Browsing this Thread:
1 Anonymous Users
|
Re: Would MTA be a better operator for PATH? And other ideas...
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
 
|
Quote:
T-Bird, I agree with you but this is unrealistic when considering the harsh and cold winters. PATH needs another tunnel. Period. I heard a crazy idea of converting two lanes in the Lincoln Tunnel for a new PATH line to midtown. The car nuts would never let it happen of course, but it would be one way to increase transit capacity without spending the $10 billion for a tunnel.
Posted on: 2019/1/17 0:00
|
|||
|
||||
|
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
 |
Quote:
You're right. Though to be fair, I don't know that I'd want to live more than 10 minutes away either. I'd walk a 15 to 20 minute trip to the PATH at least 90% of the time, but would probably feel trapped if on the occasions it wasn't a reasonable option. I look at it as more of a flexibility consideration than an absolute unwillingness to walk more than 10 minutes.
Posted on: 2019/1/16 23:01
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Would MTA be a better operator for PATH? And other ideas...
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
I'll just note that there are plenty of people for which a greater than 10 minute walk to the subway or PATH takes a neighborhood out of consideration for them.
Posted on: 2019/1/16 18:32
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Would MTA be a better operator for PATH? And other ideas...
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
All digs aside, I would just say that Bloomberg did miss an opportunity at an enduring legacy a few years back when there was a lot of push for him to personally bankroll something akin to the ARC tunnel. I had a chance to do some work for his personal foundation and was really, really impressed with the dedication and passion of staff for the simple mission of spending his fortune in worthy projects. A Hudson tunnel could have been one such project, and it being privately funded could have bypassed a lot of the red tape of public projects. Perhaps it was bad timing, but given more recent developments, just imagine if you could pair together his fortune with the technical prowess and ambitions of The Boring Company and you could have a tunnel completed in very little time.
Posted on: 2019/1/16 18:20
|
|||
|
||||
|
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
|
Quote:
I'm looking out the window from my office at the occulus. (If I ever figured out how to post pictures on here, I'd show you!) I'm intimately familiar with the landscape of the area. You could run the tram/cc through Vesey street. It isn't going to be used for regular vehicular traffic again. You could land the cars at the SW corner of Greenwich and Vesey - across Greenwich from the Oculus. I could see concerns about needing to harden the freedom tower in the area the cable car passed by, but perhaps there is a solution. I really don't know. So, because the portal bridge hasn't been addressed, all bridges everywhere can't be touched, built or otherwise thought about? I didn't suggest an specific height and said "I'm guessing." Unlike several of the resident experts here (I'll leave that to you to determine whether it applies), I don't spout off with firm expert opinions about things which I actually have just passing familiarity. But... the google tells me that the low clearance up to Albany is 134 feet at the Mid-Hudson Bridge at Poughkeepsie. (The new Tappan Zee bridge is only 139.) So right off the bat we've shaved 80+ feet from bodhipooh's pulled from a hat 215'. I'm sure further study by people who actually think about these things for a paycheck could determine how much lower you could go. I'm all for ferries, tram/cable cars, and pedestrian/cycling infrastructure - all of the above. But to think "fitness freaks" are the only audience for a pedestrian/bike bridge misses the mark and to me is another symptom of the chronic obesity that plagues our country. Walking a mile and a half several times a week is the bare minimum of activity an adult should be getting. Fitness is not a reason I'd advocate for a bridge, but definitely a nice benefit. As I said - such a bridge isn't something I'd expect to gain traction any time soon, but a President Bloomberg using revenue generated by a carbon tax? It would at least enter the realm of possible, were those events to transpire.
Posted on: 2019/1/16 17:47
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Would MTA be a better operator for PATH? And other ideas...
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Just can't stay away
 
|
The cable car and pedestrian bridge are pipe dreams. The solution is....wait for it....PATH!!! It transports hundreds of riders in each car. No pedestrian bridge or gondola can match that. The solution would be for PATH to run their trains more frequently. The problems is PATH won't do it even after the signal upgrades. Why? PATH just doesn't seem to care that it's riders are crammed in or have to wait for another train. That's the problem.
Posted on: 2019/1/16 17:44
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Would MTA be a better operator for PATH? And other ideas...
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
Awesome! Are there any links to read about this? T-Bird: you seem to have no notion of how conservative the Feds are about navigable waterways, from bays to creeks. Just look at the craziness at the Portal Bridge on the Hack, where a barge coming through can snarl commuter trains carrying thousands. There's no way they would close the door on shipping taller than 50' ever using the entire Hudson, which is navigable up to Albany. As for your "just land it at the Oculus", have you actually looked a map and photos of that area? Snaking through the forest of buildings, and not passing over sacred Ground Zero would be quite a trick. Just think how much free or subsidized ferry service could be provided for the tremendous cost of allowing a few fitness freaks to walk or pedal across the Hudson.
Posted on: 2019/1/16 17:10
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Would MTA be a better operator for PATH? And other ideas...
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
If you are talking to me, then I agree, and never said otherwise. However, rail is obviously quite different than ferries, bridges and ARTs. Quote: That giant one in Vietnam was completed in 19 months, including the approval process. Vietnam has an authoritarian government, so... Approvals are not as big an issue as in the NYC area. The towers were all built on undeveloped/park land, connects one large island to a smaller island slated for tourist development, and duplicated an existing ferry service. I.e. it's a tourist attraction, not a commuter system. For a Hudson tram to work, you'd need massive towers (200+ feet high) on both sides, so it will have at least the same local objections as a pedestrian bridge. If the towers are on land, then it will need room for the gondolas to rise. Thus, it offers no advantages in this respect over a bridge. (Ferries obviously already have their docks.) I'm not seeing many signs that they're cheap, either. Portland's ART is 1km long and transports 10k riders per weekday. It was basically built to connect OHSU's two campuses. OHSU patients, students and staff travel free, and everyone else pays $4.70. It cost $56m to build in 2007 (initial projections were $15m btw), mostly on land owned by OHSU. It only travels over land; tallest tower is 140 feet; it needs 3 engines (one is on standby) and a 40 long-ton counterweight; does not operate 24 hours per day, and costs $1.7 million to operate per year. So, like I said... Compared to a bridge, trams need engines, have lots of moving parts, require more ongoing maintenance, require more power, will cost riders more, will require tickets, and still has a first/last mile problem. Nothing you've said proves otherwise. Quote: There's exponentially more tramways & gondolas in the world than subways. ...yes, that's because they are commonly used for ski resorts and tourist attractions. Quote: You clearly have simply no understanding of the engineering challenges that make your bridge a terrible idea. Bridge building is not easy, the history of collapses range from the recent ones in Italy and FL back to classical times. Have you ever seen the film of the collapse of the Tacoma Narrows Bridge due to wind resonance? You saw a movie about the Tacoma Narrows in high school, therefore all bridges are insanely difficult to build and maintain? Are you even remotely serious right now? You should be glad to hear that bridge engineering and construction has come a long way since 1940. Anyway... I never said that building a bridge would be easy. I'm saying it would be easier and greener than a tram (and that expanding existing ferries is easier than both), that it has less of a first/last mile problem, is easier to maintain etc etc. Quote: So, simply put: the design by the stupid architects is not viable due to the number of pylons in the river obstructing traffic and driving up costs.... The plans already meet clearance requirements. They didn't just slap together some renderings in 3ds Max, they did a bit of homework. There is really no question that the project is feasible.
Posted on: 2019/1/16 17:09
|
|||
|
||||
|
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
|
Quote:
Didn't say there wasn't other shipping traffic, just that it wasn't tall. As i mentioned, I live on the waterfront - I see what's passing. There is no requirement that we organize our regional infrastructure around the desires of Carnival and Norwegian cruise lines. As for crude oil (I'm in the oil business), the overwhelming majority of crude coming from the Bakken and Williston basins (ND and MT) was coming via rail, not barge. Now that Dakota Access has opened, almost half the crude produced there now leaves the basin via pipeline down to Illinois. As a result, crude transportation patterns have shifted considerably and Bayway is taking on a lot less Bakken crude than it used to. I'm not against a cable car, per se. Would be interested to see if it could be built as part of, or in conjunction with, a bridge.
Posted on: 2019/1/16 14:12
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Would MTA be a better operator for PATH? And other ideas...
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
Cruise ships are not the only ships traveling on the Hudson! In recent years, the Hudson has become incredibly active with crude oil transportation. Crude oil is brought from North Dakota to NJ (to be refined) and it travels south from Albany to NJ via the Hudson. Additionally, there is other commercial shipping happening. As a result, any new bridge would have to comply with federally mandated regulations regarding clearance and such. Quote:
You are wrong in your assumptions. See above. As for the luddite dig, in my case nothing could be further from the truth. I work in tech, and definitely favor creative, tech-forward solutions to most problems. I am also a realist. If I had to choose between the idea of a cable car system or a pedestrian bridge, I am definitely in favor of a cable car implementation, which I think is actually doable. In fact, there are already feasibility studies happening, and the largest cable car manufacturing company in the world is lobbying behind the scenes to promote this project.
Posted on: 2019/1/16 12:46
|
|||
|
||||
|
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
|
I live on the waterfront - I see the ship traffic. Other than cruise ships and the very occasional vintage tall ship it?s all low profile traffic, mostly barges. Whatever the clearance would need to be, it?s much less than what a cruise ship needs.
As for the last mile problem on the NYC side - you wouldn?t have to end it at the river bank. Run it across the west side highway and have the terminal convenient to the oculus for ease of connecting into the subway.
Posted on: 2019/1/16 11:51
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Would MTA be a better operator for PATH? And other ideas...
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
That the idea that a simple cheap bridge can be easily thrown across the Hudson is unrealistic. Quote:
This is getting into the territory of federally regulated navigable waterways. Good luck with eliminating major shipping from the Hudson River. Quote:
We're talking about the expansive river views of the many thousands of millionaires working and/or living on the waterfront. They don't take stuff like this lying down.
Posted on: 2019/1/15 23:18
|
|||
|
||||
|
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
|
Quote:
And ferries sink, subways occasionally crash, gondolas stop for hours at a time sometimes and even collapse now and then. What's your point? The ramp length/height argument is a red herring, predicated on the belief that cruise ships need to be accommodated. They don't. That's the problem with you luddites - you only see things how they are. The cruise lines are private enterprises. Why would we allow their profitability to dictate infrastructure decisions, if we decided to go in that direction? To provide clearance for essential water traffic (I'm guessing here), you probably only need to get 60 or so feet above the water. Estimates of usage are off as well - people well beyond downtown JC (or JC in general) would use it. A couple times a week, I ride to work. I live downtown and work at 7 WTC. I take the GW bridge - and there are a lot more people doing this than you'd expect. They come from throughout Hudson, Bergen and even Passaic counties. Not all are going downtown, obviously, but a bridge to downtown from JC would attract a wider population of riders. Do I think this is a likely solution in the next decade? Unfortunately, no. It will happen at some point though, probably once we hit the point where there is a carbon tax or emissions trading system that would provide funding for projects like these. I agree with Dolomiti that the cost would be less than you think and that it would prove as or more cost effective than most/all of the other ideas, many of which require operating subsidies. It would be interesting to look at whether the bridge and cable car ideas could be merged. Maybe you could share pilings in order to build both in a way that makes them each a lot more cost effective. And Brewster - did you really mention the "eyesore factor" down thread (I think it was about cable cars)??? You live in Jersey City for god's sake. 
Posted on: 2019/1/15 23:11
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Would MTA be a better operator for PATH? And other ideas...
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Cable trams are much cheaper than rail, your comparison of cost is flawed. That giant one in Vietnam was completed in 19 months, including the approval process. There's exponentially more tramways & gondolas in the world than subways.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_gondola_lifts https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_aerial_tramways You clearly have simply no understanding of the engineering challenges that make your bridge a terrible idea. Bridge building is not easy, the history of collapses range from the recent ones in Italy and FL back to classical times. Have you ever seen the film of the collapse of the Tacoma Narrows Bridge due to wind resonance? It was shown to me in HS physics class. So, simply put: the design by the stupid architects is not viable due to the number of pylons in the river obstructing traffic and driving up costs, each one needing to be far more robust than you think to survive in 50' of fast moving current and ice, frequent 40 mph winds and the occasional hurricane. A "minimalist" classic suspension span is not viable due to the distance, requiring a very rigid roadway to be stable and thus making it far bigger and heavier than the simple pedestrian bridge you envision. And that's putting aside the issue of ramp length required as bodhipooh describes. It's a stupid idea.
Posted on: 2019/1/15 19:19
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Would MTA be a better operator for PATH? And other ideas...
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
brewster wrote:
Quote:
Please. - A trolley needs some pretty serious engines, has a lot more moving parts, has to carry much heavier loads, and needs a lot of maintenance to ensure reliability and safety - Trolley will require more power, more maintenance = less environmentally friendly Mind you, I'm not saying that a bridge is simple or zero maintenance. It's that it is simpler and requires less maintenance than a tram. Quote: Quote: When compared to a pedestrian bridge, it's a bug. Almost no public transportation systems pay for themselves via fares. Public transportation is incredibly expensive to build and operate; users don't want to pay the full cost; and people flip out when fares rise by any amount (which is why fares can go for years without so much as a simple adjustment for inflation). The NYC subway is one of the most efficient systems in the US, but still loses $1 per trip, and thus incurs a $1.2 billion deficit. The ferries are for-profit, not subsidized, and costs $8 per trip. This is one reason why the ferries carry fewer passengers than the PATH: Higher price = lower demand. If a Hudson tram charges full price, whatever that price is, that will result in lower demand. If they subsidize the price, that increases demand, but then the system essentially loses money on each passenger. Again, once you start charging, you need ticketing systems. That means riders have to spend time buying tickets, it means you need ticket booths, you need customer service.... Best of all, some government agency will have to manage the tram, and absorb the losses. The most likely candidate is, drum roll please... Port Authority! In theory NJ Transit could do it, but they are already in a mess. MTA, by the way, has something like a $6 billion deficit, so they won't want it either. And of course, from the perspective of a commuter, $0 can be quite enticing compared to $8 or $5 or $2.75 per trip. Quote: tourists would pay to use the gondola, subsidizing it's cost. They only subsidize the cost if the tram charges more per trip than it costs to operate -- and that almost never happens with public transportation. (See above.) Quote: I don't disagree with the notion of expanding and subsidizing ferry service, as I said, we need all the transport we can get given the population expansion. I'm just saying the bridge is an extremely stupid idea, a tramway a better idea, more effective and actually doable, but still unlikely. It isn't a "stupid idea," it's just one that does not appeal to you personally. In a region that wants to reduce congestion on the streets, and where an aging subway system is already under strain, enhancing human-powered options is an excellent option, and something we should encourage.
Posted on: 2019/1/15 18:10
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Would MTA be a better operator for PATH? And other ideas...
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
Actually, they can work both ways (I've been geeking out on this). There's Gondola Lifts, that are what you describe, many cars running continuously on a circulating cable, and there's Aerial Reversing Tramways, where there's only 2 cars, and they balance each other so one goes up while the other goes down. It took me a while to understand this was the reason for the giant cars on the Vietnamese tram, there's only 2 cars so you want to maximize capacity rather than have a zillion little cars like in La Paz. Roosevelt Island also has the reversing kind. I like this idea because it seems like a way to hack the physical and financial hurdles that keep new transit from being developed, same as the Bus Rapid Transit on Summit Ave idea. But neither will happen, it's just so damn much easier to do nothing, and doing nothing has a built in constituency. BPC will never consent to a 500' tower on their shore, a tramway in their view, and give up a street or park for a station, just to convenience residents of Jersey.
Posted on: 2019/1/15 3:23
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Would MTA be a better operator for PATH? And other ideas...
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
I don't think you understand how modern cable cars work. They run continuously, with cars arriving every few seconds. Some systems don't even stop for people to get on and off. It is all continuous. Wait times should be minimal. Quote:
A pedestrian bridge over the Hudson would have to have a clearance of about 65 meters. This is significantly higher (~50% higher) than the Brooklyn or Manhattan bridges. The only way to achieve that clearance would be to reclaim a lot of real estate on both sides of the Hudson (to allow for a gradual incline) or have a very steep incline that would prove too challenging for most people, or provide stairs and/or elevators, which would invariably become bottlenecks.
Posted on: 2019/1/15 2:43
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Would MTA be a better operator for PATH? And other ideas...
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
Just like a bridge Quote:
disagree, you just have no clue about the engineering required Quote:
Quote:
feature, not a bug Quote:
But tourists would pay to use the gondola, subsidizing it's cost. I don't disagree with the notion of expanding and subsidizing ferry service, as I said, we need all the transport we can get given the population expansion. I'm just saying the bridge is an extremely stupid idea, a tramway a better idea, more effective and actually doable, but still unlikely.
Posted on: 2019/1/14 23:04
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Would MTA be a better operator for PATH? And other ideas...
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
realistically, nj needs to take the lead and build another tunnel basically one with 3 or 4 tracks for trains and 3 or 4 lanes for buses; this would account for population growth.
why can't nj/ny do sometype of public private partnership? why can't they just make the port authority fund it and be done with it. the longer we wait, the more expensive it will be.
Posted on: 2019/1/14 22:03
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Would MTA be a better operator for PATH? And other ideas...
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
I have no doubt it can be done. It's just that subsidizing/adding ferries would be easier, faster, more affordable and more flexible.
Posted on: 2019/1/14 21:54
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Would MTA be a better operator for PATH? And other ideas...
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
sigh Again: A trolley system is, ultimately, just a more expensive and less flexible version of a ferry. ? It only goes point-to-point, which leaves a big problem for first- and last-mile ? It's less environmentally friendly than a pedestrian bridge ? It's a much bigger engineering challenge than a pedestrian bridge (or adding ferries) ? It will cost more to build and maintain than a pedestrian bridge (or adding ferries) ? Even if subsidized, it will cost riders more than a pedestrian bridge ? Like the ferries, you have to wait for the tram and to buy tickets; the only way you'd wait for the pedestrian bridge is if it is incredibly crowded ? A tram won't be much faster than a bicycle, possibly slower given boarding times Those are a few reasons why I favor a pedestrian bridge -- or, at least, subsidizing and adding ferries -- over a tram. Quote: For the amount of people you can move via cable car, we could easily solve the issue of moving people in/out of Manhattan. Not so much -- because, again, you've got a first- and last-mile problem. That's not inconsequential, given the paucity of subway stations on most of the West Side. And as we see with the Manhattan and Brooklyn bridges, a bridge that you can bike over doesn't have that issue. Quote: As you correctly point out, a cable car solution would also enjoy tourist interest.... So would a pedestrian bridge.
Posted on: 2019/1/14 21:52
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Would MTA be a better operator for PATH? And other ideas...
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
While I think it's more sensible than a bridge, even 30k/day one way will probably not solve the development and transit issues we have here in Hudson & Essex Counties. It's 1/4 the current PATH load, and as we continue to build and gentrify that demand will only get higher. That's an interesting point about the tourist load being non-peak and thus spreading the load and increasing revenue. There's not a lot online about the technical challenges of this idea. Most use already mountainous terrain to get the altitude needed. It makes me wonder how high the towers would need to be to carry a significant payload of cars the minimum >200 ft above the river. The record is the Vietnamese Ha Long tower at 189m, which also has double decked cars carrying 230 passengers. A Hudson span would also surpass this ones span of 1,206m if the towers are on dry land. 
Posted on: 2019/1/14 20:28
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Would MTA be a better operator for PATH? And other ideas...
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
Lots of people working in Exchange Place and Harborside, and there is a fairly sizable chunk of commuters going into Newark.
Posted on: 2019/1/14 17:31
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Would MTA be a better operator for PATH? And other ideas...
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
This is PRECISELY why I mentioned the idea of cable cars upthread: the new designs can carry a LARGE amount of people, and do so in a quick manner. Not sure why Dolomiti can't see past his pedestrian bridge pipe dream, but finds the cable car solution unworkable or too expensive. For the amount of people you can move via cable car, we could easily solve the issue of moving people in/out of Manhattan. Yes, once on the other side some/most people would have to switch to another system for "last mile" arrival at their destination, but this is also true of the PATH, or the ferries. As you correctly point out, a cable car solution would also enjoy tourist interest, which could make it more affordable for all by remaining highly used throughout the day. Heck, even evening usage could attract a lot of interest from those wanting to get a bird's eye view of the NYC skyline at night.
Posted on: 2019/1/14 17:30
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Would MTA be a better operator for PATH? And other ideas...
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
I would not have thought 1/6 of all PATH traffic was intra-Jersey.
Posted on: 2019/1/14 16:44
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Would MTA be a better operator for PATH? And other ideas...
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
The answer is not everyone heads to Manhattan. There are a lot of folks that get on in Journal Square going to Newark.
Posted on: 2019/1/14 4:31
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Would MTA be a better operator for PATH? And other ideas...
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
That was very interesting. I guess it's viability depends on the numbers, but it still faces the "eyesore" hurdle and land use issues. I'm impressed that "One line in the Bolivian capital La Paz carries up to 65,000 people every 24 hours". That would be about half the capacity of the WTC PATH line, nothing to sneeze at, and a Hudson crossing would probably be a tourist draw on the order of the London Eye. What would be fascinating would be to have it multi-station, like Lincoln Park to McGinley Sq to Exchange Place to BPC. Something is perplexing me about the numbers here https://www.panynj.gov/path/pdf/2017-P ... thly-Ridership-Report.pdf. It appears only 80% of the people who arrive in Manhattan by PATH leave by PATH. The ridership is quite asymmetric. What can account for this? Fare evasion in on the NJ side? It seems unlikely that 20% of riders who arrive by PATH would exit by NJT bus or train.
Posted on: 2019/1/14 3:33
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Would MTA be a better operator for PATH? And other ideas...
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
maybe a cable car across the hudson could be made to make sense
http://www.bbc.com/future/gallery/201 ... se-of-the-urban-cable-car
Posted on: 2019/1/13 23:36
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Would MTA be a better operator for PATH? And other ideas...
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
Posted on: 2019/1/13 23:19
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Would MTA be a better operator for PATH? And other ideas...
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
Joined:
2005/6/8 3:24 Last Login : 2022/11/28 0:04 From New Urbanist Area
Group:
Registered Users
Posts:
1429
|
After 9/11 New Jersey Association of Railroad Passengers was advocating connecting the PATH to the Lexington Avenue line. Apparently the tracks are the right width, and with all the construction that had to have been done, it would have been feasible. It never got off the ground and never got to the point where one would have to figure out which agency would run it.
Posted on: 2019/1/12 18:38
|
|||
|
||||