NEW YORK | Port Authority Bus Terminal Replacement

[C.]

Originally Posted by Nexis4Jersey

The 7 train to NJ is a band aid solution and will not fix the root cause of the overcrowded buses..

Interesting comment. I would argue just the opposite: A new Manhattan bus terminal is a band aid solution and will not fix the root cause of the overcrowded buses. That can only be done with additional transhudson rail capacity.

[k1052]

Originally Posted by Crawford

But there's no such thing; you made this up.

Where are the "city state and federal officials" opposed to the Manhattan terminal? Name one, please.

The opponents are the local neighborhood NIMBY politicans, who have no say in the matter, and oppose all local development. They fought Hudson Yards and every single development in the area over the last 50 years. They will never support new development, but obviously can be bypassed.

Nadler, Brewer, and Shorris among others. The CB appears dead set against condemnation also which is going to be required. Since the PA board members are basically de facto representatives of each respective Governor's will I'm having trouble interpreting the opposition of the NY PA board members as Cuomo's support. Overriding the city's land use process would require the assent of the NY PA board members...this does not seem to be forthcoming right now.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by Nexis4Jersey

The 7 train to NJ is a band aid solution and will not fix the root cause of the overcrowded buses..

Correct, and the 7 train extension would not cancel the need for a new Manhattan PABT. It would still need to be relocated, but the successor station would be somewhat smaller if the 7 were extended (because much, but nowhere near all of the traffic could be diverted in Jersey).

In any case the existing terminal has to go; it's outdated, inefficient, and sits on extremely valuable land that the PA wants to sell.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by k1052

Nadler, Brewer, and Shorris among others. The CB appears dead set against condemnation also which is going to be required.

These are all local politicans. They oppose all West Side development (including Hudson Yards) They have no direct say in the process.

It would be extremely odd if they supported a gigantic West Side bus terminal. That would be far more newsworthy than their (completely expected) opposition.

Originally Posted by k1052

Since the PA board members are basically de facto representatives of each respective Governor's will I'm having trouble interpreting the opposition of the NY PA board members as Cuomo's support.

I personally have no clue what Cuomo is thinking, but have no reason to believe that he opposes a Manhattan bus terminal, given that A. He greenlighted the study and B. Endorsed its conclusions.

Why do you think he would oppose a new terminal? I can't think of any political or practical reason to do so. He already knew the West Side locals oppose all new development; that's been automatically true for 60 years.

[Crawford]

Port Authority, elected officials finally agree to move forward on new bus terminal

http://ny.curbed.com/2016/9/20/12988...sign-agreement

And here you go. The NIMBYs can now claim they have their "community engagment"; the PA can say it's "eager to listen to community concerns". Locals probably promised more subsidized housing or something, and all is well.

[k1052]

Originally Posted by Crawford

Port Authority, elected officials finally agree to move forward on new bus terminal

http://ny.curbed.com/2016/9/20/12988...sign-agreement

And here you go. The NIMBYs can now claim they have their "community engagment"; the PA can say it's "eager to listen to community concerns". Locals probably promised more subsidized housing or something, and all is well.

Lol...that's not a deal for a new bus terminal. That's a deal to talk about a new bus terminal which will delay anything by yet more years. This effectively makes the "design competition" worthless except as an idea bank for future negotiations.

[Busy Bee]

Originally Posted by k1052

Lol...that's not a deal for a new bus terminal. That's a deal to talk about a new bus terminal which will delay anything by yet more years. This effectively makes the "design competition" worthless except as an idea bank for future negotiations.

That's likely all it was anyway.

[C.]

The results of the design competition is scheduled to be released today on a special website. No news yet???

[C.]

Fuck yeah!

Get em' while their hot!

http://www.pabtcompetition.com/

• Video Link

[C.]

ARCADIS of New York
• Video Link


Archilier Architecture Consortium
• Video Link


Hudson Terminal Center Collaborative
• Video Link


Pelli Clarke Pelli Architects
• Video Link


Perkins Eastman
• Video Link

[C.]

From Hudson Terminal Center Collaborative

[C.]

Perkins Eastman

[C.]

Archilier Architecture

[Hamilton]

Can someone explain to me why a 7 train to Secaucus would be a "band-aid" solution? All of the buses at the PABT only handle about 220,000 riders in a single day. With CBTC/PTC, the 7 train could well handle the entirety of that load (the L train currently carries about 225,000 people under the East River daily). Even if demand does eventually grow to exceed the capacity of the 7 train, a 7 train extension would allow you to close and renovate half of PABT, then do the same to the other half. No need for ultra-expensive land acquisition and bulldozing on the West Side.

I also don't understand why NJ politicians oppose an NJ terminal + subway combo. Sure, it would create a "two-seat ride" for some people, but the Port Authority's preferred alternative is even worse: people will be walking an extra 7 minutes to work (or to the subway) daily, since the station will be one avenue farther from the Midtown CBD and from the Times Sq subway station. On top of that, many people who currently have to schlep from the West Side to the East Side for work would be able to take the subway straight to their office instead.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by Hamilton

Can someone explain to me why a 7 train to Secaucus would be a "band-aid" solution?

Three reasons-

1. The vast majority of NJ bus passengers live nowhere near Secaucus, and you would make their commutes much worse by forcing two modes of transit to reach Manhattan. Politically impossible.

2. A Secaucus subway station could never handle current volume, to say nothing of future volume. A single subway stop can't carry hundreds of thousands of passengers daily, unless you built some mega-billion complex with a vast number of platforms. Super-busy subway stations have fewer passengers in a year than the PABT gets in a month.

The L train (which is horribly congested, BTW) has that kind of ridership along an entire route, not in one station. Imagine putting every L train passenger in the Bedford Ave. station. Kinda insane, no?

3. There are huge increases projected for cross-Hudson commuting. Many predict that passenger load will more than double by mid-century, so even assuming massive gains in NJ Transit commuter rail/PATH commuting, as well as ferry growth, there will be significant additional cross-Hudson capacity required.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by Hamilton

No need for ultra-expensive land acquisition and bulldozing on the West Side.

Some of the proposals include no land acquisition whatsoever. The PA already has plenty of West Side land.

And they have to move the terminal to unlock the value of the existing land and ramps, which can be sold for billions (at least in theory, funding the new terminal).

Originally Posted by Hamilton

I also don't understand why NJ politicians oppose an NJ terminal + subway combo. Sure, it would create a "two-seat ride" for some people, but the Port Authority's preferred alternative is even worse: people will be walking an extra 7 minutes to work (or to the subway) daily, since the station will be one avenue farther from the Midtown CBD and from the Times Sq subway station.

People will prefer a one-seat ride over a two-seat one. Once they're in Manhattan, they could be working anywhere, but the goal is to get into the City without transferring.

Moving the terminal isn't "better" or "worse"; it depends where you're working. In either case you may be able to walk to work, and for those that can't, there will be the same subway options as before.

[C.]

Well, what's everyone's favorite proposal?

What elements do you like/dislike from each?

Would love to hear everyone's opinions on this. It's a lot to digest. I really like the proposal from Hudson Terminal Center Collaboration. I love that it's underground rather than a bulky above grade structure. I'm just not sure how realistic it is. It also stretches the bus terminal from 8th to close to 10th.

[Crawford]

I like them all, really, at least compared to the present situation.

I agree that an underground terminal is preferable. Overall, though, I think I like the Arcadis proposal the best.

ArchPaper has a nice slideshow of the competing proposals:
http://archpaper.com/2016/09/new-por...lery-0-slide-1

[yankeesfan1000]

Anything is better than the current situation. I think the two most realistic proposals are the Pelli Clarke and the Arcadis proposals. The Archilier would require the acquisition of a lot on 40th St, which I imagine from a cost perspective would be a non starter. Plus, it's massive. The PA presumably wants to finance as much of this as possible by selling/lease land they own in the neighborhood.

The Hudson Terminal Center, and the Perkins Eastman, both suffer from the same issue, cost. Not only in terms of initial construction, but if in X years you need to increase the capacity by Y percent, doing so underground is really expensive.

I'd put my money on the Pelli Clarke being selected. No eminent domain required, smaller than the current facility, and most importantly, if the 2040 ridership projections come sooner than expected, you can essentially add floors and capacity to the building, which you can't do with the Arcadis proposal.

Aesthetically though, the Hudson Terminal Center by miles. Agree with Crawford, cost aside, putting it underground would be the best solution.

[k1052]

Originally Posted by Crawford

2. A Secaucus subway station could never handle current volume, to say nothing of future volume. A single subway stop can't carry hundreds of thousands of passengers daily, unless you built some mega-billion complex with a vast number of platforms. Super-busy subway stations have fewer passengers in a year than the PABT gets in a month.

Design limit of the 7 extension would be 36,000 passengers per hour, which is about what the PABT handles in the AM peak hour. This would be done from a single island platform.