HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForumSkyscraper Posters
     

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

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #41  
Old Posted Mar 17, 2015, 10:04 PM
Nexis4Jersey's Avatar
Nexis4Jersey Nexis4Jersey is offline
Greetings from New Jersey
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: In the Pascack Valley
Posts: 2,902
Quote:
Originally Posted by yankeesfan1000 View Post
Better long term solution would be to spend that $8-$11B on increasing rail capacity, get buses off the GWB and out of the Lincoln Tunnel, and get those bus riders onto trains. Dedicating 3.5 city blocks to a bus terminal, regardless of where it is, is a pretty awful use of Manhattan real estate, esp in Midtown/Hudson Yards. But that would require expanding rail capacity on NJT, which I can't imagine the PA would want to pay for.
The GWB is underused , so is the Holland Tunnel in terms of Bus usage. I'm for the 7 to New Jersey , but only if it went to Hoboken Terminal which is underused and could handle a massive statewide Rail expansion. The Bus line from Hoboken to 42nd Street is also overcapacity so its a win-win.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #42  
Old Posted May 31, 2015, 10:18 AM
CIA CIA is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 1,044
The latest in this saga is the Port Authority exploring the possibility of moving the PABT to New Jersey. This would cost a fraction of the $10 billion cost to rebuild in Manhattan and would reduce bus congestion in the Lincoln and Holland tunnels. The old PABT lands could then be redeveloped. More than two entire city blocks, next to Times Square, would be very lucrative, especially if the Port Authority pulls its trump card to override local zoning restrictions.

So the question is where would be an appropriate place to move the PABT? It would have to be on a transit line. And viola! Bloomberg's 7 line extension to NJ starts to make a lot more sense now. The plans did call for a new bus terminal to be built in Seacaucus.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #43  
Old Posted May 31, 2015, 5:45 PM
CIA CIA is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 1,044
Could the new Port Authority Bus Terminal actually be built in N.J.?
http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/201...ilt_in_nj.html

Quote:
The vice chairman of the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey wants the agency to investigate whether building a new Port Authority Bus Terminal in New Jersey could save money by taking advantage of lower building costs and a proposed trans-Hudson commuter rail tunnel.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #44  
Old Posted May 31, 2015, 6:38 PM
Submariner's Avatar
Submariner Submariner is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 944
Quote:
Originally Posted by CIA View Post
The latest in this saga is the Port Authority exploring the possibility of moving the PABT to New Jersey. This would cost a fraction of the $10 billion cost to rebuild in Manhattan and would reduce bus congestion in the Lincoln and Holland tunnels. The old PABT lands could then be redeveloped. More than two entire city blocks, next to Times Square, would be very lucrative, especially if the Port Authority pulls its trump card to override local zoning restrictions.

So the question is where would be an appropriate place to move the PABT? It would have to be on a transit line. And viola! Bloomberg's 7 line extension to NJ starts to make a lot more sense now. The plans did call for a new bus terminal to be built in Seacaucus.
They could sell that land for a fortune. Not only do they have the land the terminal sits on, but they could remove or reroute the raised portions of road leading to it underground, providing even more build-able land.

The 7, however, is already overcrowded. Would it be possible to build light rail links in the current tunnels to provide a link between NJ and NYC?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #45  
Old Posted May 31, 2015, 7:12 PM
CIA CIA is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 1,044
Quote:
Originally Posted by Submariner View Post
They could sell that land for a fortune. Not only do they have the land the terminal sits on, but they could remove or reroute the raised portions of road leading to it underground, providing even more build-able land.

The 7, however, is already overcrowded. Would it be possible to build light rail links in the current tunnels to provide a link between NJ and NYC?
Yes, I suppose it's possible to route the HBLR line into NYC using the Lincon Tunnel. The bus terminal is projected to attract 400,000 daily passengers by 2030. What's needed is a full blown subway. I wonder if extending the 7 line could create a healthy reverse commute.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #46  
Old Posted May 31, 2015, 7:58 PM
Nexis4Jersey's Avatar
Nexis4Jersey Nexis4Jersey is offline
Greetings from New Jersey
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: In the Pascack Valley
Posts: 2,902
It doesn't really fix the Bus overcrowding issue which due to the fact that the Rail Network has not been properly expanded to service the Urbanized areas... This is a band aid solution...not a good one. The 7 to Hoboken and a Suburban & Urban Rail expansion in key areas of Bergen , Passaic & Hudson would significantly reduce the Bus Volume. Hudson County could be channeled into Hoboken Terminal via the Light Rail or few BRT lines. Bergen & Passaic Bus Congestion could be reduced by half with the following projects , West Shore Commuter Rail (Hoboken to Newburgh)which could replace at least 4 overcrowded Bus Routes , Bergen - Passaic - Hudson LRT & Northern Branch LRT could reduce congestion on an addition 6 routes. Hoboken Terminal is under capacity so you could easily add more trains , I would add Amtrak Long Distance trains to the Terminal.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #47  
Old Posted May 31, 2015, 9:45 PM
ardecila's Avatar
ardecila ardecila is offline
atomic
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: the city o'wind
Posts: 12,385
Quote:
Originally Posted by Submariner View Post
The 7, however, is already overcrowded. Would it be possible to build light rail links in the current tunnels to provide a link between NJ and NYC?
Only overcrowded in one direction. How many people are heading eastbound during the AM rush, or westbound during the PM rush? There may in fact be enough capacity to handle tens of thousands of bus passengers.

This would have environmental benefits, as well - all those buses crawling between NJ and Port Authority emit a ton of smog.

It might be a good idea for the 7 extension to have one or two intermediate stops, though. A transfer to HBLR at 9th Street might make some sense.
__________________
la forme d'une ville change plus vite, hélas! que le coeur d'un mortel...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #48  
Old Posted Jun 1, 2015, 4:25 PM
k1052 k1052 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 1,011
Quote:
Originally Posted by ardecila View Post
Only overcrowded in one direction. How many people are heading eastbound during the AM rush, or westbound during the PM rush? There may in fact be enough capacity to handle tens of thousands of bus passengers.

This would have environmental benefits, as well - all those buses crawling between NJ and Port Authority emit a ton of smog.

It might be a good idea for the 7 extension to have one or two intermediate stops, though. A transfer to HBLR at 9th Street might make some sense.
The line can obviously absorb commuters in the reverse direction easily enough but some of the stations, particularly Grand Central, would require significant reconfiguration/upgrades to handle additional peak ridership. It can certainly be done though and seems like a better option than spending an insane amount of money on a new Manhattan located PABT.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #49  
Old Posted Jun 1, 2015, 4:29 PM
Crawford Crawford is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Brooklyn, NYC/Polanco, DF
Posts: 13,103
Quote:
Originally Posted by k1052 View Post
The line can obviously absorb commuters in the reverse direction easily enough but some of the stations, particularly Grand Central, would require significant reconfiguration/upgrades to handle additional peak ridership. It can certainly be done though and seems like a better option than spending an insane amount of money on a new Manhattan located PABT.
Yeah, they will have to build in Jersey. No way they spend $10 billion or whatever it costs to build a giant new Manhattan terminal; would be vastly cheaper even to build a subway to Jersey because the existing Manhattan PABT land could be sold for billions.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #50  
Old Posted Jun 1, 2015, 8:05 PM
BrownTown BrownTown is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 408
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crawford View Post
Yeah, they will have to build in Jersey. No way they spend $10 billion or whatever it costs to build a giant new Manhattan terminal; would be vastly cheaper even to build a subway to Jersey because the existing Manhattan PABT land could be sold for billions.
Where are all these buses coming from though? Won't going to New Jersey mean a much longer commute for some? I guess those buses could just stop somewhere else instead though.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #51  
Old Posted Jun 1, 2015, 8:45 PM
k1052 k1052 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 1,011
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrownTown View Post
Where are all these buses coming from though? Won't going to New Jersey mean a much longer commute for some? I guess those buses could just stop somewhere else instead though.
Some of the routes from Hudson and Bergen counties would have to physically backtrack however given the delay prone nature of Manhattan bus circulation and the inadequacy of the existing terminal I'm skeptical there would actually be a major time penalty over the current situation. Also some trips could be diverted if a transfer to the 7 extension was created with HBLR in Hoboken.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #52  
Old Posted Jun 1, 2015, 8:45 PM
CIA CIA is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 1,044
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrownTown View Post
Where are all these buses coming from though? Won't going to New Jersey mean a much longer commute for some? I guess those buses could just stop somewhere else instead though.
I'm not convinced the commute will be longer into Manhattan. Intuitively having the bus terminal further away would lead to a longer commute, but that doesn't take into account the wicked bottlenecks that form at the mouth of the Lincoln Tunnel that persist for most hours of the day. At rush hour it's standstill. If there is an accident, all hope is lost! Even on the Manhattan side, the 1 1/2 block journey from the PABT entrance to the Lincoln tunnel can get incredibly gridlocked. It's not unusual to wait over half an hour in traffic just to enter the tunnel.

Additionally, the traffic problems are only getting worse. Bus traffic into Manhattan, or traffic in general for that matter, is growing each year. Then there is the question where to idle all these buses until the afternoon rush back home.

A bus station in New Jersey, with an easy transfer to a NYC subway train, may end up being a lot faster.

It would be interesting to see a study on the origin of passengers arriving at the PABT. My guess is NJT is a heavy feeder, particularly with folks in Hudson, Essex and Bergen counties getting to work.

Google reveals this. Nearly 80,000 (of the PABT 225,000 daily passenger volume is from New Jersey) arrives on NJT. The private Jitney service operating throughout North Jersey probably ads another 15,000 more. The balance of 130,000 must be a mix of private operators catering to the weekday workers from neighboring states and the greyhound crowd visiting from across the country.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #53  
Old Posted Jun 1, 2015, 9:15 PM
Crawford Crawford is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Brooklyn, NYC/Polanco, DF
Posts: 13,103
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrownTown View Post
Where are all these buses coming from though? Won't going to New Jersey mean a much longer commute for some? I guess those buses could just stop somewhere else instead though.
That would be a shorter bus ride for basically 100% of riders. The PABT is pretty much 100% NJ-bound traffic.

There are commuter buses coming from Long Island and Westchester and the Outer Boroughs, but far fewer in number, and I don't think any use the PABT.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #54  
Old Posted Jun 2, 2015, 5:08 AM
ardecila's Avatar
ardecila ardecila is offline
atomic
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: the city o'wind
Posts: 12,385
Quote:
Originally Posted by k1052 View Post
Some of the routes from Hudson and Bergen counties would have to physically backtrack however given the delay prone nature of Manhattan bus circulation and the inadequacy of the existing terminal I'm skeptical there would actually be a major time penalty over the current situation. Also some trips could be diverted if a transfer to the 7 extension was created with HBLR in Hoboken.
Like I said before, no reason there can't be additional stations/transfer points on the subway line besides Secaucus. Put one at the base of the Palisades with a transfer to HBLR. If planned correctly, it could have a second entrance up high to connect with buses on Bergenline and JFK.

Also - aren't those upgrades to Grand Central already planned as a mitigation for the upzoning in that area? East Side Access will also add a lot of circulation space there, although I'm not sure it benefits the 7 riders.
__________________
la forme d'une ville change plus vite, hélas! que le coeur d'un mortel...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #55  
Old Posted Jun 2, 2015, 2:11 PM
k1052 k1052 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 1,011
Quote:
Originally Posted by ardecila View Post
Like I said before, no reason there can't be additional stations/transfer points on the subway line besides Secaucus. Put one at the base of the Palisades with a transfer to HBLR. If planned correctly, it could have a second entrance up high to connect with buses on Bergenline and JFK.

Also - aren't those upgrades to Grand Central already planned as a mitigation for the upzoning in that area? East Side Access will also add a lot of circulation space there, although I'm not sure it benefits the 7 riders.
I don't think the envisioned upgrades for the rezone would handle PABT type of loads, the plans in the EDC study for the 7 extension had substantially more work suggested. Also I think most of the currently scoped GC fixes were street level and mezzanine including substantial fare control reconfiguration while the absolutely horrid circulation to/from the 7 platform was going unchanged.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #56  
Old Posted Jun 2, 2015, 6:54 PM
CIA CIA is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 1,044
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #57  
Old Posted Aug 5, 2015, 5:53 PM
CIA CIA is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 1,044
http://observer.com/2015/08/terminal...portation-hub/

The Authority should scale back its ambitions for a new bus station and use the far more efficient PATH network, a suggestion that’s been made by PA Vice Chairman Scott Rechler, a top real estate developer. He envisions a cheap, swift alternative: have buses connect to PATH trains in New Jersey, rather than cram them through the bottleneck of the Lincoln Tunnel. Better signaling systems, longer rush hours and longer trains would make up the difference. (The PA is already spending more than $300 million for new signals to move 50,000 more commuters a day, and is lengthening platforms to accommodate longer trains).

That could actually shrink demand for bus travel to the point where the PA would only need one of its two terminals. Then the job of reconstruction becomes easier. Sell the entire 42nd Street site for an office block with a new bus station on the lower floors and when that’s done, unload the south building space. Even with 12 million square feet of office space coming online at the Hudson Yards over the next decade or so, there will be plenty of demand for new homes and offices in Midtown West...

If that fails, here’s another alternative: run a state-of-the art, high-speed PATH train through one of the Lincoln Tunnel’s three existing 21-foot wide tubes from the massive Secaucus junction rail and bus station in New Jersey, through Weehawken and right into the site of the current Port Authority terminal. A high-speed PATH line in a refurbished Lincoln Tunnel tube could move as many as 36,000 to 50,000 passengers an hour in each direction—far more commuters than 1,000 buses could in an hour—with no traffic jams.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #58  
Old Posted Aug 10, 2015, 2:38 AM
jamesinclair jamesinclair is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 801
Quote:
Originally Posted by CIA View Post
http://observer.com/2015/08/terminal...portation-hub/

The Authority should scale back its ambitions for a new bus station and use the far more efficient PATH network, a suggestion that’s been made by PA Vice Chairman Scott Rechler, a top real estate developer. He envisions a cheap, swift alternative: have buses connect to PATH trains in New Jersey, rather than cram them through the bottleneck of the Lincoln Tunnel. Better signaling systems, longer rush hours and longer trains would make up the difference. (The PA is already spending more than $300 million for new signals to move 50,000 more commuters a day, and is lengthening platforms to accommodate longer trains).
So ridiculous.

The tunnel has 6 lanes. PATH has 2 tracks. That alone is a huge issue because PATH has to single track for maintenance. Meanwhile, that doesnt happen for the bus tunnel.

Further, it screws over riders.

You want to force people to take a bus and pay one fare, then ride PATH and pay another fare, and then ride MTA and pay yet another fare? Hell, no.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #59  
Old Posted Sep 24, 2015, 9:37 PM
chris08876's Avatar
chris08876 chris08876 is offline
C21H30O2
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: New Jersey - Somerset County
Posts: 17,600
The Port Authority Bus Terminal and Our Glaring Lack of Transit Leadership



Quote:
The effort to replace the aging and overcrowded Port Authority Bus Terminal continues to suffer from the New York region’s inability to coordinate its transit mega-projects.

The bus terminal already handles more than 225,000 passengers per weekday and cannot accommodate all the bus traffic that crosses the Hudson in Midtown. Demand is expected to increase about 50 percent by 2040, but there is no plan in place to build a new terminal.

A working group of four Port Authority commissioners has been considering five concepts to replace the bus terminal with a modern facility that can handle many more passengers. Today they recommended a plan to the full board, but the full board didn’t endorse the working group’s proposal, putting off a vote until a later date, pending further study.

The almost-recommended-plan, known as Concept 3, would move the bus terminal one block west. It appealed to the working group for a variety of reasons, including the fact that unlike the other four options, the Port Authority would not have to build a temporary terminal to handle passengers while the new terminal is under construction.

“It doesn’t require an alternate facility and the complete disruption of the passenger experience for a decade,” said Commissioner Kenneth Lipper. “It’s less expensive, and it opens up billions of dollars in real estate.” Selling off development rights could help finance the project, which has been estimated to cost as much as $10.5 billion.

But moving the bus terminal west poses serious problems, due in part to the mistakes of past projects.

Today, bus passengers have direct access to the A, C, and E trains on Eighth Avenue, with access to other trains at Times Square through a block-long underground passageway. Under Concept 3, most of the passenger and boarding areas would be on the block between Ninth Avenue, Tenth Avenue, 39th Street, and 40th Street. That’s a full avenue west and one street south of the existing bus terminal.

To bridge the gap, the plan includes pedestrian overpasses connecting the new bus terminal with office and retail developments on the old Port Authority site, where passengers would go underground to swipe their MetroCards. The walk to most Times Square subway lines for more than 230,000 passengers each day would increase from about five minutes to at least 10 minutes in each direction.

The new bus terminal would be located just south of where the city, as part of the 7 train extension to Hudson Yards, at one point planned to build a subway station. That station was cancelled by the Bloomberg administration in 2007 to reduce costs. The subway was ultimately built to allow an infill station, but construction would be much more disruptive and expensive than if it had been included in the original project.
“There is no way that terminal is going to work west of 9th Avenue unless you build the [subway] station,” Community Board 4 chair Christine Berthet told Streetsblog.

Taxi pick-ups and drop-offs for the bus terminal, which currently occur on Eighth Avenue, would likely shift west as well, affecting city streets. “Ninth Avenue is already completely jammed with Lincoln Tunnel queues,” Berthet said. “How does that work?”

Another drawback is that the new terminal probably won’t be big enough to handle all of the buses that could use it. Inter-city buses to destinations beyond the New York region would have to be moved to a still-undetermined location. (Only one of the five concepts the working group considered could accommodate inter-city buses; it was also the most expensive option.)

Port Authority Vice Chair Scott Rechler suggested moving both inter-city and commuter bus terminals outside Manhattan, where passengers could transfer to a rail connection. While Berthet, who has combatted the growing bus traffic in her neighborhood, supports the idea, most commissioners were not swayed by an option that imposes a two-seat ride to Manhattan.

Of course, shifting tens of thousands of bus commuters onto rail across the Hudson River would impose other infrastructure costs. The current train tubes to Penn Station, like the bus terminal, are aging and at capacity, and the region’s leaders are just beginning to discuss how to fund a new rail tunnel.

Local City Council Member Corey Johnson urged the Port Authority to widen its lens. “I think one thing that the Port Authority needs to look at is entire west side of Manhattan and how our transportation options and future infrastructure projects fit together,” he said. Johnson’s district includes the bus terminal, the 7 train extension and Penn Station, which a new rail tunnel would serve. “These are all things that need to be thought about in a master plan type of way, because they all impact each other.”

Commissioners seemed to acknowledge today that they are ill-equipped to plan for regional commuters, due to the absence of coordination with other agencies and a lack of data. Nor has the bus terminal become a noticeable priority for Governor Cuomo, Governor Christie, or Mayor de Blasio.

At the same time, the commissioners view fixing the overcrowded bus terminal as an urgent issue.

“This is the biggest decision, in my 10 years as a commissioner, that I will make,” said commissioner Tony James. “But we need to move forward. I agree, we can’t study this to death.”
============================
http://www.streetsblog.org/2015/09/2...ning-failures/
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #60  
Old Posted Sep 24, 2015, 10:28 PM
CityGuy87 CityGuy87 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 288
Quote:
Originally Posted by chris08876 View Post
The Port Authority Bus Terminal and Our Glaring Lack of Transit Leadership




============================
http://www.streetsblog.org/2015/09/2...ning-failures/
The Port Authority incompetent? What a surprise! /sarcasm
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 1:16 PM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.