|
|
| Re: Push to Replace Port Authority Bus Terminal (303462) | |
 |
|
| Home > BusChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
|
Page 4 of 5 |
||
|
| (303707) | |
Re: Push to Replace Port Authority Bus Terminal |
|
|
Posted by TerrapIN StatiON on Sun Mar 22 17:32:01 2015, in response to Re: Push to Replace Port Authority Bus Terminal, posted by Joe V on Sun Mar 22 17:03:08 2015. Start from here and read down: Re: Push to Replace Port Authority Bus Terminal (303473) |
|
|
| (303710) | |
Re: Push to Replace Port Authority Bus Terminal |
|
|
Posted by NIMBYkiller on Sun Mar 22 17:39:10 2015, in response to Re: Push to Replace Port Authority Bus Terminal, posted by Joe V on Sun Mar 22 13:09:54 2015. The 7 extension still does nothing to solve the real problem. Instead of all these buses trying to squeeze into the XBL and the PABT, they'll now be trying to squeeze into Secaucus. Have you thought about how much infrastructure at Secaucus that will require? How about having to expand the ramp from exit 15X, or make a direct entrance into the bus terminal instead of the current left turn at the light into the station? Unless you build all of this bigger than the existing combination of XBL and PABT commuter sections, the end result will be the same damn problem, just on the other side of the river.New rail tunnels, new rail terminal, and refurbished PABT, and bus parking in Manhattan, that's what needs to be done. |
|
|
| (303711) | |
Re: Push to Replace Port Authority Bus Terminal |
|
|
Posted by NIMBYkiller on Sun Mar 22 17:44:07 2015, in response to Re: Push to Replace Port Authority Bus Terminal, posted by Joe V on Sun Mar 22 11:17:18 2015. So use the Northern Branch. Either way, one of those two would do wonders to reduce the amount of capacity needed at any bus terminal, PABT or Secaucus. Me personally, I feel that if they have to build new tunnels and a new terminal to increase rail service, they might as well build to somewhere new. Route West Shore/Northern Branch and whatever other new services through the Bergen Arches and into a tunnel from there to lower Manhattan. |
|
|
| (303712) | |
Re: Push to Replace Port Authority Bus Terminal |
|
|
Posted by NIMBYkiller on Sun Mar 22 17:47:13 2015, in response to Re: Push to Replace Port Authority Bus Terminal, posted by Joe V on Sun Mar 22 11:37:36 2015. LIRR seems to pull it off just fine. And all I'm asking is if the train physically could at least match the bus running time if it ran express from Phillipsburg. OMG, we have to spend money and do something difficult for our transportation network to catch up with our population? Oh woe is me! |
|
|
| (303714) | |
Re: Push to Replace Port Authority Bus Terminal |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Sun Mar 22 17:55:44 2015, in response to Re: Push to Replace Port Authority Bus Terminal, posted by NIMBYkiller on Sun Mar 22 17:31:20 2015. They all have EZ Pass tags.Of course they pay fees. It's not their terminal. |
|
|
| (303715) | |
Re: Push to Replace Port Authority Bus Terminal |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Sun Mar 22 17:56:19 2015, in response to Re: Push to Replace Port Authority Bus Terminal, posted by TerrapIN StatiON on Sun Mar 22 17:32:01 2015. No thanks. No time for that. |
|
|
| (303716) | |
Re: Push to Replace Port Authority Bus Terminal |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Sun Mar 22 17:59:36 2015, in response to Re: Push to Replace Port Authority Bus Terminal, posted by NIMBYkiller on Sun Mar 22 17:39:10 2015. Didn't say they ALL should do that now, did I ?The P-B plans was pretty well thought out with the ramps, #7 train yards, etc. NYC isn't going to forego high rise ratables for Jersey bus yards. |
|
|
| (303718) | |
Re: Push to Replace Port Authority Bus Terminal |
|
|
Posted by TerrapIN StatiON on Sun Mar 22 18:04:53 2015, in response to Re: Push to Replace Port Authority Bus Terminal, posted by Joe V on Sun Mar 22 17:56:19 2015. There's plenty of time. It's only like 8 posts. How long would that take you? How else do you read a message board?? |
|
|
| (303719) | |
Re: Push to Replace Port Authority Bus Terminal |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Sun Mar 22 18:10:12 2015, in response to Re: Push to Replace Port Authority Bus Terminal, posted by NIMBYkiller on Sun Mar 22 17:44:07 2015. Northern Branch will be extended HBLRT to Englewood. |
|
|
| (303720) | |
Re: Push to Replace Port Authority Bus Terminal |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Sun Mar 22 18:15:04 2015, in response to Re: Push to Replace Port Authority Bus Terminal, posted by NIMBYkiller on Sun Mar 22 17:47:13 2015. LIRR kills reverse peak service on the Main Line to do it. We are not doing that here. You would be hard-pressed to find a rush hour train that runs non-stop on the Babylon line.What you are calling for is 3 tracking the RVL east of Raritan. That is far beyond anyone's imagination. You also have the bottleneck between Cranford and Newark where NJT sees little use of both LV tracks in the rush. I commute on that line. I know. |
|
|
| (303725) | |
Re: Push to Replace Port Authority Bus Terminal |
|
|
Posted by NIMBYkiller on Sun Mar 22 19:43:24 2015, in response to Re: Push to Replace Port Authority Bus Terminal, posted by Joe V on Sun Mar 22 17:59:36 2015. What NYC needs to remember is a large part of its economy is dependent on those NJ commuters. Perhaps if traffic into PABT was reduced to the point that a statewide rail expansion could achieve, they'd be able to renovate the PABT to have bus parking facilities since they wouldn't need as much gate space? Crappy idea, but what other options are there? They blew it with West Side Yard...is there anything else to deck over? Anything left on those Empire Connection trenches? They can still sell the air rights above a bus yard. |
|
|
| (303727) | |
Re: Push to Replace Port Authority Bus Terminal |
|
|
Posted by NIMBYkiller on Sun Mar 22 19:46:08 2015, in response to Re: Push to Replace Port Authority Bus Terminal, posted by Joe V on Sun Mar 22 18:10:12 2015. Not a done deal. I actually prefer the West Shore though. What are the exact issues (other than trackage rights)? Is the ROW wide enough to add another track? The tunnel issue can't be any worse than the North River tubes. |
|
|
| (303729) | |
Re: Push to Replace Port Authority Bus Terminal |
|
|
Posted by NIMBYkiller on Sun Mar 22 19:48:59 2015, in response to Re: Push to Replace Port Authority Bus Terminal, posted by Joe V on Sun Mar 22 18:15:04 2015. PW branch pulls it off, but it's shorter than Newark to High Bridge. LIRR is adding a 2nd track E of Farmingdale. Who's to say they couldn't do a 3rd track on certain portions of the RVL as long as the physical space is there? Yes, again, it's a massive infrastructure investment, but if we don't make these investments and instead go with the cheaper band aid solution then our economy will suffer |
|
|
| (303741) | |
Re: Push to Replace Port Authority Bus Terminal |
|
|
Posted by kcram3500 on Sun Mar 22 21:10:51 2015, in response to Re: Push to Replace Port Authority Bus Terminal, posted by TerrapIN StatiON on Sun Mar 22 16:46:20 2015. Any fare increase has an expected loss of ridership written into the projected revenue goal. There will always be a percentage of people who will just say "screw that" and drive.As for the subway transfer, the current version of that has also failed over time. Those who could save time by going to the GW Bridge terminal and taking the A to midtown have been ditching that choice for decades... to the point where no remaining NJT route to GWB has express service during rush hour. Example as to how much this has shifted: The PS-TNJ 86/NJT 186 duplicates the 167 from Dumont to Teaneck. The 86/186 then goes through Englewood and Englewood Cliffs to the GWB, while the 167 goes south to the PABT. In 1979, between 4:45pm and 7pm, the 86 had 20 departures from GWBBT, half of which (exactly 10) were route 4 expresses to Teaneck Road. At the same time, the 167 had 25 departures from PABT, all but the 7pm used the Turnpike but only 7 trips used Teaneck Road through Teaneck. All off-peak and weekend trips ran locally down Tonnelle Avenue. These counts are from the actual printed timetables, which I have in my collection. In 2015, the 186 has only 9 departures from GWBBT between 4:45 and 7, all local - a 55% drop in service. The 167/177 (the latter number assigned to new "super expresses") now has 41 trips (an increase of 64%), only 9 still use Queen Anne Road in Teaneck (which had been the original "standard" route), and all 167/177 trips use the Turnpike 7 days a week in place of Tonnelle. So instead of the faster trip via GWB and A train, the customers have "spoken" in favor of the one-seat ride to midtown, despite the regularly-occurring delays at 495 and the Lincoln Tunnel. Your suggestion to divert any number of these people to Secaucus and take the 7 in to the city would have to be beyond convincing, because now you're asking these people to funnel from dozens of buses/bus routes all into one subway line at any given 5-minute period in the morning, and similarly crowd into the 7 in Manhattan to get back to Secaucus before they can sit down in a seat for the rest of the trip. The price and trip time would have to be almost impossibly less in order for that funneling trade-off to be worth it for most people. Which would mean both NJT and MTA would have to lose money on the operation for enough people to be convinced. And right now, Trenton and Albany are not interested in making up the difference in those kinds of losses. |
|
|
| (303742) | |
Re: Push to Replace Port Authority Bus Terminal |
|
|
Posted by TerrapIN StatiON on Sun Mar 22 21:19:09 2015, in response to Re: Push to Replace Port Authority Bus Terminal, posted by kcram3500 on Sun Mar 22 21:10:51 2015. Any fare increase has an expected loss of ridership written into the projected revenue goal. There will always be a percentage of people who will just say "screw that" and drive.Of course. But it would be a small %. As for the subway transfer, the current version of that has also failed over time. Those who could save time by going to the GW Bridge terminal and taking the A to midtown have been ditching that choice for decades... to the point where no remaining NJT route to GWB has express service during rush hour.Was that actually faster? How much faster? It'd have to have been a heck of a lot faster than a bus to the PABT for people to want to board an already somewhat crowded A train for the long ride to midtown. |
|
|
| (303743) | |
Re: Push to Replace Port Authority Bus Terminal |
|
|
Posted by kcram3500 on Sun Mar 22 21:48:47 2015, in response to Re: Push to Replace Port Authority Bus Terminal, posted by TerrapIN StatiON on Sun Mar 22 21:19:09 2015. The time savings came from the unscheduled delay getting to the PABT. From Bergenfield, you could take the old 86 express and the A train and get to 42nd street in about 40 minutes. The 167 was scheduled for 32 in 1979 (and the 177 super express is scheduled for 43 minutes today even though it makes fewer stops!), but even the most die-hard bus supporter knows the delay through 495/Lincoln into the PABT is far more than 8 minutes in morning rush, even in 1979... and is worse today. |
|
|
| (303744) | |
Re: Push to Replace Port Authority Bus Terminal |
|
|
Posted by TerrapIN StatiON on Sun Mar 22 23:20:00 2015, in response to Re: Push to Replace Port Authority Bus Terminal, posted by kcram3500 on Sun Mar 22 21:48:47 2015. Dunno, the people I've talked to who take the bus to the PABT say they never really have regular problems. They only have once in a while exceptional problems. So on average, the bus makes it in close to on time. So if that's the case then of course people chose the faster one-seat ride to the PABT over a change to a crowded A train! The route via the A would have to be at least 15 minutes faster ON AVERAGE for me to choose that method. But boarding an empty 7 train at Secaucus is a whole different animal. |
|
|
| (303745) | |
Re: Push to Replace Port Authority Bus Terminal |
|
|
Posted by WillD on Mon Mar 23 01:07:14 2015, in response to Re: Push to Replace Port Authority Bus Terminal, posted by JAzumah on Sun Mar 22 12:40:47 2015. The operating surplus to NYC is estimated at $100M.[Citation Needed] That one doesn't even pass the smell test. NJT's total revenue on their bus fleet in 2013 was $362 million, against $846 million in costs. How could something be responsible for more than a third of their revenue, yet less than an eighth their operating expenses? The only way the the NYC bus operations could generate a $100 million operating surplus is if every dime of their operation were charged to some other business area. But since you try to make the claim that the local buses soak up those costs it'd be a zero sum game. 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. No, the fact is that trains are better than buses, and the bus system should be busted up to prove that point. NJT's rail system is more cost effective (other than your unsourced anecdotal assertion) and carries more passengers further from NYC in less time. I wasn't such a fan of the 7 Train to Secaucus when it was put forward as an alternative to new trans-Hudson commuter rail tunnels. But compared to pouring $11 billion into PABT it's absolutely genius. |
|
|
| (303746) | |
Re: Push to Replace Port Authority Bus Terminal |
|
|
Posted by WillD on Mon Mar 23 01:12:55 2015, in response to Re: Push to Replace Port Authority Bus Terminal, posted by kcram3500 on Thu Mar 19 16:36:35 2015. To expand on what Lincoln said, it's not just exponentially higher value, it's new capacity under the Hudson. Replacing PABT gets you a shiny new park your bus and maybe a marginal increase in capacity due to slightly smoother operations. But it does nothing to fix the bottleneck at the river. Fixing THAT will take another ten billion dollars worth of tunnel after we've sunk $11+ billion into PABT.Remember when we cancelled a rail tunnel because it was $8 billion? Don't we look more than a little foolish now? |
|
|
| (303747) | |
Re: Push to Replace Port Authority Bus Terminal |
|
|
Posted by WillD on Mon Mar 23 01:14:43 2015, in response to Re: Push to Replace Port Authority Bus Terminal, posted by kcram3500 on Sun Mar 22 16:19:39 2015. Why increase Secaucus fares to PABT prices if NJT isn't going to incur the same cost accessing a titular Secaucus with terminals for the 7 train and buses? |
|
|
| (303748) | |
Re: Push to Replace Port Authority Bus Terminal |
|
|
Posted by WillD on Mon Mar 23 01:29:30 2015, in response to Re: Push to Replace Port Authority Bus Terminal, posted by Joe V on Sun Mar 22 17:59:36 2015. Just FTR, here's the report in question: NYCEDC.comThe fact that the 7 train platforms are 76 feet above the proposed bus bays is a significant impediment to their vertical circulation. But I do like the flying crossover at the Secaucus terminal. And it's worth noting the tunnel diameter would be identical to the ARC tunnels. |
|
|
| (303750) | |
Re: Push to Replace Port Authority Bus Terminal |
|
|
Posted by WillD on Mon Mar 23 01:47:46 2015, in response to Re: Push to Replace Port Authority Bus Terminal, posted by JAzumah on Fri Mar 20 09:29:44 2015. You are not going to get Amtrak or NJT to do anything but a tunnel for commuter rail.Then get the MTA involved and build the commuter rail tunnels to accommodate the 7 train above or beside the Amtrak/NJT traffic, like the 63rd St tunnel. Just get a bigger TBM. After all, this is all being done for NYC's economic benefit, they may as well foot some of the bill and we may as well run four tracks across the river for ~150% the cost of running two. |
|
|
| (303751) | |
Re: Push to Replace Port Authority Bus Terminal |
|
|
Posted by TerrApin Station on Mon Mar 23 07:36:14 2015, in response to Re: Push to Replace Port Authority Bus Terminal, posted by WillD on Mon Mar 23 01:07:14 2015. Great post Mister mister. |
|
|
| (303752) | |
Re: Push to Replace Port Authority Bus Terminal |
|
|
Posted by TerrApin Station on Mon Mar 23 07:39:25 2015, in response to Re: Push to Replace Port Authority Bus Terminal, posted by WillD on Mon Mar 23 01:12:55 2015. To be fair, we're on buschat, so "we" can't look foolish here. Move this to SubChat and then the $10.5B PABT idea can look very foolish. |
|
|
| (303754) | |
Re: Push to Replace Port Authority Bus Terminal |
|
|
Posted by TerrApin Station on Mon Mar 23 07:46:50 2015, in response to Re: Push to Replace Port Authority Bus Terminal, posted by WillD on Mon Mar 23 01:47:46 2015. W00t! |
|
|
| (303755) | |
Re: Push to Replace Port Authority Bus Terminal |
|
|
Posted by kcram3500 on Mon Mar 23 07:53:42 2015, in response to Re: Push to Replace Port Authority Bus Terminal, posted by WillD on Mon Mar 23 01:14:43 2015. Because you would need a terminal almost the size of PABT in Secaucus. Whichever agency builds it will want to recover that cost through fees and/or fares. Commuters are not going to accept a long row of idling buses in a haphazard manner for the outbound trip - they will want the same level of gates and organization that PABT offers. |
|
|
| (303756) | |
Re: Push to Replace Port Authority Bus Terminal |
|
|
Posted by terRAPIN station on Mon Mar 23 08:13:10 2015, in response to Re: Push to Replace Port Authority Bus Terminal, posted by kcram3500 on Mon Mar 23 07:53:42 2015. A terminal in Seaucus should cost less than in Manhattan. You could also spread it out more instead of building vertically. Of course that may mean filling in the swamps which means BIG BUCKS. So, hmmmm, could be expensive either way.Commuters will accept any decent terminal. They don't understand terminal design. Not haphazard but not necessarily as tight as PABT. |
|
|
| (303758) | |
Re: Push to Replace Port Authority Bus Terminal |
|
|
Posted by JAzumah on Mon Mar 23 10:00:28 2015, in response to Re: Push to Replace Port Authority Bus Terminal, posted by terRAPIN station on Mon Mar 23 08:13:10 2015. Of course that may mean filling in the swamps which means BIG BUCKS. So, hmmmm, could be expensive either way.Very expensive, time consuming, and nowhere near the final destination. |
|
|
| (303759) | |
Re: Push to Replace Port Authority Bus Terminal |
|
|
Posted by JAzumah on Mon Mar 23 10:04:26 2015, in response to Re: Push to Replace Port Authority Bus Terminal, posted by NIMBYkiller on Sun Mar 22 17:47:13 2015. There is no money. Look at the WTC PATH station and how it is destroying the Port Authority's finances. |
|
|
| (303760) | |
Re: Push to Replace Port Authority Bus Terminal |
|
|
Posted by JAzumah on Mon Mar 23 10:34:45 2015, in response to Re: Push to Replace Port Authority Bus Terminal, posted by WillD on Mon Mar 23 01:07:14 2015. The 7 train project will cost as much as a new PABT. You aren't getting two new commuter rail or subway tunnels for less than $11B. |
|
|
| (303761) | |
Re: Push to Replace Port Authority Bus Terminal |
|
|
Posted by NIMBYkiller on Mon Mar 23 10:35:00 2015, in response to Re: Push to Replace Port Authority Bus Terminal, posted by JAzumah on Mon Mar 23 10:04:26 2015. Because they wanted this monstrosity while the temporary station actually worked |
|
|
| (303765) | |
Re: Push to Replace Port Authority Bus Terminal |
|
|
Posted by terRAPIN station on Mon Mar 23 13:02:04 2015, in response to Re: Push to Replace Port Authority Bus Terminal, posted by JAzumah on Mon Mar 23 10:00:28 2015. Yes, I said it would be expensive. It would be near the immediate destination of the 7 terminal. |
|
|
| (303798) | |
Re: Push to Replace Port Authority Bus Terminal |
|
|
Posted by WillD on Tue Mar 24 02:26:22 2015, in response to Re: Push to Replace Port Authority Bus Terminal, posted by kcram3500 on Mon Mar 23 07:53:42 2015. Because you would need a terminal almost the size of PABT in Secaucus.I haven't seen anyone say the 7 to Secaucus and its accompanying bus terminal would replace PABT. It'd be entirely possible to utilize PABT with some of its buses diverted (and thus easier to rebuild) while not requiring the bus bays at Secaucus to be of the same scale as PABT. There were 30 bus bays proposed for Secaucus as part of the 7 train extension study allowing 250 buses per hour to be accommodated by the station. But it's clear that the bus transfer facility could be readily expanded, even doubled without requiring too much additional land. Whichever agency builds it will want to recover that cost through fees and/or fares. Except that the Port Authority lost money operating PABT. They're not recovering anything from it. Commuters are not going to accept a long row of idling buses in a haphazard manner for the outbound trip - they will want the same level of gates and organization that PABT offers. PABT isn't haphazard? The few times I've had the misfortune of using that thoroughly passenger unfriendly facility I've had every reason to regret my travel decisions. It looks like the 7 train extensions' bus bays at Secaucus are at least as organized as those at the other 7 train station. |
|
|
| (303799) | |
Re: Push to Replace Port Authority Bus Terminal |
|
|
Posted by WillD on Tue Mar 24 02:32:17 2015, in response to Re: Push to Replace Port Authority Bus Terminal, posted by JAzumah on Mon Mar 23 10:34:45 2015. The 7 train project will cost as much as a new PABT.The key difference is that the 7 train extension provides two new tunnels allowing for ~20,000 commuters under the river. Rebuilding PABT rearranges the deck chairs on the Titanic and maybe allows a few more buses to enter the station resulting in a negligible increase in capacity under the river. Tie the 7 train to Secaucus in to the Gateway project and for $15 to 20 billion you'd get another 40,000 or so people under the river. You aren't getting two new commuter rail or subway tunnels for less than $11B. No, you'd have gotten two new commuter rail tunnels for $8.7 billion. Claiming the costs would have been higher only serves to underscore the ignorance that has pervaded this state from Trenton. |
|
|
| (303814) | |
Re: Push to Replace Port Authority Bus Terminal |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Tue Mar 24 10:05:03 2015, in response to Re: Push to Replace Port Authority Bus Terminal, posted by WillD on Tue Mar 24 02:26:22 2015. There would be a lot of versatility. positive redundancy and choice with all passengers. No project is perfect or is one-size fits all People could freely transfer from train to subway or bus, or from bus to train or subway, whichever they like.There is no cost estimate of #7 extension to SEC, but if you ask the P-B Project people, they will say in the $8 billion range, depending if there would bea North Hoboken station. That is money better spent than rebuilding a bus terminal, which itself adds no trans-Hudson capacity at all. What no one is talking about is NJT's imminent conversion of the remaining 40 foot Cruiser fleet to 45 feet. That's about 8 more seats per bus, or 17%. So slightly more ingress and egress time at crunch time. Multiply that by 500 or whatever buses per rush period, and throughput capacity in the terminal will decline on a per bus basis, especially on the pararallel bus lanes. |
|
|
| (303815) | |
Re: Push to Replace Port Authority Bus Terminal |
|
|
Posted by JAzumah on Tue Mar 24 10:18:56 2015, in response to Re: Push to Replace Port Authority Bus Terminal, posted by WillD on Tue Mar 24 02:32:17 2015. Everyone knew ARC was going to come in around $12B. The Feds offered a low interest loan for $3B. Christie could have taken it and asked for relief later, but he had already planned to steal the local money backing the project. Gateway (which is modified ARC) now has a low estimate of $15B. If you strip Portal Bridge and the new Manhattan terminal, you are still looking at $11B for the tunnels.Since the 7 tunnels will be similarly sized, you can start at $11B. |
|
|
| (303820) | |
Re: Push to Replace Port Authority Bus Terminal |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Tue Mar 24 12:57:07 2015, in response to Re: Push to Replace Port Authority Bus Terminal, posted by JAzumah on Tue Mar 24 10:18:56 2015. Gateway price tag is $16B, but that means 4 tracking all the way back to Newark, including Portal Bridge, and of course Penn Station South.I am also all for that. #7, unlike ARC, does not mean digging in Manhattan any further east than 11th Av, nor building a 3-level cavern station. Digging in Manhattan is the worst part. So your $11B is faulty. What I am not for is rearranging PABT deck chairs. |
|
|
| (303821) | |
Re: Push to Replace Port Authority Bus Terminal |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Tue Mar 24 13:03:17 2015, in response to Re: Push to Replace Port Authority Bus Terminal, posted by JAzumah on Tue Mar 24 10:18:56 2015. Gateway (which is modified ARC)No it isn't. |
|
|
| (303822) | |
Re: Push to Replace Port Authority Bus Terminal |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Tue Mar 24 13:04:09 2015, in response to Re: Push to Replace Port Authority Bus Terminal, posted by WillD on Tue Mar 24 02:32:17 2015. you'd have gotten two new commuter rail tunnels for $8.7 billionLOL false. |
|
|
| (303825) | |
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. |
|
|
| (303827) | |
Re: Push to Replace Port Authority Bus Terminal |
|
|
Posted by WillD on Tue Mar 24 16:44:13 2015, in response to Re: Push to Replace Port Authority Bus Terminal, posted by Olog-hai on Tue Mar 24 13:04:09 2015. It's only false if you absolutely hate rail transit with a passion, and support our anti-transit governor. |
|
|
| (303829) | |
Re: Push to Replace Port Authority Bus Terminal |
|
|
Posted by WillD on Tue Mar 24 17:33:35 2015, in response to Re: Push to Replace Port Authority Bus Terminal, posted by JAzumah on Tue Mar 24 10:18:56 2015. Everyone knew ARC was going to come in around $12B."Everyone" being the Chrisco administration and those who bought his lies. Everyone else knew better. Gateway (which is modified ARC) now has a low estimate of $15B. If you strip Portal Bridge and the new Manhattan terminal, you are still looking at $11B for the tunnels. No, you're not. For ARC it was roughly split 2/5s for the terminal and 3/5ths for the tunnels. The cost of the tunnels hasn't significantly changed for Gateway, but the cost of the Manhattan terminal greatly increased as they have to acquire the land for the expansion of PSNY's shallow terminal which is $1.3 billion for the land alone. The lower level PSNY platform expansion would have resulted in lower cost, but unfortunately was discarded because the existing Penn Station platforms make vertical circulation extremely difficult to implement. Since the 7 tunnels will be similarly sized, you can start at $11B. But the 7 train does not require the construction of a Manhattan tunnel. Rail connections to Secaucus still need to be improved, and there should be some method of terminating NJT trains on the upper level. TBMs are relatively fixed in costs, with larger diameter TBMs costing only a marginally larger amount than a smaller TBM. To that end building a single 15 meter diameter tunnel accommodating the 7 train and NJT/Amtrak traffic on two levels, as well as safety shelter walkways and ventilation, makes more sense than digging four 8.3 meter diameter tunnels to accommodate the same traffic. For one it'd significantly reduce spoils removal. But under that scenario the only increase in cost to build the 7 train extension on top of Gateway's tunnel costs would be the junctions west of NYP and under the Palisades, and then the tunnel for the 7 train under the Palisades, through a North Hoboken tunnel, and on to Secaucus. That'd mean the marginal cost to build the 7 train extension could be as low as $4 billion. Compared to pouring $11 billion into a maxed out bus terminal, getting four new tracks under the Hudson for around $20 billion is the deal of the century. |
|
|
| (303830) | |
Re: Push to Replace Port Authority Bus Terminal |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Tue Mar 24 17:47:38 2015, in response to Re: Push to Replace Port Authority Bus Terminal, posted by j trainloco on Tue Mar 24 16:05:22 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.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. " 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. You also forgot that PABT and NYPS are not the end of most people's journey. Again, one seat ride fraud on your part. PATH doesn't get north or east of Herald Square. That's it achilles heal. It is also limited to 7 car trains. 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. |
|
|
| (303835) | |
Re: Push to Replace Port Authority Bus Terminal |
|
|
Posted by NIMBYkiller on Tue Mar 24 21:42:22 2015, in response to Re: Push to Replace Port Authority Bus Terminal, posted by WillD on Tue Mar 24 17:33:35 2015. I still think if you're going to build a new tunnel and a new terminal, it should be via the Bergen Arches to allow other lines (Main/PVL/etc) direct access to Manhattan. Where in Manhattan it would go is up for debate, but my choice is lower Manhattan. Screw the 7 to Secaucus. |
|
|
| (303837) | |
Re: Push to Replace Port Authority Bus Terminal |
|
|
Posted by WillD on Tue Mar 24 22:39:48 2015, in response to Re: Push to Replace Port Authority Bus Terminal, posted by JAzumah on Mon Mar 23 10:04:26 2015. And an $11 billion rebuild of PABT isn't wholly in keeping with the same abjectly idiotic planning which resulted in the PATH station running to $4 billion? One could be excused for thinking the PANJNY wants to pour their largesse into needlessly rebuilding their extant facilities so as to avoid being pressed into funding projects which actually improve trans-Hudson commuter capacity. |
|
|
| (303839) | |
Re: Push to Replace Port Authority Bus Terminal |
|
|
Posted by JAzumah on Tue Mar 24 23:29:14 2015, in response to Re: Push to Replace Port Authority Bus Terminal, posted by WillD on Tue Mar 24 22:39:48 2015. There is a difference between building a monument to PATH and a facility whose massive concrete slabs are done in 10 years. I hope that the cost can come down, but the PABT has to be rebuilt. If that facility times out, it will be the end of the Port Authority and at least they are smart enough to know it. |
|
|
| (303841) | |
Re: Push to Replace Port Authority Bus Terminal |
|
|
Posted by WillD on Wed Mar 25 01:41:17 2015, in response to Re: Push to Replace Port Authority Bus Terminal, posted by NIMBYkiller on Tue Mar 24 21:42:22 2015. The fact that any new commuter rail tunnel is more than likely be working within the confines of the Gateway Project limits the options on either side of the Hudson. Amtrak is going to want to expand the High Line and run the tunnels through to NYP. Lower Manhattan, the Bergen Arches, or any other railfan fantasy is at this stage just that, a fantasy. At some point in the future it may be worthwhile to do a Lower Manhattan station, but for the time being the Secaucus Loop provides a more than adequate solution for getting the Main/Bergen and Pascack Valley lines into NYP. |
|
|
| (303843) | |
Re: Push to Replace Port Authority Bus Terminal |
|
|
Posted by WillD on Wed Mar 25 02:21:01 2015, in response to Re: Push to Replace Port Authority Bus Terminal, posted by JAzumah on Tue Mar 24 23:29:14 2015. If this is something that has to be done on a periodic basis then there's absolutely no justification for rebuilding PABT on the same scale as it exists today. Move it to Secaucus where construction and reconstruction can be done far cheaper and more efficiently and greatly downsize PABT as an intercity terminal. There is no reason to run up the expense of sending commuter buses into NYC when a subway line can convey more people far more cost effectively. |
|
|
| (303852) | |
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. |
|
|
| (303860) | |
Re: Push to Replace Port Authority Bus Terminal |
|
|
Posted by NIMBYkiller on Wed Mar 25 22:11:07 2015, in response to Re: Push to Replace Port Authority Bus Terminal, posted by WillD on Wed Mar 25 01:41:17 2015. Does nothing for the West Shore though. I admit it's a total fantasy right now, but hey, everything that exists today was a fantasy at some point. |
|
|
|
Page 4 of 5 |
||