HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Global Projects & Construction > General Development


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #201  
Old Posted Mar 25, 2016, 7:55 PM
k1052 k1052 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 2,235
Well I guess it doesn't matter now since the PA just committed to rebuild in midtown with no projected cost...indeed apparently at ANY cost. I'm intensely curious how they intend to finance this and the existing slate of capitol projects or what's getting the boot.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #202  
Old Posted Mar 25, 2016, 8:37 PM
BBMW BBMW is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 89
Buses other than commuter buses are a small fraction of the bus traffic through the PABT. The intercity buses can be rerouted to other stations outside of midtown. They can use the GWB bus terminal. And I'd likely build another smaller terminal for intercity buses at the end of one of the subway lines in the Bronx.

There's just no valid reason for bringing all this bus traffic into midtown. I'd even get rid of the MTA express buses, and terminate them at a central subway station (giving them a free transfer.) There either enough electric train capacity to bring these bus riders in, or it should be built.

And yes, I know you don't buy it. But it's the truth.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NYguy View Post
Once again, I see many of you fail to realize that the city needs the new bus terminal, regardless of whether or not NJ Transit was in the picture. The terminal is more than just a station for NJ Transit. The terminal is need as much as the new "Gateway" tunnels that will keep rail access alive from accross the Hudson (and by extension the rest of the country). Manhattan is large enough to have a bus terminal. It's large enough for both Penn Station and Grand Central (with a little left over for the PATH terminal and Fulton Transit Center). Yeah, I know, a lot of you may not ride or care about the bus service. But there are many, many people who do. And no, you can't reason with me on this one.

Sometimes, there are other interests more important to the city than the value of real estate.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #203  
Old Posted Mar 25, 2016, 8:38 PM
BBMW BBMW is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 89
They don't. The feel the need to say somthing, but this will be punted way down the line. I don't think there's any political will to actually do anything, and no one wants to come up with the money. Nothing will likely get done until concrete starts falling.

Quote:
Originally Posted by k1052 View Post
Well I guess it doesn't matter now since the PA just committed to rebuild in midtown with no projected cost...indeed apparently at ANY cost. I'm intensely curious how they intend to finance this and the existing slate of capitol projects or what's getting the boot.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #204  
Old Posted Mar 25, 2016, 9:39 PM
Nexis4Jersey's Avatar
Nexis4Jersey Nexis4Jersey is online now
Greetings from New Jersey
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: North Jersey
Posts: 3,260
I'm not sure why they don't just reroute more Intercity buses to the GW Bus Terminal considering its easily accessible from 95....and underused... As for reducing volume from NJ , restore some Rail lines like the MOM , West Trenton and West Shore lines and you will greatly reduce congestion bus system and be able to reduce the amount of buses to the terminal... They have reduced service to the GW Bus Terminal over the years but I can see it gaining traction if fares for the buses going there were less... Its only 20mins by the A train from Midtown...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #205  
Old Posted Mar 25, 2016, 10:46 PM
C. C. is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 3,014
Quote:
Originally Posted by k1052 View Post
Well I guess it doesn't matter now since the PA just committed to rebuild in midtown with no projected cost...indeed apparently at ANY cost. I'm intensely curious how they intend to finance this and the existing slate of capitol projects or what's getting the boot.
Yeah... when I read that today...

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/25/ny...inal.html?_r=0

Quote:
“What you witnessed today is the most important board meeting in Port Authority history,” said Patrick J. Foye, the authority’s executive director. Mr. Foye said he thought it represented “the single largest allocation of capital” by the authority in one day.

At one point, as a motion to finance construction at La Guardia was being discussed, Mr. Foye noted that no dollar amount had been attached to the new bus terminal and suggested it could cost $15 billion.

Mr. Degnan said that number had been raised in a private meeting between the two men and that it was “preposterously” high. He then told Mr. Foye to be quiet.

“The motion has passed,” he said. “Keep it to yourself.”

The board also approved spending $70 million for another major transportation infrastructure project: a new rail tunnel under the Hudson River to ease congestion for travelers from New Jersey. The cost of the tunnel, called the Gateway Project, will be divided between the authority and the federal government.
This has to be political punting. Look at the actual language...

Quote:
Pursuant to the foregoing report, the Board adopted the following resolution:
RESOLVED, that the Board hereby commits, in establishing the Port
Authority’s 2017-2026 Capital Plan, which encompasses both revenues and
expenditures, to allocate funds for the construction of a new Port AuthorityBus Terminal
(“PABT”), to be located on the West Side of Manhattan, in an amount sufficient to
accommodate the anticipated future capacity needs of the new PABT, which will be
informed by the results of the Design Competition and Capacity Study, with the
understanding that no bus terminal will be built in New Jersey.
No way any public agency, no matter how irresponsible, operates their budgets this way. Port Authority will revise all this stuff next year AFTER the election. No money for all of their made up shit.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #206  
Old Posted Mar 25, 2016, 11:08 PM
streetscaper streetscaper is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: New York
Posts: 2,701
Quote:
Originally Posted by NYguy View Post
Once again, I see many of you fail to realize that the city needs the new bus terminal, regardless of whether or not NJ Transit was in the picture. The terminal is more than just a station for NJ Transit. The terminal is need as much as the new "Gateway" tunnels that will keep rail access alive from accross the Hudson (and by extension the rest of the country). Manhattan is large enough to have a bus terminal. It's large enough for both Penn Station and Grand Central (with a little left over for the PATH terminal and Fulton Transit Center). Yeah, I know, a lot of you may not ride or care about the bus service. But there are many, many people who do. And no, you can't reason with me on this one.

Sometimes, there are other interests more important to the city than the value of real estate.
__________________
hmmm....
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #207  
Old Posted Mar 27, 2016, 6:00 PM
BBMW BBMW is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 89
No, really it does not. The lower the number diesel buses entering and leaving Manhattan the better. Build rail transferring bus terminals out of Manhattan, and certainly midtown.

I think less traffic and less pollution are important to NYC, and using the value of real estate to achieve that is a real win.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NYguy View Post
Once again, I see many of you fail to realize that the city needs the new bus terminal, regardless of whether or not NJ Transit was in the picture. The terminal is more than just a station for NJ Transit. The terminal is need as much as the new "Gateway" tunnels that will keep rail access alive from accross the Hudson (and by extension the rest of the country). Manhattan is large enough to have a bus terminal. It's large enough for both Penn Station and Grand Central (with a little left over for the PATH terminal and Fulton Transit Center). Yeah, I know, a lot of you may not ride or care about the bus service. But there are many, many people who do. And no, you can't reason with me on this one.

Sometimes, there are other interests more important to the city than the value of real estate.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #208  
Old Posted Mar 29, 2016, 6:33 PM
Arthururban Arthururban is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 50
https://commercialobserver.com/2016/...nally-reached/

A Port Authority Meeting Descended Into Pandemonium, but Compromise Was Finally Reached

By Terence Cullen on March 29, 2016, 10:09 A.M.

Quote:
The room was packed. The smell of sweat wafted through the air. Then two attorneys began shouting at one another over how much something would cost.

Yes, this is a scenario that any one of the roughly 250,000 commuters coming through the Port Authority Bus Terminal could see on a daily basis. But it was actually the vote on which side of the river (New York or New Jersey) a new facility would be built.

After much bickering, the Port Authority of New York & New Jersey decided to ensure that a new transit hub would be built on Manhattan’s West Side, ending the proposal of a replacement across the Hudson River in New Jersey.

The move, announced the night before the March 24 meeting, puts a new terminal in the Port Authority’s 2017-2026 capital budget and was celebrated by New Jersey lawmakers. It was part of a long day of votes and infighting that eventually led to moving forward with a down payment on Gateway Tunnel along with overhauls of Newark Liberty International Airport and LaGuardia Airport.

“What you witnessed today is the most important board meeting in Port Authority history,” Port Authority Executive Director Patrick Foye said in a post-board meeting press conference. “I think it represents the single largest allocation of capital on one day in Port Authority history.”

The first move still leaves a lot of road between last week’s vote and when, where and what the cost of the new terminal will be. Port Authority governors voted in October 2015 to launch a design competition for a replacement to the existing terminal, which stretches from West 40th to West 42nd Streets and Eighth to Ninth Avenues. At the time, the estimate was that a new structure would cost upwards of $10 billion—more than what’s been floated to replace all of LaGuardia.

......Ultimately a compromise was reached to keep the terminal in Manhattan, after which New Jersey appointees agreed to support the new central terminal at LaGuardia despite the debate over the project’s true cost.

Vice Chairman Scott Rechler, a New York appointee and the chief executive officer of RXR Realty, walked back earlier statements about the New Jersey plan and said he’s always supported building a new terminal in Manhattan. Instead, Mr. Rechler said, his concern has been about congestion in the Lincoln Tunnel, through which buses from New Jersey travel into Midtown.

“While I’m supporting … [the] compromise that we have here today, including the bus terminal at this point in the capital plan—which I always would have included in the capital plan—I would preferred to have done it in a more systematic way in a process that’s been more consistent with how this new Port Authority board has functioned in the past,” Mr. Rechler said during the meeting. “And I also would have preferred to have studied more deeply alternatives to shed some of the capacity in New Jersey
.”
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #209  
Old Posted Mar 29, 2016, 11:36 PM
BrownTown BrownTown is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,884
Quote:
Originally Posted by CIA View Post
The difference is there is funding in place for the Gateway Project. The Port Authority will be unable to raise the $10 billion for a new Manhattan PABT, so it too is just as much as a pipe dream. The existing PABT occupies prime real estate. The only way this is being financed is if the existing PABT lands are sold off for development with the revenues used to finance a portion of a new New Jersey-based facility.
With a minimum wait of 15 years. Can the PABT wait that long?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #210  
Old Posted Mar 31, 2016, 9:25 PM
BBMW BBMW is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 89
Oops, seems like they don't have enough land to build the new PABT on the west side. They may have to seize some.

This being the case, it would be much cheaper to acquire land in NJ.

http://www.crainsnewyork.com/article...alert-20160331
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #211  
Old Posted Mar 31, 2016, 10:36 PM
Arthururban Arthururban is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 50
Have you ever taken NJ transit trains to Penn. Station? It gets very crowded and sometimes there aren't enough seats or let alone any standing space in those small cars. Why should you add more strain to an already over crowded train? Having to transfer 3 times is no fun either.

And also, fares have gone up for NJ transit/Path and NYC transit. How will anyone afford to make all those transfers if the terminal were to be build in NJ?

One more point to make, most people walk to work from PABT. I think it was around 50% but if someone knows for sure please let this people know.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NYguy View Post
Sometimes, there are other interests more important to the city than the value of real estate.
Truth. Some people need to let go of their skyscraper geek and need to think things through. I get it, another supertall is fun but not at the expense of thousands of commuters who use the buses from NY AND NJ alike. Any rail expansion is out of the picture in this day and age. (The bus terminal may be out of the picture too due to it's enormous costs but we shall see....)
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #212  
Old Posted Mar 31, 2016, 10:39 PM
Busy Bee's Avatar
Busy Bee Busy Bee is offline
Show me the blueprints
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: on the artistic spectrum
Posts: 10,301
Why has no one suggested the possibility of enlarging the scope of the Gateway Tunnel project to include a large bore tunnel(s) with a dedicated bus transitway? The Manhattan end could loop then connect with the existing Lincoln approach at 30th/Dyer and funnel into a new PABT in a dedicated bus lane(s). This solution would remove all buses from the Lincoln Tunnel, increasing efficiency, reducing congestion & preventing a huge amount of wear and tear and take full advantage of a new tunnel project we know is happening. Remember the size of the tunnel bore rarely accounts for tunnel construction costs, therefore they really should consider maximizing mode capacity all in one shot.

And before anyone suggests this is nuts, remember they just voted to go forward with a m*********ing 10 Billion dollar west side PABT! If that's going to be a real thing, this idea doesn't seem wildly ambitious by comparison.
__________________
Everything new is old again

There is no goodness in him, and his power to convince people otherwise is beyond understanding
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #213  
Old Posted Apr 1, 2016, 1:31 AM
BBMW BBMW is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 89
You guys are missing the point. Don't let the buses into Manhattan, period. If Jersey commuters want it, it will be on a train. Less pollution, less congestion, better use of very valuable land.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #214  
Old Posted Apr 1, 2016, 1:39 AM
Busy Bee's Avatar
Busy Bee Busy Bee is offline
Show me the blueprints
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: on the artistic spectrum
Posts: 10,301
I think we all here want that. BUT the PA has pretty much said "that's not going to happen, period." So at this point it's about doing it in the best way possible working within the reality that a new PABT will be built on the west side.
__________________
Everything new is old again

There is no goodness in him, and his power to convince people otherwise is beyond understanding
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #215  
Old Posted Apr 1, 2016, 1:46 AM
Arthururban Arthururban is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 50
edit

Last edited by Arthururban; May 7, 2016 at 11:40 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #216  
Old Posted Apr 1, 2016, 2:11 PM
Astorian Astorian is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 22
Quote:
Originally Posted by BBMW View Post
You guys are missing the point. Don't let the buses into Manhattan, period. If Jersey commuters want it, it will be on a train. Less pollution, less congestion, better use of very valuable land.
No, I think you're missing the point. If your concern is pollution and congestion, the answer is banning cars from Manhattab, not busses. If you remove busses from the Lincoln tunnel, you're going to get MORE cars. Studies have shown that EVERY SINGLE time you increase capacity for cars on highways, bridges, and tunnels, you get more traffics because you encourage more people to DRIVE.

The Port Authority is a bi-state agency, meaning NJ picks up half the cost. It's unfair to force thousands of NJ commuters to pay a double to transfer to already full trains. Especially when over half of them WALk to their destination from the bus terminal.

I didn't see you complaining about the valuable land the PA owns at the World Trade Center site. The WTC doesn't even have anything to do with commuting, using your logic, that site should have been sold to developers in order to raise billions for transit. When you have state agencies that provide mass transit, not everything should be about money. It should be about how to best serve your constituents with the shortest commute times possible.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #217  
Old Posted Apr 1, 2016, 2:16 PM
Crawford Crawford is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Brooklyn, NYC/Polanco, DF
Posts: 30,550
Quote:
Originally Posted by BBMW View Post
There's just no valid reason for bringing all this bus traffic into midtown. I'd even get rid of the MTA express buses, and terminate them at a central subway station (giving them a free transfer.) There either enough electric train capacity to bring these bus riders in, or it should be built.
Impossible. MTA express buses carry a couple of hundred thousand of daily commuters and come in all directions. You would have to build additional rail capacity, and then what was the point? And no one would take an MTA express bus if it didn't deliver you close to your workplace.

A giant bus terminal in NJ would be great for siphoning off the massive armada of NJ buses, but you will always get lots of express buses in Manhattan. Can't avoid this, really.

And the NJ buses aren't really clogging Manhattan streets. They go directly from the Lincoln Tunnel, onto the ramps, and into the bus terminal. The new Westside bus terminal would have the same arrangement, just with shorter ramps, because you're closer to the tunnel. And the GWB bus terminal has roughly the same arrangement. NJ buses aren't actually on Manhattan streets. They're clogging the Lincoln Tunnel and GW Bridge, not the streets.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #218  
Old Posted Apr 1, 2016, 2:22 PM
Crawford Crawford is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Brooklyn, NYC/Polanco, DF
Posts: 30,550
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arthururban View Post
Since when have we had a rail expansion project completed within the last decade? (Hint: None, Overbuild train stations don't count)
WTC hub, Fulton Transit Center, Second Avenue Subway, 7 Train Extension all opened recently, or are opening shortly.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #219  
Old Posted Apr 1, 2016, 2:25 PM
Crawford Crawford is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Brooklyn, NYC/Polanco, DF
Posts: 30,550
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrownTown View Post
The 7 train extension idea is a pipe dream that has absolutely no chance of happening and even if it did would cost just as much as the Manhattan bus terminal anyways. Q
The 7 train was just extended, so the "pipe dream" is reality. Now whether it will be extended further, to Chelsea/14th Street/L train, or to NJ, is another question, but we know it can be done. Everyone said the 7 train initial expansion was a "pipe dream".
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #220  
Old Posted Apr 1, 2016, 2:28 PM
Crawford Crawford is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Brooklyn, NYC/Polanco, DF
Posts: 30,550
Quote:
Originally Posted by CIA View Post
The difference is there is funding in place for the Gateway Project. The Port Authority will be unable to raise the $10 billion for a new Manhattan PABT, so it too is just as much as a pipe dream. The existing PABT occupies prime real estate. The only way this is being financed is if the existing PABT lands are sold off for development with the revenues used to finance a portion of a new New Jersey-based facility.
The PABT is being sold and redeveloped regardless. If a new bus terminal is built in Manhattan, then the PABT sale will fund the project. If a new bus terminal is built in Secaucus, then the PABT sale will fund the project.

There's absolutely no difference in terms of redevelopment potential. The difference is in where you build the terminal. If in Manhattan, it would be between 9th and 10th Ave, between 38th and 40th streets on land the PA mostly owns (alongside a few tenements). This site is mostly the bus on-ramps to the tunnel. If in Secaucus it would be adjacent to Secaucus Transfer and would obviously require rail.
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Global Projects & Construction > General Development
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 9:38 AM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.