|
|
| Opposition to ARC Project Grows (645717) | |
 |
|
| Home > SubChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
[1 2] |
||
|
|
Page 1 of 2 |
|
|
| (645717) | |
Opposition to ARC Project Grows |
|
|
Posted by Forest Glen on Mon Jul 7 21:39:30 2008 Apologies if this is a repost. I stumbled upon a newsletter at the Hoboken Terminal. It is by the Lackawanna Coalition, a New Jersey Transit rider's advocacy group.Opposition to ARC Project Grows-Jersey City Mayor, Manhattan Community Boards Voice Their Objections To Current Plan By Joseph M. Clift The mayor of Jersey City, the owners of Newport community on the Hudson waterfront and Manhattan's West Side and Midtown community boards all have added their very clear opposition to NJ Transit's current plan for the Access to the Region's Core (ARC) Project, also known as the Trans-Hudson Express (T.H.E) Tunnel Project. All four stated their opposition in letters to NJT to be included in the legal public comment record of the ARC Supplemental Draft Environmental Statement (SDEIS) issued in March. NJT must respond to all comments in the Final Environmental Impact Statement. Jersey City mayor Jeremiah T. Healy said he believed NJ Transit's proposed routing of the ARC Project-bypassing the Hoboken Terminal-had serious flaws and significant deficiencies. The bypass routing will reduce Hoboken's peak-hour ridership from 36% of New York ridership to 13%, threatening future rail service and jeopardizing development of the Hoboken/Jersey City waterfront served by Hoboken trains, while enhancing the Secaucus Station area in the environmentally sensitive Meadowlands. The mayor requested that NJT examine an alternate route serving a new through station at the location of the existing Hoboken Terminal. Potential savings are $2 billion to $3 billion by making greater use of existing rail infrastructure west of Hoboken, requiring far less construction and eliminating the need to disturb environmentally sensitive wetlands. Marcilia A. Boyle, senior vice president of the Lefrak Organization, owners of Newport, criticized the ARC planning effort. "The failure of NJT to evaluate the Jersey City Hoboken connection [routing] in both the original DEIS and the SDEIS is a serious omission in the planning process for such a major undertaking as the ARC project that could jeopardize this important undertaking and have unintended negative consequences that have not been vetted in the EIS process...The idea that a major public infrastructure project such as ARC which will come along perhaps only once in a century, would ignore the economic growth of the community it passes through is seriously deficient from the points of view of regional planning, smart growth and sound environmental and transportation policy". Boyle described unfair competition with New York City in the ARC project-no ARC goal addressed New Jersey Hudson River waterfront economic growth, while goals did include economic development on Manhattan's West Side, the primary competitor of the New Jersey Hudson River waterfront office market, "The route of the ARC project would heavily invest in enhancing the Manhattan market to the detriment of the Jersey City/Hoboken waterfront". She concluded by citing the benefit of connecting Hoboken to Grand Central Terminal, Westchester County, and Connecticut, and urged NJ Transit to "pause and include a full evualuation of the Jersey City/Hoboken connection [routing] in the EIS process for the ARC project". Manhattan's West Side and Midtown community boards, while expressing support for ARC, clearly stated strong opposition to the current ARC plan. They cited a long list of concerns and problems, including failure to provide track connection to Penn Station, the 175-foot/20- story depth and reduced size-from eight tracks to six-of the proposed 34th Street station, and the failure and apparent inability to mitigate increased pedestrian and traffic congestion in and around West 34th Street caused by the new station. Both boards urged NJT to address the concerns raised and develop a more responsive project plan. Copies of this article are available at the customer service office in Hoboken. I think the people in Jersey City are wrong for trying to prolong the commuters of people from the hinterlands of Jersey for their own selfish reasons. The fact remains that commuter railroads exist to get people from the suburbs to the CBD. Despite their delusions, Jersey City/Newport is not the CBD. The Hudson-Bergen Lightrail provides transportation within Jersey City. There are plenty of high rises being built in the area. ARC will only expedite the commutes of people who merely use Hoboken as a transfer station. This will not stop people from going to the waterfront. |
|
|
| (645724) | |
Re: Opposition to ARC Project Grows |
|
|
Posted by Andrew Saucci on Mon Jul 7 21:55:30 2008, in response to Opposition to ARC Project Grows, posted by Forest Glen on Mon Jul 7 21:39:30 2008. "Jersey City/Newport is not the CBD."While this may have some truth to it, I disagree with the unstated notion that there can be only one CBD. Only in the laboratory will that ever be true, anyway. In real life, a transit system may serve many CBD's. Downtown Brooklyn is a CBD. It may not be as important as lower and midtown Manhattan, but it cannot be ignored. Converting Hoboken to a through station is a concept worth considering if it is not ridiculously inconvenient (for example, if the existing station would have to be demolished and replaced with an underground station ten stories deep because it is so close to the shore and a tunnel would already have to be at that level at that point). Jersey City has been making a comeback and can't be dismissed lightly. In any case, it is always interesting when someone wants to be included in such a major project (reverse-NIMBY) instead of being excluded. |
|
|
| (645743) | |
Re: Opposition to ARC Project Grows |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Mon Jul 7 22:39:33 2008, in response to Opposition to ARC Project Grows, posted by Forest Glen on Mon Jul 7 21:39:30 2008. I think the people in Jersey City are wrong for trying to prolong the commuters of people from the hinterlands of Jersey for their own selfish reasons. The fact remains that commuter railroads exist to get people from the suburbs to the CBD. Despite their delusions, Jersey City/Newport is not the CBD. The Hudson-Bergen Lightrail provides transportation within Jersey City. There are plenty of high rises being built in the area. ARC will only expedite the commutes of people who merely use Hoboken as a transfer station. This will not stop people from going to the waterfrontI assume you wrote this part? Thanks for posting the rest. If commuter railroads existed solely to get people to/from the CBD of their metro area, then let me tell you that all of the other railroads would have died back in 1910 except the PRR, LIRR, NYC and NHRR. But guess what—the waterfront terminals were closer to the big money district of Manhattan than GCT or NYP. The PRR kept their Exchange Place Terminal going for fifty years after NYP opened, and the bare fact remains that the PRR did not build NYP to replace Exchange Place. At all. Otherwise there would be four tracks going into NYP from the NJ side today, and there would be at least 42 tracks at NYP on two levels. (One design for the line to NYP had it leaving the traditional New Jersey Railroad route in Rahway, crossing into Staten Island and going over the Verrazano Narrows into Brooklyn, and then using the LIRR tunnels, making it a stub termnial—no tunnels under the North River. Can you picture how things would be if the PRR had gone with that configuration? All commuters needing to change trains onto PATH from Hudson, Essex and northeastern Union Counties?) Now what about the LIRR? Very, very few diesel-territory trains actually operate into Manhattan under dual-mode power, even with the new DM30ACs running (and doesn't it beg the question as to why the LIRR has non-dual-mode DE30ACs at all). Also, why isn't the Atlantic Avenue Branch closed? or Long Island City, or HPA, then? At least the LIRR has dual-mode locomotives. No, these guys are right. Hoboken is way closer to Manhattan than even the LIRR's diesel-territory terminals in Queens and the all-electric terminus in Brooklyn. What's needed are more trains to more destinations within New Jersey, and more ferry service out of Hoboken to take the pressure off PATH and buses at that location. Unless the MTA and NJT are getting together to build a full-size station somewhere between Lower Manhattan and Midtown, the overpriced ARC project, which won't provide any new tunnels to NYP from the NJ side, ought to be put on hiatus. |
|
|
(Sponsored) |
iPhone 6 (4.7 Inch) Premium PU Leather Wallet Case - Red w/ Floral Interior - by Notch-It |
|
| (645754) | |
Re: Opposition to ARC Project Grows |
|
|
Posted by Forest Glen on Mon Jul 7 23:10:42 2008, in response to Re: Opposition to ARC Project Grows, posted by Olog-hai on Mon Jul 7 22:39:33 2008. The majority of the people that take the LIRR to Flatbush or Hunterspoint transfer to the subway to Manhattan. New Jersey has a lightrail for the sole purpose of transportation within Jersey. The greed of Jersey City/Newport will add 15-20 minutes to the commutes of people heading to midtown if their plan comes into fruition. |
|
|
| (645759) | |
Re: Opposition to ARC Project Grows |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Mon Jul 7 23:25:19 2008, in response to Re: Opposition to ARC Project Grows, posted by Forest Glen on Mon Jul 7 23:10:42 2008. The majority of the people that take the LIRR to Flatbush or Hunterspoint transfer to the subway to ManhattanJust as the majority of people that ride to Hoboken take the PATH. However, pushing for ARC is actually equivalent to pushing for building the Atlantic Avenue Branch all the way into Manhattan. And Flatbush Avenue is a good deal further away from the waterfront than Hoboken is, with a good deal better connecting ra But LIC and HPA only have the 7 to connect to rail-wise. That's very much like Hoboken. And there's also the great deal of transferring happening at Jamaica, which shoots a lot of holes in the one-seat ride theory. NJ Transit is pushing ARC over expansion of commuter rail within New Jersey and adding trains – with gas prices where they are, that's a huge mistake. Way less money could be spent on a unified ticketing strategy that would get people onto PATH or a ferry without needing to use multiple media for a single journey no matter how many seat-changes are needed. New Jersey has a lightrail for the sole purpose of transportation within Jersey Not true at all. A lot of the HBLR passengers are heading for Manhattan, not for destinations within NJ. Conversely, there are a great deal of reverse commuters that use NJTR (commuter rail). In addition, a great deal of River Line users are headed for Philadelphia. You can't pigeonhole different types of rail like that. The greed of Jersey City/Newport will add 15-20 minutes to the commutes of people heading to midtown if their plan comes into fruition How is it their greed? Especially versus the greed of the consultants who are pushing the ARC project over rail expansion within the state? I think you don't have a good understanding of what commuters in NJ really want. Furthermore, a direct one-seat ride to Manhattan is not a guarantee that you'll get there faster. It's actually faster to get to Manhattan riding to Hoboken than to Penn, nowadays (consider why the Hoboken trips were cut, and it wasn't because people weren't using them; they were quite busy). Most people have to get another ride to where they're going once they're actually in Manhattan, besides; in a lot of cases, it would be better to keep the waterfront terminals open and improve subway connections to them (this is an argument in favor of having the IRT take over PATH, yes, but think of what would be possible). |
|
|
| (645776) | |
Re: Opposition to ARC Project Grows |
|
|
Posted by trainsarefun on Tue Jul 8 00:20:14 2008, in response to Re: Opposition to ARC Project Grows, posted by Olog-hai on Mon Jul 7 23:25:19 2008. However, pushing for ARC is actually equivalent to pushing for building the Atlantic Avenue Branch all the way into Manhattan. And Flatbush Avenue is a good deal further away from the waterfront than Hoboken is, with a good deal better connecting raI don't think extension of LIRR's Atlantic Line to New York is on a par with THE project, mostly because the last possible stop in NJ for THE train to New York is going to be SEC. It's not as though there will be a new underground station complex somewhere under Hoboken or Jersey City, which would serve both the growing Hoboken-Jersey City area and also, for those who want to remain on the train, New York. THE project has set up an either-or situation between Hoboken and New York; if your train goes to HOB, it's not going to THE terminal or to NYP. By contrast, it should be unimaginable if the Atlantic Line were extended to a new terminal in New York, somewhere below Houston St probably, and there were no stations in Downtown Brooklyn. THAT is more like what THE tunnel aims to do. Two of the major faults with THE project are that it doesn't offer a station stop in Hoboken/Jersey City, and that it doesn't run to NYP. |
|
|
| (645785) | |
Re: Opposition to ARC Project Grows |
|
|
Posted by Forest Glen on Tue Jul 8 00:52:37 2008, in response to Re: Opposition to ARC Project Grows, posted by trainsarefun on Tue Jul 8 00:20:14 2008. The terminal is a block away from Penn Station. |
|
|
| (645794) | |
Re: Opposition to ARC Project Grows |
|
|
Posted by R30A on Tue Jul 8 01:05:17 2008, in response to Re: Opposition to ARC Project Grows, posted by trainsarefun on Tue Jul 8 00:20:14 2008. The ARC station will be more of a part of NYP then the ESA station will be a part of GCT. |
|
|
| (645796) | |
Re: Opposition to ARC Project Grows |
|
|
Posted by WillD on Tue Jul 8 01:08:06 2008, in response to Opposition to ARC Project Grows, posted by Forest Glen on Mon Jul 7 21:39:30 2008. Haha, the Lackwanna Coalishun is bitching cause their half billion dollar train which will be lucky to fill two trains per day to Scranton is on the back burner. NJ-ARP is an advocacy group, Lackmoney Coalishun is the NJT equivilant of the Strappies.And what the hell is the Mayor of Jersey City bitching about? Did he forget that little billion dollar light rail that makes it possible for all those commuters to get from Hoboken to the office developments in his fair city? Yeah sure, NJT doesn't care about Jersey City, they just blew some three billion dollars on it between the light rail and the terminal rebuild. |
|
|
| (645798) | |
Re: Opposition to ARC Project Grows |
|
|
Posted by J trainloco on Tue Jul 8 01:20:17 2008, in response to Re: Opposition to ARC Project Grows, posted by Olog-hai on Mon Jul 7 23:25:19 2008. Generally, IAWTP. Commuter railroads are experiencing growth that involves reverse commute trips and trips that go from one suburb to another.Bypassing an important destination like Hoboken/Jersey City seems crazy to me. One thing though: you said that ARC adds no new tunnels to NYP (in a previous post). Though these trains will not be stopping at NYP per se, they are close enough to be one and the same, IMHO. Not that this is a good thing either. |
|
|
| (645803) | |
Re: Opposition to ARC Project Grows |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Tue Jul 8 01:42:45 2008, in response to Re: Opposition to ARC Project Grows, posted by J trainloco on Tue Jul 8 01:20:17 2008. The closer ideal is that you can access all tunnels from all platforms. The current project isolates, instead. |
|
|
| (645805) | |
Re: Opposition to ARC Project Grows |
|
|
Posted by J trainloco on Tue Jul 8 01:50:06 2008, in response to Re: Opposition to ARC Project Grows, posted by Olog-hai on Tue Jul 8 01:42:45 2008. Personally, I would prefer a terminal located somewhere else completely. There are commuters who walk as far south as 23rd and as far north as 42nd who I know personally. Creating another zone like this means that you could possibly have a large area of manhattan within walking distance (GCT, Lower manhattan, Etc.). Shelling out all those bucks for every mode of transport you have to take can be taxing! |
|
|
| (645812) | |
Re: Opposition to ARC Project Grows |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Tue Jul 8 02:36:05 2008, in response to Re: Opposition to ARC Project Grows, posted by J trainloco on Tue Jul 8 01:50:06 2008. That should indeed be the focus of a project like this. |
|
|
| (645882) | |
Re: Opposition to ARC Project Grows |
|
|
Posted by trainsarefun on Tue Jul 8 09:34:44 2008, in response to Re: Opposition to ARC Project Grows, posted by Forest Glen on Tue Jul 8 00:52:37 2008. The trains will have no access to NYP, and no access to Sunnyside Yards. |
|
|
| (645883) | |
Re: Opposition to ARC Project Grows |
|
|
Posted by trainsarefun on Tue Jul 8 09:36:20 2008, in response to Re: Opposition to ARC Project Grows, posted by R30A on Tue Jul 8 01:05:17 2008. That may be the case, but NJT will have neither the flexibility of access to NYP nor to Sunnyside Yards. |
|
|
| (645937) | |
Re: Opposition to ARC Project Grows |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Tue Jul 8 12:05:16 2008, in response to Re: Opposition to ARC Project Grows, posted by R30A on Tue Jul 8 01:05:17 2008. False. Utterly false. |
|
|
| (645938) | |
Re: Opposition to ARC Project Grows |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Tue Jul 8 12:06:35 2008, in response to Re: Opposition to ARC Project Grows, posted by trainsarefun on Tue Jul 8 09:36:20 2008. It's not the case, of course. I don't know where he got that notion from. ESA will be way more part of GCT than ARC will (would?) of NYP. |
|
|
| (645939) | |
Re: Opposition to ARC Project Grows |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Tue Jul 8 12:17:11 2008, in response to Re: Opposition to ARC Project Grows, posted by Olog-hai on Tue Jul 8 12:05:16 2008. And "=TRUE" would be? Gotta love dismissives, I do. :) |
|
|
| (645940) | |
Re: Opposition to ARC Project Grows |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Tue Jul 8 12:18:07 2008, in response to Re: Opposition to ARC Project Grows, posted by Olog-hai on Tue Jul 8 12:06:35 2008. So what they gonna do, boss? Dump them off on 11th Avenue and 22nd? :) |
|
|
| (645944) | |
Re: Opposition to ARC Project Grows |
|
|
Posted by AMoreira81 on Tue Jul 8 12:37:23 2008, in response to Re: Opposition to ARC Project Grows, posted by trainsarefun on Tue Jul 8 00:20:14 2008. However...you can't resolve them both. But IMO, perhaps the PANYNJ should have really considered a Lower Manhattan station for both LIRR and NJT (Hoboken Station would remain open for the time being, but electric trains, such as those from the M&E, would stop at an underground through station on their way to the Lower Manhattan station). |
|
|
| (646065) | |
Re: Opposition to ARC Project Grows |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Tue Jul 8 19:42:51 2008, in response to Re: Opposition to ARC Project Grows, posted by SelkirkTMO on Tue Jul 8 12:17:11 2008. True is the complete reverse of his statement. IOW, ESA is more a part of GCT than ARC will ever be of NYP. You needed it spelled out for you? |
|
|
| (646066) | |
Re: Opposition to ARC Project Grows |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Tue Jul 8 19:43:50 2008, in response to Re: Opposition to ARC Project Grows, posted by SelkirkTMO on Tue Jul 8 12:18:07 2008. Right now, they're making a mess, so any speculation is up in the air other than what I said. |
|
|
| (646067) | |
Re: Opposition to ARC Project Grows |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Tue Jul 8 19:45:16 2008, in response to Re: Opposition to ARC Project Grows, posted by WillD on Tue Jul 8 01:08:06 2008. the Lackwanna Coalishun is bitching cause their half billion dollar train which will be lucky to fill two trains per day to Scranton is on the back burnerYou speak no wisdom whatsoever. But that's par for the course for you. Yeah sure, NJT doesn't care about Jersey City, they just blew some three billion dollars on it between the light rail and the terminal rebuild QED. They blew the money instead of spending it wisely to serve more passengers. |
|
|
| (646068) | |
Re: Opposition to ARC Project Grows |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Tue Jul 8 19:47:04 2008, in response to Re: Opposition to ARC Project Grows, posted by Forest Glen on Tue Jul 8 00:52:37 2008. It's supposed to be a block north and way beneath Penn. Also, it's going to be bumper blocks against the water tunnel, so that's as far east as it's going to go. The ARC tunnels will grant no access to NYP, and trains from the ARC terminal will have no access to the original North River Tunnels. |
|
|
| (646069) | |
Re: Opposition to ARC Project Grows |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Tue Jul 8 19:50:03 2008, in response to Re: Opposition to ARC Project Grows, posted by Forest Glen on Tue Jul 8 00:52:37 2008. It's supposed to be a block north and a block east, and way beneath Penn.Also, it's going to be bumper blocks against the water tunnel, so that's as far east as it's going to go. The ARC tunnels will grant no access to NYP, and trains from the ARC terminal will have no access to the original North River Tunnels. Alternative G was supposed to save money. That was dropped in 2003. The current project is a butchering of Alternative P, which IINM was supposed to have access to all four tunnels. |
|
|
| (646140) | |
Re: Opposition to ARC Project Grows |
|
|
Posted by Forest Glen on Tue Jul 8 23:38:04 2008, in response to Re: Opposition to ARC Project Grows, posted by Olog-hai on Tue Jul 8 19:50:03 2008. Alternate G is passenger friendly, but would involve tearing up half of Manhattan during its construction. |
|
|
| (646143) | |
Re: Opposition to ARC Project Grows |
|
|
Posted by Terrapin Station on Tue Jul 8 23:40:13 2008, in response to Re: Opposition to ARC Project Grows, posted by Forest Glen on Tue Jul 8 23:38:04 2008. So? State why that is worse than not making the transportation improvements that are sorely needed. |
|
|
| (646148) | |
Re: Opposition to ARC Project Grows |
|
|
Posted by NIMBYkiller on Wed Jul 9 00:06:26 2008, in response to Re: Opposition to ARC Project Grows, posted by AMoreira81 on Tue Jul 8 12:37:23 2008. Any new downtown station tunnel from NJ would run under Jersey City probably, so a lower level at Hoboken would be useless |
|
|
| (646149) | |
Re: Opposition to ARC Project Grows |
|
|
Posted by NIMBYkiller on Wed Jul 9 00:07:58 2008, in response to Re: Opposition to ARC Project Grows, posted by Forest Glen on Tue Jul 8 23:38:04 2008. As would the connection from South Station to North Station in Boston, but both would be tremendously useful |
|
|
| (646151) | |
Re: Opposition to ARC Project Grows |
|
|
Posted by NIMBYkiller on Wed Jul 9 00:16:38 2008, in response to Re: Opposition to ARC Project Grows, posted by Andrew Saucci on Mon Jul 7 21:55:30 2008. I say leave HOB as a stub end, and build a new underground station in Jersey City, then on to lower manhattan. If the LIRR extension ever happens from Brooklyn, they can meet at that station |
|
|
| (646158) | |
Re: Opposition to ARC Project Grows |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Wed Jul 9 00:32:54 2008, in response to Re: Opposition to ARC Project Grows, posted by NIMBYkiller on Wed Jul 9 00:16:38 2008. I say leave HOB as a stub end, and build a new underground station in Jersey CityWhere? The only electrified railroad leading to the waterfront is on the Hoboken Division. No more wires on the PATH line. The Erie line is in bits. then on to lower manhattan. If the LIRR extension ever happens from Brooklyn, they can meet at that station What part of Lower Manhattan? How does this help people get out of their cars as the price of fuel continues to rise? NJT's been cutting trains, which is the worst thing. |
|
|
| (646477) | |
Re: Opposition to ARC Project Grows |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Wed Jul 9 16:29:24 2008, in response to Re: Opposition to ARC Project Grows, posted by Andrew Saucci on Mon Jul 7 21:55:30 2008. Right. Jersey City is New York's Canary Wharf/La Défense. |
|
|
| (646479) | |
Re: Opposition to ARC Project Grows |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Wed Jul 9 16:31:20 2008, in response to Re: Opposition to ARC Project Grows, posted by Olog-hai on Mon Jul 7 22:39:33 2008. If commuter railroads existed solely to get people to/from the CBD of their metro area, then let me tell you that all of the other railroads would have died back in 1910 except the PRR, LIRR, NYC and NHRR. But guess what—the waterfront terminals were closer to the big money district of Manhattan than GCT or NYP.That may have been true before, but the big money district is Midtown. |
|
|
| (646483) | |
Re: Opposition to ARC Project Grows |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Wed Jul 9 16:39:44 2008, in response to Re: Opposition to ARC Project Grows, posted by Spider-Pig on Wed Jul 9 16:31:20 2008. Hoboken is less than a mile away. Ain't any excuse to blow $7½ billion on six new tracks in a location where you're going to have to jump in a taxi, ride a bus or subway train to get to work from. Hoboken to PATH is same difference and even cheaper.Wall Street is still on Wall Street, too. |
|
|
| (646486) | |
Re: Opposition to ARC Project Grows |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Wed Jul 9 16:41:08 2008, in response to Re: Opposition to ARC Project Grows, posted by Forest Glen on Tue Jul 8 23:38:04 2008. So did the construction of nearly every subway line in Manhattan, but that was certainly worth the disruption. |
|
|
| (646487) | |
Re: Opposition to ARC Project Grows |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Wed Jul 9 16:42:54 2008, in response to Re: Opposition to ARC Project Grows, posted by Forest Glen on Tue Jul 8 23:38:04 2008. How?It would involve no "tearing up" because it's tunneling to the lower level of GCT. The current ARC involves far more "tearing up" for less benefit. |
|
|
| (646488) | |
Re: Opposition to ARC Project Grows |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Wed Jul 9 16:43:57 2008, in response to Re: Opposition to ARC Project Grows, posted by NIMBYkiller on Wed Jul 9 00:07:58 2008. They wouldn't need that if they still ran trains from North Station to Philly and Washington DC like they did in the past. |
|
|
| (646496) | |
Re: Opposition to ARC Project Grows |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Wed Jul 9 17:01:08 2008, in response to Opposition to ARC Project Grows, posted by Forest Glen on Mon Jul 7 21:39:30 2008. If it wasn't so tragic, this would be funny. Guess what Hoboken? ARC is designed to bypass your little city because most people don't want to go there. Does that make it bad for you? Yes. Deal with it. |
|
|
| (646506) | |
Re: Opposition to ARC Project Grows |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Wed Jul 9 17:19:50 2008, in response to Re: Opposition to ARC Project Grows, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Wed Jul 9 17:01:08 2008. ARC is designed to cut service to the Jersey City Gold Coast, which is growing faster than area in Manhattan.Nobody is going to get off a bus on XBL to PABT to ride a train to a bunker that is 1 subway stop farther from work. Get over it. |
|
|
| (646521) | |
Re: Opposition to ARC Project Grows |
|
|
Posted by NIMBYkiller on Wed Jul 9 17:39:22 2008, in response to Re: Opposition to ARC Project Grows, posted by Olog-hai on Wed Jul 9 16:43:57 2008. Amtrak wish #1,235,945: Boost inland route service and operate it to North Station instead of South Station |
|
|
| (646524) | |
Re: Opposition to ARC Project Grows |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Wed Jul 9 17:41:48 2008, in response to Re: Opposition to ARC Project Grows, posted by trainsarefun on Tue Jul 8 09:36:20 2008. To be fair, LIRR's 63rd st line has no access to anything at GCT but its own tunnels and terminal. |
|
|
| (646525) | |
Re: Opposition to ARC Project Grows |
|
|
Posted by NIMBYkiller on Wed Jul 9 17:41:56 2008, in response to Re: Opposition to ARC Project Grows, posted by Olog-hai on Wed Jul 9 16:39:44 2008. If I may play devils advocate for just one moment, there are plenty of people who walk from NYP to offices in the mid 50's. Basically, anyone working north of NYP would benefit because they could just take the train to NYP instead of having to take 2 trains to Herald Square. |
|
|
| (646528) | |
Re: Opposition to ARC Project Grows |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Wed Jul 9 17:45:15 2008, in response to Re: Opposition to ARC Project Grows, posted by Olog-hai on Wed Jul 9 16:39:44 2008. "Ain't any excuse to blow $7½ billion on six new tracks in a location where you're going to have to jump in a taxi, ride a bus or subway train to get to work from. Hoboken to PATH is same difference and even cheaper."Not when you have to go on a diet for two years just so you can squeeze your anorexic ass into the door of the PATH train. |
|
|
| (646530) | |
Re: Opposition to ARC Project Grows |
|
|
Posted by trainsarefun on Wed Jul 9 17:49:07 2008, in response to Re: Opposition to ARC Project Grows, posted by RonInBayside on Wed Jul 9 17:41:48 2008. Quite true.The unfortunate thing is that resources weren't pooled back in the old days to work on a combined station complex with access from both east and west. 63rd St Tunnel doesn't have the clearance to handle taller equipment. Hopefully in the future, other commuter rail efforts will be able to follow up on the NYP east-west model, where trains from east of the station use a yard to the west of the station and vice versa. Plus, of course, building one terminal is cheaper than building two. |
|
|
| (646547) | |
Re: Opposition to ARC Project Grows |
|
|
Posted by The Port of Authority on Wed Jul 9 18:23:47 2008, in response to Re: Opposition to ARC Project Grows, posted by Olog-hai on Wed Jul 9 16:43:57 2008. It would be convenient for the MBTA to through-route their commuter rail service through said link, though. |
|
|
| (646552) | |
Re: Opposition to ARC Project Grows |
|
|
Posted by WillD on Wed Jul 9 18:31:21 2008, in response to Re: Opposition to ARC Project Grows, posted by Olog-hai on Wed Jul 9 16:42:54 2008. How exactly would you propose they tunnel out of NYP's tracks 1-4, just 20 feet below the street, and into GCT's lower level, 50 or so feet below the street without disturbing the surface? |
|
|
| (646567) | |
Re: Opposition to ARC Project Grows |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Wed Jul 9 18:51:04 2008, in response to Re: Opposition to ARC Project Grows, posted by WillD on Wed Jul 9 18:31:21 2008. That's actually a good question. ARC didn't answer it, back then; they proposed connecting Tracks 1 through 5 (and "reconfiguring" them), though, and they drew a few pictures that aren't coming up on the Wayback Machine right now.(Aren't the NYP tracks a lot deeper than 20 feet below street level? That's how they appear here, with a 12' 8" tall passenger car for comparison; GCT's upper level is a lot shallower, and you can see where the 8th Avenue Subway crosses over, in relation. Maybe that ought to answer your question.) |
|
|
| (646571) | |
Re: Opposition to ARC Project Grows |
|
|
Posted by NIMBYkiller on Wed Jul 9 19:05:17 2008, in response to Re: Opposition to ARC Project Grows, posted by Olog-hai on Wed Jul 9 00:32:54 2008. Arches, dive, station, dive under river, station wherever they can fit it |
|
|
| (646575) | |
Re: Opposition to ARC Project Grows |
|
|
Posted by WillD on Wed Jul 9 19:09:32 2008, in response to Re: Opposition to ARC Project Grows, posted by trainsarefun on Wed Jul 9 17:49:07 2008. A viable, but somewhat expensive alternative might be to create a commuter rail tunnel running along the spine of NY. I figure you'd have four tracks joining together around 5th and 30th or so. Two tracks would feed from the LIRR's ESA terminal, and two tracks would come from NJT's ARC terminal. It is likely there would be stations at major cross streets, perhaps 23rd and 14th, and the southern end station would be near the WTC. South of there the NJT and LIRR tracks would again split, with NJT trains heading toward a Jersey City station and LIRR trains heading toward a Brooklyn station under Flatbush Ave. It is also possible that at the north end there could be provisions for the operation of NJT trains to ESA platforms or LIRR trains to ARC platforms which may be opened up by their conversion from terminal to through stations. The same may hold at the southern end, perhaps allowing NJ to Brooklyn trains for sporting events in either place. Of course freight would be difficult at best to run through the Atlantic Ave tunnel, so this runs counter to my previous plans to combine everything through Lower Manhattan. This plan may involve extensive tunneling under Manhattan, but it does provide for a solution to the terminal problem which keeps the participants separate entities and works within the existing and planned infrastructure. |
|
|
| (646633) | |
Diagram (Re: Opposition to ARC Project Grows) |
|
|
Posted by The Port of Authority on Wed Jul 9 20:11:33 2008, in response to Re: Opposition to ARC Project Grows, posted by WillD on Wed Jul 9 19:09:32 2008. Because a diagram is worth a thousand words...
|
|
|
[1 2] |
||
|
|
Page 1 of 2 |
|
