New Roof for Newark Penn Station

From today's Star Ledger: http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2011/0 ... tract.html

The NJ Transit board of directors yesterday approved a $3.1 million contract with G&M Eastern Contracting Inc., of Neptune City, to install a roof and drainage system by early next year. The deteriorating roof over the passenger platforms will be removed in layers down to the concrete deck, officials said.

Finally, Newark has been needing a new roof for quite some time now.

I am all for this type of spending but is the ceiling honestly worse than Hoboken's shed? I feel like I'm in Bosnia when I look up and see all of the crumbling concrete.

Not a very good title -- new ROOF, not new station.

Hawaiitiki wrote:I am all for this type of spending but is the ceiling honestly worse than Hoboken's shed? I feel like I'm in Bosnia when I look up and see all of the crumbling concrete.

Bosnia? This the interior of the Sarajevo train station, at least according to Wikipedia.:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Saraj ... tation.JPG

I wish Hoboken or most of the US train stations looked like this. Hoboken's canopy above the trucks is so run down that it reminds me of Africa sometimes...

Defiant wrote:

Hawaiitiki wrote:I am all for this type of spending but is the ceiling honestly worse than Hoboken's shed? I feel like I'm in Bosnia when I look up and see all of the crumbling concrete.

Bosnia? This the interior of the Sarajevo train station, at least according to Wikipedia.:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Saraj ... tation.JPG

I wish Hoboken or most of the US train stations looked like this. Hoboken's canopy above the trucks is so run down that it reminds me of Africa sometimes...

Easy there buddy

NJT TT9801 wrote:

Defiant wrote:

Hawaiitiki wrote:I am all for this type of spending but is the ceiling honestly worse than Hoboken's shed? I feel like I'm in Bosnia when I look up and see all of the crumbling concrete.

Bosnia? This the interior of the Sarajevo train station, at least according to Wikipedia.:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Saraj ... tation.JPG

I wish Hoboken or most of the US train stations looked like this. Hoboken's canopy above the trucks is so run down that it reminds me of Africa sometimes...

Easy there buddy

Why, do you disagree? Or is what I am saying too non PC for you?

Defiant wrote:

Hawaiitiki wrote:I am all for this type of spending but is the ceiling honestly worse than Hoboken's shed? I feel like I'm in Bosnia when I look up and see all of the crumbling concrete.

Bosnia? This the interior of the Sarajevo train station, at least according to Wikipedia.:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Saraj ... tation.JPG

I wish Hoboken or most of the US train stations looked like this. Hoboken's canopy above the trucks is so run down that it reminds me of Africa sometimes...

I think that's the sentiment echoed by most people who ride the trains, I can understand commuter stations that have the bare necessities, platform, station house, seating ( preferably covered ), and good signage. However, a major hub or major rail station should look significantly better.

Instead of huge, shiny stations like Secaucus, build minimal ones and put the money saved toward providing more frequent service.

loufah wrote:Instead of huge, shiny stations like Secaucus, build minimal ones and put the money saved toward providing more frequent service.

Attractive stations do attract and retain business. That's why airport terminals are constructed in this manner. In the case of Secaucus, it is a major transfer point, and amenities and attractiveness are important. The capital funds often if not virtually always cannot be used for other purposes such as operating expense. Also, the operating costs are such that additional service could not be sustained for the long term, even if funds were diverted.

Ken W2KB wrote:

loufah wrote:Instead of huge, shiny stations like Secaucus, build minimal ones and put the money saved toward providing more frequent service.

Attractive stations do attract and retain business. That's why airport terminals are constructed in this manner. In the case of Secaucus, it is a major transfer point, and amenities and attractiveness are important. The capital funds often if not virtually always cannot be used for other purposes such as operating expense. Also, the operating costs are such that additional service could not be sustained for the long term, even if funds were diverted.

Plus Secaucus was overbuilt in anticipation of an office building being built on top of it.

Uhmmmm how bad is Hoboken? anytime I have been there I was never overtaken by decay. The station is old but I wouldnt say it looks like Bosnia

I just meant the shed and the decrepit surrounding buildings. I believe the waiting room is as elegant as a commuter could ever hope for.

I would risk saying hoboken's shed is a frail (formerly ornate) antique vs a newark that has not had proper upkeep due to funding issues. The 2 stations are fundamentally different in both design and systemic function. Just my 2 cent.