Browsing this Thread:
4 Anonymous Users
|
Re: Would MTA be a better operator for PATH? And other ideas...
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
 
|
Quote:
Haha... No, I had no idea/recollection of your opinion. From a mechanical perspective, there is no question it can be done. ROI on the bridge could be quite good. On weekdays, the Manhattan Bridge has roughly 4000 bike crossings; Brooklyn has another 2200; pedestrian crossings are almost certainly higher. How much would it cost to expand PATH capacity by, say, 10000 riders per day? The construction costs won't be cheap, but will definitely cost less than building a new bridge capable of handling motorized traffic and/or a new rail line. Maintenance will obviously be a fraction of the cost of the Holland Tunnel or GWB. In terms of getting around, bicycles are just as fast as the subway, and greener to boot. Thousands of people commute from Brooklyn to Manhattan via bike, and obviously thousands travel from DTJC to WTC, so there is really almost no question the demand will be there. It only seems crazy because we live in a nation that doesn't value pedestrians and bikes.
Posted on: 2019/1/8 18:41
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Would MTA be a better operator for PATH? And other ideas...
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
Even when you factor in parking, it can be cheaper for a couple (or, more people) to split up the costs of gas, tolls, and parking if you take advantage of things like early bird pricing. Case in point: today we had a morning appointment in the UES. It would have cost us $24 r/t (and taken close to an hour, each way) to get up to East 80th. Instead, we drove in, spent about $15 (HT toll, plus around $4 for meter parking) and it took us 45 minutes (that includes the time to get up there and circle twice to find a metered spot) So, no overcrowded train hassle, no walking, no dealing with the rain, or the wind, and we spent less, and got there faster. The idea that driving into Manhattan is crazy and not viable is simply not true. Either make driving less enticing (with something along the lines of congestion pricing) or make mass transit more enticing. But, as it stands, the math is not all that great for everyone to opt for mass transit.
Posted on: 2019/1/8 18:10
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Would MTA be a better operator for PATH? And other ideas...
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
Were you not around 3.5 years ago when the PA did exactly this? The Hoboken ditzy mayor lost her shit over having two trains taken away, never considering that the absolute majority of the HOB/33 trains run partly, or mostly, empty, while the JC trains are always packed to the gills. She kept throwing out numbers claiming that the HOB station had seen statistically greater growth than any other station, and the reduction in trains was unfair. Of course, lies, damn lies, and statistics: a small increase in HOB ridership numbers translates to a large statistical increase. The stark contrast between HOB and JC trains is plainly visible at 33rd, where you get to see how those HOB-bound trains leave with empty seats, while the ones heading to JC are often full by the time they leave the station.
Posted on: 2019/1/8 18:00
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Would MTA be a better operator for PATH? And other ideas...
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
And, inclined to walk ~30 minutes just to cross that hypothetical bridge. It is simply a silly idea. There are no pedestrian bridges in the world with that kind of length for very good reason.
Posted on: 2019/1/8 17:42
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Would MTA be a better operator for PATH? And other ideas...
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
As I understand it, the problem is traffic and signalling in tunnels, not a shortage of rolling stock. Dolomiti, are you just trying to tweak me with the bridge comment knowing it drives me nuts? Of all the stupid ideas, it's the stupidest. Even if it was doable (it's not) there's probably no lower return on transportation investment than allowing the relatively few people who live downtown and work in Lower Manhattan AND are inclined to walk or bike to do so.
Posted on: 2019/1/8 16:32
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Would MTA be a better operator for PATH? And other ideas...
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
Alrighty then First, we should also note that the PATH train is nowhere near a "breaking point." (Again, let us know when PA hires subway pushers.) One of the reasons the PATH has a big deficit is because PA is already spending money to expand capacity, with new switches and (eventually) 10-car trains. Another option occasionally mentioned here is using open gangway cars. I don't know if regulations allow that, but it would provide numerous benefits, including expanded capacity and better distribution of passengers on partially crowded trains. However, even the most brilliant ideas to expand capacity on the existing lines probably can't outrun population growth. (I would discuss induced demand, but I think developers will keep building in JC, Harrison and Newark no matter what.) Eventually, the region will require a major expansion of infrastructure. I for one am a fan of building a pedestrian/bicycle bridge across the Hudson....
Posted on: 2019/1/8 15:59
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Would MTA be a better operator for PATH? And other ideas...
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Just can't stay away
|
Okay, here are two constructive suggestions for easing crowding on the JSQ-33rd St. line. Not a complete solution to PATH's challenges by any means, but these relatively small changes would make the current situation more bearable for commuters:
1) During rush hour, run fewer trains on the 33rd-Hoboken schedule and make up the difference with more 33rd-JSQ trains. The Hoboken trains on the 33rd St. line are significantly less crowded than their JSQ equivalents. 2) Run the 33rd-JSQ train more frequently into the evening hours. Right now, the trains run every 5 minutes until 7:30 pm, when the frequency changes to every 10 minutes; as a result, crowding on that line continues and even increases until well after 9 pm. Suggestion #1 wouldn't require any extra resources. Solution #2 would require keeping more trains in service for a few hours a day, so there would be some increase in labor and maintenance costs.
Posted on: 2019/1/8 15:08
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Would MTA be a better operator for PATH? And other ideas...
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
As another poster pointed out, it certainly is viable. That's why we have gridlock. I have a friend in JC who drives in. While unadvertised, you can get carpool EZ Pass rates for the Holland Tunnel, which he does so he and his wife drive in together (I forget if he has a third passenger). He also has subsidized parking at his place of employment.
Posted on: 2019/1/8 14:20
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Would MTA be a better operator for PATH? And other ideas...
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Not too shy to talk
|
Quote:
Don?t forget the cost of parking garages. Driving only saves you money if you luck out on free street parking. Thankfully I work in NJ, so I limit visits to NYC on evenings and weekends when the metered spots become free. If I do have to go during the day, I find free parking in the Upper West Side above 79th and take the subway. Smoothparking.com and the Best Parking App have been helpful in that regard. I would hope connecting the PATH to the MTA if possible would mean free transfers.
Posted on: 2019/1/8 13:59
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Would MTA be a better operator for PATH? And other ideas...
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
An added surcharge during congested rush hours is not punitive: the PATH (or, any other mass transit system in high demand) is akin to a commodity, and there is nothing wrong to have a surcharge if the demand outstrips supply. Ultimately, I think the best solution would be a regional approach. This mess of paying two or three fares to commute a few miles (say, from Bayonne, JC, or Hoboken) into NYC is crazy. Not even the outrageously expensive London system compares. If you have to pay those three fares (light rail, PATH, and subway) you are looking at over $16 per day. Times two (for a couple) that amounts to $32+. You might as well drive!
Posted on: 2019/1/7 23:54
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Would MTA be a better operator for PATH? And other ideas...
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
I think you are getting the value/cost analysis all wrong. Obviously, lots of people choose to drive, as evidenced by the very gridlock you reference. I personally know a bunch of people who choose to drive into the city, instead of dealing with mass transit. If you do it right, it can be the same, or less, to drive, particularly if you do so with another person (or two) and split the costs. Heck, I myself often choose driving over mass transit, but there are factors that favor my doing so (I can commute on a motorcycle, which means I am able to find free on street parking, and I am also able to adjust my commuting times to avoid the usual crush from 7:00 to 9:00) but other people (like couples who both work in the city) can choose to drive and break even, without the hassle of the packed trains and things like inclement weather.
Posted on: 2019/1/7 23:40
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Would MTA be a better operator for PATH? And other ideas...
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Well circa 1976, Lazlo Toth aka Father Guido Sarducci aka Don Novello - proposed building a canal across the US-Mexico border. Of course he was joking. I'm not a fan either, not even close, but I'd sign up for that well before President Trump's idea to build a wall.
https://medium.com/a-thing-i-love/a-th ... e-lazlo-toth-70d9481874e4
Posted on: 2019/1/7 21:44
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Would MTA be a better operator for PATH? And other ideas...
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
Wow, that's one of the stupidest proposals I've ever seen, even stupider than the Hudson pedestrian bridge! I guess to be fair there was much less understood about the river's ecology back then. I'm reading The Great Bridge and a similar proposal to fill in the East River was made in the 1860's.
Posted on: 2019/1/7 21:30
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Would MTA be a better operator for PATH? And other ideas...
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
Joined:
2008/10/19 1:18 Last Login : 2020/9/25 20:40 From somewhere else
Group:
Registered Users
Posts:
1609
 |
Here is an innovative idea from the 1930s - crazy to imagine it today, but fun to think of "what if"...
Posted on: 2019/1/7 17:51
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Would MTA be a better operator for PATH? And other ideas...
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
So far I've heard lots of defense of the status quo and no solutions being offered. I propose a solution. It gets shot down. Nothing proposed in it's place. It's this 'it is what it is' mentality why we can't have nice things.
The system is at a breaking point.
Posted on: 2019/1/7 16:31
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Would MTA be a better operator for PATH? And other ideas...
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
The car isn't a viable choice. Driving into Manhattan is crazy, reserved for the likes of Yvonne. There is no (cheap) parking and the tunnels are near gridlocked. Transit is the only way to go and that will become even more obvious in 10 or 20 years. The thousands of apartments under construction in Journal Square, Harrison and Newark will be the breaking point for both PATH and the tunnels.
Posted on: 2019/1/7 16:26
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Would MTA be a better operator for PATH? And other ideas...
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
I pretty much universally support demand pricing for cars, but the whole point in the metro area is to get people NOT to use their cars. So punishing them for using PATH seems self-destructive. Even if the effort is to get people to shift schedules, it's still discouraging people from using transit.
Posted on: 2019/1/7 13:02
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Would MTA be a better operator for PATH? And other ideas...
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
Very well stated. Thank you.
Posted on: 2019/1/7 11:55
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Would MTA be a better operator for PATH? And other ideas...
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
Too late Quote: Integration with NYC Transit would be a godsend. It really wouldn't. First, the PATH will lose money no matter who is running it. Fares only cover half its cost; the idea that you can cut its costs by 50% by changing management is borderline delusional. Meaning that even if it was significantly better run, it would still lose hundreds of millions of dollars a year. On that basis alone, I cannot imagine any government agency in any way wanting to be on the hook for the PATH. Second, the MTA is a freaking mess. Rampant weekend closures, a switching system that dates from the 1930s that will cost $37 billion and ten years to replace, and doesn't include station upgrades. Third, who actually runs the MTA? The Governor of New York. If you think PA is unresponsive, what will happen when the PATH is answerable to Albany? Go ask Di Blasio, who feuds constantly with Cuomo over the MTA. Will Albany want to spend money on stations in New Jersey? Extend the PATH to Newark Airport? Will the agency that was going to shut down the L Train for 15 months do better with WTC tunnel improvements? Is it really better when Cuomo blows away 3 years of planning for the L Train shutdown on a chance encounter (and/or to screw with Di Blasio)? What would happen if the MTA decided to chronically underfund the PATH, as it's done with the NYC subway? To paraphrase the old saying: The PA is the worst agency to manage the PATH, except for every other agency. Quote: Although MTA has it's problems, they look like a well-run Swiss organization compared to the Port Authority or NJ Transit. When was the last time you rode the 6 during rush hour? Quote: My other ideal is much more radical... PATH should add a dollar or more surcharge for swipes during peak periods to reduce overcrowding. That would definitely help, but... that is basically a 36% fare increase during those periods. Some of us can handle it, but that's pretty brutal for some riders. More to your point, it's not going to reduce ridership much (if at all). The people riding during peak times are commuters, who need to get to work. What are they going to do, take the $7 ferry? Drive? Quote: with the extra revenue being used for service improvements... The PATH runs a $400 million deficit. Increasing fares by $1 would reduce the deficit by quite a bit ($260m?) but certainly won't be able to fund service improvements. Quote: Let's face it, the overcrowding situation is at crisis levels. It really isn't. Let us know when the PA needs to hire train pushers.  Quote: The problem is I have no confidence in the Port Authority as they will waste any extra revenue derived from PATH. The finances are already a blackhole. Yeah, thing is? PA is actually putting money into the PATH. That's a key reason why it's got such a huge deficit. I might add, I don't hear a lot of NYC residents expounding on the greatness of the MTA these days. That definitely sounds like a "grass is greener on the other side" thing. The reality is that public transportation and public infrastructure is very expensive... and we don't want to pay for it.
Posted on: 2019/1/7 1:35
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Would MTA be a better operator for PATH? And other ideas...
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
I love the idea, but fear it would let the PA off the hook for subsidizing ANY mass transit. You have no idea how much cashflow the PA has, the whole reason they built the WTC to begin with was they were so flush in the late 50's they had to do something or the governors were going to seize it for mass transit then.
Posted on: 2019/1/6 20:19
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Would MTA be a better operator for PATH? And other ideas...
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
The Regional Plan Association is more or less proposing exactly this in their 4th regional plan: http://fourthplan.org/action/port-authority-infrastructure-bank
They propose merging the PATH with either NJ Transit or the MTA or a new regional authority to encompass all the above, including Metro North Railroad. They also propose reconfiguring the Port Authority to serve as an infrastructure bank and divesting their real estate holdings. And before the usual naysayers come out, this group carries significant weight with policy makers and many of the ideas they outlined in their last regional plan, put out in the 90s (second avenue subway, east side access, PA bus terminal) are coming to fruition.
Posted on: 2019/1/6 18:03
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Would MTA be a better operator for PATH? And other ideas...
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
I'm pretty sure the fact that PATH crosses state lines is why they can't have longer trains with cars that don't open at shorter platforms (the way the 1 train used to be at South Ferry, for example). Without this restriction, easier-to-expand platforms like Newark, Harrison, JSQ, and 33rd Street could accommodate longer trains, and riders getting on-and-off at those stops could congregate in the cars that won't open at other stations. This would alleviate a significant amount of crowding, but alas.
Posted on: 2019/1/6 16:49
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Would MTA be a better operator for PATH? And other ideas...
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
My guess is that the MTA would never want to merge itself with PATH for one major reason. PATH is subject to a lot of Federal Railroad regulations, as it crosses state lines and is considered "interstate commerce," where as the NYC Subway is totally contained within New York State, and does not have to abide by the Federal Railroad regulations. The Port Authority faces much higher costs due to more stringent regulations and inspections, most designed for traffic between cities, not within an urban area. If the two systems were to merge, than the entire NYC Subway system would be subject to those rules and regulations.
Now perhaps there's a legal way around that, where the MTA operates the PATH separately from the NYC Subway, as it operates Metro North into Connecticut separately from the Subway, but it would have to be separate.
Posted on: 2019/1/6 13:50
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Would MTA be a better operator for PATH? And other ideas...
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
The idea of a peak surcharge is not outlandish. As you suggest, it could help persuade some people to adjust their commute times, helping to alleviate congestion and overcrowding.
The 10-car solution is only coming to the NWK-WTC line. So, that will not help the overcrowded hell that is the JSQ/33rd line.
Posted on: 2019/1/6 2:42
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Would MTA be a better operator for PATH? And other ideas...
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Posted on: 2019/1/6 1:25
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Would MTA be a better operator for PATH? And other ideas...
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Posted on: 2019/1/5 21:48
|
|||
|
The All Knowing and All Powerful Joe Has Spoken!
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Would MTA be a better operator for PATH? And other ideas...
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
While demand pricing is not the worst idea to reduce crowding during peak, the idea of money helping anything is misguided. The PA is swimming in cash, has always been. They get far more from the Hudson crossings than they spend on their maintenance, and have always struggled to spend it to justify the tolls. So it is just a matter of PA financial priorities, not available monies. Tolls and fares were raised to spend $8B on the Oculus and 1 WTC, neither of which are transportation facilities. This is just the PA doing the PA, ignoring it's core mission of interstate transportation. It was created a century ago to build an trans-Hudson freight rail, something it has yet to do.
Posted on: 2019/1/5 17:55
|
|||
|
||||
|
Would MTA be a better operator for PATH? And other ideas...
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Before you laugh, there are six stations in NYC. Integration with NYC Transit would be a godsend.
Although MTA has it's problems, they look like a well-run Swiss organization compared to the Port Authority or NJ Transit. My other ideal is much more radical... PATH should add a dollar or more surcharge for swipes during peak periods to reduce overcrowding. Maybe just from 8-9am and 5-6pm, with the extra revenue being used for service improvements... like direct to JSQ from 33rd during late nights and weekends. Let's face it, the overcrowding situation is at crisis levels. A fare increase is the only way to reduce overcrowding until PTC/CBTC and 10-car trains arrive. The problem is I have no confidence in the Port Authority as they will waste any extra revenue derived from PATH. The finances are already a blackhole. I expect to be annihilated for suggesting a fare increase, but I would be interested to hear at least one another alternative to reduce overcrowding in the short term. I'll wait.
Posted on: 2019/1/5 17:42
|
|||
|
||||