Latest on PATH Station Design

[JLo]

The New York Times has an interesting article and a cut out of the proposed new PATH station. http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/16/nyreg ... gewanted=2

It appears that very little will change except PATH users have a longer walk to get to the street level. So much for improving Downtown commutes.

[Gilbert B Norman]

More from Today's New York Times:

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/26/arts/ ... 6ouro.html

A "brief passage":

Thankfully, the rise in the quality of public architecture is not totally limited to the West Coast. At ground zero, the single note of optimism in what has mostly been a cesspool of cynicism and politics is not the 1,776-foot-tall Freedom Tower or the memorial to 9/11. It is a subway station.

Designed by the Spanish architect Santiago Calatrava, the station's main hall is enclosed by an elliptical glass dome with two enormous steel-and-glass canopies protruding out of its top like gigantic eyelids. With its crystalline form, the building, which was commissioned by the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, is likely to be a more moving tribute to the memory of those who died there than even the ground zero memorial.

[Irish Chieftain]

Plenty of money for fancy stations and never enough for the real meat of the system.

I daresay that an opportunity to join the former H&M with the rest of the formerly independent NYC subway systems, thus increasing flexibility, was casually tossed aside for no really good reason. It would have required separating the PATH system from the general railway network, but to be able to ride from, for example, 96th Street to Journal Square would be a remarkable step forward...

[Tom V]

Plenty of money for fancy stations and never enough for the real meat of the system.

They are spending $3 Billion on new cars, plus $500 Million for the extension of PATH service to the Newark Airport Rail link station.

The Port Authority treats it's travelers better than the MTA, you don't want the MTA in charge of the PATH which is what you would have to do in order to make an integrated operation work. First of all fares would go up and service and quality would imediately go down, the MTA is in pretty bad shape as it is currently set up.

It's way better in the near and long run to have the Port Authority running the operation separetly as it is a good steward and provides sufficient funding and management, both are severly lacking at the MTA.

The NJARP proposal was very ambitious, it was never realistic because of the Political and Burecratic issues involved. Having the PATH's World Trade Center hub connected directly to the new Fulton Street Subway hub being built is a pretty good alternative.

The way to connect NJ to the Upper East Side is through NJ Transit, and eventualy a direct connection from NY Penn to Grand Central even though they have removed the plan from the ARC. Also extending the #7 train the West Side via the Farley Station would help.

Another idea worth perusing would be to extend the L train to 10th avenue then across the Hudson to Hoboken Terminal.

[Irish Chieftain]

I see no difference in the quality of PATH cars versus MTA subway cars. Nor do I perceive a difference in service quality.

This would also be a plus for the PA; one less railroad network to operate, and they can focus solely on the "Airtrains".

A number of PATH stations already accept the Metrocard. May as well integrate it into the system. The trade-off of free transfers to the rest of the subway system within Manhattan, plus a one-seat ride to more destinations within Manhattan, is the biggest plus of all.

And you missed my point about the fancy station. The money to be spent for it can still go into the infrastructure. Less expenditure is still less expenditure, no matter how you slice it.

No crosstown MTA subway line will ever reach NJ.

[Douglas John Bowen]

No doubt NJ-ARP's PATH/Lex proposal was ambitious, and no doubt it needed to overcome extremely strong political and bureaucratic forces.

We never said otherwise. In fact, more than once, NJ-ARP acknowledged the uphill battle and long odds against PATH/Lex.

That did not make the plan "unrealistic," in our view. It made PATH/Lex a long shot. In terms of physical layout, and resultant benefits of unified bistate rail service, PATH/Lex was (is) a winner.

When you think outside the box, you win some and you lose some. We're not ashamed that PATH/Lex didn't take root, given Port Authority inertia (no surprise) and MTA hostility (somewhat more than expected).