NEW YORK | Port Authority Bus Terminal Replacement

[ardecila]

All of the solutions presented are worse from a connectivity standpoint than existing. However...

I probably like the Pelli proposal the best - clearly they've learned from their experience at Transbay in SF. It isn't some weird sprawling spider of a building but fairly compact and space-efficient. It would have a direct connection to the 7 train (assuming the infill station is built) and only a block walk to the A/C/E through some kind of underground concourse below the current terminal.

Since it requires almost no land acquisition, it's simply a matter of getting it built, and it seems like they've figured out how to build it while keeping the current terminal operating.

I like the Perkins Eastman plan, it's a creative idea to combine the convention center with the bus terminal, and probably very cost-effective, but the location is probably too disconnected from the subway. The only connection would be to the 7 train, with no options to go uptown or downtown.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by ardecila

I like the Perkins Eastman plan, it's a creative idea to combine the convention center with the bus terminal, and probably very cost-effective, but the location is probably too disconnected from the subway. The only connection would be to the 7 train, with no options to go uptown or downtown.

And the Javits Center will probably be relocated by the time these proposals even come to fruition. The state has long considered relocating Javits to Queens and selling the land for redevelopment.

If Javits is the preferred PABT location (which I doubt as too far west), might as well coordinate redevelopment and relocation.

[Zerton]

I thought Javits was a major money-maker though?

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by Zerton

I thought Javits was a major money-maker though?

I don't think any convention center is a major money-maker. They're usually huge loss leaders, but they (in theory) positively impact other industries like hotels and restaurants.

The issue is that Javits sits on a massive amount of land zoned for high density. Convention centers don't need to be sitting on some of the most valuable land in town. Gov. Cuomo tried to move Javits to Queens a couple years back, but there were political/practical impediments, and it got tangled up with statewide casino expansion.

[mrnyc]

Originally Posted by Hamilton

Can someone explain to me why a 7 train to Secaucus would be a "band-aid" solution? All of the buses at the PABT only handle about 220,000 riders in a single day. With CBTC/PTC, the 7 train could well handle the entirety of that load (the L train currently carries about 225,000 people under the East River daily). Even if demand does eventually grow to exceed the capacity of the 7 train, a 7 train extension would allow you to close and renovate half of PABT, then do the same to the other half. No need for ultra-expensive land acquisition and bulldozing on the West Side.

yes its not either/or and obviously this could be the more forward thinking action to take. looking ahead, both a new bus facility and more hudson rail transit are needed. i dont think you could tear down and rebuild an all new pabt and fund rail, but perhaps renovating the current one would save enough $ to add the 7 train extension? i dk, but both need to be done. a secaucus 7 train would relieve a lot of bus congestion.

[C.]

Originally Posted by mrnyc

yes its not either/or and obviously this could be the more forward thinking action to take. looking ahead, both a new bus facility and more hudson rail transit are needed. i dont think you could tear down and rebuild an all new pabt and fund rail, but perhaps renovating the current one would save enough $ to add the 7 train extension? i dk, but both need to be done. a secaucus 7 train would relieve a lot of bus congestion.

There is a myth out there that renovating the current facility is an option. The structural steel is failing and needs to be replaced. Buses are a lot heavier nowadays then when the facility was first designed. It's almost impossible to do that without tearing the old thing down. Then that would do nothing for cacapitu improvements. The current facility is already overcapacity and significant growth is expected over the next 30 years.

[mrnyc]

^ no doubt. and doubtful a renovation would save all that much $ anyway. regardless, more trans hudson rail service will only be needed more and more as time goes on and there is an opportunity here to try to work that in too. if the new pabt is to be rebuilt in manhattan, as seems to be case, i dont know where the money to do that would come from. not sure the $ from the current site and even perhaps an added tower on the new version would be anywhere near enough to also extend the 7 train. its too bad.

[TonyNYC]

The Bus terminal doesn't belong in Manhattan for a ton of reasons! It has to be moved to the other side of the Hudson!

There are a total of two tubes coming in and out midtown owned by Amtrak that are 100 years old. They need to be replaced desperately!! Christie killed ARC already because of cost overruns and no one to pay for them. There needs to be a comprehensive plan that incorporates multiple new tubes for Amtrak and commuters coming into Penn Station. Expand Penn through the Farley to handle the influx of all the new commuters coming in. Manhattan West and Hudson Yards are the future of Midtown.. it's were all the big firms are signing long term leases!! Penn/Farley should be able to handle the increase since East Side Access will lower ridership into Penn from the LIRR

Bus terminal needs to be built in Secaucus.. sell off all the land around the old Bus terminal to help offset the costs! Insane.. to build a bus terminal right there again.. and possibly at a cost of up to $15 billion!! We know that means $25 billion and up!! Get those buses outta here.. frees up traffic in and around the Lincoln Tunnel and the City.

Fresh air.. what a concept!

[Zerton]

Source: Port Authority of NY & NJ

This is a map of how people commute to Manhattan. By moving the bus terminal across the Hudson, you will significantly inconvenience hundreds of thousands of workers.

[Nexis4Jersey]

Those are all areas awaiting for Rail restoration which is being held up by the Gateway Project..

West Shore Line (Bergen / Rockland County)
Monmouth Ocean Middlesex Rail network (3 lines)
West Trenton line (Mercer / Somerset / Middlesex)
Kingsland Branch (Bergen / Hudson)

& Light Rail

Northern Branch LRT (Bergen County)
Cross County (Bergen County)
Hudson Bergen LRT to Staten Island
Newark - Paterson LRT

build those lines in conjunction with the Gateway and you'll be able to switch most of that yellow & red sea to a blue sea.. As it stands now , most are un-happy with the one seat ride being taken away...and the NJ Politicos are not about to go against the voters...as that would career ending for some..

[C.]

Originally Posted by Zerton

Source: Port Authority of NY & NJ

This is a map of how people commute to Manhattan. By moving the bus terminal across the Hudson, you will significantly inconvenience hundreds of thousands of workers.

Cool looking map, but there are significant missing pieces of what it actually shows. Many people take multiple modes of transportation to get from their homes to their jobs in Manhattan. Someone may take a bus and train to get into Manhattan. Is it the longer leg or final leg of a multi modal trip into Manhattan that's depicted? What about folks who take a bus into Manhattan than transfer to the subway for the final leg to their jobs?

Even with the transfer, a 7 line extension to Secaucus may result in a faster travel time to Manhattan than traversing the Lincoln tunnel. There is significant bottleneck issues which will only worsen as demand grows. This is why Rechler was insistent on a transhudson commuter study be included along with the PABT design competition.

We may very well need both options to meet demand. A smaller PABT in Manhattan and a 7 line or PATH extension to a new bus terminal on the Jersey side in order to meet current and future demand.

The one option or the other may not longer be acceptable. We need both!

[C.]

There was all this news regarding replacement and then silence. NJ and NY are still at war deciding where the new terminal can take place: Manhattan, west of 9th Avenue; Manhattan, in it's current footprint (which greatly increases cost and operational challenges of keeping the current terminal open while building a replace); and New Jersey (which the Port Authority's chief says will never happen but some NY pols and commissioners still think is the best option and would minimally impact Hell's Kitchen).

I think we're going to end up with two terminals: one on 9th street on the current site and one in New Jersey. The 8th street frontage to be redeveloped.

[C.]

On Bus Terminal, Does the Port Authority Know What It’s Doing?

http://blog.tstc.org/2015/10/27/on-b...hat-its-doing/

[artspook]

best answer . . eminent domain . .
no better place for it . .
the truss we've got is gorgeous infrastructure . .
expand the mega-truss another block south . . increasing footprint . .
add a 2nd truss above the first . . for an extra few levels . .
this present Port Authority was built above, & expanded out from . .
the old PA while it was operational . .
heavier busses problem ? . . engineering, my friend . .
folks will be pissin' in their boots for a few years . .
but it'll get done . .

[BBMW]

This is turning into a major political donnybrook. I would not be surprised if this causes the break-up of the Port Authority as it currently exists.

http://www.crainsnewyork.com/article...alert-20161117

[BBMW]

No.

Just keep the buses in NJ, and bring the riders over by subway.

Originally Posted by artspook

best answer . . eminent domain . .
no better place for it . .
the truss we've got is gorgeous infrastructure . .
expand the mega-truss another block south . . increasing footprint . .
add a 2nd truss above the first . . for an extra few levels . .
this present Port Authority was built above, & expanded out from . .
the old PA while it was operational . .
heavier busses problem ? . . engineering, my friend . .
folks will be pissin' in their boots for a few years . .
but it'll get done . .

[C.]

Degnan is a Christie man. He's toast with time.

That article is a really great read. Things are even worse internally than they appear from the outside at the PA. Transhudson capacity is a serious issue. Gateway taking priority over the new PABT is good news.

[scalziand]

Had a laugh for myself when the article in today's paper said that the PA couldn't afford the cost of eminent-domaining the land for a new terminal over the ramps, when they already own the ramps.

[C.]

Originally Posted by scalziand

Had a laugh for myself when the article in today's paper said that the PA couldn't afford the cost of eminent-domaining the land for a new terminal over the ramps, when they already own the ramps.

LoL, even if they didn't own the land, roads are one of those things that usually appraise for a small nominal value in eminent domain cases. The courts recognize they public roads don't generate any income, so as long as there will be new or continued access to business and residents nearby, there is barely any cost associated with the condemnation of a road. It usually pisses off the public body that owns the road, but that's how the courts have ruled.

[C.]

Port Authority Bus Terminal replacement plan falls apart

http://www.amny.com/transit/port-aut...art-1.12636708

By Vincent Barone vin.barone@amny.com November 18, 2016
Related

Just as bickering elected officials from New York and New Jersey appeared to come together to replace the Port Authority’s antiquated, universally loathed bus terminal, a new divide has sundered.

The Port Authority reached an agreement this September with a group of New York elected officials on a new “comprehensive planning process” to rebuild the agency’s aging bus terminal in Manhattan.

But that same group of elected officials — including Rep. Jerrold Nadler, Manhattan Borough President Gale Brewer, state Sen. Brad Hoylman, Assemb. Linda Rosenthal and City Councilman Corey Johnso — backed off the agreement this week.