|
|
| Re: Push to Replace Port Authority Bus Terminal (303673) | |||
 |
|||
| Home > BusChat | |||
|
[ Read Responses | Post a New Response | Return to the Index ] |
|
||
|
Re: Push to Replace Port Authority Bus Terminal |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Sun Mar 22 11:10:52 2015, in response to Re: Push to Replace Port Authority Bus Terminal, posted by j trainloco on Sat Mar 21 22:35:48 2015. NJT is not pursuing funding for anything because they answer to Christie, and he has no interest in doing anything for public transit.Why are you assuming NJT would not subsidize or contribute equipment to such an interstate arrangement ? Nobody expects MTA to eat it. NJT would save a lot on buses expenses, both capital and operations. We already have such pooling arrangements with NJT service to Port Jervis and MN NH Line service east of Port Chester, NY. Start considering trip time, not counting "seats". We cannot keep ramming more and more people into Penn Station, nor are one hour AM rush, Friday night, Sunday night delays on the I-95 and Lincoln Tunnel approaches any longer acceptable. If 25% of bus passengers take it, that is still 60,000 people . Then there's the rail side where some East Side commuters could avoid Penn Station AND a 2-train IRT shuffle via Times Square. THAT is a 3-seat ride, which you despise, but are fine with. They would all be getting on an empty train starting off every 2 or 4 minutes, depending on the service plan, not cramming themselves on crowded north-south subways at Penn Station. But with #7 to SEC, it becomes a 2 seat ride for anyone off the NEC, NJCL, and MDT headed to the GCT area. So a lot more than just 60,000 people. That is not a failure just because it is not 51% of bus passengers. The fact is, we need both Gateway and #7. Had NJT been allowed to go along with ARC, Amtrak clearly stated they would still have had to build a 5th and 6th tunnel since ARC was made of no use to them. So don't be content with just 2 more tunnels. |
|
|
|