NEW YORK | 20 Times Square - Port Authority Bus Terminal Tower | 855 FT | 42 FLOORS

[Design-mind]

Originally Posted by Onn

After the billions of dollars "the Port" spent on transportation hubs downtown is this really shocking to anybody? It's going to take them a decade to recover the costs, meanwhile the price of this project is going to keep climbing higher.

Not to mention the decent proposals that have gone across their desks that they flatly rejected. All this time and still nothing!

[gttx]

Originally Posted by BrownTown

This is why we can't ever have nice things.

True, we really don't have any nice things here....

[chris08876]

And they want cheaper options. Mass transit solutions being cheap and the paperwork being swift, on time with no errors, and ran by the Port Authority...


We can get many supertalls and 100's of new high rises per year but mass transit is a tough one to get financed and going in this city. The biggest players in the transit game suffer from management issues. Big time!

[sparkling]

Could the new Port Authority Bus Terminal actually be built in N.J.?

Steve Strunsky
March 26, 2015

At up to $10.5 billion, the projected cost of replacing the Port Authority Bus Terminal in midtown Manhattan was a jolt even to the agency's own board members.

"I think we were all shocked by the number," Port Authority Chairman John Degnan told reporters last Thursday, after agency staffers presented five alternatives for a new terminal complex, ranging from $7.5 billion to $10.5 billion, all of them at or near the current location just outside the Lincoln Tunnel.

But what if the agency could shave billions of dollars off that cost - and generate additional revenues on top of that -- by building the new bus terminal in New Jersey?

Board members disappointed by last week's projections said they wanted staff and hired experts to think "outside the box," and for Vice Chairman Scott Rechler, that means outside Manhattan.

Next week, Rechler, Degnan and Port Authority Executive Director Patrick Foye will meet to talk about developing other bus terminal alternatives, including one that would situate the terminal west of the Hudson.

Rechler wants to investigate whether a bus terminal in New Jersey could be linked to a trans-Hudson rail line that would then carry commuters into Manhattan. One such line could involve the proposed Gateway commuter rail tunnel proposed by Amtrak, which in some sense may end up competing with the bus terminal for Port Authority and federal mass transit funding.

"There's been all this talk from elected officials about making a choice between the trans-Hudson Gateway project and the bus terminal," said Rechler, referring to the rail tunnel proposal, which is being led by Amtrak, and projected to cost $16-20 billion. "That's $25 billion (for the tunnel and terminal combined), and we should look at it holistically, and we shouldn't ignore the fact that we've got two problems to solve and we shouldn't ignore a solution that solves both."

Officials say the 65-year-old terminal is deteriorating and functionally obsolete. Its 230,000 average daily commuters is already well beyond capacity, with demand projected to grow to 330,000 by 2040.

Rechler said building a bus terminal in New Jersey would be cheaper and less disruptive than at or near the existing facility in Manhattan, where space is tight and ramps linking the new terminal to the Lincoln Tunnel would have to be built around the existing ramp network, all while current bus service remains in effect.

Relocating the terminal to New Jersey would also free up the three and half blocks along Eighth Avenue between 40th and 42nd Streets now occupied by the old terminal, said Rechler, a real estate investor who is president and CEO of Manhattan-based RXR Realty. He said the site is an extremely valuable piece of real estate that the agency could sell or lease for more money than it would make through the sale of air rights if it were to build a new bus terminal built on the old site.

The Gateway plan is still in its early stages, with funding yet to be determined, and Rechler acknowledged that the project can hardly be counted on at this point as a necessary companion to a New Jersey bus terminal.

Another potential rail link Rechler cited was a proposal to extend the 7th Avenue Subway from Manhattan to Secaucus, which some experts said would make a more suitable partner to a New Jersey bus terminal. But that proposal, raised in 2011 by former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, has failed to gain traction and appears even more distant than the Gateway project.

Even so, with the potential cost difference between a New Jersey and New York terminal in the billions of dollars, Rechler said the agency had "a responsibility as one of the stakeholders" in both the bus terminal and the rail link to investigate whether the two could benefit from one another.

Degnan said he was open to the idea of New Jersey bus terminal, though he said he wants to retain an independent planning and design firm to come up with a fresh set of alternatives for a new depot, which he believes can be built for less money in less time.

Wherever the new bus terminal ends up, Degnan said he was determined not to let its progress be slowed by any connection to a still-tenuous rail link with New York City.

"The reality is, when you defer an urgently needed facility so it can be folded into a $15 billion rail project, it can lead to a delay," he said.

[Submariner]

Originally Posted by sparkling

Could the new Port Authority Bus Terminal actually be built in N.J.?

Steve Strunsky
March 26, 2015

If the PABT sold the actual terminal and the land taken up by the ramps, they could sell, at minimum, 22 acres of land in midtown Manhattan. I'm not sure how much that would fetch today, but I imagine it would be quite a lot.

[sparkling]

Terminal Condition: Privative Manhattan’s Worst Transportation Hub
Do taxpayers really need to be on the hook for $10 billion to rebuild the decrepit Port Authority Bus Termina? Of course not.

Peter S. Green
08/05/15

Each weekday, The Port Authority Bus Terminal Accomodates some 230,000 passengers. But the featureless, filthy and poorly signed terminal can barely cope with the traffic. The PA says it needs to tear down and replace the buildings to serve a projected 337,000 individual trips a day by 2040.

Earlier this year, under new PA Chairman John Degnan, the PA unveiled five options to replace the terminal, pointing out that any new structure would take 15 years to design, approve, finance and build. The various options would each cost roughly $10 billion—money that would come from New York and New Jersey taxpayers.

Do taxpayers really need to be on the hook for $10 billion and wait 15 years for a better commute to New Jersey?

Of course not.

Just look outside the crumbling terminal, with its cramped waiting areas, cockroach infestations and faded ’80s power-brass decor and you’ll see new office towers across Eighth Avenue. Down 42nd Street, luxury apartment buildings stretch to the Hudson River. A few blocks south and west, the Hudson Yards complex is rising over the Long Island Railroad’s train depot. With new buildings shooting up like bamboo in Midtown West, development rights should entirely pay for a new terminal.

Amazingly, the PA has yet to study what it could get for air rights above the terminal, though Andy Lynn, the agency’s director of planning and regional development, notes that “a big piece of [a new terminal] will be paid for by monetizing our development rights.”

A big piece? How about all of it?

Continue Reading

[CoolCzech]

Hell, think about the potential savings if they relocated the Port Authority bus terminal to Nebraska...

[C.]

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).
Read more at http://observer.com/2015/08/terminal...#ixzz3hxh5O0b4
Follow us: @observer on Twitter | Observer on Facebook

I heard rumblings about this.

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.

wow.

[yankeesfan1000]

That second idea is probably too good to ever happen.

[gttx]

Originally Posted by sparkling

Terminal Condition: Privative Manhattan’s Worst Transportation Hub

Is this supposed to say "Privatize," or am I missing something?

[Busy Bee]

Primitive maybe?

[Hamilton]

Originally Posted by yankeesfan1000

That second idea is probably too good to ever happen.

This proposal fixes so many problems at once that it's a no brainer.

The amazing thing is that it would probably cost less than refurbishing the PABT. When combined with selling the current PABT site, the net costs would be very low. The right of way already exists, so little to no excavation or eminent domain would be involved--just lay some rail down through Union City and then build a ramp down through the Meadowlands to Secaucus.

Union City is the densest city in the country (at ~54,000 ppl/sq mile), but has absolutely no heavy rail. This project would fix that problem. It would also provide the first rail link between Jersey and Manhattan north of 34th Street, which is ridiculous since most of the jobs in Midtown are in the 40's and 50's.

In fact, if you built this link, it would probably take enough demand off Penn Station that you wouldn't need to build the Gateway tunnel anymore, potentially saving additional billions. Lots of people would divert to Lincoln Tunnel train from the Penn Station train. If we're going to build new rail across the Hudson, why build it to the same destination as existing rail, rather than adding more connectivity and more options?

However, you'd get blowback from private motorists, who currently get to use the Lincoln Tunnel's bus tube during off-peak hours. That's far fewer people than the people who would benefit, but they're vocal and tend to have outsized influence with politicians. Speaking of which, Cuomo and Christie don't care about public transit and don't care about the urban areas of the NYC metro region, so it will never happen :-(

[Cynicism]

.

[yankeesfan1000]

Originally Posted by Hamilton

...In fact, if you built this link, it would probably take enough demand off Penn Station that you wouldn't need to build the Gateway tunnel anymore, potentially saving additional billions...

No way. The current cross Hudson Tunnels are over 100 years old. When Amtrak went in after Sandy to inspect the damage, they estimated the tunnels have 20 years left in them if we're lucky, and past that they'd have to shut one down to do massive repairs, cutting the number of trains that could run by a factor of about 5.

The idea makes a ton of sense, but this is the PA we're talking about here. They're not exactly known for spending public money well.

[Nexis4Jersey]

I rather see the 7 go to Hoboken Terminal and the Terminal upgraded allowing for the old plan for NJT/MNRR to move forward. Which would replace many of the busiest bus routes in North and Central Jersey / Hudson Valley with Rail service. If the 7 went to Hoboken it would also reduce strain on several busy bus lines in and around Hoboken. With Hoboken Terminal Upgraded , it could serve as the New Terminal for Amtrak Long Distance trains...which would take strain of NYP.. The Terminal upgrades would include , jacking the entire station up 5 ft to protect against rising sea levels , High level platforms & a New European Arch Style Train shed roof... Hoboken Terminal has a lot of open train slots , where Secaucus & NYP are still limited without the Gateway Project moving forward.... You could also expand the Bus Terminal at Hoboken allowing for Intercity buses to use it...

[Crawford]

The terminal is going to have to be relocated to Jersey. There's no way the PA is going to ignore the billions they'll get from selling the PABT land. They may be incompetent, but they're even more money-hungry.

[Hamilton]

Originally Posted by yankeesfan1000

No way. The current cross Hudson Tunnels are over 100 years old. When Amtrak went in after Sandy to inspect the damage, they estimated the tunnels have 20 years left in them if we're lucky, and past that they'd have to shut one down to do massive repairs, cutting the number of trains that could run by a factor of about 5.

The idea makes a ton of sense, but this is the PA we're talking about here. They're not exactly known for spending public money well.

It would be a factor of 4, not 5, but still you make a good point. I don't think that a tunnel directly to the Times Sq area would cut rail demand at Penn Station by 75%.

I rather see the 7 go to Hoboken Terminal

Hoboken already has rapid transit service to Manhattan. It seems more useful to connect currently unconnected locales.

[Nexis4Jersey]

Originally Posted by Hamilton

It would be a factor of 4, not 5, but still you make a good point. I don't think that a tunnel directly to the Times Sq area would cut rail demand at Penn Station by 75%.



Hoboken already has rapid transit service to Manhattan. It seems more useful to connect currently unconnected locales.

But its also the end point of the regional rail , and a regional rail system that could be expanded to replaced many overcrowded bus routes... PATH only goes to 33rd Street while the 7 would go to the heart of Midtown. The Bus Route between Hoboken and Midtown is used more then the PATH route. As for cutting Rail demand from Penn , if you went with the 7 to Hoboken...you could re-locate some Amtrak & NJT trains away from Penn Station. Hoboken Terminal is underused... Sending it to Secaucus does not fix the problem as trains still need to go to NYP/Sunnyside...

[nyc_alex]

While rail through one of the Lincoln tunnel tubes makes a lot of sense in many ways, I don't see it happening. It will still cost a fortune to build the approaches and would cause major issues for motorists. With three tubes if something happens to one (construction, major accident) they can still have 2 lanes each way. With just two they'd be down to one lane each way if they need to close one tube. That would be a disaster.

Also keep in mind the Lincoln tunnel isn't really used by white collar commuters but more by people doing services in midtown (construction, deliveries, etc) that need a car to haul things. People drive in for good reason.

[C.]

Originally Posted by nyc_alex

While rail through one of the Lincoln tunnel tubes makes a lot of sense in many ways, I don't see it happening. It will still cost a fortune to build the approaches and would cause major issues for motorists. With three tubes if something happens to one (construction, major accident) they can still have 2 lanes each way. With just two they'd be down to one lane each way if they need to close one tube. That would be a disaster.

Also keep in mind the Lincoln tunnel isn't really used by white collar commuters but more by people doing services in midtown (construction, deliveries, etc) that need a car to haul things. People drive in for good reason.

You're underestimating the number of buses that use the tunnel and the amount that would be taken off the road should a LRT line or PATH line be built. Traffic could be less by taking one of the tunnels away from motorists and using he space for mass transit instead.