Toonces wrote:
If walking is really an option people are seriously suggesting, how about using the upper portion of the Holland Tunnel? Now, I don't know what sort of infrastucture is in there, but the tunnel itself is round - yet when you're driving, the visible "ceiling" of the tunnel is apparently 8-10 feet below the top of the circle (demonstrated, in part, by this picture taken during construction). Seems to me there's plenty of room above the roadway for a pedestrian/bike path.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/67827566@N00/11639849305

Dolomiti wrote:
Quote:

brewster wrote:
Oar propelled longboats manned by commuters.

You do know we have ferries, right?

brewster wrote:
Oar propelled longboats manned by commuters.

bodhipooh wrote:
You should spend some more time reading about urban funiculars and new gondola systems.

brewster wrote:
[quote]For reference, the little bridge from Newport to Hoboken Terminal cost $6.4 million. The little bridge below to LSP cost $800k.

Yet, I'm willing to put all that aside, and point out that the stakeholders of the neighborhoods and Hudson views on both sides of the river would never let this happen. You have given no though at all to those impacts.

This is simply a stupid idea at every level for the astonishingly small return to a the few people who live and work close enough to either end and would be willing to make the several mile walk even in fine weather, let alone a brisk day like today.

Toonces wrote:
If walking is really an option people are seriously suggesting, how about using the upper portion of the Holland Tunnel? Now, I don't know what sort of infrastucture is in there, but the tunnel itself is round - yet when you're driving, the visible "ceiling" of the tunnel is apparently 8-10 feet below the top of the circle (demonstrated, in part, by this picture taken during construction). Seems to me there's plenty of room above the roadway for a pedestrian/bike path.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/67827566@N00/11639849305

Toonces wrote:
If walking is really an option people are seriously suggesting, how about using the upper portion of the Holland Tunnel? Now, I don't know what sort of infrastucture is in there, but the tunnel itself is round - yet when you're driving, the visible "ceiling" of the tunnel is apparently 8-10 feet below the top of the circle (demonstrated, in part, by this picture taken during construction). Seems to me there's plenty of room above the roadway for a pedestrian/bike path.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/67827566@N00/11639849305

hero69 wrote:
common sense approach. give a big stake in PATH to MTA and extend 7 or L train to Hoboken and beyond. Extend the HBLR to Staten Island and Teaneck NY (maybe even run it over GWB)

brewster wrote:
Quote:

bodhipooh wrote:
A solution like gondolas could actually move a ton of people from one side to the other, so its impact would be larger than a pedestrian bridge that very few people would actually use.

I agree a gondola makes more sense than a bridge, but you'd still never get it past the riverfront stakeholders even if you could wangle the real estate.

brewster wrote:


I agree a gondola makes more sense.

bodhipooh wrote:
A solution like gondolas could actually move a ton of people from one side to the other, so its impact would be larger than a pedestrian bridge that very few people would actually use.

Dolomiti wrote:

? A tram across the Hudson would be much more expensive than a ped/bike bridge. The Roosevelt Island tram, which is around 900m in length, cost $25 million just to renovate in 2010.

? A Liberty Bridge would almost certainly be free to cross, and a Hudson tram would almost certainly charge for rides. I.e. a tram not just more expensive to build and maintain, it's more expensive for people to use.

? Roosevelt Island tram has a max capacity of 14,000 trips per day. (That could go higher if it ran 24 hours, but... it doesn't.) Again, we are at unknown cost-per-trip comparisons, but it seems like a pedestrian bridge would be less expensive, more amenable to tourists, and could have a similar capacity.

? Like RI, a tram probably won't operate 24/7. A Liberty Bridge would almost certainly be open 24/7.

? A tram would basically go from waterfront to waterfront, meaning that like the ferries, those crossers have to use some other system to continue their commute. (That's also true if you walk, but not if you bike.)

? Like the ferries, trams require waiting (7-15 minutes); a pedestrian bridge does not. So while a tram will move faster than walking, you might only save 10-15 minutes.

? Needless to say, a ped/bike bridge is much greener than a tram.

To put it another way: A tram has all the same problems as the ferries, except that it's more expensive to build and operate. Yay...?

Yeah, I'll go for a Liberty Bridge -- or even ferry expansions and subsidies -- over a tram. No question.

Dolomiti wrote:
One of the longest pedestrian/bike bridges in the world is Big Dam, which is 1.28km, and cost $12 million.

A Liberty Bridge won't be cheap, but I think we're talking 8 figures rather than 10.

JCGuys wrote:
How many more daily riders is needed until we hit that breaking point?

Quote:

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.

I love this idea and other metro systems have demonstrated that it works well. The problem is the Port Authority would need to place an order for the open gangway cars to replace the current rolling stock. Since this isn't even on the radar for now, it's probably not happening within our lifetimes....

While I appreciate your input to brainstorm better ideas for transhudson crossings, it's rich to call out my demand pricing suggestion for peak hours while proposing something that will cost billions and has an extremely minimal chance of being built. If it ever is built by some miracle of God, I would love to walk/bike across it though!!

bodhipooh wrote:
The width of the Hudson is twice that of the East River where all three bridges (Williamsburg, Manhattan, and Brooklyn) are located. You are comparing apples to oranges.

A bridge from DTJC to Lower Manhattan would be over 1.25 to 1.5 miles, at a minimum. None of the examples you mention are nowhere near that.

Even under the best/rosiest of estimates, you have 5,000 commuters crossing the Brooklyn bridge every day. That's about 5 - 7 PATH trains, or 30 minutes of added rush hour service.

If you want to see a more efficient method to add capacity, at least suggest cable cars/gondolas. That could be a much more effective solution than the idiocy that is a pedestrian bridge over the Hudson.

JCGuys wrote:
The Bayonne Bridge is being raised to 215 feet to allow for taller ships to pass. The article states this fantasy proposal to be a 200ft, so it should accommodate most tall ships. Since it's pure fantasy, I'm sure they could just increase it to 215ft or taller if warranted.

hero69 wrote:
would this pedestrian bridge be high enough for big ships to pass under[quote]

hero69 wrote:
would this pedestrian bridge be high enough for big ships to pass underQuote:

JCGuys wrote:
Quote:

bodhipooh wrote:
Quote:

Dolomiti wrote:
Quote:

bodhipooh wrote:
Quote:

brewster wrote:
Quote:

ConstantReader wrote:
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.

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.

And, inclined to walk ~30 minutes just to cross that hypothetical bridge.

And yet, thousands of people do exactly that, every day, with the Manhattan and Brooklyn Bridges.


Quote:

There are no pedestrian bridges in the world with that kind of length for very good reason.

Try again.

Big Dam Bridge is 1.28km; Bob Kerrey Bridge is 940m; Nescio is 740m. Those are all relatively new bridges.

It's not common, but that alone does not prove it's a bad idea. E.g. almost no transit systems in the US use open gangway cars; does that, in and of itself, prove that it's a bad idea?

The width of the Hudson is twice that of the East River where all three bridges (Williamsburg, Manhattan, and Brooklyn) are located. You are comparing apples to oranges.

A bridge from DTJC to Lower Manhattan would be over 1.25 to 1.5 miles, at a minimum. None of the examples you mention are nowhere near that. Try again.

Very few people commute via the Brooklyn. It is estimated that 4,000 people cross it every day. Take away the sizable amount of visitors/tourists, and the number that is actually commuting to/from work is very small. About 2.5K cyclists cross it every day. Even under the best/rosiest of estimates, you have 5,000 commuters crossing the Brooklyn bridge every day. That's about 5 - 7 PATH trains, or 30 minutes of added rush hour service.

If you want to see a more efficient method to add capacity, at least suggest cable cars/gondolas. That could be a much more effective solution than the idiocy that is a pedestrian bridge over the Hudson.

Let's say this thing was somehow built at a billion dollars* or less. It will probably have no impact to reduce PATH overcrowding. It may even attract more people to PATH as a shitload of tourists will use the system to get off at exchange place or WTC to then walk/bike/rollerskate over the Hudson to Manhattan... The billion dollars or whatever is actually spent on the 1.5 mile pedestrian bridge could probably serve more people by doing transit investments.




*Let's be real. This is New Jersey and the real cost will probably be $5 billion plus.

Quote:

The proposal is a 5,000-foot-long, 200-foot-high bridge that would allow pedestrians and cyclists to avoid the circuitous, increasingly crowded, and frequently frustrating PATH trains. The conceptual two-level span features paths for walking and biking, sweeping views, greenery and seating. The design also includes cafes, retail spaces, solar panels, artwork and free WiFi. The idea is to originate at the abandoned Pennsylvania Railway Embankment in downtown Jersey City, gradually increase in height, and terminate at a higher elevation in Manhattan, with elevators, stairs and ramps to reach the ground.

From NextCity: https://nextcity.org/daily/entry/desig ... w-jersey-to-new-york-city

JCGuys wrote:
Quote:

bodhipooh wrote:
Quote:

Dolomiti wrote:
Quote:

bodhipooh wrote:
Quote:

brewster wrote:
Quote:

ConstantReader wrote:
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.

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.

And, inclined to walk ~30 minutes just to cross that hypothetical bridge.

And yet, thousands of people do exactly that, every day, with the Manhattan and Brooklyn Bridges.


Quote:

There are no pedestrian bridges in the world with that kind of length for very good reason.

Try again.

Big Dam Bridge is 1.28km; Bob Kerrey Bridge is 940m; Nescio is 740m. Those are all relatively new bridges.

It's not common, but that alone does not prove it's a bad idea. E.g. almost no transit systems in the US use open gangway cars; does that, in and of itself, prove that it's a bad idea?

The width of the Hudson is twice that of the East River where all three bridges (Williamsburg, Manhattan, and Brooklyn) are located. You are comparing apples to oranges.

A bridge from DTJC to Lower Manhattan would be over 1.25 to 1.5 miles, at a minimum. None of the examples you mention are nowhere near that. Try again.

Very few people commute via the Brooklyn. It is estimated that 4,000 people cross it every day. Take away the sizable amount of visitors/tourists, and the number that is actually commuting to/from work is very small. About 2.5K cyclists cross it every day. Even under the best/rosiest of estimates, you have 5,000 commuters crossing the Brooklyn bridge every day. That's about 5 - 7 PATH trains, or 30 minutes of added rush hour service.

If you want to see a more efficient method to add capacity, at least suggest cable cars/gondolas. That could be a much more effective solution than the idiocy that is a pedestrian bridge over the Hudson.

Let's say this thing was somehow built at a billion dollars* or less. It will probably have no impact to reduce PATH overcrowding. It may even attract more people to PATH as a shitload of tourists will use the system to get off at exchange place or WTC to then walk/bike/rollerskate over the Hudson to Manhattan... The billion dollars or whatever is actually spent on the 1.5 mile pedestrian bridge could probably serve more people by doing transit investments.




*Let's be real. This is New Jersey and the real cost will probably be $5 billion plus.

Quote:

The proposal is a 5,000-foot-long, 200-foot-high bridge that would allow pedestrians and cyclists to avoid the circuitous, increasingly crowded, and frequently frustrating PATH trains. The conceptual two-level span features paths for walking and biking, sweeping views, greenery and seating. The design also includes cafes, retail spaces, solar panels, artwork and free WiFi. The idea is to originate at the abandoned Pennsylvania Railway Embankment in downtown Jersey City, gradually increase in height, and terminate at a higher elevation in Manhattan, with elevators, stairs and ramps to reach the ground.

From NextCity: https://nextcity.org/daily/entry/desig ... w-jersey-to-new-york-city

bodhipooh wrote:
Quote:

Dolomiti wrote:
Quote:

bodhipooh wrote:
Quote:

brewster wrote:
Quote:

ConstantReader wrote:
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.

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.

And, inclined to walk ~30 minutes just to cross that hypothetical bridge.

And yet, thousands of people do exactly that, every day, with the Manhattan and Brooklyn Bridges.


Quote:

There are no pedestrian bridges in the world with that kind of length for very good reason.

Try again.

Big Dam Bridge is 1.28km; Bob Kerrey Bridge is 940m; Nescio is 740m. Those are all relatively new bridges.

It's not common, but that alone does not prove it's a bad idea. E.g. almost no transit systems in the US use open gangway cars; does that, in and of itself, prove that it's a bad idea?

The width of the Hudson is twice that of the East River where all three bridges (Williamsburg, Manhattan, and Brooklyn) are located. You are comparing apples to oranges.

A bridge from DTJC to Lower Manhattan would be over 1.25 to 1.5 miles, at a minimum. None of the examples you mention are nowhere near that. Try again.

Very few people commute via the Brooklyn. It is estimated that 4,000 people cross it every day. Take away the sizable amount of visitors/tourists, and the number that is actually commuting to/from work is very small. About 2.5K cyclists cross it every day. Even under the best/rosiest of estimates, you have 5,000 commuters crossing the Brooklyn bridge every day. That's about 5 - 7 PATH trains, or 30 minutes of added rush hour service.

If you want to see a more efficient method to add capacity, at least suggest cable cars/gondolas. That could be a much more effective solution than the idiocy that is a pedestrian bridge over the Hudson.

The proposal is a 5,000-foot-long, 200-foot-high bridge that would allow pedestrians and cyclists to avoid the circuitous, increasingly crowded, and frequently frustrating PATH trains. The conceptual two-level span features paths for walking and biking, sweeping views, greenery and seating. The design also includes cafes, retail spaces, solar panels, artwork and free WiFi. The idea is to originate at the abandoned Pennsylvania Railway Embankment in downtown Jersey City, gradually increase in height, and terminate at a higher elevation in Manhattan, with elevators, stairs and ramps to reach the ground.

Dolomiti wrote:
Quote:

JCGuys wrote:
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.

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....

bodhipooh wrote:
Quote:

JCGuys wrote:
Quote:

jc_dweller wrote:
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.

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.

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.

Dolomiti wrote:
Quote:

bodhipooh wrote:
Quote:

brewster wrote:
Quote:

ConstantReader wrote:
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.

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.

And, inclined to walk ~30 minutes just to cross that hypothetical bridge.

And yet, thousands of people do exactly that, every day, with the Manhattan and Brooklyn Bridges.


Quote:

There are no pedestrian bridges in the world with that kind of length for very good reason.

Try again.

Big Dam Bridge is 1.28km; Bob Kerrey Bridge is 940m; Nescio is 740m. Those are all relatively new bridges.

It's not common, but that alone does not prove it's a bad idea. E.g. almost no transit systems in the US use open gangway cars; does that, in and of itself, prove that it's a bad idea?

bodhipooh wrote:
Quote:

brewster wrote:
Quote:

ConstantReader wrote:
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.

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.

And, inclined to walk ~30 minutes just to cross that hypothetical bridge.

There are no pedestrian bridges in the world with that kind of length for very good reason.