once. A new pair of intercity/commuter rail tunnels across the Hudson is needed for a bevy of reasons: it will allow for higher speed rail, it will allow for more flexibility of service when the unexpected happens, it will allow for more direct service into Penn (including the envisioned dual mode service with the ALP-45DPs). And on top of all of that, if you wanted to build a bus terminal in Secaucus and shuttle passengers across on rail vehicles, you could still do it. OTOH, a 7 train extension only accomplishes one thing, and it assumes that MTA wants to operate a service to serve counties that they receive no funding from. It makes no sense. |
|
|
|