|
|
| Alternatives to Expanding Existing Terminals (1165613) | |
 |
|
| Home > SubChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
|
|
| (1165618) | |
Re: Alternatives to Expanding Existing Terminals |
|
|
Posted by The Silence on Sun Jul 8 19:02:21 2012, in response to Alternatives to Expanding Existing Terminals, posted by NIMBYkiller on Sun Jul 8 18:53:33 2012. becuase most of the geese want the quickest, most direct route.that's why NJT has dumped so much into projects like the kerney connection, the montclare connection and Seacacus Junction. why the MTA is building ESA. people want as straigt a shot as they can get. |
|
|
| (1165622) | |
Re: Alternatives to Expanding Existing Terminals |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Sun Jul 8 19:12:53 2012, in response to Re: Alternatives to Expanding Existing Terminals, posted by The Silence on Sun Jul 8 19:02:21 2012. Meanwhile, the older route via Hoboken is faster into the city now.Incidentally, how do the people from the Danbury and Waterbury branches, and most of LIRR's diesel territory (never mind some of the electric territory), get along without that precious "straight shot" most of the time? especially those that ride the Cannonball . . . ? Not even every New Canaan Branch train goes to GCT, and that's fully electrified. |
|
|
(Sponsored) |
iPhone 6 (4.7 Inch) Premium PU Leather Wallet Case - Red w/ Floral Interior - by Notch-It |
|
| (1165624) | |
Re: Alternatives to Expanding Existing Terminals |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Sun Jul 8 19:14:31 2012, in response to Alternatives to Expanding Existing Terminals, posted by NIMBYkiller on Sun Jul 8 18:53:33 2012. Why do we spend billions of dollars, putting ourselves in an economic hole (albeit, for good reason)There's no good reason for overspending. And with diesel traction, there's no good reason not to build drawbridges across the Hudson either other than lazy politicians not wanting to open them for the QMII. |
|
|
| (1165626) | |
Re: Alternatives to Expanding Existing Terminals |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Sun Jul 8 19:22:40 2012, in response to Re: Alternatives to Expanding Existing Terminals, posted by The Silence on Sun Jul 8 19:02:21 2012. While I think this St George thing is rather extreme, it is physically impossible to shove everyone thru the 2 centralized rail terminals. There has to be some redistribution before one crosses the rivers. |
|
|
| (1165633) | |
Re: Alternatives to Expanding Existing Terminals |
|
|
Posted by The Silence on Sun Jul 8 19:38:52 2012, in response to Re: Alternatives to Expanding Existing Terminals, posted by Olog-hai on Sun Jul 8 19:12:53 2012. plenty of New Canaan trains go to Grand Central.the point of what I said is less to do with operations and timetables as much as it is a psycholoigcal state. In the mindset of an average person, Penn is quicker to midtown because it doesn't involve PATH. |
|
|
| (1165635) | |
Re: Alternatives to Expanding Existing Terminals |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Sun Jul 8 19:46:06 2012, in response to Re: Alternatives to Expanding Existing Terminals, posted by The Silence on Sun Jul 8 19:38:52 2012. plenty of New Canaan trains go to Grand Central. . . but not all. In the mindset of an average person, Penn is quicker to midtown because it doesn't involve PATH Still involves a subway, bus or taxi ride; usually multiple of those. Before most of Midtown Direct, the top speed on the High Line was 90 mph; most trains can't get above 60 mph now. |
|
|
| (1165678) | |
Re: Alternatives to Expanding Existing Terminals |
|
|
Posted by Italianstallion on Sun Jul 8 22:17:48 2012, in response to Re: Alternatives to Expanding Existing Terminals, posted by Olog-hai on Sun Jul 8 19:14:31 2012. Drawbridges = overspending |
|
|
| (1165686) | |
Re: Alternatives to Expanding Existing Terminals |
|
|
Posted by 3-9 on Sun Jul 8 23:07:19 2012, in response to Re: Alternatives to Expanding Existing Terminals, posted by Italianstallion on Sun Jul 8 22:17:48 2012. Would a drawbridge cost more than a tunnel? |
|
|
| (1165688) | |
Re: Alternatives to Expanding Existing Terminals |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Sun Jul 8 23:17:47 2012, in response to Re: Alternatives to Expanding Existing Terminals, posted by 3-9 on Sun Jul 8 23:07:19 2012. On the size of the GWB to satisfy Olog would cost more than that tunnel that fat gov nixed. They get very expensive the longer the lift span and about the only thing that would work as a counterweight for it WOULD be fat gov. :) |
|
|
| (1165689) | |
Re: Alternatives to Expanding Existing Terminals |
|
|
Posted by Train Dude on Sun Jul 8 23:25:03 2012, in response to Re: Alternatives to Expanding Existing Terminals, posted by 3-9 on Sun Jul 8 23:07:19 2012. Lift Bridge such as this one wold be more efficient than a draw bridge. However, several years ago, in heavy fog, one of the sister bridges to this one ended up on the deck of a passing ship. I'd say for the long run, a tunnel is the way to go.Center>  |
|
|
| (1165693) | |
Re: Alternatives to Expanding Existing Terminals |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Mon Jul 9 00:26:29 2012, in response to Alternatives to Expanding Existing Terminals, posted by NIMBYkiller on Sun Jul 8 18:53:33 2012. a fat Governor that thinks hes a tough guy? |
|
|
| (1165695) | |
Re: Alternatives to Expanding Existing Terminals |
|
|
Posted by Jersey Mike on Mon Jul 9 00:42:46 2012, in response to Alternatives to Expanding Existing Terminals, posted by NIMBYkiller on Sun Jul 8 18:53:33 2012. Ferries simply take too long and most commuters would still be stuck with another walk or subway connection or both. You're looking at adding an extra 30-60 minutes to someone's commute per day. People with families can't afford that waste of time. While trying to fenagle one sea rides everywhere is stupid, you still need to get people at least somewhere close to where they are going.Better solution is to move more jobs to Hoboken. |
|
|
| (1165699) | |
Re: Alternatives to Expanding Existing Terminals |
|
|
Posted by NIMBYkiller on Mon Jul 9 00:52:41 2012, in response to Re: Alternatives to Expanding Existing Terminals, posted by Joe V on Sun Jul 8 19:22:40 2012. Tell me though how St George is any different at all from Hoboken? |
|
|
| (1165700) | |
Re: Alternatives to Expanding Existing Terminals |
|
|
Posted by NIMBYkiller on Mon Jul 9 00:55:09 2012, in response to Re: Alternatives to Expanding Existing Terminals, posted by The Silence on Sun Jul 8 19:38:52 2012. But even then it involves connecting to the subway unless you work in walking distance from NYP. What's wrong with making that ferry connection at another terminal? |
|
|
| (1165701) | |
Re: Alternatives to Expanding Existing Terminals |
|
|
Posted by NIMBYkiller on Mon Jul 9 01:12:20 2012, in response to Re: Alternatives to Expanding Existing Terminals, posted by Jersey Mike on Mon Jul 9 00:42:46 2012. It's about 15 minutes on the subway from NYP to South Ferry, while it's 25 mins from St George to Whitehall. The difference of 10 minutes could possibly be made up in the distance saved from the train not running all the way up to NYP. From Hoboken to Pier 11 is 15 minutes on NY Waterway. From Hoboken to WTC is 10 minutes on PATH, so it's really about the same to downtown. So the ferry doesn't take longer. The only flaw though is that this is really only best for downtown. Midtown CBD is a bit more centralized on the island and you'd have a walk a bit from the ferry, but even then it is still a very population option to the point that NY Waterway has grown to become what it is today. The only option that's actually longer is the East River ferry because it makes 4 stops before reaching downtown. I still think it's a very feasible option that should have been the first choice before blowing billions of dollars on all these new projects, and it wouldn't add time to peoples commutes |
|
|
| (1165734) | |
Re: Alternatives to Expanding Existing Terminals |
|
|
Posted by The Silence on Mon Jul 9 12:04:33 2012, in response to Re: Alternatives to Expanding Existing Terminals, posted by NIMBYkiller on Mon Jul 9 00:55:09 2012. you're really not getting this. home station->railroad->Penn->subway->Work.you've got Home station->railroad->Hoboken->PATH->33rd street->subway->work. It's the adding of the extra step that's the problem. as far as they care, the ferry is even worse. consider, the Staten Island boats have a top speed of roughly 12. Hoboken to WFC is a ten mintue trip. Hoboken to WTC on PATH is also 10 mintues at 1/3 of the price. then they need to get inland when they reach the other side, since a large portion of job are nowhere near the ferry dock, and neither is most of the public transit network. the ferry from Hoboken to WFC requires another 10 mintue walk to get to the hub |
|
|
| (1165738) | |
Re: Alternatives to Expanding Existing Terminals |
|
|
Posted by Jersey Mike on Mon Jul 9 12:36:19 2012, in response to Re: Alternatives to Expanding Existing Terminals, posted by NIMBYkiller on Mon Jul 9 01:12:20 2012. That's just travel time, there is still trying to make the connection. Unless the ferries have 5-10 minute headways then the connection is not frequent enough to make the transfer seamless. Right now The PATH is the only service running frequently enough so that people aren't screwed if they miss that one ferry trip. |
|
|
| (1165745) | |
Re: Alternatives to Expanding Existing Terminals |
|
|
Posted by The Silence on Mon Jul 9 13:53:08 2012, in response to Re: Alternatives to Expanding Existing Terminals, posted by Jersey Mike on Mon Jul 9 12:36:19 2012. and the ferry is about 3 times more expensive |
|
|
| (1165750) | |
Re: Alternatives to Expanding Existing Terminals |
|
|
Posted by NIMBYkiller on Mon Jul 9 14:06:01 2012, in response to Re: Alternatives to Expanding Existing Terminals, posted by Jersey Mike on Mon Jul 9 12:36:19 2012. So with an influx of passengers coming into the terminals perhaps more ferries could run. Or how about scheduling the arrivals to connect with the ferries? |
|
|
| (1165751) | |
Re: Alternatives to Expanding Existing Terminals |
|
|
Posted by NIMBYkiller on Mon Jul 9 14:06:14 2012, in response to Re: Alternatives to Expanding Existing Terminals, posted by The Silence on Mon Jul 9 13:53:08 2012. Perhaps a combo ticket can be sold |
|
|
| (1165759) | |
Re: Alternatives to Expanding Existing Terminals |
|
|
Posted by NIMBYkiller on Mon Jul 9 14:15:17 2012, in response to Re: Alternatives to Expanding Existing Terminals, posted by The Silence on Mon Jul 9 12:04:33 2012. And yet somehow NY Waterway has grown in popularity enough to keep it running and even growing |
|
|
| (1165765) | |
Re: Alternatives to Expanding Existing Terminals |
|
|
Posted by The Silence on Mon Jul 9 14:37:37 2012, in response to Re: Alternatives to Expanding Existing Terminals, posted by NIMBYkiller on Mon Jul 9 14:06:01 2012.  then there's this problem. handle that... |
|
|
| (1165766) | |
Re: Alternatives to Expanding Existing Terminals |
|
|
Posted by r33/r36 mainline on Mon Jul 9 14:39:47 2012, in response to Re: Alternatives to Expanding Existing Terminals, posted by The Silence on Mon Jul 9 14:37:37 2012. How does the SI ferry & NY Waterway handle this? |
|
|
| (1165786) | |
Re: Alternatives to Expanding Existing Terminals |
|
|
Posted by bklynsubwaybob on Mon Jul 9 16:36:09 2012, in response to Re: Alternatives to Expanding Existing Terminals, posted by SelkirkTMO on Sun Jul 8 23:17:47 2012. He is rather large, isn't he? |
|
|
| (1165788) | |
Re: Alternatives to Expanding Existing Terminals |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Mon Jul 9 16:43:02 2012, in response to Re: Alternatives to Expanding Existing Terminals, posted by NIMBYkiller on Mon Jul 9 00:52:41 2012. First you have to rebuild the RR across Staten Island. Then for an east/west journey, you take a 25 minute on a ferry that heads north - not efficient.At least with Hoboken, the ferry takes only 10 minutes and heads east. |
|
|
| (1165791) | |
Re: Alternatives to Expanding Existing Terminals |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Mon Jul 9 17:14:42 2012, in response to Re: Alternatives to Expanding Existing Terminals, posted by Olog-hai on Sun Jul 8 19:14:31 2012. LOL! |
|
|
| (1165819) | |
Re: Alternatives to Expanding Existing Terminals |
|
|
Posted by 3-9 on Mon Jul 9 22:32:38 2012, in response to Re: Alternatives to Expanding Existing Terminals, posted by The Silence on Mon Jul 9 12:04:33 2012. To be fair, PATH can reach several points in NY, not just 33rd Street. For a lot of people, they can skip the extra subway step when they take PATH. |
|
|
| (1165831) | |
Re: Alternatives to Expanding Existing Terminals |
|
|
Posted by NIMBYkiller on Tue Jul 10 01:35:47 2012, in response to Re: Alternatives to Expanding Existing Terminals, posted by Joe V on Mon Jul 9 16:43:02 2012. Rebuilding the north shore line is much cheaper than building an entirely new tunnel into Manhattan. And the ferry from Hoboken actually has to travel south to get to Pier 11 and WFC, so you're actually traveling north to go back south. That's efficient? Reality check: It takes 35 minutes to get from midway between Linden and Elizabeth to Penn Station. From that same point to St George is less than half that distance. Let's be conservative and say it would still take 20 minutes to get from there to St George. From NYP to downtown is 10 minutes, and from St George to downtown is 25 minutes. So even with a conservative estimate, it's actually just as fast.35 mins to NYP + 10 mins subway = 45 min 20 mins to St George + 25 mins ferry = 45 min. Care to take another swing at that? |
|
|
| (1165832) | |
Re: Alternatives to Expanding Existing Terminals |
|
|
Posted by NIMBYkiller on Tue Jul 10 01:36:42 2012, in response to Re: Alternatives to Expanding Existing Terminals, posted by r33/r36 mainline on Mon Jul 9 14:39:47 2012. +1 |
|
|
| (1165833) | |
Re: Alternatives to Expanding Existing Terminals |
|
|
Posted by NIMBYkiller on Tue Jul 10 01:38:03 2012, in response to Re: Alternatives to Expanding Existing Terminals, posted by The Silence on Mon Jul 9 14:37:37 2012. Instead of finding problems, how about finding solutions? How does Waterway and SI Ferry do it? And how often does that problem actually even occur? What if I post a photo of a heat kink in the rail. Handle that problem |
|
|
| (1165839) | |
Re: Alternatives to Expanding Existing Terminals |
|
|
Posted by WillD on Tue Jul 10 04:21:29 2012, in response to Alternatives to Expanding Existing Terminals, posted by NIMBYkiller on Sun Jul 8 18:53:33 2012. Mostly it's the extreme cost of providing a ferry. Even the SI Ferry, with its tremendous economies of scale, costs roughly $6 per passenger. If you only shunted the people that were slated to utilize the new ARC tunnels onto your expanded ferry service you'd be facing a fairly sizeable budget increase to cover the subsidy, or a fare that'd ensure they'd flock onto trains into NYC. By the time you cover the capital improvements to either add a new large ferry dock, or link St George with the existing commuter rail lines, and cover 40 years of outrageous capital costs, you could probably have built a tunnel a few times over. |
|
|
| (1165901) | |
Re: Alternatives to Expanding Existing Terminals |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Tue Jul 10 16:38:22 2012, in response to Re: Alternatives to Expanding Existing Terminals, posted by NIMBYkiller on Tue Jul 10 01:35:47 2012. Can you build a ramp from the NEC down to the old SIRR ?South Ferry is probably not as well situated than say Wall Street on the 2/3 for most, so add some walking time. How long did it take the old SIRT to go from Arlington to St George with stops ? |
|
|
| (1165902) | |
Re: Alternatives to Expanding Existing Terminals |
|
|
Posted by NIMBYkiller on Tue Jul 10 16:38:44 2012, in response to Re: Alternatives to Expanding Existing Terminals, posted by WillD on Tue Jul 10 04:21:29 2012. Would the ferry service need to be expanded? Are SI Ferries overcrowded, or could each ship out handle an extra train or two? Same with the East River Ferry. And if it was the CNJ Terminal being used, then perhaps NY Waterway could simply add it as a stop on select runs connecting with the train. I can't imagine that the demand would be so high that they'd need to spend all that money on new ferry infrastructure, and even if they did, there's no way that's going to be even close to the cost of building a new tunnel and terminal in Manhattan. And linking St George with the existing lines is simply a matter of 1 flyover. |
|
|
| (1165998) | |
Re: Alternatives to Expanding Existing Terminals |
|
|
Posted by 3-9 on Tue Jul 10 23:15:17 2012, in response to Re: Alternatives to Expanding Existing Terminals, posted by Joe V on Tue Jul 10 16:38:22 2012. South Ferry is probably not as well situated than say Wall Street on the 2/3What about if they expanded the other ferry terminals on the west and east side of lower Manhattan to accommodate the ferries? |
|
|
| (1166009) | |
Re: Alternatives to Expanding Existing Terminals |
|
|
Posted by NIMBYkiller on Wed Jul 11 00:41:39 2012, in response to Re: Alternatives to Expanding Existing Terminals, posted by Joe V on Tue Jul 10 16:38:22 2012. The line that leads to the SIR actually passes over the NEC, and used to have a connection towards the north with the NEC, so a SB connection should definitely be possible. And it doesn't matter how long that train took with stops. This train would more than likely run express |
|
|
