|
|
| Re: Hudson River rail tunnel project has new name, but same concerns over funding (1162537) | |||
 |
|||
| 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 Tue Jun 19 00:43:09 2012, in response to Re: Hudson River rail tunnel project has new name, but same concerns over funding, posted by Joe V on Mon Jun 18 16:43:51 2012. Your credibility is down to about zero.I'd say much the same thing. Except you're the one flogging the idea everyone else has seen fit to let die because it has virtually no merit. 1) NJTBO has been around since the beginning, they are 75% of NJT's customers, and will be around forever. Your beloved NYPS can't aborb a 200% increase in traffic. You opinion of "not sustainable" is ridiculous. It's the profitability of those few routes you singled out as being profitable which are not sustainable in the long term given their greater energy consumption on a per-passenger basis than NJT's commuter rail lines. My apologies for taking a shortcut in my argument which resulted in the ambiguity. 2) There will be no mass exodus from McMansions and suburban town homes into transit villages just to ride a choo-choo train. A couple of hundred new apartments in Somerville won't fill one coach on one train, and the surrounding Bridgewater has 45,000 residents. That's more than likely correct and it's not much of a problem. The TODs will more than likely be occupied by a different generation of people than the auto dependent subdivisions which are even now seeing their property values continue to fall. 3) The #7 already handles east-west passengers off the buses to GCT. They can get on them sooner. There are not net additions to the system. Plenty of people arriving at PABT from NJ get on the North-South subway lines at Times Square. You'd now face the prospect of transporting those people on the 7 train, and worse, accommodating their movement through TSQ's byzantine transfer arrangement. They'd be better off riding to NYP and getting on the subway there than wandering through Times Square. 4) I have the quarterly ridership and revenue pdf's - you don't. That's nice, but unless you're going to share them with the class I don't see why any of us should take your word on faith, especially given how fast and loose you've played with the truth in the past in your quixotic goal to ruin NJ resident's ability to commute into NYC. 5) Gateway project costs $15B, which is 4 tracking the whole NEC between Newark and Manhattan. If you are assuming the costs of that including NYPS-South and twin Portal Bridges, you are dumber than I thought. You are simply creating numbers to reach your conclusions. I'm not creating numbers, I'm pointing out that the costs will grow to consume the willingness to pay of the organization in question. Sure, they can lowball it today and claim it'll be 6 billion, but by the time it's actually built we'll end up paying $12-$15 billion, because that's the amount we were prepared to pay for its vastly superior alternative. You're deluding yourself if you think the consultants, engineers, and contractors are going to be completely forthright and only charge their cost for the project. 6) #7 stations in Manhattan handled far more passengers during WWII and the Worlds Fair than they do today. But they still handled pulsing loads from one direction with negligible load in the opposite direction. Going to an arrangement which could potentially leave two trainloads of passengers on a platform at the same moment is a major impact which needs to be accounted for in any analysis done on the project. Dismissing the possibility of overcrowding and the resultant potential for injury is simply ignorant and foolish. 7) Your prohibition of transfers to rapid transit at anywhere except the Manhattan rail terminal is 1910 thinking. You should be distributing people on multiple access points. Huh? Did you miss the link I've been flogging this entire thread? I've been arguing that exact point for the past 4 years. Except that while you want to overload a subway line and force a marginal transfer in the Meadowlands, I want to distributed the commuters throughout Manhattan with easy cross platform transfers to reach major job centers regardless of whether one comes from Long Island or New Jersey. ESA and ARC clearly illustrate that the expensive portion of the tunneling project is the cavern construction, so by minimizing that we can create a much longer tunnel serving more job centers, looping around to achieve very high throughputs, all without greatly increasing project budgets. 8) Mayor Bloomberg has not dismissed it. Your folk hero Lhota has, but he is a proven idiot, reinforced by the nonsense he spoke of here. He has no clue as to how his subsidiary LIRR or NYPS operates: Well I think a lot of people would have ample reason to argue that Mayor Bloomberg may not have the firmest grasp of policy either. And at this point he's the only politico still pushing this particular loser of an idea. Even Chrisco backed off once the Feds said they'd kick more money in for Gateway. 9) "distribute NJT and LIRR commuter trains" is physically and financially impossible. You sound like one of hapless idiot planners from RPA or Voorhees with no patience for details or reality. Sure it is, you just don't ever mix the NJT and LIRR trains. Keep them on their own tracks, but allow passengers to freely transfer between the two services via easy cross platform transfers. That also cuts the cost to construct the stations with fewer job centers within their catchment areas by reducing the amount of platform access capacity to that required for passengers actually utilizing the station to begin or end their trip. |
|
(There are no responses to this message.)
|
|