Register now !    Login  
Main Menu
Who's Online
32 user(s) are online (15 user(s) are browsing Message Forum)

Members: 0
Guests: 32

more...




Browsing this Thread:   1 Anonymous Users




« 1 (2) 3 »


Re: Would MTA be a better operator for PATH? And other ideas...
#58
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined :
2004/11/14 2:38
Last Login :
Yesterday 5:42
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 3634
Offline
Quote:

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
if it were free, i'd walk or bike through the upper deck of the holland tunnel. what about the bottom deck?

Posted on: 1/11 19:26
Top


Re: Would MTA be a better operator for PATH? And other ideas...
#57
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined :
2004/11/6 21:13
Last Login :
Yesterday 20:13
From Hamilton Park
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 5540
Offline
Quote:

Dolomiti wrote:
Quote:

brewster wrote:
Oar propelled longboats manned by commuters.

You do know we have ferries, right?


Yes, but so do you, yet you would prefer to bike or walk. No one has said a bridge would not be used at all, just that it's cost could not possibly be justified by the potential usage. I've already said why the cost would be astronomical, your counterexamples are not applicable.

Posted on: 1/11 18:16
Top


Re: Would MTA be a better operator for PATH? And other ideas...
#56
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined :
2012/8/6 22:56
Last Login :
7/4 21:40
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 1021
Offline
Quote:

brewster wrote:
Oar propelled longboats manned by commuters.

You do know we have ferries, right?

Posted on: 1/11 18:06
Top


Re: Would MTA be a better operator for PATH? And other ideas...
#55
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined :
2012/8/6 22:56
Last Login :
7/4 21:40
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 1021
Offline
Quote:

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

Funiculars use pulley systems, which leverage gravity, to transport riders up short slopes. Not long rivers. ;)

The closest I'm seeing to those numbers for gondolas in real-world use is Mexicable at 30,000 per day; that's with a low fare (~40 cents). Having higher capacity would change the cost-per-trip calculations of building and operating the system, but not everything else -- cost, point-to-point, last mile problems, ongoing maintenance etc. I.e. all the problems of a ferry, and less flexible.

Kinda seems like we'd be better off subsidizing the ferries and increasing frequency -- a policy that, again, does not preclude us from building a pedestrian bridge.

And again, claims that "no one will use a pedestrian bridge!" don't add up, given the use of the East River bridge crossings. Just on bike counts alone, Manhattan and Brooklyn are over 6000 per day -- and that's with the Brooklyn Bridge maxed out. Plus, last I checked, "free" is usually a more enticing cost to commuters than $3 or $8 per trip.

Even the GWB gets a pretty good amount of bike traffic, even though the walkway isn't open 24/7, sucks for bikes, and it connects Fort Lee to Washington Heights. (Weekend use is 3700+ and growing, btw)

By the way, bike commuting is growing significantly in NYC over the years, in no small part because the city is building out cycling infrastructure. Meaning that demand for a ped/bike bridge would be higher in 5, 10, 15 years than it is today. I doubt it would hit 30k bike trips, but 10k seems quite likely.

Posted on: 1/11 18:05
Top


Re: Would MTA be a better operator for PATH? And other ideas...
#54
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined :
2004/11/6 21:13
Last Login :
Yesterday 20:13
From Hamilton Park
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 5540
Offline
For those who are determined to cross the Hudson under their own power, I repost my suggestion from 4 years ago on this exact same bridge topic:

Oar propelled longboats manned by commuters. You show up at the longboat dock, when enough people have turned up to man the boat, like 20, you row across, just like people crossed the Hudson for thousands of years before steam and bridges. It's kinda like Citibike for boats.

Resized Image


Posted on: 1/11 17:23
Top


Re: Would MTA be a better operator for PATH? And other ideas...
#53
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined :
2012/8/6 22:56
Last Login :
7/4 21:40
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 1021
Offline
Quote:

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.

And again: For reference, the new Mario Cuomo bridge cost $4 billion. It's actually two bridges, each 3 miles long, for a total of 8 lanes, plus a pedestrian path, plus removal of the previous structure, all while keeping cars flowing. A pedestrian bridge is not going to cost billions. Like I said -- more like 8 figures rather than 10.

And again, consider ongoing maintenance. A bridge obviously doesn't cost $0 to maintain and operate -- but it definitely costs far, far less than a train, or tunnel, or tram.


Quote:
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.

Right. So now we've gone from "no one will use it!" (which is wrong) to "it'll cost billions!" (which it won't) to "it'll spark lawsuits!"

Pretty much any and every public project in NYC and NJ runs the risk of lawsuits and/or political opposition. That didn't stop the West Side Greenway, or Hudson Yards, or the Hudson River Waterfront Walkway, or refurbishing Washington Square Park, or....

I.e. not every project ends up like Westway.


Quote:
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.

Or:

Not everyone is terrified of traveling more than 10 minutes without a motor. A pedestrian bridge is a low-maintenance and green option, available 24/7, that can be equally (if not more) successful than the pedestrian paths on the Manhattan and Brooklyn bridges.

Posted on: 1/11 17:18
Top


Re: Would MTA be a better operator for PATH? And other ideas...
#52
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined :
2008/8/12 18:31
Last Login :
Yesterday 18:29
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 3744
Offline
Quote:

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


The area above the ceilings would not be suitable for pedestrians for a number of reasons:
- the height is (at most) 7.5 feet at its highest point (there is a 12.5 ft clearance in the roadway, while the ceiling itself is 5-6 inches thick, and the roadway is a bit thicker, while the tunnel itself has a diameter of 29.5 feet)
- the ceiling area consists of chambers used for ventilating the roadway. Without the chambers, the exhaust fumes of vehicles would accumulate in that area
- there is risk of death from co2 poisoning as a result of the accumulation of fumes in case of failure in the ventilation system or other unexpected failures.

Posted on: 1/11 15:10
Top


Re: Would MTA be a better operator for PATH? And other ideas...
#51
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined :
2015/5/28 0:34
Last Login :
7/18 17:03
From Jersey City
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 911
Offline
Quote:

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


I feel claustrophobic just looking at that photo.

Posted on: 1/11 0:13
Top


Re: Would MTA be a better operator for PATH? And other ideas...
#50
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined :
2009/9/25 22:27
Last Login :
7/19 20:07
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 184
Offline
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

Posted on: 1/10 22:49
Top


Re: Would MTA be a better operator for PATH? And other ideas...
#49
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined :
2008/8/12 18:31
Last Login :
Yesterday 18:29
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 3744
Offline
Quote:

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)


The HBLR is already supposed to extend much farther North than its current terminus, but the Bergen County folks have made it impossible for that to happen. And, extending to Staten Island is now impossible since the new bridge project failed to add capacity for a rail line.

Posted on: 1/9 21:29
Top


Re: Would MTA be a better operator for PATH? And other ideas...
#48
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined :
2008/8/12 18:31
Last Login :
Yesterday 18:29
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 3744
Offline
Quote:

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.


This is the part that I think most people underestimate the most: any project touching the NYC side will undoubtedly run into huge amounts of litigation. I wouldn't be surprised if it got mired in the court system for 5-10 years. Plus, you would have a lot of time spent in environmental and safety reviews bv the Coast Guard, NYS, NYC, NJ, etc.

But, in the end, something needs to be done, and might as well start sooner before we find ourselves with a real crisis. With ~30K more units coming to JC, the PATH will be much more chaotic in the very near future.

Posted on: 1/9 21:22
Top


Re: Would MTA be a better operator for PATH? And other ideas...
#47
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined :
2010/7/9 11:16
Last Login :
7/18 15:05
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 2355
Offline
Quote:

brewster wrote:


I agree a gondola makes more sense.


How about a Slingshot?




Posted on: 1/9 20:58
Top


Re: Would MTA be a better operator for PATH? And other ideas...
#46
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined :
2004/11/14 2:38
Last Login :
Yesterday 5:42
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 3634
Offline
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)

Posted on: 1/9 20:17
Top


Re: Would MTA be a better operator for PATH? And other ideas...
#45
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined :
2004/11/6 21:13
Last Login :
Yesterday 20:13
From Hamilton Park
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 5540
Offline
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.

Posted on: 1/9 19:09
Top


Re: Would MTA be a better operator for PATH? And other ideas...
#44
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined :
2008/8/12 18:31
Last Login :
Yesterday 18:29
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 3744
Offline
Quote:

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.


You should spend some more time reading about urban funiculars and new gondola systems. They can move 3,000 - 4,000 people per hour, at high speeds over 20 MPH, and do so over long distances. A Hudson crossing would be about 5 minutes from boarding to arrival. Not all that different than PATH, comparing EXP to WTC, or Newport to Christopher.

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.

Posted on: 1/9 18:52
Top


Re: Would MTA be a better operator for PATH? And other ideas...
#43
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined :
2008/8/12 18:31
Last Login :
Yesterday 18:29
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 3744
Offline
People keep throwing out the eventual deployment of 10-car trains, but they seem to not know this solution is only coming to the NWK/WTC line. That solution will do nothing for the overcrowding in the 33/JSQ line.


Posted on: 1/9 18:36
Top


Re: Would MTA be a better operator for PATH? And other ideas...
#42
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined :
2004/11/6 21:13
Last Login :
Yesterday 20:13
From Hamilton Park
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 5540
Offline
Quote:

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.


A poorer example would be hard to find. That bridge was built on an existing structure.
Resized Image

Your Hudson bridge would need piers placed in the middle of the Hudson river, and stout enough to withstand current, ice and the occasional ship impact. For reference, the little bridge from Newport to Hoboken Terminal cost $6.4 million. The little bridge below to LSP cost $800k.

Resized Image


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.

Posted on: 1/9 17:48
Top


Re: Would MTA be a better operator for PATH? And other ideas...
#41
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined :
2012/8/6 22:56
Last Login :
7/4 21:40
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 1021
Offline
Quote:

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

I have no idea. But I expect it will be later rather than sooner (i.e. decades not years), as they will soon expand capacity with switch upgrades, then eventually 10-car trains, and (one hopes) open gangway trains.


Quote:
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....

It won't happen tomorrow, but the new fleet is already close to 10 years old, and they could replace it in 20-25 years. At any rate, at least it's an option.


Quote:
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!!

It won't cost billions.

The new Tappan Zee -- sorry, new Mario Cuomo -- is 3 miles long, built for car traffic, and cost around $4 billion. That's for two separate structures, 8 auto lanes, a pedestrian crossing, and demolition of the existing bridge, all while keeping traffic flowing.

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.

Posted on: 1/9 16:44
Top


Re: Would MTA be a better operator for PATH? And other ideas...
#40
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined :
2012/8/6 22:56
Last Login :
7/4 21:40
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 1021
Offline
Quote:

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.

2nd Street to the park next to Stuyvesant is 1.5km. Even giving more room for entrance and exit, the Big Dam and Bob Kerrey bridges are in the general neighborhood. Obviously, Brooklyn and Manhattan residents are traveling more than 200 feet to get to the bridges. And again, there is no question that in terms of engineering, it's definitely feasible.

By the way, Big Dam cost around $12 million in 2007. Obviously a "Liberty Bridge" would be more expensive, but it's not going to cost billions.


Quote:
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.

That's why I also mentioned the Manhattan Bridge, which has 4000 bicycle crossings alone.

Distance isn't a deterrent. The pedestrian/bike path on the Manhattan Bridge is about 1.2 miles long, and still gets lots of weekday crossings.

In fact, there would be more commuter crossings on the Brooklyn Bridge if the facility wasn't so crowded. The demand is there, but the capacity isn't. If the path was widened, we'd see more crossings and more commuters using it.


Quote:
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.

This is not a zero-sum game. It's not "tram or pedestrian bridge." But if you must compare...

• 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.

Posted on: 1/9 15:44
Top


Re: Would MTA be a better operator for PATH? And other ideas...
#39
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined :
2008/8/12 18:31
Last Login :
Yesterday 18:29
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 3744
Offline
Quote:

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.


That's the necessary height for cargo ships, but the Hudson has other type of traffic, like cruise ships, that would be taller. The newest Royal Caribbean ships top out around 70-75 meters, so 215ft would cut it for that.

Posted on: 1/9 4:07
Top


Re: Would MTA be a better operator for PATH? And other ideas...
#38
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined :
2008/8/12 18:31
Last Login :
Yesterday 18:29
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 3744
Offline
The bridge in the referenced article is set at 200 feet above ground, which is plenty high, but it wouldn't be tall enough for the most recent cruise ships to be able to clear it, such as the Oasis-class ships from Royal Caribbean, which are about 75m.

Any pedestrian bridge being built will have to be at least 100m (330 ft) above the water to ensure it accommodates current and future sea traffic.

Posted on: 1/9 4:04
Top


Re: Would MTA be a better operator for PATH? And other ideas...
#37
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined :
2004/11/6 21:13
Last Login :
Yesterday 20:13
From Hamilton Park
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 5540
Offline
Quote:

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


That does not look the claimed 200' high, but anyway every single piece of that "proposal" was pure nonsense. The engineering as drawn was science fiction and the notion of putting all those 300ft pillars down to bedrock in the middle of the shipping channel is absurd, even if they were strong enough for ice conditions, which as drawn they are not.

Posted on: 1/9 4:03
Top


Re: Would MTA be a better operator for PATH? And other ideas...
#36
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined :
2015/5/28 0:34
Last Login :
7/18 17:03
From Jersey City
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 911
Offline
The only thing the Port Authority knows how to do well is raise fares, so, right or wrong, my demand pricing suggestion is the most likely thing to happen. :D

The problem is the Port Authority will just raise fares for all times if given the opportunity, not just during peak periods, with the extra funds being pissed away.

Posted on: 1/9 3:57
Top


Re: Would MTA be a better operator for PATH? And other ideas...
#35
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined :
2015/5/28 0:34
Last Login :
7/18 17:03
From Jersey City
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 911
Offline
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.

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.

Resized Image
Resized Image

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

Quote:

Resized Image

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

Posted on: 1/9 3:53
Top


Re: Would MTA be a better operator for PATH? And other ideas...
#34
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined :
2004/11/14 2:38
Last Login :
Yesterday 5:42
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 3634
Offline
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.

Resized Image
Resized Image

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

Quote:

Resized Image

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

Posted on: 1/9 3:32
Top


Re: Would MTA be a better operator for PATH? And other ideas...
#33
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined :
2015/5/28 0:34
Last Login :
7/18 17:03
From Jersey City
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 911
Offline
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.

Resized Image
Resized Image

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

Quote:

Resized Image

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

Posted on: 1/9 1:08
Top


Re: Would MTA be a better operator for PATH? And other ideas...
#32
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined :
2015/5/28 0:34
Last Login :
7/18 17:03
From Jersey City
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 911
Offline
Quote:

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.


How many more daily riders is needed until we hit that breaking point? We're already at 300,000 a day. Would another 10, 20, 30,000+ get us there? Whatever that number is, it's coming soon due to development at Newark, Harrison and Jersey City.

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 (or maybe it will for yours if you're really, really young). I hope I'm wrong about this point because it's a fantastic idea.


Quote:

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.)


Agreed!

Quote:
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....

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!!

Posted on: 1/9 1:06
Top


Re: Would MTA be a better operator for PATH? And other ideas...
#31
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined :
2015/5/28 0:34
Last Login :
7/18 17:03
From Jersey City
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 911
Offline
Quote:

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.


Roads are a nightmare during inclement weather. If you're coming from and going to the immediate areas serviced by PATH, I don't see how driving is an alternative unless someone just wants to waste money and enjoys traffic.

Door to door Journal Square to my office at WTC area was 35 minutes and $2.75. Driving would push 45 minutes on a good day along with cost of cost parking + tolls + gas + maintenance + depreciation + expected value probability some ahole got into an accident with me. People who drive fail to account for the true economic costs of driving.

I can see uber/lyft being an alternative, depending on where you're heading in NYC if 2 or 3 people use it. No need to worry about parking so it's really just the fare and tolls split 2 or 3 ways. But if you're heading from Journal Square to WTC area - there is no cost reasonable substitute to PATH. Your situation with the motorcycle, allowing you to pay less for gas, less for tolls, traveling the roads at less busy times, and being able to find free parking is an extremely unique case.

Posted on: 1/9 0:56
Top


Re: Would MTA be a better operator for PATH? And other ideas...
#30
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined :
2008/8/12 18:31
Last Login :
Yesterday 18:29
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 3744
Offline
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.

Posted on: 1/8 19:59
Top


Re: Would MTA be a better operator for PATH? And other ideas...
#29
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined :
2012/8/6 22:56
Last Login :
7/4 21:40
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 1021
Offline
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?

Posted on: 1/8 18:55
Top




« 1 (2) 3 »




[Advanced Search]





Login
Username:

Password:

Remember me



Lost Password?

Register now!



LicenseInformation | AboutUs | PrivacyPolicy | Faq | Contact


JERSEY CITY LIST - News & Reviews - Jersey City, NJ - Copyright 2004 - 2017