From: grammatim@verizon.net   
      
   On Wednesday, September 30, 2015 at 10:22:45 AM UTC-4, Bolwerk wrote:   
   > On 09/28/2015 03:19 PM, Peter T. Daniels wrote:   
   > > On Monday, September 28, 2015 at 12:24:20 PM UTC-4, Bolwerk wrote:   
   > >> On 09/27/2015 02:36 PM, Peter T. Daniels wrote:   
   > >>> 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.   
   > >>   
   > >> I'd at least call every station a "place."   
   > >   
   > > There are an awful lot more bus stops than rail stations.   
   >   
   > True, but many of them see virtually no usage.   
      
   Not so on the ones I've ridden from JC to PABT, namely the 123 on Palisade   
   Ave. (in front of my house) and the 119 on Central Ave., which originates   
   in Greenville (southern JC). The 125 goes up JFK Blvd, the most direct and   
   probably the most commercial route, though there are many fewer of them.   
      
   The 126 from Hoboken runs every 10 minutes for quite a few hours outside   
   rush hour.   
      
   > >>> 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).   
   > >> The waterfront is a pretty dense area though.  Plus you must   
   > >> consider some of HBLR's potential riders are using buses because,   
   > >> well, HBLR doesn't go to Midtown.   
   > > Two stops in western Hoboken, one in western Weekawken, and one near   
   > > the NY Waterways parking lot.   
   >   
   > Those two stops in western Hoboken probably have the bulk of Hoboken's   
   > population within half a km.   
      
   No, the west side of Hoboken is almost all housing projects. The rich people   
   who are likely to be commuting regularly to the city use Washington St.,   
   where the 126 and almost all the other buses (to other parts of Hudson Cty)   
   run.   
      
   > The other side of the catchment is in northern Jersey City.  I realize   
   > that part of JC is perhaps less dense, but is it *that* bad?   
      
   Not sure what "catchment" is, but no, the HBLR completely ignores The Heights,   
   Union City, and North Bergen; it gets from the riverfront to Tonnele (US1-9)   
   via the old formerly abandoned rail tunnel.   
      
   > >>>> 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?   
   > >> Being able to adjust to changing conditions?  Buses aren't exactly   
   > >> the best option for dealing with huge peak crowds.  And the number   
   > >> of people crossing the Hudson River in Lincoln Tunnel buses has a   
   > >> larger peak hour than any river rail crossing in the city.   
   > > "Flexible" means able to run on nearly any street and able to bypass   
   > > spots closed by an accident or construction.   
   >   
   > That works well enough on a minor bus line.  It's a useless feature when   
   > you're trying to move 1,000 vehicles/hour through a single dedicated   
   > lane.  If a bus breaks down in the XBL, then all the traffic behind it   
   > will be stuck until the vehicle is towed.   
      
   NJT buses seem to be highly reliable. The only problems seem to be   
   malfunctioning wheelchair lifts. If there _were_ a breakdown in the dedicated   
   bus lane, the only barrier to crossing to the other lane in any of the tubes   
   is a double yellow line.   
      
   > In any case, construction should be planned for off-peak times.  Nothing   
   > about LRT precludes bustituting the traffic if an extended delay is   
   > necessary.   
      
   "Construction" is not the issue. The issue is taking 1/3 of all vehicular   
   lanes permanently out of service. (Presumably you'd do it to the middle tube.)   
      
   > > You continue to make arguments for preferring bus to light rail in   
   > > the Lincoln Tunnel.   
   >   
   > Why prefer anything?  They aren't mutually exclusive.  I already said I   
   > don't favor removing the buses.  Reducing the need for them might be   
   > nice, but I don't know if it's possible.   
      
   You simply want to squash all the rush hour traffic into half as many lanes.   
      
   > I don't know why you'd propose such a narrow definition of "flexibility"   
   > either.  Being able to absorb a large crowd seems pretty important in   
   > urban transit.  Besides that, I've never seen evidence that buses can   
   > generally manage OTP   
      
   OTP?   
      
   > as well as trains, even surface rail.  BRT   
   > advocates who argue that buses are more "flexible" are usually imagining   
   > daily worst-case scenarios and ignoring practical real-world experience.   
   >   
   > Let's be real: the actual risk of a delay is probably higher on a bus   
   > than on surface rail, at least with all other things being equal.   
   > That's not a reason to always prefer rail, far from it, but there should   
   > be some compelling design advantage besides "bypass spots closed by an   
   > accident or construction" to prefer buses.   
      
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)