|
|
| Re: Push to Replace Port Authority Bus Terminal (303825) | |||
 |
|||
| 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 Tue Mar 24 16:05:22 2015, in response to Re: Push to Replace Port Authority Bus Terminal, posted by Joe V on Sun Mar 22 11:10:52 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. Your first paragraph provides the answer to the question in the second one. NJT, and the rest of the administration in New Jersey has no interest in expanding transportation options across the Hudson that don't involve private motoring. If no one in Jersey is interested in building this project, that sticks it squarely on the shoulders of the MTA. Start considering trip time, not counting "seats" Yes, I am considering this. One seat rides are inherently faster. If 25% of bus passengers take it, that is still 60,000 people So we want to spend billions for something that will have the usage of the Montague tunnel? 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. East side riders arriving at Penn station have a direct ride to the east side: The E train. Access to the N/Q/R is not far either. Taking a commuter train to Penn provides access to a far greater number of lines, which means two seat access to far more of the city. The 7 extension provides 2 seat access only to stations along the 7 line. 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. Have you ever looked at the NYMTC's hub bound travel data? The two PATH crossings are the second and third lowest utilized rail crossings into Manhattan. Only Montague sees lower ridership. Perhaps investments can be made in PATH to accommodate more bus customers before a brand new subway tunnel is built to handle even fewer customers than what already exists. |
|
|
|