Jump to content
Attention: In order to reply to messages, create topics, have access to other features of the community you must sign up for an account.
Sign in to follow this  
mtattrain

Port Authority considering replacing PABT

Recommended Posts

I hate to be the guy, but do you have any content or source to cite? I can find one myself, but it's the least you could do to open a discussion.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

According to many the PA is conducting experiments to plan out a replacement bus terminal for PABT.

The place is literally HELL and needs work big time. I don't know how many of you guys have had to get out to NJ during the PM rush, but it's an easy 10 times worse than Penn Station on a bad day. Coming in during the AM is a bit better but still a pain in the ass.

 

I know they're renovating/replacing the GWB Bus Terminal, so I hope they can do something similar here, especially with more and more families moving to NJ and heavy increases in bus traffic from NJ. The place will be well over capacity very soon, hell it's basically there already.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They honestly need to build a new terminal because the existing one is just too small, in every sense of the word.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Where would you put the replacement exactly? Over the Hudson Yards?

 

Actually that sounds like a good idea.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Where would you put the replacement exactly? Over the Hudson Yards?

 

Actually that sounds like a good idea.

 

Javits is located partially below street level. Just demolish Javits (using the Annex as a temporary space) and rebuild the convention center, but using the bottom of that giant concrete bathtub as a bus terminal. Voila, new bus terminal, and you're replacing a rather depressing facility that's somewhat outdated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They honestly need to build a new terminal because the existing one is just too small, in every sense of the word.

No kidding. I am surprised NJT didn't start short turning NY bound bus lines at sec jct and making them take trains to reduce the strain on port authority. Or at port imperial via cross honoring with the ferry I am surprised they don't do it with 158.

 

What port authority should build is a bridge from the bus terminal to NJ for bus traffic only. But sometimes I feel at PM rush that there are more buses than cars is that somewhat true?

Edited by qjtransitmaster

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Javits center is still used pretty heavily as a convention center, it is not going to be turned into a bus terminal. 

 

PABT is really terrible. Some days I go in there and it looks like the lines at JFK to get through customs. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What we need are satellite terminals, not a new and bigger PA bus terminal which was built in the wrong location anyway. See the other thread

 

http://www.nyctransitforums.com/forums/topic/41625-the-need-for-off-street-bus-terminals/

 

(It should have been built near Penn Station where the old Greyhound terminal was to facilitate transfers from the railroads.)

 

Harry, I think these two threads should be combined perhaps.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh yes, and what makes it worse is when say there's an accident in the outbound tube or on the Jersey side, it in effect ties up the bus traffic coming out of the port and in effect brings traffic to a grinding halt on the inbound side, especially at rush hour??? Might as well bring a pillow and blankie....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've traveled in the reverse peak to NY before. It's a nightmare, that traffic takes forever, and even in the reverse peak, you still have traffic problems. It will never end.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The previous plan for replacing the terminal was to move it to Secaucus. This would have been in conjunction with the (7) extension. It would have taken a lot of traffic out of the tunnel.

 

Also, as for satellite terminals, they used to have that (and they're trying again. Greyhound is trying to get a piece of Seward Park). There used to be some East Side midtown terminal or something, and now I can't even find any info on it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I find it very odd that you have stoplights at the NY end of the Lincoln Tunnel. Seems to me that the Lincoln was Meant to have a little more to it than what it is now

 

B35 is right. We need more space rather than all the BS that was said in the article. How is capacity at GWB? Maybe some buses could be diverted up that way, say like buses coming in from Pennsy on I-80

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Javits center is still used pretty heavily as a convention center, it is not going to be turned into a bus terminal. 

 

PABT is really terrible. Some days I go in there and it looks like the lines at JFK to get through customs. 

Correct on both counts, but since the whole area will be torn up with the 7 line extension, there could be some space available to do something to replace that urine infested hell hole.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I find the concept of a single 2 track IRT transit line handling the entire passenger flow from a proposed bus terminal out in Secaucus into NYC kind of cute.

 

Of course you have to factor in the people who would transfer from the buses to NJT's midtown direct service, but seriously, unless they planned on implementing a combined Bus-Rail fare system, who is going to choose NJT trains over direct subway service?

 

Even with CBTC and 27 trains per hour, you'd be looking at a nightmare of a commute squeezing hundreds of thousands of commuters onto those cramped 11 car IRT width trains.



Quickly reading this article, too much of it focuses on aesthetics.... I'd like to hear/read more about improving bus flow & quite frankly, the sheer capacity of said buses......

Said buses are already at design capacity. You're not really going to get more than 57 or so seats on the standard 45 foot coach, and you're really not going to be able to squeeze more than 80-90 or so people onto any bus (articulateds included). So the main focus is going to be on increasing hourly capacity in terms of the number of buses.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The previous plan for replacing the terminal was to move it to Secaucus. This would have been in conjunction with the (7) extension. It would have taken a lot of traffic out of the tunnel.

 

Also, as for satellite terminals, they used to have that (and they're trying again. Greyhound is trying to get a piece of Seward Park). There used to be some East Side midtown terminal or something, and now I can't even find any info on it.

The East Side terminal was for the airport buses that Carey Transportation ran.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Said buses are already at design capacity. You're not really going to get more than 57 or so seats on the standard 45 foot coach, and you're really not going to be able to squeeze more than 80-90 or so people onto any bus (articulateds included).

 

So the main focus is going to be on increasing hourly capacity in terms of the number of buses.

Nah man, I was referring to the overall capacity of physical buses that would fit inside a revamped/relocated terminal, not the capacity of passengers per bus....

 

I see where the original statement looks like I'm referring to passenger capacity...

So I'll amend it to read:

 

"I'd like to hear/read more about improving bus flow & quite frankly, the sheer capacity for said buses......"

 

 

 

B35 is right. We need more space rather than all the BS that was said in the article.

How is capacity at GWB? Maybe some buses could be diverted up that way, say like buses coming in from Pennsy on I-80

From my experiences, I have never seen buses backed up tryna enter GWB...

Certainly won't see a conga line of buses at & around GWB like you do @ PABT along 10th av...

Edited by B35 via Church
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Javits center is still used pretty heavily as a convention center, it is not going to be turned into a bus terminal. 

 

PABT is really terrible. Some days I go in there and it looks like the lines at JFK to get through customs.

 

it can still be a bus stop though. I think but should truncate reverse peak trips at secaucus jct and end some buses at port imperial and strike a deal with the ferry company they can save money by using port authority less.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quickly reading this article, too much of it focuses on aesthetics.... I'd like to hear/read more about improving bus flow & quite frankly, the sheer capacity of said buses......

 

The New York Times has a bad habit of doing that, putting aesthetics ahead of functionality, I mean, I understand that it needs to be appealing and look nice, but the stuff behind the scenes also counts. The Times is doing the same thing in regards to Penn Station - they're mostly promoting the chance of new, grandiose terminal, and not necessarily the other aspect of it, which would be increase track capacity or a new river tunnel. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nah man, I was referring to the overall capacity of physical buses that would fit inside a revamped/relocated terminal, not the capacity of passengers per bus....

 

I see where the original statement looks like I'm referring to passenger capacity...

So I'll amend it to read:

 

"I'd like to hear/read more about improving bus flow & quite frankly, the sheer capacity for said buses......"

 

 

 

From my experiences, I have never seen buses backed up tryna enter GWB...

Certainly won't see a conga line of buses at & around GWB like you do @ PABT along 10th av...

that probably because PABT is in a more desirable area of the city than GWB. With PABT, tourists end up closer to the tourist traps down town. With GWB, they end up in "Little Dominican Republic" (not a really popular destination for someo e on their first trip to the big city).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

it can still be a bus stop though. I think but should truncate reverse peak trips at secaucus jct and end some buses at port imperial and strike a deal with the ferry company they can save money by using port authority less.

 

Bus to commuter rail to subway? Yeah, right.

 

Midtown Direct trains are full at Secaucus, so there's no room to dump all of these people.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

that probably because PABT is in a more desirable area of the city than GWB. With PABT, tourists end up closer to the tourist traps down town. With GWB, they end up in "Little Dominican Republic" (not a really popular destination for someo e on their first trip to the big city).

yup.... PABT is situated in a CBD.... GWB is situated in a more residential area (well, more residential than midtown anyway)...

 

The New York Times has a bad habit of doing that, putting aesthetics ahead of functionality, I mean, I understand that it needs to be appealing and look nice, but the stuff behind the scenes also counts. The Times is doing the same thing in regards to Penn Station - they're mostly promoting the chance of new, grandiose terminal, and not necessarily the other aspect of it, which would be increase track capacity or a new river tunnel. 

I suppose what it is, is that It (focusing on aesthetics) keeps readers (the general public) interested in the articles they pump out..... Guess they figure the technicalities regarding improving busflow & space for the buses themselves would loom boring & disinteresting.... In laymen's, (the notion is likely that the) general public won't/doesn't care.....

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What we need are satellite terminals, not a new and bigger PA bus terminal which was built in the wrong location anyway. See the other thread

 

http://www.nyctransitforums.com/forums/topic/41625-the-need-for-off-street-bus-terminals/

 

(It should have been built near Penn Station where the old Greyhound terminal was to facilitate transfers from the railroads.)

 

Harry, I think these two threads should be combined perhaps.

 

This is a misdiagnosis of the problem. The problem with capacity is not that of Greyhound buses (although they are also quite full), but of the various commuter services that enter the terminal every day. People on these commuter services are generally headed towards Midtown or Downtown, so decentralization would be less effective.

 

I suppose what it is, is that It (focusing on aesthetics) keeps readers (the general public) interested in the articles they pump out..... Guess they figure the technicalities regarding improving busflow & space for the buses themselves would loom boring & disinteresting.... In laymen's, (the notion is likely that the) general public won't/doesn't care.....

 

The other problem is that during the Robert Moses era, all infrastructure in the city was built without little, if any, asthethic focus, and that has left numerous scars on the city (the highways dividing neighborhoods, the destruction of Penn Station, the isolation of the housing projects, etc.), and the NY Times feels the need to compensate for some of that. There is some merit, however, to improving the general passenger flow of PABT, since both functionally and asthetically it is subpar.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.