|
|
| Re: Push to Replace Port Authority Bus Terminal (303462) | |
 |
|
| Home > BusChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
|
Page 3 of 5 |
||
|
| (303619) | |
Re: Push to Replace Port Authority Bus Terminal |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Sat Mar 21 10:46:49 2015, in response to Re: Push to Replace Port Authority Bus Terminal, posted by NIMBYkiller on Sat Mar 21 00:13:01 2015. There is not a critical mass of people to justify an express train.Total daily Raritan line loadings west of Raritan is about 300. People think P-Burg is this gold mine of passenger generation fro Manhattan. It is not. Most of the buses fill up in Pennsylvania, then Clinton, then non-stop down I-78. No train can ever beat that. |
|
|
| (303620) | |
Re: Push to Replace Port Authority Bus Terminal |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Sat Mar 21 10:48:40 2015, in response to Re: Push to Replace Port Authority Bus Terminal, posted by NIMBYkiller on Fri Mar 20 23:56:11 2015. Academy is a huge, complex outfit. Very hard to nail down who buys their buses. A few weeks ago, I saw 2 Academy buses on a charter in New Brunswick. The buses had Illinois plates. |
|
|
| (303621) | |
Re: Push to Replace Port Authority Bus Terminal |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Sat Mar 21 10:52:01 2015, in response to Re: Push to Replace Port Authority Bus Terminal, posted by 3-9 on Fri Mar 20 20:31:35 2015. "yet no one says we need to remake GCT. "But we did ! Forget how bad it was 30 years ago ? - OTB windows where there are now ticket windows - Vagrancy all over the area that had a complex of phone booths and telephone books - Vagrancy all over the waiting room nearest 42nd Street. - Kodak billboard where there is now east stairways - God knows what structural repairs |
|
|
| (303622) | |
Re: Push to Replace Port Authority Bus Terminal |
|
|
Posted by kcram3500 on Sat Mar 21 11:47:10 2015, in response to Re: Push to Replace Port Authority Bus Terminal, posted by Joe V on Sat Mar 21 10:43:58 2015. Build a better convention center closer to 7th/8th Avenues (Penn/MSG/old Post Office area) and put the new PABT where Javits currently occupies. Then PANYNJ can sell the current PABT land for top dollar and NYC gets the ratable in a prime location. |
|
|
| (303623) | |
Re: Push to Replace Port Authority Bus Terminal |
|
|
Posted by metrolinecoach111 on Sat Mar 21 13:44:48 2015, in response to Re: Push to Replace Port Authority Bus Terminal, posted by Joe V on Sat Mar 21 10:48:40 2015. He recently re-registered all of the non-NJT co-purchased buses to IL, including the ones he inherited from Florida. |
|
|
| (303624) | |
Re: Push to Replace Port Authority Bus Terminal |
|
|
Posted by metrolinecoach111 on Sat Mar 21 13:49:43 2015, in response to Re: Push to Replace Port Authority Bus Terminal, posted by NIMBYkiller on Fri Mar 20 23:56:11 2015. It's not vast anymore considering how much they've expanded in the past three years. If you look at how many buses are registered under Lines and 22 in SAFER STAT, it's only a little more than a third. |
|
|
| (303626) | |
Re: Push to Replace Port Authority Bus Terminal |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Sat Mar 21 14:20:39 2015, in response to Re: Push to Replace Port Authority Bus Terminal, posted by metrolinecoach111 on Sat Mar 21 13:44:48 2015. Why Illinois of all places ? |
|
|
| (303629) | |
Re: Push to Replace Port Authority Bus Terminal |
|
|
Posted by metrolinecoach111 on Sat Mar 21 14:26:15 2015, in response to Re: Push to Replace Port Authority Bus Terminal, posted by Joe V on Sat Mar 21 14:20:39 2015. Apportioned fuel taxes and lower insurance. |
|
|
| (303631) | |
Re: Push to Replace Port Authority Bus Terminal |
|
|
Posted by GojiMet86 on Sat Mar 21 14:44:18 2015, in response to Re: Push to Replace Port Authority Bus Terminal, posted by Joe V on Sat Mar 21 14:20:39 2015. Maybe I'm making things up, but I think Academy is associated with Franmar Leasing LLC, based in Chicago. They were mentioned a lot in the Atlantic Express bankruptcy documents. |
|
|
| (303632) | |
Re: Push to Replace Port Authority Bus Terminal |
|
|
Posted by 3-9 on Sat Mar 21 15:32:11 2015, in response to Re: Push to Replace Port Authority Bus Terminal, posted by Joe V on Sat Mar 21 10:52:01 2015. But the track areas at GCT STILL look dingy and dismal. Hell, Coney Island looks better. And maybe it's because I haven't explored every inch of PABT, but I haven't seen a big vagrancy problem there. It seems to be holding together after they got rid of the prostitutes, drug dealers, etc. |
|
|
| (303633) | |
Re: Push to Replace Port Authority Bus Terminal |
|
|
Posted by 3-9 on Sat Mar 21 15:34:42 2015, in response to Re: Push to Replace Port Authority Bus Terminal, posted by kcram3500 on Sat Mar 21 11:47:10 2015. Place the new PABT so far from the subway and the rest of midtown? That would majorly suck. |
|
|
| (303634) | |
Re: Push to Replace Port Authority Bus Terminal |
|
|
Posted by metrolinecoach111 on Sat Mar 21 15:36:54 2015, in response to Re: Push to Replace Port Authority Bus Terminal, posted by GojiMet86 on Sat Mar 21 14:44:18 2015. Yes, owned by the same two people, Francis and Mark Tedesco (Franmar). |
|
|
| (303635) | |
Re: Push to Replace Port Authority Bus Terminal |
|
|
Posted by 3-9 on Sat Mar 21 15:37:20 2015, in response to Re: Push to Replace Port Authority Bus Terminal, posted by kcram3500 on Sat Mar 21 11:47:10 2015. Forgot about the #7. Even so, I wouldn't trust the PABT's commuter traffic to one subway line, even if it does have frequent service. And it still removes much of midtown from easy walking distance. |
|
|
| (303640) | |
Re: Push to Replace Port Authority Bus Terminal |
|
|
Posted by b1bus on Sat Mar 21 18:32:07 2015, in response to Re: Push to Replace Port Authority Bus Terminal, posted by Joe V on Fri Mar 20 15:38:19 2015. Go to Home Depot and get the illegals. |
|
|
| (303643) | |
Re: Push to Replace Port Authority Bus Terminal |
|
|
Posted by NIMBYkiller on Sat Mar 21 20:09:49 2015, in response to Re: Push to Replace Port Authority Bus Terminal, posted by Joe V on Sat Mar 21 10:46:49 2015. I didn't say p-burg was a gold mine. I said the service would start in Allentown and run local to Phillipsburg or some place around there and then run express to Newark. If the train runs express from Phillipsburg it really couldn't match the run time of the bus? East of Lebanon that's fairly straight track. What's MAS currently and how much higher can it be brought without having to alter the physical characteristics of the ROW |
|
|
| (303645) | |
Re: Push to Replace Port Authority Bus Terminal |
|
|
Posted by NIMBYkiller on Sat Mar 21 20:15:06 2015, in response to Re: Push to Replace Port Authority Bus Terminal, posted by metrolinecoach111 on Sat Mar 21 13:49:43 2015. I didn't mean to express it as a percentage of their overall fleet, I just meant it as a raw number |
|
|
| (303646) | |
Re: Push to Replace Port Authority Bus Terminal |
|
|
Posted by NIMBYkiller on Sat Mar 21 20:22:27 2015, in response to Re: Push to Replace Port Authority Bus Terminal, posted by metrolinecoach111 on Sat Mar 21 15:36:54 2015. Which makes me wonder how this is still legit. Even if the buses are all through Franmar, none of them actually go to Illinois (except the rare charter out there) and they have no physical bus shop out there. As I understand it, the company has to be registered in the same general area where the buses are based out of. I thought this was [partly] why STSC was shut down; they were Georgia company operating between Philly and NY. It's also made me wonder how Focus is able to be registered in Worcestor, MA and run their buses with MA plates when they operate NY-PHL-DC and NY-NC. I know a carrier whose bus is registered and insured in NC but they operate up here, and the insurance company is now asking questions about whether or not the bus ever comes down to NC |
|
|
| (303647) | |
Re: Push to Replace Port Authority Bus Terminal |
|
|
Posted by NIMBYkiller on Sat Mar 21 20:25:43 2015, in response to Re: Push to Replace Port Authority Bus Terminal, posted by Joe V on Sat Mar 21 10:48:40 2015. It's very easy, I used to work for them as a dispatcher/driver. Somehow though they seem to "forget" and state owned buses end up on charter or bid work (illegal). The whole bus industry is up in arms over it and they just got fined |
|
|
| (303648) | |
Re: Push to Replace Port Authority Bus Terminal |
|
|
Posted by metrolinecoach111 on Sat Mar 21 20:34:50 2015, in response to Re: Push to Replace Port Authority Bus Terminal, posted by NIMBYkiller on Sat Mar 21 20:25:43 2015. Not exactly - two issues here:With the cruisers, the state provides the buses for them to operate service over said routes. As long as the company provides said service, they can operate the buses as they wish. In addition, they put in a percentage of the money for several of these buses for upgrades so this furthers the exception. Now, with the NABIs, they are contracted for use solely on the NJ Transit contract routes. Yes, they use them on shuttles and yes, this is the part that is illegal and what they were fined for. |
|
|
| (303649) | |
Re: Push to Replace Port Authority Bus Terminal |
|
|
Posted by pragmatist on Sat Mar 21 20:52:37 2015, in response to Re: Push to Replace Port Authority Bus Terminal, posted by metrolinecoach111 on Sat Mar 21 20:34:50 2015. I think it matters if Fed funding is involved also. I'm pretty sure (not 100%) FTA funded buses can't be used for most charters. |
|
|
| (303651) | |
Re: Push to Replace Port Authority Bus Terminal |
|
|
Posted by TerrapIN StatiON on Sat Mar 21 20:57:50 2015, in response to Re: Push to Replace Port Authority Bus Terminal, posted by R30A on Fri Mar 20 07:15:06 2015. +90 |
|
|
| (303652) | |
Re: Push to Replace Port Authority Bus Terminal |
|
|
Posted by TerrapIN StatiON on Sat Mar 21 20:58:21 2015, in response to Re: Push to Replace Port Authority Bus Terminal, posted by NIMBYkiller on Fri Mar 20 23:45:25 2015. crickets |
|
|
| (303653) | |
Re: Push to Replace Port Authority Bus Terminal |
|
|
Posted by TerrapIN StatiON on Sat Mar 21 20:59:44 2015, in response to Re: Push to Replace Port Authority Bus Terminal, posted by Joe V on Sat Mar 21 10:48:40 2015. So you're wrong. |
|
|
| (303655) | |
Re: Push to Replace Port Authority Bus Terminal |
|
|
Posted by kcram3500 on Sat Mar 21 21:46:39 2015, in response to Re: Push to Replace Port Authority Bus Terminal, posted by pragmatist on Sat Mar 21 20:52:37 2015. FTA stipulates that the buses must be used for commuter operations during peak times (weekday non-holiday rush hours). As long as that condition is met, the operating company can use them for other company needs during off-peak (middays, nights, weekends, major holidays).When the PA was funding the purchases in the 80s, they had the stipulation that buses could not be operated beyond a 75-mile radius of Manhattan - Toms River just made that distance, so NJT could use their PA-owned MC-9s on the 137. |
|
|
| (303656) | |
Re: Push to Replace Port Authority Bus Terminal |
|
|
Posted by NIMBYkiller on Sat Mar 21 21:51:09 2015, in response to Re: Push to Replace Port Authority Bus Terminal, posted by metrolinecoach111 on Sat Mar 21 20:34:50 2015. Got it, thanks! |
|
|
| (303659) | |
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. |
|
|
| (303661) | |
Re: Push to Replace Port Authority Bus Terminal |
|
|
Posted by CON4144 on Sat Mar 21 22:52:53 2015, in response to Re: Push to Replace Port Authority Bus Terminal, posted by kcram3500 on Sat Mar 21 21:46:39 2015. I was at the Port Authority Bus Terminal on opening day in 1950. Public Service, Red and Tan. Intercity Lines, Manhatten Coach, Orange & Black, Edwards Lakes to Sea, Lincoln Limited, DeCamp, Garden State Lines, Somerset Lines and many others. No Gray Hound yet at that time. What a wonderful parade. Had a full roster for all companies with matching license plates. |
|
|
| (303662) | |
Re: Push to Replace Port Authority Bus Terminal |
|
|
Posted by UTC Bus Roster on Sat Mar 21 23:14:49 2015, in response to Re: Push to Replace Port Authority Bus Terminal, posted by TerrApin Station on Wed Mar 18 07:50:34 2015. I agree that rail MUST come before bus improvements. Buses pollute!!What's needed is the reactivation of the West Shore (now called CSX River Line) for passenger service at least as far as Newburgh (via West Point), which has seen passenger service since service was abandoned in 1959. NY Central justified the elimination of the service by ending ferry service which ran from NYC to Weehawken, NJ terminal. this way they cut ridership, as there was no other way to get to the Weehawken terminal. This way they were able to justified the elimination of the passenger service. I have passenger timetables for sale for this line as well as many other lines including the long-gone Putnam Division, which ended passenger service on May 29, 1958. My eBay ID is nhrrlives. I will also have them at the next Urban Transit Club meeting on April 11. The April show will be Super-8 movies by Gary Grahl. As far as the Port Authority Bus Terminal is concerned, it is and always been an eyesore! |
|
|
| (303665) | |
Re: Push to Replace Port Authority Bus Terminal |
|
|
Posted by pragmatist on Sun Mar 22 09:39:03 2015, in response to Re: Push to Replace Port Authority Bus Terminal, posted by kcram3500 on Sat Mar 21 21:46:39 2015. Thanks for the clarification, makes sense. |
|
|
| (303670) | |
Re: Push to Replace Port Authority Bus Terminal |
|
|
Posted by JAzumah on Sun Mar 22 10:55:17 2015, in response to Re: Push to Replace Port Authority Bus Terminal, posted by NIMBYkiller on Sat Mar 21 20:22:27 2015. With apportioned plates, you can allocate the equipment where you need it. |
|
|
| (303672) | |
Re: Push to Replace Port Authority Bus Terminal |
|
|
Posted by JAzumah on Sun Mar 22 11:10:37 2015, in response to Re: Push to Replace Port Authority Bus Terminal, posted by kcram3500 on Sat Mar 21 21:46:39 2015. You are not supposed to use the FTA cruisers on charters. |
|
|
| (303673) | |
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. |
|
|
| (303674) | |
Re: Push to Replace Port Authority Bus Terminal |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Sun Mar 22 11:17:18 2015, in response to Re: Push to Replace Port Authority Bus Terminal, posted by UTC Bus Roster on Sat Mar 21 23:14:49 2015. CSX River Line is pretty much dead. It is a major CSX freight route with single track bottlenecks with mountain tunnel clearance issues that cannot be solved very easily. It would also be difficult to route via Secaucus and into Penn Station.CSX track access fees would be prohibitively expensive. Amtrak could run on an incremental cost basis, assuming they paid a ransom for capital expansion, but everyone else must pay market cost, which would be 4 or 5 times as much. You'd have an easier time getting NJT trains on the Lehigh Line in western New Jersey and Pennsylvania, and there isn't a chance in hell of that happening. |
|
|
| (303675) | |
Re: Push to Replace Port Authority Bus Terminal |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Sun Mar 22 11:27:39 2015, in response to Re: Push to Replace Port Authority Bus Terminal, posted by metrolinecoach111 on Sat Mar 21 20:34:50 2015. Does Academy just consider the fine the cost of doing business ?Was it a wrist slap amount ? |
|
|
| (303676) | |
Re: Push to Replace Port Authority Bus Terminal |
|
|
Posted by kcram3500 on Sun Mar 22 11:31:50 2015, in response to Re: Push to Replace Port Authority Bus Terminal, posted by JAzumah on Sun Mar 22 11:10:37 2015. And yet, they always have... |
|
|
| (303678) | |
Re: Push to Replace Port Authority Bus Terminal |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Sun Mar 22 11:37:36 2015, in response to Re: Push to Replace Port Authority Bus Terminal, posted by NIMBYkiller on Sat Mar 21 20:09:49 2015. You cannot get a passenger train beyond P-Burg.NJT has trackage rights up to P-Burg on the NS Lehigh Line where the CNJ has been severed in the Asbury area and that is all. From there, reactivate the abandoned LV bridge (NS uses the CNJ bridge), double track to Allentown, and then be prepared to pay track access fees to NS at market rate, which is about 4 or 5 times the incremental rate that Amtrak has statutory rights too. Also do remember that LANTA has absolutely no interest in any rail project. I don't know how you expect to run expresses on a 2 track RVL line. There are 2 semi-expresses in the PM rush as far as Plainfeild, and a skip-stop arrangement in the AM, but no capacity for thru-expresses. That would be like running a "P" train on the Jamaica el - it won't work. |
|
|
| (303679) | |
Re: Push to Replace Port Authority Bus Terminal |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Sun Mar 22 11:39:28 2015, in response to Re: Push to Replace Port Authority Bus Terminal, posted by JAzumah on Sun Mar 22 10:55:17 2015. I would never think of Illinois as a cheap palce to register anything. |
|
|
| (303680) | |
Re: Push to Replace Port Authority Bus Terminal |
|
|
Posted by oldman on Sun Mar 22 11:58:01 2015, in response to Re: Push to Replace Port Authority Bus Terminal, posted by Joe V on Sun Mar 22 11:27:39 2015. I'm hearing from sources that Academy is now a Florida Corp. because of tax laws, do you remember when Greyhound buses had Illinois Plates. cusa is all Illinois plates because of the Il.Leasing arm ofcusa. |
|
|
| (303681) | |
Re: Push to Replace Port Authority Bus Terminal |
|
|
Posted by metrolinecoach111 on Sun Mar 22 12:22:24 2015, in response to Re: Push to Replace Port Authority Bus Terminal, posted by oldman on Sun Mar 22 11:58:01 2015. When he purchased the FLorida companies from Horizon, he formed a separate corporation from the NJ company called Academy Bus LLC, Florida. It covers anything they currently own or will own in the future south of DC.Everything north of DC is Academy Bus LLC, New Jersey, including Lines (the commuter division), 22 (the Hudson County + NYU/Columbia/Newark Airport services) and Express (everything else). |
|
|
| (303684) | |
Re: Push to Replace Port Authority Bus Terminal |
|
|
Posted by JAzumah on Sun Mar 22 12:40:47 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.You are half right. The Feds have said (in code) that they are not going to fund any rail tunnel where NJT is the lead. By making it a regional project, they are not going to have to worry about a state (Christie) cancelling the project. They are going to require that Amtrak be the lead and both the MTA and NJT would have to participate. NJT is a lot more involved in Gateway than they are leading on. 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. You aren't listening to us. NJT generates an OPERATING SURPLUS from their NYC bus operations. They use the ENTIRE SURPLUS to fund local bus operations in NJ. The reduction in NYC interstate bus service would lead to a major reduction in local NJ bus service. It is not in NJT's interest to subsidize such a project. The operating surplus to NYC is estimated at $100M. 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 Second Avenue Subway Phase 2 would carry more people than this and it is still not fully funded. The fact remains that you think trains are better than buses and you are willing to bust up the bus system to prove your point. So don't be content with just 2 more tunnels. Can I borrow a few billion from you? |
|
|
| (303685) | |
Re: Push to Replace Port Authority Bus Terminal |
|
|
Posted by TerrapIN StatiON on Sun Mar 22 13:05:32 2015, in response to Re: Push to Replace Port Authority Bus Terminal, posted by kcram3500 on Wed Mar 18 13:55:36 2015. it gives them the option of walking once they're thereI clearly wrote: "why in the world would people who need to take a subway once in Manhattan anyhow..." So we're only talking about the people who WANT to get on the subway. The people who want to walk can ride a bus to the PABT, and probably pay a much higher fare for the privilege. |
|
|
| (303686) | |
Re: Push to Replace Port Authority Bus Terminal |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Sun Mar 22 13:09:54 2015, in response to Re: Push to Replace Port Authority Bus Terminal, posted by JAzumah on Sun Mar 22 12:40:47 2015. I do not believe that $100M operating profit in interstate bus operations at all. The entire bus operation has a farebox recovery in the 40's, rail in the 50's. Furthermore, MTA will not pay much of anything toward Gateway. The west-of-Hudson rail passengers don't amount to much. As far as "NJT is a lot more involved in Gateway than they are leading on", Gateway has exactly Zero dollars funded. The current Box tunnel that Amtrak is doing is from Sandy funds. There's around $20M per year to keep a bunch of Amtrak civil engineers in Philly busy.The bus system will be busted up sooner or later. Camden was just the start. The delays into Manhattan are not sustainable, operating profit or not, nor is anyone going to spend $10B on another bus terminal. This has already occurred in the WMATA service area. Thru buses to DC was replaced by Metrorail. Same in Portland when MAX LRT came to be. |
|
|
| (303691) | |
Re: Push to Replace Port Authority Bus Terminal |
|
|
Posted by kcram3500 on Sun Mar 22 15:14:43 2015, in response to Re: Push to Replace Port Authority Bus Terminal, posted by TerrapIN StatiON on Sun Mar 22 13:05:32 2015. Depends on the distance traveled, since NJT is a zone-based system. For most of Bergen County, it would be a push or a higher fare to take the 7 from Secaucus if you can easily walk from PABT. From Toms River, you'd save about a buck or so a trip. For those who would take a subway anyway, it would range from $1 to $4 less.The question is, why would NJT give up that fare difference? There's no way for them to recover that lost revenue - MTA sure won't reimburse any of it - and the operating cost is essentially the same (the distance being cut is minimal). |
|
|
| (303697) | |
Re: Push to Replace Port Authority Bus Terminal |
|
|
Posted by TerrapIN StatiON on Sun Mar 22 15:34:17 2015, in response to Re: Push to Replace Port Authority Bus Terminal, posted by kcram3500 on Sun Mar 22 15:14:43 2015. No, I meant that fares to the PABT would be increased above what they are today. Supply and demand. And to encourage people to take buses that end at a 7 extension at Secaucus. |
|
|
| (303699) | |
Re: Push to Replace Port Authority Bus Terminal |
|
|
Posted by kcram3500 on Sun Mar 22 16:19:39 2015, in response to Re: Push to Replace Port Authority Bus Terminal, posted by TerrapIN StatiON on Sun Mar 22 15:34:17 2015. Doubt they'd do that. They would lose too many riders if they made Secaucus the current PABT price and raised the fare to the PABT. |
|
|
| (303700) | |
Re: Push to Replace Port Authority Bus Terminal |
|
|
Posted by 3-9 on Sun Mar 22 16:26:11 2015, in response to Re: Push to Replace Port Authority Bus Terminal, posted by kcram3500 on Sun Mar 22 15:14:43 2015. How much fuel does a bus waste idling in traffic? |
|
|
| (303701) | |
Re: Push to Replace Port Authority Bus Terminal |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Sun Mar 22 16:44:29 2015, in response to Re: Push to Replace Port Authority Bus Terminal, posted by kcram3500 on Sun Mar 22 16:19:39 2015. I would simply charge the intrastate fare to Secaucus, probably about what Lincoln Harbor area would be, then they can pay the prevailing subway fare.NJT saves 60 - 90 minutes of a bus and drivers's round trip into Manhattan and back, plus tolls. |
|
|
| (303702) | |
Re: Push to Replace Port Authority Bus Terminal |
|
|
Posted by TerrapIN StatiON on Sun Mar 22 16:46:20 2015, in response to Re: Push to Replace Port Authority Bus Terminal, posted by kcram3500 on Sun Mar 22 16:19:39 2015. Why? That brings us back to my original statement/question: "Assuming these "customers" would arrive inside the Times Square subway station faster via the 7 from NJ than via a bus to the PABT, then why in the world would people who need to take a subway once in Manhattan anyhow rather stay on the bus all the way to the PABT?????" In other words, why would they lose riders who would be getting a faster ride to their connecting subway in Manhattan? And for riders who want to walk from the PABT, why wouldn't many of them who are price-conscious just take the 7 from Secaucus? |
|
|
| (303705) | |
Re: Push to Replace Port Authority Bus Terminal |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Sun Mar 22 17:03:08 2015, in response to Re: Push to Replace Port Authority Bus Terminal, posted by TerrapIN StatiON on Sun Mar 22 16:46:20 2015. I don't understand your series of questions. |
|
|
| (303706) | |
Re: Push to Replace Port Authority Bus Terminal |
|
|
Posted by NIMBYkiller on Sun Mar 22 17:31:20 2015, in response to Re: Push to Replace Port Authority Bus Terminal, posted by Joe V on Sun Mar 22 16:44:29 2015. Does NJT pay tolls? Do they pay gate fees at PABT? |
|
|
|
Page 3 of 5 |
||