|
|
| Re: Push to Replace Port Authority Bus Terminal (303462) | |
 |
|
| Home > BusChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
|
Page 2 of 5 |
||
|
| (303536) | |
Re: Push to Replace Port Authority Bus Terminal |
|
|
Posted by kcram3500 on Thu Mar 19 14:35:57 2015, in response to Re: Push to Replace Port Authority Bus Terminal, posted by NIMBYkiller on Thu Mar 19 13:45:39 2015. Here's the problem - rail requires significant and expensive infrastructure: land, track, locomotive power (electric or diesel), signal systems, grade crossings and bridges, stations, ticketing equipment (TVMs and/or station ticket counters), and staff. The infrastructure for a bus is already there, short of new bus stop signs or some shelters. That's why new rail starts are so hard to pull off. With transit budgets already at their limits, it's a lot easier to have an existing part-time driver take a spare bus on anew route than to spend years and lots of money creating a new rail line. |
|
|
| (303537) | |
Re: Push to Replace Port Authority Bus Terminal |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Thu Mar 19 16:28:01 2015, in response to Re: Push to Replace Port Authority Bus Terminal, posted by kcram3500 on Thu Mar 19 14:35:57 2015. The infrastructure for a bus is already there, short of new bus stop signs or some shelters.And the minor issue of $11 billion for a new PABT. |
|
|
| (303538) | |
Re: Push to Replace Port Authority Bus Terminal |
|
|
Posted by kcram3500 on Thu Mar 19 16:36:35 2015, in response to Re: Push to Replace Port Authority Bus Terminal, posted by AlM on Thu Mar 19 16:28:01 2015. Same price for new rail tunnels. That's a wash. |
|
|
| (303540) | |
Re: Push to Replace Port Authority Bus Terminal |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Thu Mar 19 17:58:40 2015, in response to Re: Push to Replace Port Authority Bus Terminal, posted by J trainloco on Wed Mar 18 22:09:37 2015. 1) It is not DOA.2) "One seat ride" is consumer fraud. You'll transfer to a subway at one place or another. 3) Far more people ride buses to PABT than NJT trains to NYPS. Gateway tunnels solve part of it, not nearly all of it. 4) Most communities in NJ are served by buses, not trains. 5) #7 has double the capacity of Gateway, which is an Amtrak intercity rail project with an accommodation for commuter rail. 6) Buses don't increase property values. When the beloved one seat ride takes a half hour or hour more than a train, it is no longer important, unless it is a tour bus from Quebec with a bunch of old ladies. |
|
|
| (303541) | |
Re: Push to Replace Port Authority Bus Terminal |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Thu Mar 19 18:03:24 2015, in response to Re: Push to Replace Port Authority Bus Terminal, posted by NIMBYkiller on Thu Mar 19 13:44:11 2015. So then what is the problem at its root ?(BTW, don't expect anymore NJT rail trunk lines in our lifetime) |
|
|
| (303543) | |
Re: Push to Replace Port Authority Bus Terminal |
|
|
Posted by NIMBYkiller on Thu Mar 19 20:51:29 2015, in response to Push to Replace Port Authority Bus Terminal, posted by Euclid Avenue A Train on Tue Mar 17 17:19:16 2015. The following routes could be reduced/eliminated/re-routed/combined if many of the rail lines were reopened and able to access Manhattan via a new tunnel and terminal.NJT: 113, 114, 117, 121, 127, 130, 131, 132, 135, 136, 138, 137, 139, 144, 155, 157, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 177, 190, 191, 193, 194, 319, 321, 324 DeCamp: 33G, 44, 66 Lakeland: Rt 46 Red & Tan 11A, 14E, 20, 21T, 25, 46, 47, 48, 49 Shortline: Services to Woodbury, Highland Mills, Central Valley, Monroe, Chester, Goshen, Middletown, Suffern Lakeland: 46, 78, 80 Transbridge: Allentown via Easton Suburban/Academy: 300 Academy: Parkway Express, PNC, Rt 35, Rt 36, Shore Points Martz: Stroudsburg, Delaware Water Gap Leisure Lines (They still exist!?) Of that list, the following routes can be outright eliminated: NJT: 135 and 321, and huge swaths of the 166 and 167 Red & Tan: 11A (except for Rt 304 Park and Ride), 20 (Except for Rockland Psych which 14E can be rerouted to serve), 21T, 46, 47 (Except in Bardonia and New City) Probably all of Decamp 44 Shortline: Pretty much everything serving Rt 17 between Ridgewood and Middletown (Woodbury, Highland Mills, Central Valley, Monroe, Chester, Goshen, Middletown, Suffern) Lakeland: 78 Transbridge: Allentown line via Easton Suburban/Academy: 300 Academy: All service to Cheesequake, Monmouth, Forked River, Rt 36 W of Highlands, Shore Points S of Long Branch |
|
|
| (303544) | |
Re: Push to Replace Port Authority Bus Terminal |
|
|
Posted by NIMBYkiller on Thu Mar 19 20:54:41 2015, in response to Re: Push to Replace Port Authority Bus Terminal, posted by kcram3500 on Thu Mar 19 14:35:57 2015. Yes, it's incredibly difficult and expensive to get done, but the bus network is running at such a level that it warrants a higher volume solution |
|
|
| (303545) | |
Re: Push to Replace Port Authority Bus Terminal |
|
|
Posted by NIMBYkiller on Thu Mar 19 20:57:20 2015, in response to Re: Push to Replace Port Authority Bus Terminal, posted by Joe V on Thu Mar 19 18:03:24 2015. I'm not expecting it, because even though it is what HAS to be done, it is also exactly what WON'T be done. The problem is that we are using a small volume solution for a large volume issue. When Rt 36 buses are departing every 10 mins, that should tell you something. Most of these buses are running to places populated enough to warrant rail service (many of which have even higher populations and densities than places with existing rail services). |
|
|
| (303547) | |
Re: Push to Replace Port Authority Bus Terminal |
|
|
Posted by NIMBYkiller on Thu Mar 19 21:02:12 2015, in response to Re: Push to Replace Port Authority Bus Terminal, posted by Joe V on Thu Mar 19 17:58:40 2015. Yes more communities in NJ are served by buses rather than trains, but that is exactly the reason why more people ride buses into PABT than NJT trains into NYP. That would be fine and dandy if many of these communities in NJ weren't adjacent to an existing/former rail line. There are over a dozen high frequency services that could be reduced or eliminated outright if the trains were running on those tracks. This would leave space for the communities in NJ that can't have rail service to access PABT more efficiently |
|
|
| (303548) | |
Re: Push to Replace Port Authority Bus Terminal |
|
|
Posted by B68 slow poke on Thu Mar 19 21:58:52 2015, in response to Push to Replace Port Authority Bus Terminal, posted by Euclid Avenue A Train on Tue Mar 17 17:19:16 2015. Leave it just as it is ! No more tax payer $$$. |
|
|
| (303549) | |
Re: Push to Replace Port Authority Bus Terminal |
|
|
Posted by kcram3500 on Thu Mar 19 22:03:51 2015, in response to Re: Push to Replace Port Authority Bus Terminal, posted by NIMBYkiller on Thu Mar 19 20:57:20 2015. Here's the one flaw with that - and your other post with all the bus routes you felt could be cut outlines it... private passenger rail will never exist again. Private bus service is still somewhat profitable and has flexibility: it's easily customizable and less affected by temporary situations. The state will not absorb the losses that will come with new rail - only the Northeast Corridor makes money, so why would any other line? In contrast, most of the NJT and private bus services into New York make money. You're never going to sell the taxpayers on an investment into a black hole - if you tell them NJ needs to put up half the money for a new PABT that will cut their delays while still providing profitable bus service, they'll likely go for it. Tell them you need to come up with half the money for a new rail tunnel/terminal AND you're eliminating their profitable bus service with a money-losing rail service that eliminates the local neighborhood stops they've come to know for decades with single per-town stations that create their own traffic problems every rush hour (ask Dover NJ about this), they'll give you a typical NJ reaction. |
|
|
| (303550) | |
Re: Push to Replace Port Authority Bus Terminal |
|
|
Posted by metrolinecoach111 on Thu Mar 19 22:15:27 2015, in response to Re: Push to Replace Port Authority Bus Terminal, posted by NIMBYkiller on Thu Mar 19 20:51:29 2015. Ok. You're dreaming. |
|
|
| (303551) | |
Re: Push to Replace Port Authority Bus Terminal |
|
|
Posted by metrolinecoach111 on Thu Mar 19 22:16:46 2015, in response to Re: Push to Replace Port Authority Bus Terminal, posted by kcram3500 on Thu Mar 19 22:03:51 2015. The political pressure that would be placed by the operators on something like this would also be an issue. |
|
|
| (303552) | |
Re: Push to Replace Port Authority Bus Terminal |
|
|
Posted by j trainloco on Thu Mar 19 22:18:07 2015, in response to Re: Push to Replace Port Authority Bus Terminal, posted by kcram3500 on Thu Mar 19 22:03:51 2015. private passenger rail will never exist again.Well, these guys are going to give it a try. Let's see how they do. |
|
|
| (303553) | |
Re: Push to Replace Port Authority Bus Terminal |
|
|
Posted by j trainloco on Thu Mar 19 22:53:01 2015, in response to Re: Push to Replace Port Authority Bus Terminal, posted by Joe V on Thu Mar 19 17:58:40 2015. 1) It is not DOA.Correct. It was DOA: dead on arrival. It was proposed by a lame duck mayor, has no identified funding sources, the agency who would build it declined to advance the proposal, and no current politician seems interested in pushing it (both NJ and NY seem to have more interest in building new rail links to their airports of specious value). 2) "One seat ride" is consumer fraud. You'll transfer to a subway at one place or another. Even if we ignore the fraud comment, your proposing turning a two seat ride into a 3 seat ride for many folks... 3) Far more people ride buses to PABT than NJT trains to NYPS. Gateway tunnels solve part of it, not nearly all of it. And yet, this is not the case for the suburbs north and east of the city... 4) Most communities in NJ are served by buses, not trains. Why is this the case in NJ but not in upstate NY? If Gateway allowed a dramatic increase in rail service, could more passengers be accommodated through driving to parking lots, or bus service to rail stations? 5) #7 has double the capacity of Gateway, which is an Amtrak intercity rail project with an accommodation for commuter rail. As you yourself note, Gateway accomplishes two things: additional commuter capacity and more intercity service. Yes, metro has more ability to accommodate crowds, but I'm not sure that you're going to get every single bus rider off of buses info the 7 in Secaucus, especially if their destination isn't along the 7 line. In that case, you're not going to need the capacity of a metro style rail service. 6) Buses don't increase property values. Nor does building a one stop subway line to a bus terminal. |
|
|
| (303555) | |
Re: Push to Replace Port Authority Bus Terminal |
|
|
Posted by JAzumah on Fri Mar 20 01:06:35 2015, in response to Re: Push to Replace Port Authority Bus Terminal, posted by AlM on Thu Mar 19 16:28:01 2015. ...versus $15-20B for a new pair of rail tunnels. |
|
|
| (303556) | |
Re: Push to Replace Port Authority Bus Terminal |
|
|
Posted by JAzumah on Fri Mar 20 01:13:32 2015, in response to Re: Push to Replace Port Authority Bus Terminal, posted by kcram3500 on Thu Mar 19 22:03:51 2015. The only point I disagree with is that I expect private passenger rail to return, but it may require a new technology.Other than that, your posts demonstrate an understanding of the people that ride these buses. |
|
|
| (303557) | |
Re: Push to Replace Port Authority Bus Terminal |
|
|
Posted by JAzumah on Fri Mar 20 01:17:56 2015, in response to Re: Push to Replace Port Authority Bus Terminal, posted by NIMBYkiller on Thu Mar 19 20:51:29 2015. I have a better chance of becoming the next MTA chairman than this happening. |
|
|
| (303558) | |
Re: Push to Replace Port Authority Bus Terminal |
|
|
Posted by WillD on Fri Mar 20 02:10:28 2015, in response to Re: Push to Replace Port Authority Bus Terminal, posted by kcram3500 on Thu Mar 19 22:03:51 2015. In contrast, most of the NJT and private bus services into New York make money.You mean they generate an operating surplus. They're not profitable in terms of capital expenditure on vehicles, and once you roll in the upkeep on the highway system they're definitely not profitable in any sense of the word. Roads are not naturally occurring and the cost of operating buses on them must be accounted for in this accounting. As buses are frequently amongst the heaviest vehicles to travel along a non-arterial road they are amongst the chief reasons for repaving in residential areas. Tell them you need to come up with half the money for a new rail tunnel/terminal AND you're eliminating their profitable bus service with a money-losing rail service that eliminates the local neighborhood stops they've come to know for decades with single per-town stations that create their own traffic problems every rush hour (ask Dover NJ about this), they'll give you a typical NJ reaction. Rail is only a "money loser" because it foots its own bill for all its own infrastructure. Again, buses aren't profitable because they're not financing the road system outside of tolls and gas taxes, which don't cover the upkeep. It's also worth noting NJT's commuter rail system has a cost per vehicle revenue mile of about 150% that of their buses, despite the rail vehicle having roughly 200% the capacity of a bus. If you're going for "profit" then NJT's rail system is the better way to drive down costs than the bus network. |
|
|
| (303559) | |
Re: Push to Replace Port Authority Bus Terminal |
|
|
Posted by checkmatechamp13 on Fri Mar 20 04:27:04 2015, in response to Re: Push to Replace Port Authority Bus Terminal, posted by Joe V on Thu Mar 19 17:58:40 2015. If anything, a three-seat ride decreases ridership even further. |
|
|
| (303560) | |
Re: Push to Replace Port Authority Bus Terminal |
|
|
Posted by R30A on Fri Mar 20 07:15:06 2015, in response to Re: Push to Replace Port Authority Bus Terminal, posted by kcram3500 on Thu Mar 19 16:36:35 2015. It is a wash until you consider that the rail tunnels are of exponentially higher value. |
|
|
| (303562) | |
Re: Push to Replace Port Authority Bus Terminal |
|
|
Posted by JAzumah on Fri Mar 20 09:29:44 2015, in response to Re: Push to Replace Port Authority Bus Terminal, posted by Joe V on Thu Mar 19 17:58:40 2015. "One seat ride" is consumer fraud. You'll transfer to a subway at one place or another.There are thousands of people that access the PABT on foot each day. In fact, there are so many that they walk on the street in the afternoon on 8 Avenue. These people walk from the terminal to work. #7 has double the capacity of Gateway, which is an Amtrak intercity rail project with an accommodation for commuter rail. A subway extension of any sort will not be able to pull enough money. The federal government has said (in code) that they do not trust NJ to handle this project by themselves again. You are not going to get Amtrak or NJT to do anything but a tunnel for commuter rail. When the beloved one seat ride takes a half hour or hour more than a train, it is no longer important, unless it is a tour bus from Quebec with a bunch of old ladies. When you can claim billable hours by starting your day aboard said bus, that calculation changes quickly. |
|
|
| (303563) | |
Re: Push to Replace Port Authority Bus Terminal |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Fri Mar 20 10:36:07 2015, in response to Re: Push to Replace Port Authority Bus Terminal, posted by WillD on Fri Mar 20 02:10:28 2015. Lakeland and Community ares prime examples. Bitching and moaning about the MDT on the M&E and on the Montclair branch, but no thanks for the free buses NJT literally gives them every 15 years.Different "privates' have different arrangments. Trans Bridge has about 7 of their 60 or so buses owned by NJT. |
|
|
| (303564) | |
Re: Push to Replace Port Authority Bus Terminal |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Fri Mar 20 10:38:01 2015, in response to Re: Push to Replace Port Authority Bus Terminal, posted by NIMBYkiller on Thu Mar 19 20:57:20 2015. The CNJ Seashore Branch that those buses more or less replaced ain't never coming back. |
|
|
| (303565) | |
Re: Push to Replace Port Authority Bus Terminal |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Fri Mar 20 10:48:21 2015, in response to Re: Push to Replace Port Authority Bus Terminal, posted by j trainloco on Thu Mar 19 22:53:01 2015. 1) Nothing we want right now has any funding, including Gateway. I have sat through PPT presentations by the Parson Brinkerhoof project Manager (you have not). It is far from dead, even if it is not in the newspapers. Every agency has endorsed it, especially NJT. They do not want to continue running all those buses to Manhattan.2) A subway across 42nd Street does not mean 3 seat rides. If it does, keep riding buses to PABT. 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. 5) We run every other #7, which is 18,000 people per hour. 6) I am not interested in increasing property. You brought that up, I didn't. It is physically impossible to accommodate future bus growth, or even manage the existing, regardless of what is done to that bus terminal. 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. |
|
|
| (303566) | |
Re: Push to Replace Port Authority Bus Terminal |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Fri Mar 20 10:55:08 2015, in response to Re: Push to Replace Port Authority Bus Terminal, posted by NIMBYkiller on Thu Mar 19 20:51:29 2015. Your are pretending you have some knowledge of the Jersey bus market.You don't. I live here. I'll cherry-pick a few: The 114, most of whose ridership is east of Plainfield does not coincide with the Raritan Line, or any other rail line that every existed, i.e. Mountainside, Watchung. The portion west of Plainfield tends to have intra-Jersey ridership. The 117 is all of 4 partially filled 40' buses and runs along Roiute 22, a considerable distance from the RVL. That load is can be placed on one MLV coach on 1 train. It is a non-entity. Nobody is going to take a pokey Raritan Line train rather than Trans Bridge from P-Burg or Pennsylvania. |
|
|
| (303572) | |
Re: Push to Replace Port Authority Bus Terminal |
|
|
Posted by kcram3500 on Fri Mar 20 11:41:00 2015, in response to Re: Push to Replace Port Authority Bus Terminal, posted by Joe V on Fri Mar 20 10:48:21 2015. 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.That had far more to do with the fact that most NJT routes that served Philly used the streets because there was no PABT equivalent... only a small handful used either the Trailways or Greyhound terminals. Street traffic in center-city Philly became so bad, NJT could not meet any schedules. NJT sends far more routes and buses to PABT and the delays were nowhere near as bad as what was happening in Philly. That is why they implemented the "funnel" at Rand. |
|
|
| (303578) | |
Re: Push to Replace Port Authority Bus Terminal |
|
|
Posted by Terrapin Station on Fri Mar 20 13:01:17 2015, in response to Re: Push to Replace Port Authority Bus Terminal, posted by Spider-Pig on Wed Mar 18 15:24:05 2015. Port OF Authority |
|
|
| (303580) | |
Re: Push to Replace Port Authority Bus Terminal |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Fri Mar 20 13:14:29 2015, in response to Re: Push to Replace Port Authority Bus Terminal, posted by kcram3500 on Fri Mar 20 11:41:00 2015. Think of it as a trial balloon.Whether there was a PABT equivalent in Philly is completely irrelevent - most people are headed to Philly, and not attracted to a central bus terminal, which in NY is a cesspool anyway. NJT can't meet schedules very well into PABT either. OTP in the 80's is awful. I have sat many a times on a bus from Secaucus to PABT for 40 - 70 minutes, which out to take 12 - 20 minutes. |
|
|
| (303584) | |
Re: Push to Replace Port Authority Bus Terminal |
|
|
Posted by kcram3500 on Fri Mar 20 13:54:07 2015, in response to Re: Push to Replace Port Authority Bus Terminal, posted by Joe V on Fri Mar 20 13:14:29 2015. The older proposal of re-using the abandoned rail tunnels under the Palisades could be revisited in combination with a bus-exclusive river tunnel. A dedicated roadway would have taken buses from NJ 3, the Turnpike, and Tonnelle through the old rail tunnels to the waterfront, where they would enter a new underwater tunnel that would get them to the (old/new) PABT.Since NJ 495 is virtually impossible to expand (due to the current physical constraints), and any new rail tunnels will only serve to add capacity to existing rail lines, there has to be a new way to get buses to Manhattan that keeps them out of the outdated path that is 495 and Lincoln Tunnel. All the current modes between NJ and NY need upgrading - not just rail, not just bus, not just ferry. |
|
|
| (303588) | |
Re: Push to Replace Port Authority Bus Terminal |
|
|
Posted by kcram3500 on Fri Mar 20 14:32:16 2015, in response to Re: Push to Replace Port Authority Bus Terminal, posted by Joe V on Fri Mar 20 13:14:29 2015. The older proposal of re-using the abandoned rail tunnels under the Palisades could be revisited in combination with a bus-exclusive river tunnel. A dedicated roadway would have taken buses from NJ 3, the Turnpike, and Tonnelle through the old rail tunnels to the waterfront, where they would enter a new underwater tunnel that would get them to the (old/new) PABT.Since NJ 495 is virtually impossible to expand (due to the current physical constraints), and any new rail tunnels will only serve to add capacity to existing rail lines, there has to be a new way to get buses to Manhattan that keeps them out of the outdated path that is 495 and Lincoln Tunnel. All the current modes between NJ and NY need upgrading - not just rail, not just bus, not just ferry. |
|
|
| (303589) | |
Re: Push to Replace Port Authority Bus Terminal |
|
|
Posted by kcram3500 on Fri Mar 20 14:32:58 2015, in response to Re: Push to Replace Port Authority Bus Terminal, posted by kcram3500 on Fri Mar 20 14:32:16 2015. (no idea why this double-posted...) |
|
|
| (303590) | |
Re: Push to Replace Port Authority Bus Terminal |
|
|
Posted by busdude2 on Fri Mar 20 15:29:26 2015, in response to Re: Push to Replace Port Authority Bus Terminal, posted by kcram3500 on Fri Mar 20 13:54:07 2015. Wow this is the longest back and forth between two posters here. |
|
|
| (303591) | |
Re: Push to Replace Port Authority Bus Terminal |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Fri Mar 20 15:36:59 2015, in response to Re: Push to Replace Port Authority Bus Terminal, posted by busdude2 on Fri Mar 20 15:29:26 2015. Nothing wrong with that. We keep it civil. |
|
|
| (303592) | |
Re: Push to Replace Port Authority Bus Terminal |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Fri Mar 20 15:38:19 2015, in response to Re: Push to Replace Port Authority Bus Terminal, posted by B68 slow poke on Thu Mar 19 21:58:52 2015. Methinks PA came up with such a price tag so as to give the pols sticker shock, and then they get to do nothing, which is just the way they want it. |
|
|
| (303593) | |
Re: Push to Replace Port Authority Bus Terminal |
|
|
Posted by busdude2 on Fri Mar 20 17:27:19 2015, in response to Re: Push to Replace Port Authority Bus Terminal, posted by Joe V on Fri Mar 20 15:36:59 2015. A great subject with many ideas. |
|
|
| (303597) | |
Re: Push to Replace Port Authority Bus Terminal |
|
|
Posted by kcram3500 on Fri Mar 20 18:11:12 2015, in response to Re: Push to Replace Port Authority Bus Terminal, posted by Joe V on Fri Mar 20 15:36:59 2015. Agreed there. Debate the issue, not the person. |
|
|
| (303599) | |
Re: Push to Replace Port Authority Bus Terminal |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Fri Mar 20 19:22:46 2015, in response to Re: Push to Replace Port Authority Bus Terminal, posted by kcram3500 on Fri Mar 20 14:32:58 2015. My Andorid double-sends e-mails all the time. |
|
|
| (303600) | |
Re: Push to Replace Port Authority Bus Terminal |
|
|
Posted by 3-9 on Fri Mar 20 20:31:35 2015, in response to Re: Push to Replace Port Authority Bus Terminal, posted by northshore on Wed Mar 18 11:09:19 2015. As someone who uses the terminal occasionally, I kind of agree, at least with regards to appearance. I don't really have a problem with the "main" areas of the terminal (the rooms and passages to the boarding areas). The boarding areas are kind of dingy, but I liken it to the way GCT's track area is also dingy (more than PABT, IMO), yet no one says we need to remake GCT. |
|
|
| (303603) | |
Re: Push to Replace Port Authority Bus Terminal |
|
|
Posted by NIMBYkiller on Fri Mar 20 23:44:17 2015, in response to Re: Push to Replace Port Authority Bus Terminal, posted by R30A on Fri Mar 20 07:15:06 2015. +1 |
|
|
| (303604) | |
Re: Push to Replace Port Authority Bus Terminal |
|
|
Posted by NIMBYkiller on Fri Mar 20 23:45:25 2015, in response to Re: Push to Replace Port Authority Bus Terminal, posted by JAzumah on Fri Mar 20 01:06:35 2015. How many people per dollar could those tunnels move comparatively on a daily basis? |
|
|
| (303605) | |
Re: Push to Replace Port Authority Bus Terminal |
|
|
Posted by NIMBYkiller on Fri Mar 20 23:46:20 2015, in response to Re: Push to Replace Port Authority Bus Terminal, posted by Joe V on Fri Mar 20 10:38:01 2015. The sad thing is that you're right |
|
|
| (303607) | |
Re: Push to Replace Port Authority Bus Terminal |
|
|
Posted by NIMBYkiller on Fri Mar 20 23:56:11 2015, in response to Re: Push to Replace Port Authority Bus Terminal, posted by kcram3500 on Thu Mar 19 22:03:51 2015. You do realize a vast amount of Academy's buses are purchased by the state and leased to Academy for $1 each, right? These are almost all subsidized services (or perhaps all subsidized?) |
|
|
| (303608) | |
Re: Push to Replace Port Authority Bus Terminal |
|
|
Posted by NIMBYkiller on Sat Mar 21 00:07:34 2015, in response to Re: Push to Replace Port Authority Bus Terminal, posted by kcram3500 on Fri Mar 20 13:54:07 2015. But the problem isn't just the XBL, it's the PABT as well. There's just too many buses being sent in, and many of them coming from high population/high density areas that warrant rail service. Yes, PABT needs to be massively fixed up, and if the amount of bus traffic coming into the city is still so plentiful even after expanded rail service in NJ, then by all means, build a bus exclusive tunnel. But the higher capacity solution should be the first one built |
|
|
| (303609) | |
Re: Push to Replace Port Authority Bus Terminal |
|
|
Posted by NIMBYkiller on Sat Mar 21 00:09:26 2015, in response to Re: Push to Replace Port Authority Bus Terminal, posted by metrolinecoach111 on Thu Mar 19 22:15:27 2015. Sadly, that is the reality we live in and will continue to live in |
|
|
| (303610) | |
Re: Push to Replace Port Authority Bus Terminal |
|
|
Posted by NIMBYkiller on Sat Mar 21 00:13:01 2015, in response to Re: Push to Replace Port Authority Bus Terminal, posted by Joe V on Fri Mar 20 10:55:08 2015. I admit fully that this is from simply glancing at NJT bus maps and schedules of the other numerous operators, which is why I threw in the disclaimer "of varying degrees." As for the Allentown service, logic dictates that after Phillipsburg or another point a few stops down the line, trains would run express. If an express train from Phillipsburg still can't match the actual run time for the bus, then the idea doesn't work. Same goes for all other examples |
|
|
| (303611) | |
Re: Push to Replace Port Authority Bus Terminal |
|
|
Posted by NIMBYkiller on Sat Mar 21 00:13:20 2015, in response to Re: Push to Replace Port Authority Bus Terminal, posted by JAzumah on Fri Mar 20 01:17:56 2015. Dream big my friend! |
|
|
| (303613) | |
Re: Push to Replace Port Authority Bus Terminal |
|
|
Posted by kcram3500 on Sat Mar 21 00:28:14 2015, in response to Re: Push to Replace Port Authority Bus Terminal, posted by NIMBYkiller on Fri Mar 20 23:56:11 2015. State has been supplying buses for Academy since 1973. No one disputes that. But the money for those buses comes from the same place as who would pay for new rail cars - FTA. And I did not include cost of rail cars for that reason. |
|
|
| (303616) | |
Re: Push to Replace Port Authority Bus Terminal |
|
|
Posted by busdude2 on Sat Mar 21 09:33:01 2015, in response to Re: Push to Replace Port Authority Bus Terminal, posted by NIMBYkiller on Sat Mar 21 00:07:34 2015. Bus only tunnel is a great idea but you still have the problem of where to put them once they get to PABT. |
|
|
| (303618) | |
Re: Push to Replace Port Authority Bus Terminal |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Sat Mar 21 10:43:58 2015, in response to Re: Push to Replace Port Authority Bus Terminal, posted by busdude2 on Sat Mar 21 09:33:01 2015. That gets into NYC ratables. I don't think even DeBlasio is so stupid as to give more Manhattan blocks over to Jersey buses. The Hells Kitchen area is regentrifying. |
|
|
|
Page 2 of 5 |
||