Nasadowsk wrote: ↑Wed Jul 31, 2019 9:28 am Portal needs replacement, but it needs to be better thought out than 1.6 (or is it 1.8 this week?) billion for a bridge that's got a football field long moveable portion, and itself is barely 3 football fields long. NJT's inability to get federal funding is because they proposed it as a capacity improvement, which is a laughable argument at best.wait, what? since when is portal replacement not a fixed span bridge?
from the portal replacement website:
The two-track replacement bridge, known as Portal North Bridge, is designed as a high-level, fixed-span bridge, eliminating the movable components and risk of malfunctionPlease, no fake news here.
Elephant in the room: IIRC, more people take NJT's buses into NYC every day than the trains, and by a good amount (I've heard a factor of 2:1). Maybe the real transit answer is a new vehicular tunnel under the Hudson, plus a new PABT. The proposed PABT replacement is obscenely overpriced (billions, for a low rise building in NYC without selling the air rights.), for no real reason the PA can put forward. Then again, the PA built a 4 billion dollar subway station for 35,000 riders a day, so...no thanks. setting aside the dubious numbers (the *total* bus vs. rail trips in the entire NJT system isn't even 2:1 per the latest numbers), the capacity delivered by a rail tunnel vs. vehicular is night and day and doesn't exert any additional pressures on the already-overloaded connecting vehicular infrastructure on both sides of the river. add in emissions, operational costs, etc, and it doesn't come close in terms of cost per passenger.