Home · Maps · About
Home > SubChat

[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]

[1 2]

 

Page 1 of 2

Next Page >  

(1281968)

view threaded

Port Authority commish wants new bus terminal, not WTC; 7 train to NJ - not dead yet.

Posted by Gold_12th on Wed Mar 26 15:44:36 2014

edf40wrjww2msgDetail:detailStr
fiogf49gjkf0d
After years of complaining about the ever-longer lines of buses queued up to get into the overcrowded Port Authority Bus Terminal, local landlords, residents and transit advocates picked up a powerful ally. He is Kenneth Lipper, a former Wall Street executive, deputy mayor under Ed Koch and board member since June of the terminal's owner, the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey.

"We have to bring an end to the idling of all these buses on the streets," Mr. Lipper told Crain's. "I would like to see a brand-new bus terminal, a 21st-century terminal that would be an economic catalyst for the whole development of the West Side as well as a facility that would better accommodate the 65 million riders that come into it each year."

Building it, however, would take $1 billion or more. That is money that the Port Authority—which has already lavished $7.7 billion on rebuilding the World Trade Center site and is funding everything including a massive rehab of LaGuardia Airport and three major bridges—can ill afford.

The need, however, is clear. Opened 64 years ago, the terminal struggles to accommodate the roughly 8,000 buses—as many as 400 an hour--that enter and exit it daily, carrying more than 200,000 mostly New Jersey-based commuters.

But during rush hour, particularly in the evening, 175 or more buses emerging from the Lincoln Tunnel roll not into the terminal but onto surrounding streets. There, belching diesel fumes, they wait their turn to enter, according to Christine Berthet, chairwoman of Community Board 4.

"The amount of buses in the area in recent years has gotten larger," said Ms. Berthet, who lives just two blocks south of the terminal. She said the growing number of businesses and people moving into the area have added their voices to the chorus of complaints.

Now proponents of a fix hope that Mr. Lipper's position could draw attention to the tide of buses parked illegally along West Side arteries, such as 10th Avenue from West 35th to West 42nd streets, snarling traffic and blighting the streetscape. For years, the problem could be brushed off because the Hudson rail yards lay at the periphery of the city, but no longer. Last week, work began on what will become the largest construction project in the country—beginning with a $700 million platform over the eastern rail yards on which the Related Cos. will build millions of square feet of new office, retail and public space.


7-line extension
"Would people tolerate this if it was happening on Park Avenue? Absolutely not," said Jeffrey Katz, chief executive of Sherwood Equities, a real estate investment and development firm that owns several properties in the Hudson Yards area. "It's very impactful to have an important person like Ken Lipper highlight this issue."

Mr. Katz and Ms. Berthet and others hope that Mr. Lipper's comments will also be a harbinger of an about-face for the Port Authority. Although an agency study of potential improvements to the terminal is due next year, the authority failed to fund any upgrades to the facility in its recent $27.6 billion, 10-year capital plan.

Mr. Lipper wants the agency to do it in part by shifting money away from the World Trade Center site. There, the authority is weighing a proposal to provide a guarantee of nearly $1.2 billion in order to allow construction of another office tower, 3 World Trade Center.

Additional money for the terminal project could come from the sale of the millions of square feet of commercial air rights over the bus terminal to developers and through federal transit funds.

"I believe we could put a credible financing package together," Mr. Lipper said.

An ad hoc group of executives and community leaders who have spearheaded opposition to the bus traffic have their eyes on an even more dramatic fix.

The group--which includes Mr. Katz and Ms. Berthet as well as Ann Weisbrod, former head of the Hudson Yards Development Corp., and Jerry Gottesman, chairman of Edison Properties—is trying to raise support for a multibillion-dollar plan to extend the No. 7 subway line under the Hudson River to Secaucus, N.J.

According to Sandy Hornick, a former planner at the Department of City Planning who is also part of the group, if that extension were built, as much as 20% of the New Jersey buses that pile into the terminal could avoid ever having to cross the river, depositing riders instead at the Secaucus depot for a train ride to Manhattan.

"That's a lot of buses that would disappear," Mr. Hornick said. "It would free up everything: the streets, the terminal, the Lincoln Tunnel. It's the best solution for the long term."

The group successfully lobbied Mayor Michael Bloomberg to fund a $250,000 preliminary study of the tunnel and extension that was released last year. It is now looking for $2 million to conduct a more in-depth study that would be a necessary prerequisite for the project to move forward.



Official response
So far, the group says Mayor Bill de Blasio has not expressed interest, nor have other key officials, such as Gov. Andrew Cuomo. Members of the panel are optimistic, however, that government leaders will begin to take notice and act.

"Getting the No. 7 extension to Secaucus off the ground is a big undertaking," said Mr. Gottesman, who owns property in Secaucus and on the West Side. "But I am convinced that after a year or two of lobbying, we'll begin to gain traction, or else I wouldn't be doing this."

For the time being, Mr. Katz and Ms. Berthet are also lobbying for short-term fixes—particularly better, more centralized management of the bus traffic.

"Right now it's like [the Port Authority] is operating an airport without an air-traffic controller," Ms. Berthet said.

Mr. Katz said he spoke with officials from the Port Authority and New Jersey Transit, which runs the majority of the commuter buses coming to the terminal, but has not been able to get them to alter their parking habits.

Buses frequently sit at the curb in front of a West 35th Street parking lot that Mr. Katz owns, on which he hopes to eventually build a residential tower. Cars are blocked from using the lot as a result.

"We don't want to sue, but we absolutely will if we have to," Mr. Katz said. "Hopefully, all the parties will be able to figure out a better solution."

http://www.crainsnewyork.com/article/20140321/REAL_ESTATE/140329969/port-commish-wants-new-bus-terminal-not-wtc

Post a New Response

(1281971)

view threaded

Re: Port Authority commish wants new bus terminal, not WTC; 7 train to NJ - not dead yet.

Posted by Elkeeper on Wed Mar 26 16:09:03 2014, in response to Port Authority commish wants new bus terminal, not WTC; 7 train to NJ - not dead yet., posted by Gold_12th on Wed Mar 26 15:44:36 2014.

edf40wrjww2msgDetail:detailStr
fiogf49gjkf0d
Great! The bridge/tunnel tolls will be $20 if this goes through!

Post a New Response

(1281982)

view threaded

Re: Port Authority commish wants new bus terminal, not WTC; 7 train to NJ - not dead yet.

Posted by NIMBYkiller on Wed Mar 26 17:13:48 2014, in response to Port Authority commish wants new bus terminal, not WTC; 7 train to NJ - not dead yet., posted by Gold_12th on Wed Mar 26 15:44:36 2014.

edf40wrjww2msgDetail:detailStr
fiogf49gjkf0d
(sigh) New rail tunnel, expanded rail service. That's all

Post a New Response

(Sponsored)

iPhone 6 (4.7 Inch) Premium PU Leather Wallet Case - Red w/ Floral Interior - by Notch-It

(1282038)

view threaded

Re: Port Authority commish wants new bus terminal, not WTC; 7 train to NJ - not dead yet.

Posted by Wallyhorse on Wed Mar 26 21:02:51 2014, in response to Port Authority commish wants new bus terminal, not WTC; 7 train to NJ - not dead yet., posted by Gold_12th on Wed Mar 26 15:44:36 2014.

edf40wrjww2msgDetail:detailStr
fiogf49gjkf0d
If you're going to expand rail service to New Jersey, I still think the best way would be to have the (7) AND (L) BOTH go to New Jersey. In the case of the (L), it could be part of a major project that also would expand all stations on the line to 670 feet to allow for 10-car trains where each car is 67 feet (maximum allowed in the Eastern Division). That to me would be the way to do this.

Post a New Response

(1282048)

view threaded

Re: Port Authority commish wants new bus terminal, not WTC; 7 train to NJ - not dead yet.

Posted by Olog-hai on Wed Mar 26 21:40:58 2014, in response to Re: Port Authority commish wants new bus terminal, not WTC; 7 train to NJ - not dead yet., posted by Wallyhorse on Wed Mar 26 21:02:51 2014.

edf40wrjww2msgDetail:detailStr
fiogf49gjkf0d
Imagine if they thought of that back during the 1950s, while most of the waterfront terminals were still open. 7 to Hoboken and Weehawken, L to CRRNJ Terminal?

Post a New Response

(1282223)

view threaded

Re: Port Authority commish wants new bus terminal, not WTC; 7 train to NJ - not dead yet.

Posted by 3-9 on Thu Mar 27 15:11:27 2014, in response to Port Authority commish wants new bus terminal, not WTC; 7 train to NJ - not dead yet., posted by Gold_12th on Wed Mar 26 15:44:36 2014.

edf40wrjww2msgDetail:detailStr
fiogf49gjkf0d
After having gotten a closer look at Secaucus, I'd say it's pretty feasible from a passenger perspective. It could be no more difficult than transferring to/from NY Penn trains, and from my latest experiences giving an alternative for people is definitely is a good thing. :-S

Post a New Response

(1282225)

view threaded

Re: Port Authority commish wants new bus terminal, not WTC; 7 train to NJ - not dead yet.

Posted by Olog-hai on Thu Mar 27 15:18:06 2014, in response to Re: Port Authority commish wants new bus terminal, not WTC; 7 train to NJ - not dead yet., posted by 3-9 on Thu Mar 27 15:11:27 2014.

edf40wrjww2msgDetail:detailStr
fiogf49gjkf0d
Kinda takes away from the original purpose of SEC, yes? never mind it still being in the middle of nowhere. If the 7 to NJ were done even just a decade ago, then it could have been a PATH alternative to/from Hoboken without even having to build SEC.

Post a New Response

(1282228)

view threaded

Re: Port Authority commish wants new bus terminal, not WTC; 7 train to NJ - not dead yet.

Posted by 3-9 on Thu Mar 27 15:41:16 2014, in response to Re: Port Authority commish wants new bus terminal, not WTC; 7 train to NJ - not dead yet., posted by Olog-hai on Thu Mar 27 15:18:06 2014.

edf40wrjww2msgDetail:detailStr
fiogf49gjkf0d
Not necessarily. It was meant to be a quicker alternative for people getting into Manhattan, and it will still be. It's just that it could use some capacity increases. :-S But yeah, doing the 7 like that might have gotten rid of the initial need for Secaucus, though the bus problem would still be with us (and with one less alternative). I don't think they can pile up those buses in Hoboken.

Post a New Response

(1282250)

view threaded

Re: Port Authority commish wants new bus terminal, not WTC; 7 train to NJ - not dead yet.

Posted by NIMBYkiller on Thu Mar 27 16:37:29 2014, in response to Re: Port Authority commish wants new bus terminal, not WTC; 7 train to NJ - not dead yet., posted by Olog-hai on Thu Mar 27 15:18:06 2014.

edf40wrjww2msgDetail:detailStr
fiogf49gjkf0d
Not really. NJT to 34th, 7 to 42nd. Take your pick!

Post a New Response

(1282286)

view threaded

Re: Port Authority commish wants new bus terminal, not WTC; 7 train to NJ - not dead yet.

Posted by Elkeeper on Thu Mar 27 21:11:28 2014, in response to Re: Port Authority commish wants new bus terminal, not WTC; 7 train to NJ - not dead yet., posted by Olog-hai on Wed Mar 26 21:40:58 2014.

edf40wrjww2msgDetail:detailStr
fiogf49gjkf0d
They would have opposed it. Each of those railroads guarded their own routes and terminals. Today, you have consolidation like NJT, the MTA, and the PANYNJ. Not saying that's good, just fewer kingdoms to negociate with!

Post a New Response

(1282288)

view threaded

Re: Port Authority commish wants new bus terminal, not WTC; 7 train to NJ - not dead yet.

Posted by RockParkMan on Thu Mar 27 21:26:17 2014, in response to Re: Port Authority commish wants new bus terminal, not WTC; 7 train to NJ - not dead yet., posted by Olog-hai on Wed Mar 26 21:40:58 2014.

edf40wrjww2msgDetail:detailStr
fiogf49gjkf0d
FUCK the CRRNJ.

Post a New Response

(1282293)

view threaded

Re: Port Authority commish wants new bus terminal, not WTC; 7 train to NJ - not dead yet.

Posted by Jackson Park B Train on Thu Mar 27 22:07:55 2014, in response to Re: Port Authority commish wants new bus terminal, not WTC; 7 train to NJ - not dead yet., posted by Elkeeper on Wed Mar 26 16:09:03 2014.

edf40wrjww2msgDetail:detailStr
fiogf49gjkf0d
Who cares? Electric rail transit is far preferable to both buses and single driver cars.

Post a New Response

(1282313)

view threaded

Re: Port Authority commish wants new bus terminal, not WTC; 7 train to NJ - not dead yet.

Posted by SUBWAYMAN on Fri Mar 28 00:26:36 2014, in response to Re: Port Authority commish wants new bus terminal, not WTC; 7 train to NJ - not dead yet., posted by RockParkMan on Thu Mar 27 21:26:17 2014.

edf40wrjww2msgDetail:detailStr
fiogf49gjkf0d
I agree.

Post a New Response

(1282344)

view threaded

Re: Port Authority commish wants new bus terminal, not WTC; 7 train to NJ - not dead yet.

Posted by MainR3664 on Fri Mar 28 07:21:51 2014, in response to Port Authority commish wants new bus terminal, not WTC; 7 train to NJ - not dead yet., posted by Gold_12th on Wed Mar 26 15:44:36 2014.

edf40wrjww2msgDetail:detailStr
fiogf49gjkf0d
Thank you for posting this very interesting article. No doubt that if the far west side is to become prime real estate, some serious transit planning and construction is in order.

I'd rather not expand the bus terminal, on account of the diesel fumes.

Instead, what would be ideal would be regional unification of MNRR, LIRR, and NJ Transit Rail, with a common electric standard or really good electric dual modes, such as M8 cars. Then electrify the West Side Line all the way to Spuyten Duyvil. This way, a train could operate from New Jersey to Ronkonkoma, Yonkers, or New Haven (via Hell Gate, with local stops in the Bronx). Incorporate a vastly expanded Penn Station into all of this. There's plenty of underutilized land nearby.

At the same time, a 10th Avenue Subway (IND/BMT specs), running from approximately 135th Street to the World Financial Center is also needed.

There you go. MainR3664 solved the whole thing.

Post a New Response

(1282345)

view threaded

Re: Port Authority commish wants new bus terminal, not WTC; 7 train to NJ - not dead yet.

Posted by MainR3664 on Fri Mar 28 07:23:42 2014, in response to Re: Port Authority commish wants new bus terminal, not WTC; 7 train to NJ - not dead yet., posted by Jackson Park B Train on Thu Mar 27 22:07:55 2014.

edf40wrjww2msgDetail:detailStr
fiogf49gjkf0d
Yes. But to do that, the rail transit has to be attractive and practical to use. right now, a rail trip from NJ to long Island is not considered practical by most people. But other post in this thread solves the whole problem, except for the billions of $$ needed to implement it.

Post a New Response

(1282347)

view threaded

Re: Port Authority commish wants new bus terminal, not WTC; 7 train to NJ - not dead yet.

Posted by Nilet on Fri Mar 28 07:34:11 2014, in response to Re: Port Authority commish wants new bus terminal, not WTC; 7 train to NJ - not dead yet., posted by MainR3664 on Fri Mar 28 07:21:51 2014.

edf40wrjww2msgDetail:detailStr
fiogf49gjkf0d
We'll be lucky to see the 2nd Avenue subway open within the next ever and that's been under construction for nearly a century. We're never going to get a 10th Avenue subway before trains are rendered obsolete by the invention of cheap teleportation or New York is submerged by global warming.

Besides, everyone knows that we need a 10th Avenue el from the WFC to 178th Street and then over the GWB, terminating at the Essex Street station on the Pascack Valley line.

Unifying MNRR, LIRR, and NJT is a good idea, though. I recommend we call it the Penn Central, Long Island & Lackawanna.

Post a New Response

(1282348)

view threaded

Re: Port Authority commish wants new bus terminal, not WTC; 7 train to NJ - not dead yet.

Posted by merrick1 on Fri Mar 28 07:35:58 2014, in response to Re: Port Authority commish wants new bus terminal, not WTC; 7 train to NJ - not dead yet., posted by MainR3664 on Fri Mar 28 07:23:42 2014.

edf40wrjww2msgDetail:detailStr
fiogf49gjkf0d
I've done Jamaica to Newark Penn occasionally. I think it's preferable to driving. I just wish LIRR 10 ride tickets were good forever like NJT's are.

Post a New Response

(1282360)

view threaded

Re: Port Authority commish wants new bus terminal, not WTC; 7 train to NJ - not dead yet.

Posted by Terrapin Station on Fri Mar 28 09:23:33 2014, in response to Re: Port Authority commish wants new bus terminal, not WTC; 7 train to NJ - not dead yet., posted by SUBWAYMAN on Fri Mar 28 00:26:36 2014.

edf40wrjww2msgDetail:detailStr
fiogf49gjkf0d
Why do you agree?

Post a New Response

(1282373)

view threaded

Re: Port Authority commish wants new bus terminal, not WTC; 7 train to NJ - not dead yet.

Posted by Olog-hai on Fri Mar 28 12:30:55 2014, in response to Re: Port Authority commish wants new bus terminal, not WTC; 7 train to NJ - not dead yet., posted by RockParkMan on Thu Mar 27 21:26:17 2014.

edf40wrjww2msgDetail:detailStr
fiogf49gjkf0d
Your fav fallen flags are just as fucked too. Get your head out yo' ass.

Post a New Response

(1282374)

view threaded

Re: Port Authority commish wants new bus terminal, not WTC; 7 train to NJ - not dead yet.

Posted by Olog-hai on Fri Mar 28 12:32:41 2014, in response to Re: Port Authority commish wants new bus terminal, not WTC; 7 train to NJ - not dead yet., posted by Elkeeper on Thu Mar 27 21:11:28 2014.

edf40wrjww2msgDetail:detailStr
fiogf49gjkf0d
No, they didn't; otherwise they wouldn't have sold them off.

Better to have more to negotiate with than less; especially when your present "kingdom" is an actual government. Consolidation has proven to be a bust.

Post a New Response

(1282380)

view threaded

Re: Port Authority commish wants new bus terminal, not WTC; 7 train to NJ - not dead yet.

Posted by Olog-hai on Fri Mar 28 12:50:43 2014, in response to Re: Port Authority commish wants new bus terminal, not WTC; 7 train to NJ - not dead yet., posted by SUBWAYMAN on Fri Mar 28 00:26:36 2014.

edf40wrjww2msgDetail:detailStr
fiogf49gjkf0d
I guess you enjoy unaffordable and infrequent direct train service from New York to Philly?—never mind not even into Center City anymore. (All for $75. At least the RDG fare on the Crusader in 2014 dollars is about $35.)

Post a New Response

(1282390)

view threaded

Re: Port Authority commish wants new bus terminal, not WTC; 7 train to NJ - not dead yet.

Posted by 3-9 on Fri Mar 28 13:55:53 2014, in response to Re: Port Authority commish wants new bus terminal, not WTC; 7 train to NJ - not dead yet., posted by RockParkMan on Thu Mar 27 21:26:17 2014.

edf40wrjww2msgDetail:detailStr
fiogf49gjkf0d
FUCK the CRRNJ.

You're 50 years too late.

Post a New Response

(1282395)

view threaded

Re: Port Authority commish wants new bus terminal, not WTC; 7 train to NJ - not dead yet.

Posted by Nilet on Fri Mar 28 14:13:35 2014, in response to Re: Port Authority commish wants new bus terminal, not WTC; 7 train to NJ - not dead yet., posted by Olog-hai on Fri Mar 28 12:32:41 2014.

edf40wrjww2msgDetail:detailStr
fiogf49gjkf0d
Consolidation has proven to be a bust.

Riiiiiiiight. I would much rather have the current consolidated and somewhat cut back levels of service than no service at all.

Were it not for government takeover and resulting consolidation, all passenger rail service nationwide would have shut down by the 70s.

Post a New Response

(1282404)

view threaded

Re: Port Authority commish wants new bus terminal, not WTC; 7 train to NJ - not dead yet.

Posted by RockParkMan on Fri Mar 28 15:17:17 2014, in response to Re: Port Authority commish wants new bus terminal, not WTC; 7 train to NJ - not dead yet., posted by Olog-hai on Fri Mar 28 12:30:55 2014.

edf40wrjww2msgDetail:detailStr
fiogf49gjkf0d
yo'mama

Post a New Response

(1282437)

view threaded

Re: Port Authority commish wants new bus terminal, not WTC; 7 train to NJ - not dead yet.

Posted by NIMBYkiller on Fri Mar 28 20:03:55 2014, in response to Re: Port Authority commish wants new bus terminal, not WTC; 7 train to NJ - not dead yet., posted by merrick1 on Fri Mar 28 07:35:58 2014.

edf40wrjww2msgDetail:detailStr
fiogf49gjkf0d
Agreed..my mom lives in Port Washington and works in Newark and takes the train everyday.

Post a New Response

(1282463)

view threaded

Re: Port Authority commish wants new bus terminal, not WTC; 7 train to NJ - not dead yet.

Posted by SUBWAYMAN on Fri Mar 28 23:07:53 2014, in response to Re: Port Authority commish wants new bus terminal, not WTC; 7 train to NJ - not dead yet., posted by Olog-hai on Fri Mar 28 12:50:43 2014.

edf40wrjww2msgDetail:detailStr
fiogf49gjkf0d
You are so out of it.

Post a New Response

(1282473)

view threaded

Re: Port Authority commish wants new bus terminal, not WTC; 7 train to NJ - not dead yet.

Posted by Nilet on Sat Mar 29 00:37:54 2014, in response to Re: Port Authority commish wants new bus terminal, not WTC; 7 train to NJ - not dead yet., posted by Olog-hai on Fri Mar 28 12:50:43 2014.

edf40wrjww2msgDetail:detailStr
fiogf49gjkf0d
Yes, and the Reading went bankrupt. Because they could not afford to run that service on $35 fares.

I'd understand your complaint if you were saying the government should be operating the Crusader and/or providing subsidies to allow it to run on a $35 fare, but you constantly screech about how the government is evil simply for existing, so I'm really not sure what your point is.

Post a New Response

(1282478)

view threaded

Re: Port Authority commish wants new bus terminal, not WTC; 7 train to NJ - not dead yet.

Posted by Olog-hai on Sat Mar 29 01:31:32 2014, in response to Re: Port Authority commish wants new bus terminal, not WTC; 7 train to NJ - not dead yet., posted by Nilet on Sat Mar 29 00:37:54 2014.

edf40wrjww2msgDetail:detailStr
fiogf49gjkf0d
The RDG as well as all the other railroads went bankrupt because the state was not only "competing" against them by subsidizing the competition's infrastructure, but taxing and regulating them out of business as well. That is what's factual.

You know as well as any other railfan that there are passenger trains out there with low operating costs that can run at high speeds, but regulations even prevent those from running. But it's perfectly legal to drive Ford Fiestas and Smart Fortwos in traffic on the interstate at relatively high speeds mixed in with double-trailer trucks, dumptrucks and heavyweight semis.

Post a New Response

(1282480)

view threaded

Re: Port Authority commish wants new bus terminal, not WTC; 7 train to NJ - not dead yet.

Posted by SelkirkTMO on Sat Mar 29 01:35:50 2014, in response to Re: Port Authority commish wants new bus terminal, not WTC; 7 train to NJ - not dead yet., posted by Olog-hai on Sat Mar 29 01:31:32 2014.

edf40wrjww2msgDetail:detailStr
fiogf49gjkf0d
Well ... leaping on the logic bus, it's the railroad's fault. Over in Yurp, locomotives have steering wheels so they can ply the taxpayer-subsidized interstates like any other mode of transport. Only goes to show that railroads aren't willing to invest in steering wheel technology because they're cheap bastards.

Post a New Response

(1282481)

view threaded

Re: Port Authority commish wants new bus terminal, not WTC; 7 train to NJ - not dead yet.

Posted by Olog-hai on Sat Mar 29 01:36:29 2014, in response to Re: Port Authority commish wants new bus terminal, not WTC; 7 train to NJ - not dead yet., posted by SUBWAYMAN on Fri Mar 28 23:07:53 2014.

edf40wrjww2msgDetail:detailStr
fiogf49gjkf0d
. . . and meanwhile, you have no better comeback than that to explain the status quo.

Post a New Response

(1282482)

view threaded

Re: Port Authority commish wants new bus terminal, not WTC; 7 train to NJ - not dead yet.

Posted by Olog-hai on Sat Mar 29 01:39:11 2014, in response to Re: Port Authority commish wants new bus terminal, not WTC; 7 train to NJ - not dead yet., posted by 3-9 on Fri Mar 28 13:55:53 2014.

edf40wrjww2msgDetail:detailStr
fiogf49gjkf0d
By saying that, he's also saying fuck all the other fallen flags and yay monopolies.

Post a New Response

(1282483)

view threaded

Re: Port Authority commish wants new bus terminal, not WTC; 7 train to NJ - not dead yet.

Posted by Olog-hai on Sat Mar 29 01:42:47 2014, in response to Re: Port Authority commish wants new bus terminal, not WTC; 7 train to NJ - not dead yet., posted by Jackson Park B Train on Thu Mar 27 22:07:55 2014.

edf40wrjww2msgDetail:detailStr
fiogf49gjkf0d
Better stop speaking for yourself.

Over in Germany, low-cost LD buses are taking passengers away from the state-run high-speed trains (whose fares are more expensive). Bad things happen when you have the state running too much stuff.

Post a New Response

(1282484)

view threaded

Re: Port Authority commish wants new bus terminal, not WTC; 7 train to NJ - not dead yet.

Posted by Olog-hai on Sat Mar 29 01:43:49 2014, in response to Re: Port Authority commish wants new bus terminal, not WTC; 7 train to NJ - not dead yet., posted by merrick1 on Fri Mar 28 07:35:58 2014.

edf40wrjww2msgDetail:detailStr
fiogf49gjkf0d
That was one good thing that NJT did. They used to be good only for what, 90 days or so.

Post a New Response

(1282485)

view threaded

Re: Port Authority commish wants new bus terminal, not WTC; 7 train to NJ - not dead yet.

Posted by Nilet on Sat Mar 29 01:47:31 2014, in response to Re: Port Authority commish wants new bus terminal, not WTC; 7 train to NJ - not dead yet., posted by Olog-hai on Sat Mar 29 01:31:32 2014.

edf40wrjww2msgDetail:detailStr
fiogf49gjkf0d
There have been government regulations for over a century. We didn't have a functional economy until they were passed, and they have never presented a problem for any businesses. The Reading did not go bankrupt because they were required to give their employees enough time off that they wouldn't fall asleep on the job, the Reading went out of business because it couldn't make a profit.

Private companies cannot operate passenger service. Period. They're just not capable of it. You know as well as any other railfan that your choices are government-funded service or no service.

Post a New Response

(1282486)

view threaded

Re: Port Authority commish wants new bus terminal, not WTC; 7 train to NJ - not dead yet.

Posted by WillD on Sat Mar 29 01:57:25 2014, in response to Re: Port Authority commish wants new bus terminal, not WTC; 7 train to NJ - not dead yet., posted by MainR3664 on Fri Mar 28 07:23:42 2014.

edf40wrjww2msgDetail:detailStr
fiogf49gjkf0d
Just combine Gateway, ESA, and a Lower Manhattan tunnel for LIRR and NJT:

Post a New Response

(1282487)

view threaded

Re: Port Authority commish wants new bus terminal, not WTC; 7 train to NJ - not dead yet.

Posted by Nilet on Sat Mar 29 02:01:26 2014, in response to Re: Port Authority commish wants new bus terminal, not WTC; 7 train to NJ - not dead yet., posted by Olog-hai on Sat Mar 29 01:36:29 2014.

edf40wrjww2msgDetail:detailStr
fiogf49gjkf0d
Maybe he's just sick of your repeated assertions that the Pennsylvania would still be running passenger service today if only the government had collapsed in the 1950s and plunged the country into a state of anarchy that persisted for the next sixty-odd years.

I'd love to ride the Crusader, but let's face it, there were only three possibilities:

(1) The government takes over all rail service, and may choose not to operate the Crusader.

(2) The government regulates rail service but doesn't run it, and all passenger trains shut down in the 1970s or 80s when the railroads go bankrupt.

(3) The government stops regulating and all passenger trains shut down in the 1950s or 60s when the railroads, unburdened by ICC dictates, discontinue their unprofitable passenger service.

Post a New Response

(1282490)

view threaded

Re: Port Authority commish wants new bus terminal, not WTC; 7 train to NJ - not dead yet.

Posted by Olog-hai on Sat Mar 29 02:53:59 2014, in response to Re: Port Authority commish wants new bus terminal, not WTC; 7 train to NJ - not dead yet., posted by Nilet on Sat Mar 29 02:01:26 2014.

edf40wrjww2msgDetail:detailStr
fiogf49gjkf0d
Maybe he's just sick of your repeated assertions that the Pennsylvania would still be running passenger service today if only the government had collapsed in the 1950s and plunged the country into a state of anarchy that persisted for the next sixty-odd years

No, he's always like that with one-liners.

And the absence of big centralized government is not anarchy. (But then again, you think that somehow Obama is "moderate to far right" on anything.)

The government takes over all rail service, and may choose not to operate the Crusader

That is exactly what happened from the 60s to the 80s, with the creation of both Amtrak and Conrail, along with other entities such as the MTA, NJ(DO)T and SEPTA. And what was the result?—the greatly-downgraded Crusader came to an end in 1981 or so when Conrail stopped running passenger trains and the city government of Philadelphia replaced Reading Terminal with the CCCT (spelling the end of the SEPTA/former-Conrail diesel services since they weren't re-routed to 30th Street Station).

The government regulates rail service but doesn't run it, and all passenger trains shut down in the 1970s or 80s when the railroads go bankrupt

What do you mean "when"? You keep ignoring the reason for the bankruptcy, whatever argument you're trying to make will be as full of holes as Swiss cheese.

The government stops regulating and all passenger trains shut down in the 1950s or 60s when the railroads, unburdened by ICC dictates, discontinue their unprofitable passenger service

That's a false scenario. Railroads were not going to shed passenger routes when they can actually make money on them—and the reasons they weren't making money on them was regulation, taxation and subsidizing the competition.

BTW, whether you realize it or not, you are validating the existence of the Acela Express in its current form, with the weight of the trainsets, the curtailed active tilt, the slower speeds on Metro-North/ConnDOT, the whole nine yards. Also, were you aware that the federal government was promising 160-mph passenger train operation on the Northeast Corridor 45 years ago?

Post a New Response

(1282491)

view threaded

Re: Port Authority commish wants new bus terminal, not WTC; 7 train to NJ - not dead yet.

Posted by Olog-hai on Sat Mar 29 02:54:50 2014, in response to Re: Port Authority commish wants new bus terminal, not WTC; 7 train to NJ - not dead yet., posted by WillD on Sat Mar 29 01:57:25 2014.

edf40wrjww2msgDetail:detailStr
fiogf49gjkf0d
NJT ARC station was going no further east than Macy's. Water tunnel, remember.

Post a New Response

(1282493)

view threaded

Re: Port Authority commish wants new bus terminal, not WTC; 7 train to NJ - not dead yet.

Posted by SelkirkTMO on Sat Mar 29 03:01:38 2014, in response to Re: Port Authority commish wants new bus terminal, not WTC; 7 train to NJ - not dead yet., posted by Olog-hai on Sat Mar 29 02:53:59 2014.

edf40wrjww2msgDetail:detailStr
fiogf49gjkf0d
I don't suppose that you realize that all of those "receivers in bankruptcy" did the railroads a huge favor by taking on their "cost centers" that they no longer felt could be profitable and provided service, allowing them to be free to stick with what was profitable? And in the end what happened? Spared from those crushing expenses by handing them over to the taxpayer, they went tits up anyway after being liberated from those "crushing costs" and sticking the taxpayers with the bills of decades worth of their own neglect.

I can't speak for Amtrak, never worked with them. But as to Gonerail? They did AMAZING things with no money, and their people were top notch and dedicated. And by the time the GOP decided to privatize them and hand them off to other railroads after SO much rebuilding of the old wreckage had been completed, the private sector didn't want any of their passenger commitments either. Which is WHY the MTA took over the commuter lines, and other taxpayer agencies did so elsewhere.

Fact is, railroads never wanted passenger service, and reality proves it. They want the rails, but NOT the geese.

Post a New Response

(1282494)

view threaded

Re: Port Authority commish wants new bus terminal, not WTC; 7 train to NJ - not dead yet.

Posted by Olog-hai on Sat Mar 29 03:06:07 2014, in response to Re: Port Authority commish wants new bus terminal, not WTC; 7 train to NJ - not dead yet., posted by SelkirkTMO on Sat Mar 29 03:01:38 2014.

edf40wrjww2msgDetail:detailStr
fiogf49gjkf0d
No, they did not.

If stripping the railroad network bare is "amazing things", then Conrail did amazing things.

Fact is, railroads never wanted passenger service, and reality proves it

Nope. They wouldn't have held onto passenger service as long as they did under the private sector if they "never wanted" it. And all of the NYC subways would have been built by the city.

Post a New Response

(1282524)

view threaded

Re: Port Authority commish wants new bus terminal, not WTC; 7 train to NJ - not dead yet.

Posted by Nilet on Sat Mar 29 10:24:01 2014, in response to Re: Port Authority commish wants new bus terminal, not WTC; 7 train to NJ - not dead yet., posted by Olog-hai on Sat Mar 29 03:06:07 2014.

edf40wrjww2msgDetail:detailStr
fiogf49gjkf0d
They wouldn't have held onto passenger service as long as they did under the private sector if they "never wanted" it.

They held on to passenger service because regulations required them to, dumbass.

And all of the NYC subways would have been built by the city.

Pretty much all of the NYC subways were built by the city.

Post a New Response

(1282535)

view threaded

Re: Port Authority commish wants new bus terminal, not WTC; 7 train to NJ - not dead yet.

Posted by Nilet on Sat Mar 29 11:12:48 2014, in response to Re: Port Authority commish wants new bus terminal, not WTC; 7 train to NJ - not dead yet., posted by Olog-hai on Sat Mar 29 02:53:59 2014.

edf40wrjww2msgDetail:detailStr
fiogf49gjkf0d
And the absence of big centralized government is not anarchy.

The absence of government is anarchy, and you have yet to say that there is any form of government you would approve of.

(But then again, you think that somehow Obama is "moderate to far right" on anything.)

He is, this fact will be immediately obvious as soon as you crack a dictionary and learn what these words actually mean; as it happens, you currently think "right-wing" means European feudalism. Obviously, Obama does not favour European feudalism; he believes that society ought to be an oligarchy controlled by the rich, he favours the use of torture, perpetual war, and the abolition of privacy as a means of social control, and he opposes any attempt to rein in the unearned power and unearned wealth of the oligarchs as well as any attempt to enforce the citizens' economic rights (ie, the right to food, health care, and housing). All of those are right-wing ideas which are supported by approximately all conservatives and denounced by approximately all liberals. However, as reality is not your forte, you will probably respond with some incoherent drooling, possibly suggesting that Obama must be a liberalsocialistcommunist because he favours the existence of a government as opposed to anarchy or the magical government that you approve of but can't even define.

That is exactly what happened from the 60s to the 80s, with the creation of both Amtrak and Conrail, along with other entities such as the MTA, NJ(DO)T and SEPTA. And what was the result?—the greatly-downgraded Crusader came to an end in 1981 or so when Conrail stopped running passenger trains...

The Reading went bankrupt in 1971. That the Crusader operated for 10 years after that is sort of a bonus.

That's exactly the point I made, and which sailed completely over your head— sure, the government isn't running as much service as the private companies used to, but the private companies went bankrupt. The private companies couldn't run such extensive service; they couldn't run any service at all. Were it not for Amtrak and Conrail, the private railroads would have shut down completely around 1981. The government didn't shut down half the service, they kept half the service running after its operators would have stopped all of it.

... and the city government of Philadelphia replaced Reading Terminal with the CCCT (spelling the end of the SEPTA/former-Conrail diesel services since they weren't re-routed to 30th Street Station).

You know, the CCCT was actually an improvement. One of the advantages of government control was that operations could be streamlined for greater efficiency. I don't see why you keep banging on about Reading Terminal, although I suppose foamer fantasies are hardly uncommon on this board. Besides, you think Obama is liberal, so clearly you're not exactly the picture of coherence.

By the way, the termination of diesel service had nothing whatsoever to do with the CCCT. After all, the Crusader was cancelled years before it opened.

What do you mean "when"? You keep ignoring the reason for the bankruptcy, whatever argument you're trying to make will be as full of holes as Swiss cheese.

The reason for the bankruptcy is that passenger services were losing so much money that the railroads couldn't afford to run them. You're the one who's ignoring the reasons— you seem to think that the regulations railroads were subject to since their earliest days somehow spontaneously made their passenger trains start losing money, coincidentally right after the automobile and the commercial airline became commonplace.

That's a false scenario. Railroads were not going to shed passenger routes when they can actually make money on them...

That's just it. The railroads weren't making money on them. They couldn't make money on them. The only reason they didn't drop all their passenger service by 1965 was because those "regulations" you hate so much told them they couldn't.

...and the reasons they weren't making money on them was regulation, taxation and subsidizing the competition.

And there you go with the anarchist bullshit again. Railroads were regulated since the earliest days and they were able to make a profit just fine until cars and planes became common enough and fast enough and cheap enough to make a viable alternative to rail travel. The railroads were taxed for their entire existence, as was every other company; as anyone who doesn't favour anarchy can tell you, taxation has never drove any company out of business ever. And the government never subsidised any competition to the railroads, so you've clearly retreated entirely into your fantasy world where up is left and down is Sunday.

BTW, whether you realize it or not, you are validating the existence of the Acela Express in its current form, with the weight of the trainsets, the curtailed active tilt, the slower speeds on Metro-North/ConnDOT, the whole nine yards. Also, were you aware that the federal government was promising 160-mph passenger train operation on the Northeast Corridor 45 years ago?

Are you aware that every train faster than the Acela is run by a government? You must know it; you even mentioned it in this very thread. If we had a more liberal government, like most countries in Europe, then we'd have high speed rail like Europe does.

Even in its current form, the Acela reaches a top speed of 150 mph in service. The fastest private train in this country was the Metroliner at 125, and even that didn't last very long before the Penn Central begged the government to take it over.

Post a New Response

(1282537)

view threaded

Re: Port Authority commish wants new bus terminal, not WTC; 7 train to NJ - not dead yet.

Posted by italianstallion on Sat Mar 29 11:16:46 2014, in response to Re: Port Authority commish wants new bus terminal, not WTC; 7 train to NJ - not dead yet., posted by Nilet on Sat Mar 29 11:12:48 2014.

edf40wrjww2msgDetail:detailStr
fiogf49gjkf0d
Good post.

Post a New Response

(1282541)

view threaded

Re: Port Authority commish wants new bus terminal, not WTC; 7 train to NJ - not dead yet.

Posted by Olog-hai on Sat Mar 29 11:50:20 2014, in response to Re: Port Authority commish wants new bus terminal, not WTC; 7 train to NJ - not dead yet., posted by Nilet on Sat Mar 29 11:12:48 2014.

edf40wrjww2msgDetail:detailStr
fiogf49gjkf0d
The reason for the bankruptcy is that passenger services were losing so much money that the railroads couldn't afford to run them

. . . because the government was subsidizing the competition while piling on regulations that were in enmity with continued passenger operation by the railroads—as well as taxation (including a 10% tax on all passenger tickets; it's written right in the old timetables of the era).

Forgot that private railroads were trying to increase speeds of trains to compete better with the modes that were unfairly competing against them? Apparently, you forget this fact every five seconds. What did you think projects like the ACF Talgo, Train-X and UAC Turbotrain were supposed to do?

Are you aware that every train faster than the Acela is run by a government?

So what? There's no implication that it needs a government to run that fast. In fact, the implication is quite the opposite. Thanks to Germany subsidizing everything in terms of infrastructure, in fact, Deutsche Bahn is losing ground to privately-operated intercity buses.

Too bad you can't take any argument head-on but have to deflect. I guess I'll have to wait for you to grow up before you attempt that.

You know, the CCCT was actually an improvement. One of the advantages of government control was that operations could be streamlined for greater efficiency

No, there's no evidence of that. Especially what with SEPTA now eschewing the Vuchic route system, there's no evidence that any improvement has taken place. Nothing shows any cost/benefit improvement; SEPTA still cries poor-pockets (their GM even threatened to slash RRD service recently, or did you forget that as well?), and service to Reading, Bethlehem, Newtown and Newark (promised to NYC) is still glaringly absent and accusing those that make excuses.

By the way, the termination of diesel service had nothing whatsoever to do with the CCCT

Really? Where is it? Why isn't any running into 30th Street then, or (as an alternative) to the location of the former 24th Street station, which is actually on the Philly side of the Schuylkill?

Railroads were regulated since the earliest days and they were able to make a profit just fine until cars and planes became common enough and fast enough and cheap enough to make a viable alternative to rail travel

False characterization. When railroads were regulated, it was an attack on them by government. Roads apart from toll roads were an exercise in government power; to this day, the interstate system is the largest and most expensive public works project in the country when it didn't need to be built by the government. Even back in the early 20th Century, government favored road over rail, regulating their rates while allowing truckers to charge any rate they pleased. Same goes with passenger fares.

Obviously, Obama does not favour European feudalism; he believes that society ought to be an oligarchy controlled by the rich, he favors the use of torture, perpetual war, and the abolition of privacy as a means of social control, and he opposes any attempt to rein in the unearned power and unearned wealth of the oligarchs as well as any attempt to enforce the citizens' economic rights (i.e., the right to food, health care, and housing). All of those are right-wing ideas

Wrong. They are left-wing ideas. They are not wholly Marxist ideas (more Fabian), but they are very much left wing.

The liberals always imply when accusing one of being "right wing" that such a one is in favor of eliminating the establishment clause of the First Amendment in favor of establishing a state religion.

Post a New Response

(1282547)

view threaded

Re: Port Authority commish wants new bus terminal, not WTC; 7 train to NJ - not dead yet.

Posted by Nilet on Sat Mar 29 12:21:36 2014, in response to Re: Port Authority commish wants new bus terminal, not WTC; 7 train to NJ - not dead yet., posted by Olog-hai on Sat Mar 29 11:50:20 2014.

edf40wrjww2msgDetail:detailStr
fiogf49gjkf0d
. . . because the government was subsidizing the competition...

Forgot that private railroads were trying to increase speeds of trains to compete better with the modes that were unfairly competing against them?

You keep saying that and yet, despite your concerted efforts, it keeps being bullshit.

What subsidies? What unfair competition? Neither exists.

What did you think projects like the ACF Talgo, Train-X and UAC Turbotrain were supposed to do?

It doesn't matter what they were "supposed" to do. They didn't. They failed. Cutting taxes was "supposed" to stimulate the economy but it didn't do that either.

So what? There's no implication that it needs a government to run that fast.

Well, except for the fact that no private operator has ever run trains that fast, and that the only time they ever got close they were only able to run it for a few years before begging the government to take it over for them.

Thanks to Germany subsidizing everything in terms of infrastructure, in fact, Deutsche Bahn is losing ground to privately-operated intercity buses.

So your argument is what? That high speed rail is infeasible? That some people are willing to take slow, uncomfortable, and cheap over fast, comfortable and expensive? That people choose to take the bus specifically because the government is operating the trains?

Too bad you can't take any argument head-on but have to deflect. I guess I'll have to wait for you to grow up before you attempt that.

Project any harder and you could point yourself at a wall and show off powerpoint presentations. I dismantled your entire argument, and yet you continue to spew the same bullshit about how the railroads were bankrupted by "regulations" and taxes, all while accusing me of ignoring the argument.

No, there's no evidence of that....

Well, except that through-running has streamlined operations considerably and unified the system.

Really? Where is it? Why isn't any running into 30th Street then, or (as an alternative) to the location of the former 24th Street station, which is actually on the Philly side of the Schuylkill?

Yes, congratulations for noticing that the diesel service was shut down. You have yet to explain exactly how said shutdown was caused by the construction of the CCCT.

False characterization. When railroads were regulated, it was an attack on them by government.

There you go with the anarchist bullshit again. Everyone who favours the idea of a society over nonfunctional chaos recognises that every company is (or at least ought to be) regulated, and that this is normal and the way things are supposed to be.

Roads apart from toll roads were an exercise in government power; to this day, the interstate system is the largest and most expensive public works project in the country when it didn't need to be built by the government.

What? OK, I know you're an anarchist and all that, but roads? Seriously, roads? You actually think roads are a bad thing that should never have been built? Roads, which have been built by governments as far back as the Romans?

You know, I'm as much a railfan as anybody here, but I can't even imagine how horrible it would be to live in a country that never had roads.

Even back in the early 20th Century, government favored road over rail, regulating their rates while allowing truckers to charge any rate they pleased. Same goes with passenger fares.

Heh, I'm surprised you don't remember the history. Railroad fares and rates had to be regulated because railroads had a long and varied history of exploiting monopolies and oligopolies to extort their customers.

Wrong. They are left-wing ideas.

Right, which is why every liberal vehemently opposes them and every conservative supports them. You seriously need to learn that words have meanings.

Although I gave you far too much credit. I suspected that you would have some screed about how Obama is liberal because he favours the existence of a government over anarchy or something, but no. You just blithely asserted that the defining principles of conservatism are actual liberal, without even the flimsiest attempt at justification.

The liberals always imply when accusing one of being "right wing" that such a one is in favor of eliminating the establishment clause of the First Amendment in favor of establishing a state religion.

Many to most conservatives do favour the establishment of a state religion, but that has nothing to do with the topic at hand.

Post a New Response

(1282573)

view threaded

Re: Port Authority commish wants new bus terminal, not WTC; 7 train to NJ - not dead yet.

Posted by 3-9 on Sat Mar 29 14:46:22 2014, in response to Re: Port Authority commish wants new bus terminal, not WTC; 7 train to NJ - not dead yet., posted by Nilet on Sat Mar 29 10:24:01 2014.

edf40wrjww2msgDetail:detailStr
fiogf49gjkf0d
They held on to passenger service because regulations required them to

The Harlem line past Dover Plains was a pretty notorious local example. Here in the morning, gone in the afternoon. :-(

Post a New Response

(1282598)

view threaded

Re: Port Authority commish wants new bus terminal, not WTC; 7 train to NJ - not dead yet.

Posted by Wado MP73 on Sat Mar 29 17:48:32 2014, in response to Re: Port Authority commish wants new bus terminal, not WTC; 7 train to NJ - not dead yet., posted by Olog-hai on Sat Mar 29 01:43:49 2014.

edf40wrjww2msgDetail:detailStr
fiogf49gjkf0d
But they don't reimburse unused tickets, valid or not, period.

Post a New Response

(1282600)

view threaded

Re: Port Authority commish wants new bus terminal, not WTC; 7 train to NJ - not dead yet.

Posted by Jackson Park B Train on Sat Mar 29 18:04:57 2014, in response to Re: Port Authority commish wants new bus terminal, not WTC; 7 train to NJ - not dead yet., posted by NIMBYkiller on Fri Mar 28 20:03:55 2014.

edf40wrjww2msgDetail:detailStr
fiogf49gjkf0d
When it was PRR and subsidiary LIRR, they sold through tix including monthlies.

Post a New Response

(1282650)

view threaded

Re: Port Authority commish wants new bus terminal, not WTC; 7 train to NJ - not dead yet.

Posted by SUBWAYMAN on Sat Mar 29 20:49:38 2014, in response to Re: Port Authority commish wants new bus terminal, not WTC; 7 train to NJ - not dead yet., posted by Olog-hai on Sat Mar 29 01:36:29 2014.

edf40wrjww2msgDetail:detailStr
fiogf49gjkf0d
You offer nothing to the table shithead.

Post a New Response

(1282657)

view threaded

Re: Port Authority commish wants new bus terminal, not WTC; 7 train to NJ - not dead yet.

Posted by G1Ravage on Sat Mar 29 21:12:46 2014, in response to Re: Port Authority commish wants new bus terminal, not WTC; 7 train to NJ - not dead yet., posted by Wallyhorse on Wed Mar 26 21:02:51 2014.

edf40wrjww2msgDetail:detailStr
fiogf49gjkf0d
Wallyhorse is back!!

Post a New Response

[1 2]

 

Page 1 of 2

Next Page >  


[ Return to the Message Index ]