|Re: Hudson River rail tunnel project has new name, but same concerns over funding (1162309)|
|Home > SubChat|
Re: Hudson River rail tunnel project has new name, but same concerns over funding
Posted by WillD on Sun Jun 17 16:05:53 2012, in response to Re: Hudson River rail tunnel project has new name, but same concerns over funding, posted by Joe V on Sun Jun 17 06:47:12 2012.But nothing you suggest as remediesis going to happen. Deal with the hand you are dealt.
Except that it does. You claim people object to parking garages, even as NJ's towns fall all over themselves for Transit Village funding to improve their property tax base. Hell, once Chrisco is gone and some of the COAH provisions are reinstated they'll be desperate for TODs. I'm not sure why you're focused on the automobile as the only means of accessing transit stations when we can just as easily develop the area around the station to achieve the same number of passengers within much smaller walkable catchment area. But then since your solution to North Jersey's transportation problem is to force a transfer on everyone in the Meadowlands while dumping the express buses it's pretty clear all you're interested in is reinforcing the status quo.
As far empty reverse peak #7's heading to/from Seacucus, think of the waste of deadhead miles most NJT trains will have to go through in having to get out of NYPS-South to some place.
Yes, a roughly equal number of trains to the 18 or so trains per hour with which the 7 train would serve Secaucus. Except that the NJT trains would already be making most of the trip back to the Meadowlands yards from Secaucus after terminating there to serve your PABT-West there. The marginal cost of increasing that distance to 6th Ave within Manhattan is much more minor than the creation of the trip to begin with, and with the 7 train extension you get two trains deadheading to serve one continuing commuter trip.
There is a big difference between the Newark based locals which are to get the axe, and the 12 Cruiser routes that make money. Again, you have no patience with marketing data,
And you ignore the fact that the NEC also creates an operating surplus (after all, those bus lines are not *profitable*, they merely generate a surplus).
pissing away $15B at Gateway isn't going to do much about it.
It will get people to Manhattan, which is a hell of a lot more than can be said for forcing people to transfer in the Meadowlands. If we want to run empty trains there are cheaper ways to do it than blowing 15 billion dollars on a subway to nowhere.
Whether you like it or not, NJT is actually way ahead of you, is rebuilding the Uptown Bus Terminal,got an FTA grant to add bus bays at Secaucus, and will be diverting some Bergen XBL buses to Secaucus.
That's all fine and well, but those changes do nothing to address the increasing ridership on the NEC, NJCL, M&E, and RVL which was, after all, the primary market which ARC was to serve.
And of course there's nothing wrong with sending express buses to Secaucus. It's an excellent way to reduce the operational cost of those very low turnover routes. But it's absolutely foolish to spend 15 billion dollars digging a subway tunnel there when they can just as easily board NJT trains which provide a one seat ride into Manhattan for at least *some* commuters.