From: grammatim@verizon.net   
      
   On Sunday, September 27, 2015 at 11:38:54 AM UTC-4, Bolwerk wrote:   
   > On 09/27/2015 09:50 AM, Peter T. Daniels wrote:   
   > > On Sunday, September 27, 2015 at 8:40:44 AM UTC-4, Bolwerk wrote:   
   > >> On 09/25/2015 10:46 PM, Peter T. Daniels wrote:   
   > >>> On Friday, September 25, 2015 at 4:55:30 PM UTC-4, Bolwerk   
   > >>> wrote:   
   > >   
   > >>>> What I don't get is why no rail solutions are considered for   
   > >>>> PABT remediation at all.  You can't move all those people off   
   > >>>> buses, but you can cut the crowding down a lot with rail.   
   > >>>> HBLR via the Lincoln Tunnel would be cheap if the vehicles   
   > >>>> fit. Just look on the west side.  Even a new rapid transit line   
   > >>>> from NJ to the west side would be cheaper than $10B.   
   > >>> So you want to cut the motor vehicle lanes from 6 to 4   
   > >>> permanently, to accommodate a single rail line that couldn't   
   > >>> replace even 10% of the buses that use it every day?   
   > >>   
   > >> That would hardly be a tragedy given how few people actually move   
   > >> through the tunnel by private automobile relative to transit at   
   > >> peak times.  At the peak hour in the AM rush, it's  something like   
   > >> 3,000 people by car vs. 35,000+ on buses!   
   > >>   
   > >> Though I don't see why you think HBLR through the tunnel would   
   > >> draw so few people.   
   > >   
   > > I didn't address number of people at all. I addressed the   
   > > flexibility of bus service versus the fixity of rail service.   
   >   
   > "[R]eplace...10% of the buses" implies not many people would switch and   
      
   Charitably, you could claim that HBLR goes to 5 different places. That's   
   less than 10% of the NJT bus routes, let alone the other ones, and the NJT   
   buses go to a lot more places than Hudson County (the "B" in the name   
   remains wishful thinking).   
      
   > ridership is therefore going to be limited.  Going by 10%, maybe 4000   
   > people an hour would cross the tunnel by rail (not counting any induced   
   > new traffic).  FWIW, that's probably enough to fill 10 or so HBLR trains   
   > vs over 50 buses.  Flexibility much?   
      
   What do you think "flexible" means?   
      
   > HBLR also covers some of the densest parts of northern NJ without going   
   > to the biggest single commuting destination for HBLR territory.   
      
   Hunh? It goes to Bayonne, one part of the south side of Jersey City, "the   
   new downtown" JC, the western edge of Hoboken, and the middle of nowhere   
   about 50th & Tonnele in North Bergen. With one stop in Weekawken.   
      
   > > But you completely deleted what I actually said about bus lines.   
   >   
   > Because I was aware of it and basically agreed with it?  I didn't say I   
   > thought the buses should be removed.  If anything, I see them as   
   > complements.  Especially if HBLR could extend across the island of   
   > Manhattan.   
      
   But you want to remove 1/3 of the traffic lanes, 50% of the traffic lanes   
   during rush hour.   
      
   > Maybe, *maybe*, that means fewer buses would need to cross to Manhattan   
   > in the long run.  Not exactly a bad thing, but a better consideration is   
   > the tunnel is at a strained capacity already and expecting another 50k   
   > riders a day in a few decades.   
      
   How many fewer?   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)