|
|
| Re: Push to Replace Port Authority Bus Terminal (303852) | |||
 |
|||
| 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 Wed Mar 25 09:01:36 2015, in response to Re: Push to Replace Port Authority Bus Terminal, posted by Joe V on Tue Mar 24 17:47:38 2015. "Sticking square on the shoulders of MTA" shows you cannot decipher who constructs it and who pays for it. The #7 to Javits is a City funded project, not MTA.Easy on the personal attacks about what I can and cannot decipher. I understand quite well who paid for and who built the 7 extension. What that has to do with my comments on who would be shouldering the 7 extension to NJ is unclear. In the case of 7 West, the project was proposed and funded by a relatively powerful politician, and then managed by MTACC. In the case of 7 to Secaucus, the politician who proposed it is out of office, and he didn't even secure funding for it. Remember what happened to Guliani's pet project; Astoria el extension to LaGuardia? The MTA is not going to fund the #7 to SEC, nor Gateway for that matter, so you might as well as forget all of that too, since Gateway is an AMTRAK project. Where did I say that MTA was going to fund Gateway? It's clear that they aren't. " Yes, I am considering this. One seat rides are inherently faster." Really ? I'll remember that the next time I sit on the 117 or Trans Bridge for an hour from Secaucus to PABT whereas I could have transferred to NJT for a 10 minute ride to NYPS. I said that one seat rides are inherently faster, not that they ALWAYS are. Obviously mitigating factors can change this. You also forgot that PABT and NYPS are not the end of most people's journey. Again, one seat ride fraud on your part. I believe I acknowledged that people may need to transfer trains when I mentioned the E and N/Q/R. There would certainly be more people whose endpoint is NYP or PABT than Secaucus. PATH doesn't get north or east of Herald Square. That's it achilles heal. It is also limited to 7 car trains. PATH serves a larger swath of the city than the 7. Additionally, I mentioned that money could be spent improving PATH. Lengthening platforms, increasing capacity, even integrating it into the subway system could all be done for much cheaper than building the 7 extension. The E train is good for the 53rd Street corridor, but not at all for the GCT area. It is also inefficiently rear-end loaded at 34th and 42nd, and there is no getting around that. The E doesn't serve the 42nd street corridor well, but it serves a much bigger part of the city than the 7 does. While Penn station may not have direct access to the east side of Manhattan in the vicinity of 42nd, that is the ONLY area that a Secaucus transfer would be better at serving (and maybe also Hudson yards). I will give you this though: it seems clear that two major projects will need to get done to accommodate NJ commuters. Right now the two proposals are Gateway and PABT rebuilding. If the 7 to Secaucus were built instead of PABT, and the land the current PABT is situated on was leased, then I would be for the 7 extension. |
|
|
|