HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForumSkyscraper Posters
     

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

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #61  
Old Posted Sep 25, 2015, 3:17 AM
k1052 k1052 is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 1,011
For more than twice what it would cost to extend the 7 and build a new massive bus terminal at Secaucus and STILL be inadequate. I mean you could do that and still cover half-ish of what it would cost to build two new tubes to Penn.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #62  
Old Posted Sep 25, 2015, 11:34 PM
BrownTown BrownTown is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 405
Quote:
Originally Posted by k1052 View Post
For more than twice what it would cost to extend the 7 and build a new massive bus terminal at Secaucus and STILL be inadequate. I mean you could do that and still cover half-ish of what it would cost to build two new tubes to Penn.
Agree. It makes no sense to send all the busses into the heart of Manhattan instead of collecting them all outside the city and sending people in by train. They should have the main bus terminal at Secaucus and a smaller terminal in the city for people coming from other directions.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #63  
Old Posted Sep 26, 2015, 8:59 PM
Submariner's Avatar
Submariner Submariner is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 944
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrownTown View Post
Agree. It makes no sense to send all the busses into the heart of Manhattan instead of collecting them all outside the city and sending people in by train. They should have the main bus terminal at Secaucus and a smaller terminal in the city for people coming from other directions.
It would be interesting to see an estimate for how much the PA could sell the terminal and the adjacent land (where all the elevated roads are) for. IIRC, there are many acres of land in total, and if the city granted developers additional air and development rights, I could see the value being many billions of dollars.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #64  
Old Posted Sep 27, 2015, 12:13 AM
aquablue's Avatar
aquablue aquablue is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 1,305
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrownTown View Post
Agree. It makes no sense to send all the busses into the heart of Manhattan instead of collecting them all outside the city and sending people in by train. They should have the main bus terminal at Secaucus and a smaller terminal in the city for people coming from other directions.
No, it really does. Many of those commuters would be forced to take a two or three seat ride to their final destination if the terminal is located in jersey. Now, a good portion walk to their end point or have a choice of multiple subway lines in the vicinity right after getting off the bus. I agree with the Beurocraps, this option should be off the table as it would lead to more unfavorable issues such as subway congestion in stations around there. Most will be transferring lines, so it would b a 3 seat ride.

I favor moving it to 9th and redeveloping the land near Times Square into amazing entertainment functions and towers.

Or better, just build more train lines to jersey suburbs and reduce the bus passengers. Make trains cheaper and more available and all that bus traffic will be decreasing. If this were Europe, there would be far more train lines serving jersey than there is today, including rapid transit to Manhattan, not just commuter rail. But of course, most New Yorkers thinks jersey is a dump and that NYC stands alone as an island, and not as the center of a vast metropolis. Thus, this is never likely to come to pass.

Last edited by aquablue; Sep 27, 2015 at 12:24 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #65  
Old Posted Sep 27, 2015, 12:18 AM
CIA CIA is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 1,044
Quote:
Originally Posted by Submariner View Post
IIRC, there are many acres of land in total, and if the city granted developers additional air and development rights, I could see the value being many billions of dollars.
The Port Authority is immune to local zoning but voluntary submits to it. For any redevelopment of the Port Authority Bus Terminal, I hope the Port Authority ignores any density maximums to maximize revenue, which can be used toward the construction of a new world class transportation center. The current facility is a disgrace.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #66  
Old Posted Sep 27, 2015, 12:20 AM
CIA CIA is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 1,044
Quote:
Originally Posted by aquablue View Post
No, it really does. Many of those commuters would be forced to take a two or three seat ride to their final destination if the terminal is located in jersey. Now, a good portion walk and have a choice of multiple subway lines in the vicinity right after getting off the bus. I agree with the Beurocraps, this option should be off the table as it would lead to more unfavorable issues such as subway congestion in stations around there. Most will be transferring lines, so it would b a 3 seat ride.

I favor moving it to 9th and redeveloping the land near Times Square into amazing entertainment functions and towers.
I respectfully disagree -- getting buses off the Linton and Holland Tunnel could would work wonders. It will add a transfer for those accustoms to walking to their destination from the Port Authority but it may mean a faster commute as the current situation is severely bottlenecked. Therefore, it's an appropriate trade off as it makes much more sense to use rail to get people into Manhattan than bus.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #67  
Old Posted Sep 27, 2015, 12:22 AM
CIA CIA is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 1,044
Quote:
Originally Posted by k1052 View Post
For more than twice what it would cost to extend the 7 and build a new massive bus terminal at Secaucus and STILL be inadequate. I mean you could do that and still cover half-ish of what it would cost to build two new tubes to Penn.
Agreed! A $10 billion price tag to move the bus terminal one block, with no increase in capacity, is a shame. Build it in New Jersey and connect via the 7 line. It would be cheaper plus frees up many acres of prime Manhattan real estate for redevelopment.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #68  
Old Posted Sep 27, 2015, 12:27 AM
aquablue's Avatar
aquablue aquablue is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 1,305
Quote:
Originally Posted by CIA View Post
I respectfully disagree -- getting buses off the Linton and Holland Tunnel could would work wonders. It will add a transfer for those accustoms to walking to their destination from the Port Authority but it may mean a faster commute as the current situation is severely bottlenecked. Therefore, it's an appropriate trade off as it makes much more sense to use rail to get people into Manhattan than bus.
You may disagree, but the chances of you getting your wish are basically nil. This is a New York centric pov, but with little consideration for jersey commuters. All you are interested in is more developable land in midtown, not the ease of getting jersey folk into New York where they work.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #69  
Old Posted Sep 27, 2015, 12:30 AM
CIA CIA is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 1,044
Quote:
Originally Posted by aquablue View Post
You may disagree, but the chances of you getting your wish are basically nil.
I'm not so sure -- the Port Authority keeps postponing or voting against plans to rebuilding in Manhattan. Port Authority Chairman John Degnan and Vice Chairman Scott Rechler are both on record asking PA staff to look "outside the box" and in New Jersey.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #70  
Old Posted Sep 27, 2015, 9:13 PM
k1052 k1052 is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 1,011
Quote:
Originally Posted by aquablue View Post
You may disagree, but the chances of you getting your wish are basically nil. This is a New York centric pov, but with little consideration for jersey commuters. All you are interested in is more developable land in midtown, not the ease of getting jersey folk into New York where they work.
Rebuilding a bus terminal for $10B+ that won't be able to handle the projected ridership that will exist when it's finished 15 years from now is at least enormously irresponsible if not outright insane. The NY members of the PA board would be right to stonewall this idea indefinitely.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #71  
Old Posted Sep 27, 2015, 10:17 PM
BrownTown BrownTown is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 405
Quote:
Originally Posted by aquablue View Post
You may disagree, but the chances of you getting your wish are basically nil. This is a New York centric pov, but with little consideration for jersey commuters. All you are interested in is more developable land in midtown, not the ease of getting jersey folk into New York where they work.
I live in New Jersey and support the plan to move it here. Yes, it will make some people's commutes longer, but it will also make others shorter by reducing congestion in the car tunnels. If we had new Hudson River tunnels or a 7 subway extension it would run with short headways during rush hour only adding a few minutes for the transfer, but reducing the time delays at the tunnel bottlenecks. I see the desire to keep the bus terminal in Manhattan is the obvious New York centric point of view since they desire to keep the Billions in construction costs coming from both states instead of letting New Jersey get the money.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #72  
Old Posted Sep 27, 2015, 11:16 PM
Nexis4Jersey's Avatar
Nexis4Jersey Nexis4Jersey is offline
Greetings from New Jersey
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: In the Pascack Valley
Posts: 2,902
We Need the New Hudson Tunnels more then the 7 to Secaucus. But with the New Hudson Tunnels should come a rapid expansion of the Rail Network on the Jersey Side. A lot of these bus routes are in areas that were supposed to have rail service restored by now. These projects combined would cost 3-5 billion... But reduce the strain on the Bus grid. Its the same with expanding the Newark LRT to replace the overcrowded Newark Bus division routes.. Increasing bus service overtime is just a band-aid...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #73  
Old Posted Sep 28, 2015, 12:48 AM
CIA CIA is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 1,044
Christie and Cuomo recently submitted a letter to the White House asking for the feds to pay for half of the costs of a trans-Hudson tunnel with the Port Authority paying for the other half. It would be an excellent opporrunity to include a New Jersey Port Authority bus terminal into the plans. By the time the tunnel is finished, the old PABT will have reached fhe end of its functional life and be decommissioned for redevelopment of the lands.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #74  
Old Posted Sep 28, 2015, 12:52 AM
k1052 k1052 is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 1,011
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nexis4Jersey View Post
We Need the New Hudson Tunnels more then the 7 to Secaucus. But with the New Hudson Tunnels should come a rapid expansion of the Rail Network on the Jersey Side. A lot of these bus routes are in areas that were supposed to have rail service restored by now. These projects combined would cost 3-5 billion... But reduce the strain on the Bus grid. Its the same with expanding the Newark LRT to replace the overcrowded Newark Bus division routes.. Increasing bus service overtime is just a band-aid...
That would be great if NJ actually had 3-5B to spend on rail expansion like that, but it doesn't and couldn't fund it's operations even if somehow the PA was convinced to built it for them (unlikely).

For the kind of money the PA is talking about they can have the 7 extension for bus riders who need to get to the vicinity of the current PABT, east midtown, or one of the NYCT trunk lines plus fund half the cost of new Penn tubes. A transfer to/from HBLR is also easily within the realm of possibility given the proposed alignment.

Realistically Penn can't take the extra peak passenger load the PABT handles without replacing the concourses and head house as it's currently impossible to clear the platforms of passengers as currently constructed to increase TPH at rush. The LIRR also isn't going to give up the slots liberated by the ESA to anybody except maybe the MNRR if the state government forces them to…which seems to be the plan.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #75  
Old Posted Sep 28, 2015, 3:41 AM
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 k1052 View Post
That would be great if NJ actually had 3-5B to spend on rail expansion like that, but it doesn't and couldn't fund it's operations even if somehow the PA was convinced to built it for them (unlikely).

For the kind of money the PA is talking about they can have the 7 extension for bus riders who need to get to the vicinity of the current PABT, east midtown, or one of the NYCT trunk lines plus fund half the cost of new Penn tubes. A transfer to/from HBLR is also easily within the realm of possibility given the proposed alignment.

Realistically Penn can't take the extra peak passenger load the PABT handles without replacing the concourses and head house as it's currently impossible to clear the platforms of passengers as currently constructed to increase TPH at rush. The LIRR also isn't going to give up the slots liberated by the ESA to anybody except maybe the MNRR if the state government forces them to…which seems to be the plan.
Well the Gateway/Penn Station South would add that extra capacity... The Gateway and Bus Terminal expansion/7 Expansion are roughly the same cost. But the Gateway should have higher prority since it benefits a larger chunk of the Northeast then the bus upgrades. The last president of the LIRR wasn't to keen on giving up slots at Penn station , but she was forced out. A standard Bus can hold 60 to 70 people , while a 10 to 12 car train can hold up to 1200 to 1300 people. I don't really buy your argument that the current PABT can handle the extra capacity. Having used PABT during rush hr , its worse then Penn Station..., its slow...long lines , always an issue. Penn has issues aswell but getting the people on the train isn't one of them...its a Tunnel issue.

As for NJ Rail upgrades , we'll just milk the PA like everyone seems to be doing.

HBLR doesn't really service the Heavily congested routes in the Gold Coast which are along the higher sections. There are basic upgrades to the Rail lines that would not cost billions but boost capacity...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #76  
Old Posted Sep 28, 2015, 3:59 AM
BrownTown BrownTown is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 405
It's an either/or argument between the Hudson River tunnels and the 7 train extension and the new Hudson Tunnels are the clear winner. They would carry the extra people to Penn South so the current crowding at Penn Station isn't an issue. What is an issue for all of these ideas is the fact that nobody wants to pay for any of them. It's just not on either political parties RADAR on either the Local or Federal levels. Instead of actual construction all we get is vague concepts and bickering over who will pay what. It's pretty clear to me that construction won't start on the new Hudson River tunnels until after they are declared a safety hazard and the parties involved are pretty much legally forced into replacing and then upgrading them.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #77  
Old Posted Sep 28, 2015, 4:40 AM
ardecila's Avatar
ardecila ardecila is offline
atomic
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: the city o'wind
Posts: 12,384
It's not, though. The whole idea of Penn South is idiotic. Gateway can and should be built with no additional platforms at Penn. Then Penn would have 4 tracks in, and 4 tracks out, which would be ideal if NJT could send more trains to Sunnyside to turn around. Who knows, maybe they might eventually figure out that it's way more efficient to run one train from New Jersey to Long Island instead of two trains that both terminate at Penn.

Instead of spending billions to acquire more Manhattan real estate for Penn South, use the money to extend the 7 to Secaucus and built a new bus terminal there.
__________________
la forme d'une ville change plus vite, hélas! que le coeur d'un mortel...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #78  
Old Posted Sep 28, 2015, 6:30 AM
artspook's Avatar
artspook artspook is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: manhattan
Posts: 463
I say build another row of BIG BAD "X"s on top of the 1st row ! . .
And paint 'em all screaming florescent Construction-Orange ! . .
It would look Mega-City Design-RAD ! . . BIG "X"s need strong color.

Even though architecture critic Paul Goldberger hated the diagonal steel bracing . .
when the Port Authority was built . . I've always thought it awesome-cool lookin' ! . .
(Goldberger & I agree on very little) . . The port-authority's gigantic row of "X"s . .
a multi-story truss two blocks long . . looks so minimal - so rigorously industrial -
. . so functional - so about the repetition of a simple modern form - so steam-punk - . .
so unique . . It holds up all those heavy busses for gosh-sake ! . . Show a little Heft ! . . And so it does - in spades ! Love it ! . . The generic interior is another matter entirely.

But they screwed it up when they wanted to domesticate it . .
they painted those big mighty "X"s green . . to match the old green McGraw-Hill Bldg. .
Critics Loved that idea - 'cause none of them ever got the industrial aesthetic thing . .
They thought the couch - the drapes - and the wall paper should all match pretty . . But
both buildings looked better when the Authority was a complementary industrial Red . .

These of course are the same smart people . .
who had orgasms when new buildings around the UN . . matched the height and color
of the Secretariat tower . . match it all up - keep it all the same - uniform bulk . . etc .
the bland polite city vibe . . even though the town was bankrupt and burning.

Then other idiot-critics had an idea - "For God sake obscure those raw P.A. trusses . .
(the XXX porn-palace owners are scandalized !)" . . Which they then started to do . .
(at the NE corner of the building) with huge square trellises to hold $-making signage . .
Exciting architectural form be damned.

But we're all much more adventuresome now - so . . I'll have another row of big "X"s
on top please . . for our beloved strung out NYC commuters . .
who sure as hell don't want to get off the bus in New Jersey.
__________________
artSpook
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #79  
Old Posted Sep 28, 2015, 7:59 AM
aquablue's Avatar
aquablue aquablue is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 1,305
Quote:
Originally Posted by ardecila View Post
It's not, though. The whole idea of Penn South is idiotic. Gateway can and should be built with no additional platforms at Penn. Then Penn would have 4 tracks in, and 4 tracks out, which would be ideal if NJT could send more trains to Sunnyside to turn around. Who knows, maybe they might eventually figure out that it's way more efficient to run one train from New Jersey to Long Island instead of two trains that both terminate at Penn.

Instead of spending billions to acquire more Manhattan real estate for Penn South, use the money to extend the 7 to Secaucus and built a new bus terminal there.
I don't buy it that the extra tracks are not needed. There is a reason it was proposed. These people aren't idiots, they are pros working in top companies with high expertise. You have to show me the figures in detail, including all the other congestion/pax flow studies, platform crowding projections, etc, to back that up. otherwise it's all malarkey to me. I'll go with what the planners have told us we need for now...

Again, the 7 tunnel to sea cactus is the major waste of money. It's a train to nowhere. It forces people to get off and transfer in jersey and is only good for those working on the 7 line. Otherwise it's a 3 seat ride, ouch!! The terminal isn't going to go in jersey. People won't accept the two or three seat ride journey to their final destination and jersey doesn't want it as far as I can see. Few on the board favored it and most prolly know their folks across the Hudson would be up in arms at the mere suggestion. A far better use would be to build the gateway asap and link more jersey transit lines into penn station nonstop. Build the replacement on 9th and find a way to get people off busses and onto trains in the future. Busses are bad for the environment and a waste of time.

Nexus and myself were spot on. Build more rail lines in n the future in jersey, that's the solution to dealing with a potential overcapacity issue in any new bus terminal decades in the future. A massive area like urban jersey would be criss crossed with suburban trains if this were in Europe, etc. Haulin more and more bus riders into nyc everyday is not an environmentally sound long term solution.

Last edited by aquablue; Sep 28, 2015 at 10:18 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #80  
Old Posted Sep 28, 2015, 1:46 PM
drumz0rz drumz0rz is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 619
Quote:
Originally Posted by CIA View Post
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.
A typical NJ Transit bus holds 49 passengers. Using your own figures 1,000 buses per hour could move 49,000 people, which is at the high end of your PATH train replacement figures. Hardly seems worth it considering you've now also forced the Lincoln tunnel to a single lane should work be required in one of the tubes (currently if 1 tunnel is closed it's traffic is diverted to the other, so both directions maintain 2 lanes).

Also, what would you do for the years during which the tunnel would have to be closed for construction? Where would the trains come from and go to? How are you going to acquire the right-of-way to build all that? How expensive would it be to tunnel further under the west side?

It's an idea, just not a good one...
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 2:20 PM.

     

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