|
|
| Re: Hudson River rail tunnel project has new name, but same concerns over funding (1162369) | |||
 |
|||
| Home > SubChat | |||
|
[ Read Responses | Post a New Response | Return to the Index ] |
|
||
|
Re: Hudson River rail tunnel project has new name, but same concerns over funding |
|
|
Posted by WillD on Sun Jun 17 23:31:48 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 19:32:34 2012. You are making wild assumptions about transit villages with no basis.And you're making wild assumptions that the status quo will not change in the face of rising energy costs. NJT's bus operations are not sustainable in the long term. They tend to be over-priced 1 and 2 bedroom apartments, They're sold at market rate outside of those which were set aside for COAH. It's not the developer's fault that those units are particularly desirable. It is far cheaper to deadhead subway trains with a 2 man crews than NJT trains. That is a silly argument. And there is no Boonton Yard in Gateway either. You can get 2nd use out of a Subway train if all it has to do is get back to Flushing. Very unlikely for trains that have to go minimally to Summit or South Amboy. That is a ludicrous supposition. NJT still has the land north of the MMC set aside to build a yard. Just because it will not be funded by Amtrak as part of the Gateway project does not mean it will not be built. Hell, if you're going to get people to Secaucus then those trains still need somewhere to lay over throughout the day. West Winsdor has been arguing over Transit Village for 20 years and nothing has come of it. The NIMBY"s are afraid the Hamilton gangs will move in. Great, one example in 20 ongoing projects to create greyfield development around train stations and in-fill stations. But of course that one example means the entire program is a failure. Your assumption that parking decks will rise up like crab grass are ridiculous, and there is no funding to do them anyway. No it's your assumption that in order for ridership to increase on the rail lines that increase must come in the form of park and rides. It is my point that the increase in the number of passengers within rail station catchment areas can come as a result of increasing transit oriented development. Again, I'm not sure why you're so committed to the suburban status quo. You still have no way to absorb all the PABT bus people onto subways at NYPS Ditto the passengers travelling from Secaucus. The 7 train stations in Manhattan cannot accommodate those passengers in addition to its load coming in from Queens. And of course the ultimate solution to our woes is to distribute NJT and LIRR commuter trains throughout New York City. The NEC has a cost recovery of 90%. It is goes down from there. Nothing on the rail side runs in the black. Lets see some numbers, because the last time I looked, the NEC generated an operating surplus. Where did you get $15B to dig a subway to Secaucus? It's not going to be any cheaper. You're lying if you think it will be. The construction of the junction cavern within Manhattan alone will be a billion dollar project unto itself. Then you have to add tracks to Secaucus to terminate trains there, and the overbuilt station NYCT wanted NJ to build for them. At the very least you're looking at $10 billion, and chances are it'd grow from there to consume the available budget. Bob Previdi, a transporation consultant, gave us a cost figure at a NARP meeting for #7 to Hoboken, and it is just $6B. Yes, for about half the length. People destination is WORK, not a train terminal. Focus on moving people, not playing train. Yes, and more people are served with more direct rides to their workplace from PNSY than from a forced subway transfer in the middle of the Meadowlands. Sorry Wilbur, you are simply an hysteric obsessed with philosophy. And you're a crank obsessed with a plan which everyone who matters has already dismissed on its merits, or complete and utter lack thereof as is the case here. |
|
|
|