(no subject)
mkort...@monmouth.com
Len Ryers <LRy...@inet.pdi.com> wrote:
>Why are exclusive franchises given to ferry operators in the New York
>area? In a country with anti-trust laws designed to _prevent_ this sort of
>thing, how is it that the governments in the area won't allow competition?
>Len
be more specific, len, what ferries do you speak of? the mta's, ny
waterways, or the other small one that go between ny & NJ?
Mr. Peter J. Rosa
Interesting point. After all, it's not as if ferries have a limited
infrastructure that might make competition impracticable. On the
Hudson, for example, I don't see why there can't be different companies
operating.
Len Ryers
MKortlander
The main infastructure limitation these ferries face is places to land
and load passengers. Another is how do you get your passengers to and
from the terminals.
Stephen Bauman
The only monopoly was given to toll bridges. The TBTA insisted that any competing ferry services be
discontinued, after their bridges were finished. Viable ferry services were terminated with the opening of the
Triborough, Bronx-Whitestone and Verrazano Bridges. For the 92nd St. ferry to Astoria, the Triborough Bridge
work crews demolished the ferry terminal, while the ferries were still running!
Most of the NYC ferry services were run by the railroads. These services were abandoned, when commuter service
became unprofitable. The ferry service abandonment usually preceded service abandonment - to hasten the
railroad's curtailment of commuter service. The ferries used to go to several different Manhattan
locations from the railroad terminal. These included: the NYC ferries to Weehawken; the LIRR ferries to LIC;
the PRR ferries to Jersey City. The last railroad ferry was the run between Hoboken and Barclay St. However,
the DL&W used to run ferries to Christopher St, and 23rd Streets as well.
Most of the other ferries could not compete against the "new" East River Bridges - such as the Brooklyn,
Manhattan, Williamsburgh and Queensborough. They went out of business on their own.
The Coast Guard regulates ferry boats in New York Harbor. Their regulations are far stricter than those set by
the FAA for airplanes or the NTB for trains. Ferries are very expensive to operate compared to buses and even
trains.
Steve
Len Ryers
Saying that "places is to land" is a structural limitation that warrants
an exclusive franchise is like saying "available real estate" is a
justification for awarding exclusive franchises to fast-food restaurants
on shopping strips. New York's shoreline isn't operating anywhere near its
capacity, anyway.
It seems that the only possible reason for ferry franchises is political
kickbacks. I can't think of any other plausible reason.
Len
mkort...@monmouth.com
Stephen Bauman <SBA...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>Most of the other ferries could not compete against the "new" East River Bridges - such as the Brooklyn,
>Manhattan, Williamsburgh and Queensborough. They went out of business on their own.
>The Coast Guard regulates ferry boats in New York Harbor. Their regulations are far stricter than those set by
>the FAA for airplanes or the NTB for trains. Ferries are very expensive to operate compared to buses and even
>trains.
How do you account for the recent increases in people using ferries
now? Thousands of people commute into NYC every via these
UNSUBSIDISED ferry services every day.
Stephen Bauman
First, these ferry operators discovered a niche market. The ferry is only
part of a package which includes: parking; river crossing and jitney
service in Manhattan. The package is competitive with driving into and
parking in the city both in cost and time. The charge for the ferry
only leg is much higher than the previous going rate for such
crossings. They do not provide continuous service.
Second, regarding numbers. They use relatively small boats. The Staten
Island Barberi class boats hold 6,000 passengers. Even the small off-peak
use Austin class boats hold 1,500 passengers. These UNSUBSIDISED ferry
carry fewer than 250 passengers. Just enough to fill a half dozen jitneys
when they dock in Manhattan.
This is not meant to underestimate their accomplishments. However, to
cite their example and to extrapolate about the benefits of free
enterprise requires a great leap of faith not logic.
Steve
MKortlander
pro...@ix.netcom.com(Peter Rosa) wrote:
>In <4svlcq$j...@news.monmouth.com> MKortlander writes:
>>
>>ULN...@prodigy.com (Mr. Peter J. Rosa) wrote:
>>
>>>Interesting point. After all, it's not as if ferries have a limited
>>>infrastructure that might make competition impracticable. On the
>>>Hudson, for example, I don't see why there can't be different
>companies
>>>operating.
>>The main infastructure limitation these ferries face is places to land
>>and load passengers. Another is how do you get your passengers to and
>>from the terminals.
>>
>I wouldn't think landing and loading spaces for ferries would be a
>problem, at least on the Hudson. There's definitely no shortage of
>vacant land on either side of the river.
The obvious isn't so obvious! The reality is that there is not that
much space for these ferries to operate out of, remember, the
customers need terminals, parking and a way to get to and from where
ever the ferry lands
MKortlander
Len Ryers <LRy...@inet.pdi.com> wrote:
>MKortlander wrote:
>>ULN...@prodigy.com (Mr. Peter J. Rosa) wrote:
>>
>>>Interesting point. After all, it's not as if ferries have a limited
>>>infrastructure that might make competition impracticable. On the
>>>Hudson, for example, I don't see why there can't be different companies
>>>operating.
>>The main infastructure limitation these ferries face is places to land
>>and load passengers. Another is how do you get your passengers to and
>>from the terminals.
>Saying that "places is to land" is a structural limitation that warrants
>an exclusive franchise is like saying "available real estate" is a
>justification for awarding exclusive franchises to fast-food restaurants
>on shopping strips. New York's shoreline isn't operating anywhere near its
>capacity, anyway.
>It seems that the only possible reason for ferry franchises is political
>kickbacks. I can't think of any other plausible reason.
then you havn't devoted any serious thought to the subject! I hate to
be redundent but shoreline space does not mean a ferry can operate.
A ferry landing site needs many componets in order to be usable and
successful, here is a list of some but not limited to,
sufficient water depth,
space on land for a terminal building
space on land for parking or
modes of mass transit to deliver patrons to the landing site,
a need or a ferry.
Now you keep saying that there is control of ferry franchises, why not
be specific, who is controlling, who is being kept out?
In addition to the city of new york I know of at least 3 other private
companies that are providing ferry service into manhattan.
Let's stop being coy and let's really discuss the subject.
mkort...@monmouth.com
acha...@village.ios.com (Adam M. Charney) wrote:
>mkort...@monmouth.com wrote:
>:Stephen Bauman <SBA...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>:>Most of the other ferries could not compete against the "new" East River Bridges - such as the Brooklyn,
>:>Manhattan, Williamsburgh and Queensborough. They went out of business on their own.
>:>The Coast Guard regulates ferry boats in New York Harbor. Their regulations are far stricter than those set by
>:>the FAA for airplanes or the NTB for trains. Ferries are very expensive to operate compared to buses and even
>:>trains.
>:How do you account for the recent increases in people using ferries
>:now? Thousands of people commute into NYC every via these
>:UNSUBSIDISED ferry services every day.
>I don;t understand your question -- are you suggesting that the old
>ferries really were successful and that they were discontinued out of
>spite?
>I think it should be clear that traffic demands and social changes
>made ferries in mid-centiry unprofitable -- and they were, and they
>were supplanted by rail and road both of whcih had far far more xcess
>capacity than they do tiday
>Adam M. Charney
>acha...@village.ios.com
I don't think you understand, There are thosands of people who now
commute via ferries into Manhattan.
T. M. Gardner
Not social changes but the lust for power of the TBTA Chairman Robert
Moses. Moses went from being a person with practical ideas and a vision
for efficient transportation to a person whose greed for control forced
actions which masked his intelligence. The destruction of the ferry
terminals was done so that he controlled all the water crossings in NYC;
to him this was necessary because without competition, he had a monopoly
and with the monopoly he had immense political power. Moses had many
staggered six-year terms in many state public authorities which made it
almost impossible to remove him. The thousands would still have been
riding the ferries if Moses was kept under control.
Adam M. Charney
James R. Guthrie
On Jul 24, 1996 19:56:57 in article <Re: (no subject)>, '"T. M. Gardner"
<rgar...@ix.netcom.com>' wrote:
>Not social changes but the lust for power of the TBTA Chairman Robert
>Moses. Moses went from being a person with practical ideas and a vision
>for efficient transportation to a person whose greed for control forced
>actions which masked his intelligence. The destruction of the ferry
>terminals was done so that he controlled all the water crossings in NYC;
>to him this was necessary because without competition, he had a monopoly
>and with the monopoly he had immense political power. Moses had many
>staggered six-year terms in many state public authorities which made it
>almost impossible to remove him. The thousands would still have been
>riding the ferries if Moses was kept under control.
>
Ferries wer gone by the time Robert Moses got his first job.
LIRR ferries in Brooklyn and Bushwick were long gone, for example, as was
the Oyster Bay Wilson Point (CT) line. All the ferries that connected with
the lines to Coney island were gone by the time Moses came is, as were most
of the local lines.
O the Hudson River side, all the ferries were operated as adjuncts of
commuter rail operations (or in one case, a trolley). They went, along with
the trains (and trolleys) that fed them with little "help" from Mr. Moses
at all.
If you have info otherwise, please share.
Thanks!
Jim
D McLoughlin
mkort...@monmouth.com wrote:
>
>
> I don't think you understand, There are thosands of people who now
> commute via ferries into Manhattan.
>
When I was last in New York, almost excactly two years ago,
I took the 1/9 train to south ferry from Columbia University
116th street where I was staying/studying, deliberately to
catch the Staten Island ferry, which is world famous, for
its views and its cheapness. It was 50c return then and I have
not heard of a price rise since.
But I cannot believe this was an economic price.
What is the subsidy per passenger on this ferry? How much do
taxpayers pay to keep it running? Why are the fares so low on
this route compared with other NYC transit services?
Thanks
David McLoughlin
Auckland NZ
Len Ryers
MKortlander wrote:
>Len Ryers <LRy...@inet.pdi.com> wrote:
>>Saying that "places is to land" is a structural limitation that warrants
>>an exclusive franchise is like saying "available real estate" is a
>>justification for awarding exclusive franchises to fast-food restaurants
>>on shopping strips. New York's shoreline isn't operating anywhere near its
>>capacity, anyway.
>
>>It seems that the only possible reason for ferry franchises is political
>>kickbacks. I can't think of any other plausible reason.
>then you havn't devoted any serious thought to the subject! I hate to
>be redundent but shoreline space does not mean a ferry can operate.
>A ferry landing site needs many componets in order to be usable and
>successful, here is a list of some but not limited to,
>sufficient water depth,
>space on land for a terminal building
>space on land for parking or
>modes of mass transit to deliver patrons to the landing site,
>a need or a ferry.
>Now you keep saying that there is control of ferry franchises, why not
>be specific, who is controlling, who is being kept out?
>In addition to the city of new york I know of at least 3 other private
>companies that are providing ferry service into manhattan.
>Let's stop being coy and let's really discuss the subject.
And just HOW does your "component" list address the issue of exclusive
franchises? NOTE that your list COMPLETELY avoided addressing the issue of
whether there is a justification for franchises.
Can you read? Not likely. You certainly haven't learned proper WRITING
skills like CAPITALIZATION at the beginning of sentences, and the use of a
PERIOD instead of your reflexive JERK to the exclamation point.
Back to the issue at hand and perhaps your dimmest quote:
>Now you keep saying that there is control of ferry franchises, why not
>be specific, who is controlling, who is being kept out?
====>which only PROVES you can't read because I never SAID that. If you
can't address the issue, then PLEASE don't pollute this thread with your
wasteful comments. But because I LIKE you, I'll REWRITE your sentence:
>Now you keep saying that there is control of ferry franchises. Why not
>be specific? Who is controlling them? Who is being kept out?
See how much nicer that looks, my friend?
Len
Joseph Korman
D McLoughlin wrote:
>
> When I was last in New York, almost excactly two years ago,
> I took the 1/9 train to south ferry from Columbia University
> 116th street where I was staying/studying, deliberately to
> catch the Staten Island ferry, which is world famous, for
> its views and its cheapness. It was 50c return then and I have
> not heard of a price rise since.
>
> But I cannot believe this was an economic price.
>
> What is the subsidy per passenger on this ferry? How much do
> taxpayers pay to keep it running? Why are the fares so low on
> this route compared with other NYC transit services?
Most Staten Islanders have to pay $1.50 for a bus or SIRT Train to the
ferry, then $.50 (round trip for the ferry) then $1.50 for bus or subway
in Manhattan. That's $6.50 round trip per day.
--
Joseph D. Korman - joe...@earthlink.net
WWW site http://home.earthlink.net/~joekor/
--------------------------------------------------------------------
The light at the end of the tunnel ... may be a train going the other
way!
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Stephen Bauman
James R. Guthrie wrote:
>
> On Jul 24, 1996 19:56:57 in article <Re: (no subject)>, '"T. M. Gardner"
> <rgar...@ix.netcom.com>' wrote:
>
> >Not social changes but the lust for power of the TBTA Chairman Robert
> >Moses. Moses went from being a person with practical ideas and a vision
> >for efficient transportation to a person whose greed for control forced
> >actions which masked his intelligence. The destruction of the ferry
> >terminals was done so that he controlled all the water crossings in NYC;
> >to him this was necessary because without competition, he had a monopoly
> >and with the monopoly he had immense political power. Moses had many
> >staggered six-year terms in many state public authorities which made it
> >almost impossible to remove him. The thousands would still have been
> >riding the ferries if Moses was kept under control.
> >
> This would be fascinating if you can document it. Most of the East River
> Ferries wer gone by the time Robert Moses got his first job.
>
This is very easy to document. Robert Caro devoted an entire chapter to
this in his biograpy: The Power Builder. Moses sent his workmen over and
demolished the ferry terminal, while the ferries were still running after the
opening of the Triborough Bridge. He was a little less forceful but just as
effective with the Verrazano. The Owls Head ferry lasted just 1 day after the
bridge opened. You will be able to contemporary descriptions of both ferry
closings from the NY Times index. Look in 1936 and 1964 for the Triborogh and
Verrazano, respectively.
> LIRR ferries in Brooklyn and Bushwick were long gone, for example, as was
> the Oyster Bay Wilson Point (CT) line. All the ferries that connected with
> the lines to Coney island were gone by the time Moses came is, as were most
> of the local lines.
> I believe the South Ferry to 39th St Bklyn ferry may have survived longer. I
have a roadmap for the 1939 World's Fair that still shows it.
> O the Hudson River side, all the ferries were operated as adjuncts of
> commuter rail operations (or in one case, a trolley). They went, along with
> the trains (and trolleys) that fed them with little "help" from Mr. Moses
> at all.
>
The Port Authority crossings put the Hudson River ferries out of business. They
used economics instead of Moses' police state tactics.
Steve
Stephen Bauman
mkort...@monmouth.com wrote:
> I haven't the exact numbers but I am sure that the SI ferry is a very
> inefficiant and heavily subsidised part of NYC's MTA. There numerous
> private ferry operations that transport thousands per day in a quick,
> clean, efficiant, and they take no money from the goverment.
First off, the SI ferry not operated by the MTA. It is operated by New
York City without any "help" from any NY State, bi-state or suburban
oriented agency. Unlike PATH, the LIRR or the subways, it gets no income
from any bridge or tunnel tolls.
Second, as I alluded to in a previous posting, all these thousands of
passengers in these "numerous, efficient, clean, quick and private"
ferry operations would not even fill half of a single "Barberi" class SI
boat.
Third, no private operator has even hinted at running the SI service in
place of NYC. That should suggest something about how efficiently the
ferry service is run financially.
Steve
mkort...@monmouth.com
D McLoughlin <dav...@iprolink.co.nz> wrote:
>mkort...@monmouth.com wrote:
>>
>>
>> I don't think you understand, There are thosands of people who now
>> commute via ferries into Manhattan.
>>
>When I was last in New York, almost excactly two years ago,
>I took the 1/9 train to south ferry from Columbia University
>116th street where I was staying/studying, deliberately to
>catch the Staten Island ferry, which is world famous, for
>its views and its cheapness. It was 50c return then and I have
>not heard of a price rise since.
>But I cannot believe this was an economic price.
>What is the subsidy per passenger on this ferry? How much do
>taxpayers pay to keep it running? Why are the fares so low on
>this route compared with other NYC transit services?
>Thanks
>David McLoughlin
>Auckland NZ
mkort...@monmouth.com
Stephen Bauman <SBA...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>mkort...@monmouth.com wrote:
>>
>> Stephen Bauman <SBA...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>>
>> >Most of the other ferries could not compete against the "new" East River Bridges - such as the Brooklyn,
>> >Manhattan, Williamsburgh and Queensborough. They went out of business on their own.
>>
>> >The Coast Guard regulates ferry boats in New York Harbor. Their regulations are far stricter than those set by
>> >the FAA for airplanes or the NTB for trains. Ferries are very expensive to operate compared to buses and even
>> >trains.
>>
>> How do you account for the recent increases in people using ferries
>> now? Thousands of people commute into NYC every via these
>> UNSUBSIDISED ferry services every day.
>First, these ferry operators discovered a niche market. The ferry is only
>part of a package which includes: parking; river crossing and jitney
>service in Manhattan. The package is competitive with driving into and
>parking in the city both in cost and time. The charge for the ferry
>only leg is much higher than the previous going rate for such
>crossings. They do not provide continuous service.
what is every 15 minutes from 6 am to 10 pm, to and from jersey city,
the uptown/weehawken schedule is even more often and operates later.
what you've described is the ny waterway service, there are others
that operate to nj and queens
.
>Second, regarding numbers. They use relatively small boats. The Staten
>Island Barberi class boats hold 6,000 passengers. Even the small off-peak
>use Austin class boats hold 1,500 passengers. These UNSUBSIDISED ferry
>carry fewer than 250 passengers. Just enough to fill a half dozen jitneys
>when they dock in Manhattan.
the crossing on the si ferry is at least 25 minutes the weehawken
ferry takes about 6 or 7 minutes and the jersey city takes 5 minutes,
granted the si ferry carries thousands more but it is 1/4 the cost for
a mich more intense service
>This is not meant to underestimate their accomplishments. However, to
>cite their example and to extrapolate about the benefits of free
>enterprise requires a great leap of faith not logic.
nonsense!
>Steve
mkort...@monmouth.com
"T. M. Gardner" <rgar...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>acha...@village.ios.com (Adam M. Charney) wrote:
>>mkort...@monmouth.com wrote:
>>
>>:Stephen Bauman <SBA...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>:>Most of the other ferries could not compete against the "new" East River Bridges - such as the Brooklyn,
>>:>Manhattan, Williamsburgh and Queensborough. They went out of business on their own.
>>
>>:>The Coast Guard regulates ferry boats in New York Harbor. Their regulations are far stricter than those set by
>>:>the FAA for airplanes or the NTB for trains. Ferries are very expensive to operate compared to buses and even
>>:>trains.
>>
>>:How do you account for the recent increases in people using ferries
>>:now? Thousands of people commute into NYC every via these
>>:UNSUBSIDISED ferry services every day.
>>
>>
>>I don;t understand your question -- are you suggesting that the old
>>ferries really were successful and that they were discontinued out of
>>spite?
>>
>>I think it should be clear that traffic demands and social changes
>>made ferries in mid-centiry unprofitable -- and they were, and they
>>were supplanted by rail and road both of whcih had far far more xcess
>>capacity than they do tiday
>>
>>Adam M. Charney
>>acha...@village.ios.com
>>
>>
ancient history, let's talk about the wildly successful, unsubsidised
services that are operating today
T. M. Gardner
jgut...@nyc.pipeline.com(James R. Guthrie) wrote:
>On Jul 24, 1996 19:56:57 in article <Re: (no subject)>, '"T. M. Gardner"
>Ferries wer gone by the time Robert Moses got his first job.
>
>the Oyster Bay Wilson Point (CT) line. All the ferries that connected with
>the lines to Coney island were gone by the time Moses came is, as were most
>of the local lines.
>
>commuter rail operations (or in one case, a trolley). They went, along with
>the trains (and trolleys) that fed them with little "help" from Mr. Moses
>at all.
>
>
>Thanks!
>
>Jim
>
>
Robert Moses definitely had a hand in the demise of NYC ferry operations,
proven by the demolition of the Astoria ferry terminal during the
construction of the Triborough bridge, which was completed in 1936.
Shocking as it may seem, Moses frequently engaged in such practices.
More events can be provided upon request. Moses also ridiculed the
transit system (a competitor), and didn't even want highway tunnels built
(until his Triborough assumed control of the Midtown and Brooklyn-Battery
tunnels by deceitful means, subsequently becoming the Triborough Bridge &
Tunnel Authority, now simply Bridges & Tunnels with the MTA symbol). In
short, he completely disregarded the public's wishes if they conflicted
in ANY way with his highway and bridge plans (in addition to Chairman of
Triborough he was City Construction Coordinator, City Arterial Highway
Representative, State Park Commisioner (controlled parkways), and City
Park Commisioner in addition to plenty of other posts held
simultaneously). The power he wielded was significant, and no public
official until Rockefeller could stop him. So during Moses's reign, the
transit system, including the ferries, declined and highway construction
flourished.
mkort...@monmouth.com
Joseph Korman <joe...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>D McLoughlin wrote:
>>
>> When I was last in New York, almost excactly two years ago,
>> I took the 1/9 train to south ferry from Columbia University
>> 116th street where I was staying/studying, deliberately to
>> catch the Staten Island ferry, which is world famous, for
>> its views and its cheapness. It was 50c return then and I have
>> not heard of a price rise since.
>>
>> But I cannot believe this was an economic price.
>>
>> What is the subsidy per passenger on this ferry? How much do
>> taxpayers pay to keep it running? Why are the fares so low on
>> this route compared with other NYC transit services?
>Most Staten Islanders have to pay $1.50 for a bus or SIRT Train to the
>ferry, then $.50 (round trip for the ferry) then $1.50 for bus or subway
>in Manhattan. That's $6.50 round trip per day.
that doesn't change the fact that the ferry is very heavily subsidised
and is a massive drain on the MTA
Adam M. Charney
MKortlander wrote:
:Len Ryers <LRy...@inet.pdi.com> wrote:
:>MKortlander wrote:
:>>ULN...@prodigy.com (Mr. Peter J. Rosa) wrote:
:>>
:>>>Interesting point. After all, it's not as if ferries have a limited
:>>>infrastructure that might make competition impracticable. On the
:>>>Hudson, for example, I don't see why there can't be different companies
:>>>operating.
:>>The main infastructure limitation these ferries face is places to land
:>>and load passengers. Another is how do you get your passengers to and
:>>from the terminals.
:>Saying that "places is to land" is a structural limitation that warrants
:>an exclusive franchise is like saying "available real estate" is a
:>justification for awarding exclusive franchises to fast-food restaurants
:>on shopping strips. New York's shoreline isn't operating anywhere near its
:>capacity, anyway.
:>It seems that the only possible reason for ferry franchises is political
:>kickbacks. I can't think of any other plausible reason.
:then you havn't devoted any serious thought to the subject! I hate to
:be redundent but shoreline space does not mean a ferry can operate.
:A ferry landing site needs many componets in order to be usable and
:successful, here is a list of some but not limited to,
:sufficient water depth,
:space on land for a terminal building
:space on land for parking or
:modes of mass transit to deliver patrons to the landing site,
:a need or a ferry.
:Now you keep saying that there is control of ferry franchises, why not
:be specific, who is controlling, who is being kept out?
:In addition to the city of new york I know of at least 3 other private
:companies that are providing ferry service into manhattan.
:Let's stop being coy and let's really discuss the subject.
In this case, coyness is required -- if I would tell you truth about
ferry service and the political infighting that goes on over it (all
of which I know because of various family relations to government,
both in the city and the state) -- I would find my legs broken -- be
very very careful when discussing ----
FERRY SERVICE.
Be Coy!
Adam M. Charney
acha...@village.ios.com
Robert M. Forstner
D McLoughlin (dav...@iprolink.co.nz) wrote:
> When I was last in New York, almost excactly two years ago,
> I took the 1/9 train to south ferry from Columbia University
> 116th street where I was staying/studying, deliberately to
> catch the Staten Island ferry, which is world famous, for
> its views and its cheapness. It was 50c return then and I have
> not heard of a price rise since.
> But I cannot believe this was an economic price.
> What is the subsidy per passenger on this ferry? How much do
> taxpayers pay to keep it running? Why are the fares so low on
> this route compared with other NYC transit services?
> Thanks
> David McLoughlin
> Auckland NZ
This is an interesting question. I've never seen any stats on the SI Ferry's
coverage rate. But, considering that it is operated by NYCDOT and its fare is
significantly lower than other ferries in the NY region (I rode the NY Waterway
from Colgate Pier to World Financial Center, and I think their base fare was
$2, and that only gets you across the river!) I can't imagine it being
profitable at all, or there'd be operators begging to take it out of the
government's hands.
The fares on the SI ferry are low because SI commuters are basically in a
no-man's land in NYC Transit's coverage and get soaked as a result. Unless
you live near an express bus route, Staten Islanders are in at least a
two-fare zone relative to Manhattan, and you're in a three fare zone if
you don't work within walking distance of the ferry's Manhattan terminal.
If fares on the SI ferry were comparable to other transit services,
you'd be looking at a US$4 to $4.50 one way fare (the express busses are
$4). Doesn't make for happy taxpayers.
--
Robert Forstner -- fors...@netcom.com for...@cooper.edu
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
UNIX _is_ user friendly. It's just VERY picky about its friends.
There is no dark side of the moon, really. As a matter of fact, it's all dark.
--Pink Floyd
Michael549
Please note that many of the newer ferry services
do not operate at all times, every day of the week.
Even some of the newer faster ferry services operate
only during the rush hours, at higher cost. There are
plans to provide a fast Staten Island to Midtown private
ferry service that would use a terminal near the current
Staten Island St. George terminal. This boat is expected
to cost about $4.50 for a one way trip, and expected to
operate only during the rush hours. The capacity of the
planned boats is smaller than the Staten Island Ferry's
smallest boat, the Austin class which carries 1,200 riders.
Right now, the SI Ferry runs usually every 30 minutes, but
after 11:30 at late nights, one boat an hour. Major portions
of the weekend, one boat per hour is run. Now imagine waiting
30 minutes to take the subway home? Imagine 60 minutes
waiting time to simply board the subway to take it home. Add to
that a trip of 30 minutes. (So far you've spent 60-90 minutes and
you've just arrived on the island.) And then from the ferry terminal
you have take a bus or the SIRT to your final destination, 15-30-45
minutes from the ferry.
Many years ago, in the early Mayor Koch's terms of office, the late
night ferries were shut down. After the midnight ferry, there was no
direct route between Manhattan and Staten Island, until 6am!!
Riders had to take the R train to the last stop in Brooklyn, to ride
the single bus line between Staten Island and Brooklyn. It was
said that the late night ferries had to be shut down because of too
few riders - as if those riders did not count, many of whom worked
late night shifts. As if getting to and from Staten Island was not
difficult enough, even at the best of times.
Just a few thoughts. Subject: Re: NYC Ferry Services
From: Stephen Bauman <SBA...@worldnet.att.net>
Date: Thu, 25 Jul 1996 21:32:25 -0700
Message-ID: <31F84A...@worldnet.att.net>
mkort...@monmouth.com wrote:
> I haven't the exact numbers but I am sure that the SI ferry is a very
> inefficiant and heavily subsidised part of NYC's MTA. There numerous
> private ferry operations that transport thousands per day in a quick,
> clean, efficiant, and they take no money from the goverment.
First off, the SI ferry not operated by the MTA. It is operated by New
York City without any "help" from any NY State, bi-state or suburban
oriented agency. Unlike PATH, the LIRR or the subways, it gets no income
from any bridge or tunnel tolls.
Second, as I alluded to in a previous posting, all these thousands of
passengers in these "numerous, efficient, clean, quick and private"
ferry operations would not even fill half of a single "Barberi" class SI
boat.
Third, no private operator has even hinted at running the SI service in
place of NYC. That should suggest something about how efficiently the
ferry service is run financially.
Steve
Michael-549
------------------------------
mkort...@monmouth.com
Stephen Bauman <SBA...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>mkort...@monmouth.com wrote:
>> I haven't the exact numbers but I am sure that the SI ferry is a very
>> inefficiant and heavily subsidised part of NYC's MTA. There numerous
>> private ferry operations that transport thousands per day in a quick,
>> clean, efficiant, and they take no money from the goverment.
>First off, the SI ferry not operated by the MTA. It is operated by New
>York City without any "help" from any NY State, bi-state or suburban
>oriented agency. Unlike PATH, the LIRR or the subways, it gets no income
>from any bridge or tunnel tolls.
>Second, as I alluded to in a previous posting, all these thousands of
>passengers in these "numerous, efficient, clean, quick and private"
>ferry operations would not even fill half of a single "Barberi" class SI
>boat.
>Third, no private operator has even hinted at running the SI service in
>place of NYC. That should suggest something about how efficiently the
>ferry service is run financially.
>Steve
or it might say that no private ferry service would be able to charge
a high enough fare to justify entering into the market.
MKortlander
Len Ryers <LRy...@inet.pdi.com> wrote:
>MKortlander wrote:
>>Len Ryers <LRy...@inet.pdi.com> wrote:
>>>Saying that "places is to land" is a structural limitation that warrants
>>>an exclusive franchise is like saying "available real estate" is a
>>>justification for awarding exclusive franchises to fast-food restaurants
>>>on shopping strips. New York's shoreline isn't operating anywhere near its
>>>capacity, anyway.
>>
>>>It seems that the only possible reason for ferry franchises is political
>>>kickbacks. I can't think of any other plausible reason.
>>then you havn't devoted any serious thought to the subject! I hate to
>>be redundent but shoreline space does not mean a ferry can operate.
>>A ferry landing site needs many componets in order to be usable and
>>successful, here is a list of some but not limited to,
>>sufficient water depth,
>>space on land for a terminal building
>>space on land for parking or
>>modes of mass transit to deliver patrons to the landing site,
>>a need or a ferry.
>>Now you keep saying that there is control of ferry franchises, why not
>>be specific, who is controlling, who is being kept out?
>>In addition to the city of new york I know of at least 3 other private
>>companies that are providing ferry service into manhattan.
>>Let's stop being coy and let's really discuss the subject.
>And just HOW does your "component" list address the issue of exclusive
>franchises? NOTE that your list COMPLETELY avoided addressing the issue of
>whether there is a justification for franchises.
>Can you read? Not likely. You certainly haven't learned proper WRITING
>skills like CAPITALIZATION at the beginning of sentences, and the use of a
>PERIOD instead of your reflexive JERK to the exclamation point.
>Back to the issue at hand and perhaps your dimmest quote:
>>Now you keep saying that there is control of ferry franchises, why not
>>be specific, who is controlling, who is being kept out?
>====>which only PROVES you can't read because I never SAID that. If you
>can't address the issue, then PLEASE don't pollute this thread with your
>wasteful comments. But because I LIKE you, I'll REWRITE your sentence:
>>Now you keep saying that there is control of ferry franchises. Why not
>>be specific? Who is controlling them? Who is being kept out?
>See how much nicer that looks, my friend?
>Len
>
thanks for the remedial creative writing lesson, too bad you can't
justify your incoherent rant about ferry franchises
Lawrence Hughes
mkort...@monmouth.com wrote:
>D McLoughlin <dav...@iprolink.co.nz> wrote:
[Concerning the ferry to Staten Island]
>>What is the subsidy per passenger on this ferry? How much do
>>taxpayers pay to keep it running? Why are the fares so low on
>>this route compared with other NYC transit services?
>I haven't the exact numbers but I am sure that the SI ferry is a very
>inefficiant and heavily subsidised part of NYC's MTA. There numerous
>private ferry operations that transport thousands per day in a quick,
>clean, efficiant, and they take no money from the goverment.
The ferry carries about 18 million passengers a year, with operating
expenses of $40 million. The fares are low because politics prevents
fares from being set on a systemwide basis (for bus service--other than
NYCT--fares must be OK'd by the affected borough president, so fares can
differ from borough to borough!).
The ferry is NOT part of the MTA transit system; it is part of the NYCDOT
transit system. The private ferries carry but a minute fraction of the
number of people carried by the NYCDOT ferry. The NYCDOT is perhaps the
single most efficient transit service in New York City in terms of
passengers carried per unit operating cost, but one of the least
efficient in terms of farebox recovery ratio.
Lawrence Hughes
fors...@netcom.com (Robert M. Forstner) wrote:
>If fares on the SI ferry were comparable to other transit services,
>you'd be looking at a US$4 to $4.50 one way fare (the express busses are
>$4). Doesn't make for happy taxpayers.
But in other cities, that $4 to $4.50 would include the fare on
connecting buses and trains on each end (see, e.g., Vancouver's Sea-Bus).
Under those cicumstances, it would not be especially bad news for Staten
Islanders.
Solomon Taibi
mkort...@monmouth.com wrote:
>that doesn't change the fact that the ferry is very heavily subsidised
>and is a massive drain on the MTA
No drain at all on the MTA, because it isn't part of the MTA.
The Staten Island ferry is run by the Department of Marine and
Aviation. Very heavily subsidised as you said.
--
S. Taibi
Beat your plowshares into swords and your pruning hooks
into spears: Let the weak say 'I am strong'. (Joel 3:10)
Joseph Korman
mkort...@monmouth.com wrote:
> that doesn't change the fact that the ferry is very heavily subsidised
> and is a massive drain on the MTA
It's not run by the MTA, but by the NYC DOT.
--
Joseph D. Korman - joe...@earthlink.net
WWW site http://home.earthlink.net/~joekor/
--------------------------------------------------------------------
The light at the end of the tunnel ... may be a train going the other
way!
Bad Trek is better than No Trek!
--------------------------------------------------------------------
James R. Guthrie
On Jul 26, 1996 15:11:12 in article <Re: no subject>, '"T. M. Gardner"
<rgar...@ix.netcom.com>' wrote:
>>
>>>Not social changes but the lust for power of the TBTA Chairman Robert
>>>Moses. Moses went from being a person with practical ideas and a vision
>>>for efficient transportation to a person whose greed for control forced
>>>actions which masked his intelligence. The destruction of the ferry
>>>terminals was done so that he controlled all the water crossings in NYC;
>>>to him this was necessary because without competition, he had a monopoly
>>>
>>Ferries wer gone by the time Robert Moses got his first job.
>>
>>LIRR ferries in Brooklyn and Bushwick were long gone, for example, as was
>>the Oyster Bay Wilson Point (CT) line. All the ferries that connected
with
>>the lines to Coney island were gone by the time Moses came is, as were
most
>>of the local lines.
>>
>>On the Hudson River side, all the ferries were operated as adjuncts of
>>commuter rail operations (or in one case, a trolley). They went, along
with
>>the trains (and trolleys) that fed them with little "help" from Mr. Moses
>>at all.
>>
>>If you have info otherwise, please share.
>>
>>Thanks!
>
>Robert Moses definitely had a hand in the demise of NYC ferry operations,
>proven by the demolition of the Astoria ferry terminal during the
>construction of the Triborough bridge, which was completed in 1936.
The Astoria ferry had dwindled to almost nothing by that time anyway.
What's your point?
>Shocking as it may seem, Moses frequently engaged in such practices.
>More events can be provided upon request. Moses also ridiculed the
>transit system (a competitor), and didn't even want highway tunnels built
>(until his Triborough assumed control of the Midtown and Brooklyn-Battery
>tunnels by deceitful means, subsequently becoming the Triborough Bridge &
>Tunnel Authority, now simply Bridges & Tunnels with the MTA symbol).
A politician in the style of J. Edgar Hoover
> In
>short, he completely disregarded the public's wishes if they conflicted
>in ANY way with his highway and bridge plans (in addition
But from Al Smith to Herb Lehman to Tom Dewey top Averill Harriman in
Albany, and Hylan, Walker, LaGuardia, Impellitari, O'Dwyer, and Wagner --
more highways and getting rid of transit was the popular demand. Moses was
the hatchet man for some of the thornier stuff, but the Board of Estimate
and State Legislature all got elected and re-elected on Moses'
"progressive" actions.
to Chairman of
>Triborough he was City Construction Coordinator, City Arterial Highway
>Representative, State Park Commisioner (controlled parkways), and City
>Park Commisioner in addition to plenty of other posts held
>simultaneously). The power he wielded was significant, and no public
>official until Rockefeller could stop him. So during Moses's reign, the
>transit system, including the ferries, declined and highway construction
>flourished.
Even today, New Yorkers idolize Fiorello LaGuardia, who did more to
dismantle the city's transit system than anything Moses ever did.
LaGuardia, it can be argued, sowed the seeds for many of the urban ills
that befell NYC, and, because although folk in the hinterlands all love to
hate NY, they emulate its worst characteristics -- decided that since NY
was getting rid of transit, so should their fair cities to be "modern."
Yes -- we've all read Careo and the other BIOS of Moses; he carried out the
public policies of political leaders throughout -- until Nelson
Rockefeller's leadership led to the end of such madness.
Jim
>
Lawrence Hughes
Stephen Bauman <SBA...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>First off, the SI ferry not operated by the MTA. It is operated by New
>York City without any "help" from any NY State, bi-state or suburban
>oriented agency. Unlike PATH, the LIRR or the subways, it gets no income
>from any bridge or tunnel tolls.
The ferry is operated as part of NYCDOT's transit system which does
receive assistance from the State of New York as STOA (which every other
public transit system in New York State also receives).
[deletions]
>Third, no private operator has even hinted at running the SI service in
>place of NYC. That should suggest something about how efficiently the
>ferry service is run financially.
A private operator will be starting Staten Island ferry service in the
near future. The service will go to midtown Manhattan, and will be much
more expensive than the downtown Manhattan NYCDOT ferry.
Lawrence Hughes
mkort...@monmouth.com wrote:
>that doesn't change the fact that the ferry is very heavily subsidised
>and is a massive drain on the MTA
To the contrary...
Low fares on the ferry actually help MTA. Low fares on the ferry keep
passengers on the MTA's local buses and trains on Staten Island. With
higher fares, those passengers would have greater incentive to use
express buses directly from Staten Island to Manhattan. Those express
buses require much greater subsidy per passenger than the local buses.
Hence, while NYCDOT's low fare on the ferry is a drain to the City, it
actually acts as a hidden subsidy to the MTA to improve their bottom
line.
Colin R. Leech
Stephen Bauman (SBA...@worldnet.att.net) writes:
> These included: the NYC ferries to Weehawken; the LIRR ferries to LIC;
> the PRR ferries to Jersey City.
There used to be about 4-6 train/ferry terminals up and down the NJ shore.
As well as the ones you mentioned, there was also the Jersey Central to
Jersey City (now Liberty State Park - the old rail station is still
there); the Erie and the Lakawanna had their own before merging. PATH runs
up and sown the NJ shore partly to serve these various rail terminals.
>The last railroad ferry was the run
> between Hoboken and Barclay St.
The last one run by a railroad, perhaps. Of course, the ferries still
operate today between Hoboken and Manhattan, connecting to the commuter
trains.
--
##### |\^/| Colin R. Leech ag414 or crl...@freenet.carleton.ca
##### _|\| |/|_ Civil engineer by training, transport planner by choice.
##### > < Opinions are my own. Consider them shareware if you want.
##### >_./|\._< "If you can't return a favour, pass it on." - A.L. Brown
Colin R. Leech
(mkort...@monmouth.com) writes:
> Stephen Bauman <SBA...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
>>Most of the other ferries could not compete against the "new" East River Bridges - such as the Brooklyn,
>>Manhattan, Williamsburgh and Queensborough. They went out of business on their own.
>
> How do you account for the recent increases in people using ferries
> now? Thousands of people commute into NYC every via these
> UNSUBSIDISED ferry services every day.
I'm not so sure about the unsubsidized part - I'll let others comment on
that (except that the Staten Island Ferry is run by the NYC-DOT, and at 50
cents for a round trip, I'm sure it must be heavily subsidized).
The ferries still exist in areas where the alternatives (bridges, tunnels,
trains) are not a realistic option eg. Staten Island. The only one that
puzzles me is the Hoboken ferry, which would appear to compete directly
with PATH. In this case, there are capacity issues - in a sense the ferry
supplements the trains rather than competing with them.
Michael549
Please note that Express Bus service only operates during the peak periods
of the day, rarely on weekends or very late nights.
If Staten Island were divided into three sections a northern, middle and
southern section (like the current Community Districts), and you
were to review the Staten Island bus map, you would notice that Express
bus
service covers basically the middle portion of the island. The majority
of bus
riders in the northern section can not ride Express buses, they do not
exist!!
The majority of bus riders in the southern most section of the Island also
have
poor Express bus and local bus service.
Just my thoughts.
Michael-549
------------------------------
Subject: Re: NYC Ferry Services
From: Lawrence Hughes <lhug...@counsel.com>
Date: 27 Jul 1996 21:36:51 GMT
Message-ID: <4te25j$a...@nntp208.reach.com>
Bill Partsch
Len Ryers <LRy...@inet.pdi.com> wrote:
Actually, the correct punctuation, at least as I read the sentence, would
be, "Now, you keep saying that there is control of ferry franchises." In
this sentence, "Now" appears to be just an introductory word along the
lines of "Well" or "Hey". As such, it takes a comma. If it were meant to
denote time, as in, "You once insisted ferry franchises were open game.
Now you keep saying...," etc., then it would take no comma.
Now, don't get me wrong. I don't normally correct online punctuation or
grammar. I accept that most people don't feel obliged to burden themselves
with the conventions of written English when they communicate online. On
the other hand, when someone pretends to "correct" someone else and
blithely leaves a mistake intact, that's a bit hypocritical. It's no
federal case, but it does deserve recognition.
--Bill
Lawrence Hughes
ta...@inil.com (Solomon Taibi) wrote:
>No drain at all on the MTA, because it isn't part of the MTA.
>The Staten Island ferry is run by the Department of Marine and
>Aviation. Very heavily subsidised as you said.
No. The Staten Island ferry is part of the New York City Department of
Transportation's transit system.
Bill Partsch
Dobrow Stephen
The SI Ferry is not run by MTA but by NYC.
(and raising the fare on the ferry would just rile SIers who feel like
stepchildren already).
---Stephen Dobrow
Peter Rosa
In <4te25j$a...@nntp208.reach.com> Lawrence Hughes
<lhug...@counsel.com> writes:
>
>mkort...@monmouth.com wrote:
>
>>that doesn't change the fact that the ferry is very heavily
subsidised
>>and is a massive drain on the MTA
>
>
>Low fares on the ferry actually help MTA. Low fares on the ferry keep
>passengers on the MTA's local buses and trains on Staten Island. With
>higher fares, those passengers would have greater incentive to use
>express buses directly from Staten Island to Manhattan. Those express
>buses require much greater subsidy per passenger than the local buses.
>Hence, while NYCDOT's low fare on the ferry is a drain to the City, it
>actually acts as a hidden subsidy to the MTA to improve their bottom
>line.
>
Express buses require much greater subsidies than locals? I don't see
how, given their significantly higher fares. Labor is the main cost
component of mass transit, and an express bus has one driver, just like
a local. Moreover, I'd expect their fuel consumption to be relatively
lower, without the constant starting and stopping.
seth kaplan and elizabeth stillman
Stephen Bauman <SBA...@worldnet.att.net> writes:
>> >Not social changes but the lust for power of the TBTA Chairman Robert
>> >Moses. Moses went from being a person with practical ideas and a vision
>> >for efficient transportation to a person whose greed for control forced
>> >actions which masked his intelligence. The destruction of the ferry
>> >terminals was done so that he controlled all the water crossings in NYC;
>> >to him this was necessary because without competition, he had a monopoly
>> >staggered six-year terms in many state public authorities which made it
>> >almost impossible to remove him. The thousands would still have been
>> >riding the ferries if Moses was kept under control.
r to the
publication of that book Moses had a glowing public image and Caro
totally dismantled it and created the (I believe accurate) perception of
Moses that is now accepted by one and all. Just goes to show that it often
happens that the guy with the pen is the often the one really running things.
>This is very easy to document. Robert Caro devoted an entire chapter to
>this in his biograpy: The Power Builder. Moses sent his workmen over and
>demolished the ferry terminal, while the ferries were still running after the
>opening of the Triborough Bridge. He was a little less forceful but just as
>effective with the Verrazano. The Owls Head ferry lasted just 1 day after the
>bridge opened. You will be able to contemporary descriptions of both ferry
>closings from the NY Times index. Look in 1936 and 1964 for the Triborogh and
>Verrazano, respectively.
Of course we live amongst the glories and the ruins of his work. Yes, he
killed the ferries, slashed the Bronx in a way that is just now recovering
from, killed Spuyten Duyvil and undermined trains and transit in NYC (and
built some horrible public housing after knocking down beautiful blocks
in the name of slum clearance) but you have to admit that the Verrazzano is
a magnificent structure and late at night with no traffic it is amazing to
be able to drive from South Brooklyn to the North Bronx in 20 minutes on the BQE
Triboro/Deegan combo. Not worth the price but something to ponder.
Colin R. Leech
Michael549 (micha...@aol.com) writes:
> Right now, the SI Ferry runs usually every 30 minutes, but
> after 11:30 at late nights, one boat an hour. Major portions
> of the weekend, one boat per hour is run. Now imagine waiting
> 30 minutes to take the subway home? Imagine 60 minutes
> waiting time to simply board the subway to take it home.
Imagine that most subway systems across North America shut down entirely
after midnight ...
> Add to
> that a trip of 30 minutes. (So far you've spent 60-90 minutes and
> you've just arrived on the island.)
No, because you've timed your arrival at the ferry terminal so that you
wait 5-10 minutes, not 60 minutes.
mkort...@monmouth.com
Dobrow Stephen <dob...@alpha.fdu.edu> wrote:
>The SI Ferry is not run by MTA but by NYC.
>(and raising the fare on the ferry would just rile SIers who feel like
>stepchildren already).
so we should subsidize them so they can feel better? the majority of
the people reaping the benefits of the very heavily subsidised
transport moved onto SI knowing exactly what they were getting into! I
have limited sympathy for them.
Bob Scheurle
mkort...@monmouth.com wrote:
>I haven't the exact numbers but I am sure that the SI ferry is a very
>inefficiant and heavily subsidised part of NYC's MTA.
Thank you for that very informative comment.
>There numerous private ferry operations that transport thousands
>per day in a quick, clean, efficiant, and they take no money from
>the goverment.
Have you ever heard of the United States Coast Guard? Or do you think
that the private ferry companies patrol the waterways and maintain the
aids to navigation?
--
Bob Scheurle
sche...@eclipse.net
sche...@itt.com
NJ Transit schedules at http://www.eclipse.net/~scheurle/njt
Peter Rosa
In <31fd6047...@news.eclipse.net> sche...@eclipse.net (Bob
Scheurle) writes:
>
>mkort...@monmouth.com wrote:
>>I haven't the exact numbers but I am sure that the SI ferry is a very
>>inefficiant and heavily subsidised part of NYC's MTA.
>
>Thank you for that very informative comment.
>
>
be? Also, I've gathered from the discussions here that the City's
subsidies of the ferry are partly political, aimed at keeping commuting
costs down for Staten Island residents. If Staten Island does split
off politically, an idea that seems to keep popping up, then presumably
the City will no longer have that incentive and could end up saving a
lot of $$$ (whether that would make up for the loss of tax revenue is
another issue, of course).
mkort...@monmouth.com
sche...@eclipse.net (Bob Scheurle) wrote:
>mkort...@monmouth.com wrote:
>>I haven't the exact numbers but I am sure that the SI ferry is a very
>>inefficiant and heavily subsidised part of NYC's MTA.
>Thank you for that very informative comment.
>>There numerous private ferry operations that transport thousands
>>per day in a quick, clean, efficiant, and they take no money from
>>the goverment.
>Have you ever heard of the United States Coast Guard? Or do you think
>that the private ferry companies patrol the waterways and maintain the
>aids to navigation?
and highway patrols don't aid commuter buses, and those signs on the
highways where did they come from? What is your point bob?? I am very
aware of the inequities in the subsidy rates between the services that
the state of nj has control over and how they REFUSE to subsidise
anything that they cannot exert any control over. Don't you find it
amazing that NY Waterway can offer a much higher service for not that
much more money? the will take you from wehawken to w 32 st in
manhatten and then bus you almost anywhere for about a 1 1/2 mile
radius all for one fare.
Another case in point, I commute via an UNSUBSIDISED ferry service and
the fare is 2 times what a simular trip is via NJT rail or 2 1/2 times
the cost of subsidised buses.
So bob stop being so pompous and learn something about what has been
going on for a long time now.
T. M. Gardner
I believe my attitude has been somewhat misunderstood. I have and will
continue to have great respect for Robert Moses. I believe he genuinely
did want to improve public infrastructure; the problems came about when
he, frustrated with red tape, decided to adopt practices which
sidestepped public intervention. When this practice became common, Moses
was already addicted to the power he had been given, so the degree of his
indifference to the public's desire became more apparent. His
accomplishments that produced good however, should be admired. Do not
allow contempt for some of this man's actions to force you to become
ignorant of his talents and intelligence.
-TMG
Lawrence Hughes
pro...@ix.netcom.com(Peter Rosa) wrote:
>Express buses require much greater subsidies than locals? I don't see
>how, given their significantly higher fares. Labor is the main cost
>component of mass transit, and an express bus has one driver, just like
>a local. Moreover, I'd expect their fuel consumption to be relatively
>lower, without the constant starting and stopping.
True that there is a higher cost, but there is much greater turnover on a
local bus route. The same seat is used by many people.
[Some people will also argue that the express bus is less efficient
because it is, for the most part, peak-only service. There is a
tremendous penalty that is paid (paid swing, spread penalty) for keeping
these bus drivers idle during the middle of the day. Local service has a
lower paek-to-base ratio, and therefore less of a penalty is paid. This
is a false argument, however, because to the extent that express bus
riders become local bus riders, they ride during the peak, and additional
peak-only local bus service must be added to the schedule; that
additional peak-only local bus service has the same penalties as the
peak-only express buse service.]
Michael549
Some time ago, the Staten Island Succession Commission discovered that
Staten Island pays MORE to New York City in taxes and fees, than it does
recieve in services. Staten Islanders send to New York City about 900
million
in taxes and fees, and recieve about 800 million in services. This was
reported
several times in the Staten Island Advance during the debate over the
succession issue. New York City would LOSE money rather than gain money,
in addition to 400,000 residents.
Another point in the debate was the fact that no one really
knows what Staten Islanders may have to pay (if any amount at all) for the
already installed city facilities (schools, precincts, etc). Third, the
status of
the Ferry, its costs and fare structure is still open to debate.
Since the New York State Assembly is simply not going to entertain let
alone
ask New York City for a "home-rule message" on the issue, the issue will
not
be debated, or even voted upon. That stance allows the current Gov. and
others
to say that they favor the split, without any chance in this century (or
the next)
that the split will happen. Not any mayor of New York or the leadership
of the
City Council will vote again or submit such a "home-rule message", either.
Some consider Staten Island residents to be the "step-children" of the
city.
Many residents felt that is was the vote of the Boro. President on the
Board
Of Estimate that allowed the smallest borough to gain any of the services
it has.
Now that the Board Of Estimate is no longer, it will be interesting to
watch how
the city treats its smallest borough.
Considering that there isn't one single way for any commuter (ferry, bus,
car)
living on Staten Island, to travel to another borough without paying a
fare or a
toll - the cheap ferry fare is reasonable. Considering that until 1964,
when the
V. Bridge was opened, Staten Islanders had never had a direct connection
to
any other part of the city (save for the ferry) - the cheap fare is
reasonable.
Just my thoughts
Michael-549
Subject: Re: NYC Ferry Services
From: pro...@ix.netcom.com(Peter Rosa)
Date: 30 Jul 1996 09:32:59 GMT
Message-ID: <4tkksb$3...@dfw-ixnews3.ix.netcom.com>
In <31fd6047...@news.eclipse.net> sche...@eclipse.net (Bob
Scheurle) writes:
>
>mkort...@monmouth.com wrote:
>>I haven't the exact numbers but I am sure that the SI ferry is a very
>>inefficiant and heavily subsidised part of NYC's MTA.
>
>Thank you for that very informative comment.
>
>
Jim Guthrie
On Jul 27, 1996 22:45:40 in article <Commuter ferries (was: Re: (no
subject))>, 'ag...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Colin R. Leech)' wrote:
[snip]
>
>>The last railroad ferry was the run
>> between Hoboken and Barclay St.
>
>The last one run by a railroad, perhaps. Of course, the ferries still
>operate today between Hoboken and Manhattan, connecting to the commuter
>trains.
They are supplementary to PATH -- skimming off daytime and rush-hour
capacity (at a premium on PATH). They are able to skim off business at a
premium rate, not operate in bad weather, since the PATH alterative is
available.
The old railroad ferries had to operate 24 hours, whether their were
passengers or not, and keep to a schedule no matter what -- even using
railroad tugs as icecutters.
It's easy to run "unsubsidized" when the high-cost aspects of the operation
are removed.
Jim
Ed Ravin
From somewhere in cyberspace, mkort...@monmouth.com said:
>Don't you find it
>amazing that NY Waterway can offer a much higher service for not that
>much more money? the will take you from wehawken to w 32 st in
>manhatten and then bus you almost anywhere for about a 1 1/2 mile
>radius all for one fare.
Umm, doesn't NY Waterway have a subsidized sister company, also owned by
Imperiali, that provides service under contract to the Port Authority?
Perhaps someone more familiar with the details could speak up about this.
--
Ed Ravin | "The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as
+1 212 678 5545 | well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the
era...@panix.com | streets, and to steal bread."
| --Anatole France, Le Lys Rouge [1894]
Harvey Fishman
In <4ton1f$n...@news.monmouth.com> mkort...@monmouth.com says
> I am stating that NONE of the trans hudson or east river and the
> ferries from southern NJ recieve one nickle from any govermental
> agency.
There are more than a few ways to provide substantial governmental
subsidies in ways other than direct monetary payments so your claim rings
rather hollow. Will you make a similar strong statement that there is no
subsidy in ANY form, direct or indirect, for these services?
Harvey
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Harvey Fishman | I do not see any substantive difference between
fis...@panix.com | Kathy Lee Gifford or Michael Jordan renting their
718-258-7276 | names and sexual prostitutes renting their bodies.
mkort...@monmouth.com
ag...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Colin R. Leech) wrote:
>Stephen Bauman (SBA...@worldnet.att.net) writes:
>> These included: the NYC ferries to Weehawken; the LIRR ferries to LIC;
>> the PRR ferries to Jersey City.
>There used to be about 4-6 train/ferry terminals up and down the NJ shore.
>As well as the ones you mentioned, there was also the Jersey Central to
>Jersey City (now Liberty State Park - the old rail station is still
>there); the Erie and the Lakawanna had their own before merging. PATH runs
>up and sown the NJ shore partly to serve these various rail terminals.
>>The last railroad ferry was the run
>> between Hoboken and Barclay St.
>The last one run by a railroad, perhaps. Of course, the ferries still
>operate today between Hoboken and Manhattan, connecting to the commuter
>trains.
actually Colin, he was partially correct, until about 3 years ago. He
mentioned the last Hudson River ferry that stopped in the late '60's
until a firm called NY Waterway began service again.
Robert M. Forstner
mkort...@monmouth.com wrote:
> I am stating that NONE of the trans hudson or east river and the
> ferries from southern NJ recieve one nickle from any govermental
> agency.
I don't think this is entirely true. I remember a thread in nyc.transit
(Ed Ravin just mentioned it another thread related to this one) about
9 months or so ago in which it was stated that at least one (I think the
Colgate to WFC ferry) of the Hudson ferries are run by NY Waterway under
contract from the Port Authority.
And even if the East River ferry at Hunterspoint Ave isn't "subsidized", the
advertising blitz the LIRR puts on occasionally (not to mention the pricing
incentives offered to LIRR commuters to use the ferry) to promote the
service certainly isn't hurting it.
As a separate issue, does the claim that these ferries are unsubsidized
also mean the ferries are not receiving captial support? Amtrak keeps
promoting the fact that will not require subsidies by 2002, yet it will
still be dependent upon the federal government for capital funding.
--
Robert Forstner -- fors...@netcom.com for...@cooper.edu
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
UNIX _is_ user friendly. It's just VERY picky about its friends.
There is no dark side of the moon, really. As a matter of fact, it's all dark.
--Pink Floyd
Michael549
In a previous message:
> Add to that a trip of 30 minutes. (So far you've spent 60-90 minutes and
> you've just arrived on the island.)
Colin R. Leech wrote:
No, because you've timed your arrival at the ferry terminal so that you
wait 5-10 minutes, not 60 minutes.
-------------------------------
I hate to be a spoil-sport, but many Staten Islanders have missed a boat
at one
time or another. On any good evening, you can watch from the South Ferry
station as riders race up the stairs and into the terminal to catch the
boat. As they run, you can see their slowing pace as they realize the
boat has left. And yes, I've been in that crowd. A good number of times,
I've boarded the subway at 14th Street on the Westside, with 30 minutes of
travel time before the next ferry and have missed it. A good number of
times, the 1/9 has sat outside the South Ferry station, with riders
standing at the doors ready to spring up the stairs and the boat has left.
I will not mention the number of times the #4 and #5 have taken their
sweet time getting to the Bowling Green station. Even the "Never" and the
"Rarely" (the N and R lines) have been known to completely defy all logic
and help you to miss the boat.
You can "time" your arrival all you want, it simply does not mean that the
buses,
subways and taxi's are going to cooperate.
I have not mentioned the station reconstruction work at Whitehall Street
or South Ferry, the number of "General Orders" and train re-routings, or
the diversions that require riders to take buses from Chambers Street to
get to the ferry. Nor have I mentioned the wonderful trials of nerves
getting to the ferry on the Staten Island side can be with the erratic bus
schedules and bus frequency/headways. I've left all of that out.
Just the truth
Michael-549
-----------------------------------------
Subject: Re: NYC Ferry Services
From: ag...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Colin R. Leech)
Date: 29 Jul 1996 07:12:13 GMT
Message-ID: <4tho8d$1...@freenet-news.carleton.ca>
MKortlander
jgut...@usa.pipeline.com(Jim Guthrie) wrote:
>On Jul 27, 1996 22:45:40 in article <Commuter ferries (was: Re: (no
>subject))>, 'ag...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Colin R. Leech)' wrote:
>
>[snip]
>
>
>>
>>>The last railroad ferry was the run
>>> between Hoboken and Barclay St.
>>
>>The last one run by a railroad, perhaps. Of course, the ferries still
>>operate today between Hoboken and Manhattan, connecting to the commuter
>>trains.
>
>
>But these are new -- returning after a more than 20-year lapse.
>
>They are supplementary to PATH -- skimming off daytime and rush-hour
>capacity (at a premium on PATH). They are able to skim off business at a
>premium rate, not operate in bad weather, since the PATH alterative is
>available.
I have never in 3 or so years seen the ferry across the hudson
canceled because of inclement conditions, I have seen the PATH "crash"
numerous times for various reasons.
>
>The old railroad ferries had to operate 24 hours, whether their were
>passengers or not, and keep to a schedule no matter what -- even using
>railroad tugs as icecutters.
>
>It's easy to run "unsubsidized" when the high-cost aspects of the operation
>are removed.
>
who made the railroads operate like that, maybe that could be a clue
as to why they all went bankrupt.
Lawrence Hughes
ag...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Colin R. Leech) wrote:
>> How do you account for the recent increases in people using ferries
>> now? Thousands of people commute into NYC every via these
>> UNSUBSIDISED ferry services every day.
>
>I'm not so sure about the unsubsidized part - I'll let others comment on
>that (except that the Staten Island Ferry is run by the NYC-DOT, and at 50
>cents for a round trip, I'm sure it must be heavily subsidized).
The City of New York spends money on City employees working on private
ferry operations. The City of New York forgoes other development and
income when it leases port facilities at low rates to the private ferry
operations. The City of New York has extended money-losing transit bus
service as feeders to the private ferries. Yes--the City DOES subsidize
the private ferries!
Jim Guthrie
On Aug 01, 1996 14:49:09 in article <Re: Commuter ferries (was: Re: (no
subject))>, 'MKortlander' wrote:
>>They are supplementary to PATH -- skimming off daytime and rush-hour
>>capacity (at a premium on PATH). They are able to skim off business at a
>>premium rate, not operate in bad weather, since the PATH alterative is
>>available.
>I have never in 3 or so years seen the ferry across the hudson
>canceled because of inclement conditions, I have seen the PATH "crash"
>numerous times for various reasons.
>>
any fraction thereof, but I trust the traffic reports on WINS and WCBS and
WOR and other radio stations when they announce the ferry is not running
for some reason.
PATH is still the prime carrier -- and yes, they occasionallyhave problems
as well. But it's still the ferry that's doing the skimming without the
hassle of being prime carrier.
>>The old railroad ferries had to operate 24 hours, whether their were
>>passengers or not, and keep to a schedule no matter what -- even using
>>railroad tugs as icecutters.
>>
>>It's easy to run "unsubsidized" when the high-cost aspects of the
operation
>>are removed.
>>
>who made the railroads operate like that, maybe that could be a clue
>as to why they all went bankrupt.
sophisticated enough to know that Jersey City, Hoboken, Weehawken,
Bushwick, Long Island City, St. George, and Atlantic Ave. Brooklyn were not
the prime destinations of potential customers.
Jim
>
Joseph Korman
Peter Rosa wrote:
> Express buses require much greater subsidies than locals? I don't see
> how, given their significantly higher fares. Labor is the main cost
> component of mass transit, and an express bus has one driver, just like
> a local. Moreover, I'd expect their fuel consumption to be relatively
The drivers though have split runs, that is they may make two AM trips
for 4 hours, then break for 4 more (for which they are paid 2 hours)
then another PM trip for 4 hours. The the driver gets 10 hours pay for
8 hours in the seat half of it is running without passengers to the
depot.
Recently the split times (swings) were cut back, when some of the Staten
Island buses lay over at the old Greyhound terminal on 40th & 11th. The
drivers have the option of remaining in the city or riding back to SI on
a shuttle bus.
The TA does save on the fuel for those buses because they don't roll-off
back to SI. There is probably no economy for the express service fuel
efficiency due to traffic. There are two separate bus only lanes on the
Gowanas Expressway. But from the Verrazano to the first bus lane the
buses fight traffic. Then there is the stretch from 65th to the merge
with the Prospect (50 blocks) where again the buses compete with the
autos. From there there is a bus only lane to the Brooklyn-Battery
tunnel. The shared sections can crawl at 5 MPH.
On local lines, most of the runs are straigh 8-9 hours with breaks where
the driver actually works for 7:30 to 8 hours of this time.
So fares are lower, but more passengers are carried on locals than
expresses.
--
Joseph D. Korman - joe...@earthlink.net
WWW site http://home.earthlink.net/~joekor/
--------------------------------------------------------------------
The light at the end of the tunnel ... may be a train going the other
way!
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Bob Scheurle
mkort...@monmouth.com wrote:
>I am stating that NONE of the trans hudson or east river and the
>ferries from southern NJ recieve one nickle from any govermental
>agency.
That is absolutely, positively FALSE!
NY Waterway has purchased some of their ferries with GOVERNMENT MONEY
provided to them for FREE!
Others may not be getting a check from the government, but they all
use government maintained facilities and services, which are paid for
by taxpayer dollars -- in other words, a subsidy.
These "unsubsidised" ferry services also benefit from subsidies
provided to other modes of transportation. Most of NY Waterway's
passengers from Hoboken arrive on NJ Transit trains, many of which
operate over the Waterfront Connection which was paid for by the Port
Authority of NY and NJ.
mkort...@monmouth.com
era...@panix.com (Ed Ravin) wrote:
>From somewhere in cyberspace, mkort...@monmouth.com said:
>>Don't you find it
>>amazing that NY Waterway can offer a much higher service for not that
>>much more money? the will take you from wehawken to w 32 st in
>>manhatten and then bus you almost anywhere for about a 1 1/2 mile
>>radius all for one fare.
>Umm, doesn't NY Waterway have a subsidized sister company, also owned by
>Imperiali, that provides service under contract to the Port Authority?
>Perhaps someone more familiar with the details could speak up about this.
>--
well, tell us more! All I know about Imperatore, the owner of ny
watereway, is involved in many different business enterprises. Try to
be more specific, is one of ferry lines subsidised? or is it one of
the other unrelated businesses?
Lawrence Hughes
mkort...@monmouth.com wrote:
>I am stating that NONE of the trans hudson or east river and the
>ferries from southern NJ recieve one nickle from any govermental
>agency.
Subsidies do not consist of cash alone. Subsidies-in-kind are also
subsidies, and the trans-Hudson and East River ferries receive
subsidies-in-kind.
Peter Rosa
In <4tp4da$o...@nntp208.reach.com> Lawrence Hughes
Are you sure about regular buses being used as feeders to the ferries?
The specially marked "NY Waterway" buses are a common sight in Midtown.
Are these actually regular tranist buses bearing the special logo?
I also don't think the city loses much revenue by leasing port
facilities to the ferry operators, whatever the rates. There seems to
be an enormous amount of empty waterfront space - I can't imagine
developers clamoring to pay high rents for it.
mkort...@monmouth.com
fis...@panix.com (Harvey Fishman) wrote:
harvey, in what way??
if you mean that ferries recieve indirect subsidies because the ferry
customers arrive at the ferry via a street paved with taxpayer funds?
what I am saying is that ferries recieve no money in the sense that
private bus companies recieve huge operating subsidies like free
equipment.
mkort...@monmouth.com
Lawrence Hughes <lhug...@counsel.com> wrote:
>ag...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Colin R. Leech) wrote:
>>> How do you account for the recent increases in people using ferries
>>> now? Thousands of people commute into NYC every via these
>>> UNSUBSIDISED ferry services every day.
>>
>>I'm not so sure about the unsubsidized part - I'll let others comment on
>>that (except that the Staten Island Ferry is run by the NYC-DOT, and at 50
>>cents for a round trip, I'm sure it must be heavily subsidized).
>The City of New York spends money on City employees working on private
>ferry operations.
I've never seen any city employees at any ferry terminal I've been at,
please elaborate.
> The City of New York forgoes other development and
>income when it leases port facilities at low rates to the private ferry
>operations.
the city has title to dozens of piers all around manhattan that are
crumbling into the river, there isn't exactly a huge demand for the
piers where these boats are landing, and the city collects a nice
little fee for each passenger that arrives or leaves via boat.
> The City of New York has extended money-losing transit bus
>service as feeders to the private ferries. Yes--the City DOES subsidize
>the private ferries!
it does??? where??
your blowing alot of smoke, in fact ny waterway provises its own bus
service around town.
mkort...@monmouth.com
(much snipped)
>>operations. The City of New York has extended money-losing transit
>bus
>>service as feeders to the private ferries. Yes--the City DOES
>subsidize
>>the private ferries!
>>
>Are you sure about regular buses being used as feeders to the ferries?
>The specially marked "NY Waterway" buses are a common sight in Midtown.
>Are these actually regular tranist buses bearing the special logo?
he doesn't have a clue as to what he is talking about, those PRIVATE
buses do not recieve one nickle from the city, state or any one else,
excepting the lower manhatten one which is run in conjuction with the
downtown alliance, an BID.
>I also don't think the city loses much revenue by leasing port
>facilities to the ferry operators, whatever the rates. There seems to
>be an enormous amount of empty waterfront space - I can't imagine
>developers clamoring to pay high rents for it.
not only that but the city collects rents and a head tax at the
formerly unused piers.
mkort...@monmouth.com
fors...@netcom.com (Robert M. Forstner) wrote:
>mkort...@monmouth.com wrote:
>> I am stating that NONE of the trans hudson or east river and the
>> ferries from southern NJ recieve one nickle from any govermental
>> agency.
>I don't think this is entirely true. I remember a thread in nyc.transit
>(Ed Ravin just mentioned it another thread related to this one) about
>9 months or so ago in which it was stated that at least one (I think the
>Colgate to WFC ferry) of the Hudson ferries are run by NY Waterway under
>contract from the Port Authority.
if true it is news to me.
>And even if the East River ferry at Hunterspoint Ave isn't "subsidized", the
>advertising blitz the LIRR puts on occasionally (not to mention the pricing
>incentives offered to LIRR commuters to use the ferry) to promote the
>service certainly isn't hurting it.
the lirr is promoting it as a way to boast ridership among people who
work on the east side and shun the railroad because of the
inconvienence of going to hunters point and then having to use the
subway.
>As a separate issue, does the claim that these ferries are unsubsidized
>also mean the ferries are not receiving captial support? Amtrak keeps
>promoting the fact that will not require subsidies by 2002, yet it will
>still be dependent upon the federal government for capital funding.
the ferries get no capitol support either.
also there are more players in this game than ny waterway! and none of
them are as strong or as well entrenched as waterway.
mkort...@monmouth.com
Lawrence Hughes <lhug...@counsel.com> wrote:
>mkort...@monmouth.com wrote:
>>I am stating that NONE of the trans hudson or east river and the
>>ferries from southern NJ recieve one nickle from any govermental
>>agency.
>Subsidies do not consist of cash alone. Subsidies-in-kind are also
>subsidies, and the trans-Hudson and East River ferries receive
>subsidies-in-kind.
such as???
Bob Scheurle
mkort...@monmouth.com wrote:
>actually Colin, he was partially correct, until about 3 years ago. He
>mentioned the last Hudson River ferry that stopped in the late '60's
>until a firm called NY Waterway began service again.
Didn't Arthur Imperatore start his ferry from Weehawken over 10 years
ago?
Colin R. Leech
Colin R. Leech (ag...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA) writes:
> There used to be about 4-6 train/ferry terminals up and down the NJ shore.
Somebody pointed out in e-mail that "waterfront" would have been a better
choice of word than "shore", as "shore" conjures up visions of beaches
further south, rather than the riverfront opposite Manhatten (Jersey City,
Hoboken, Weekawken, etc.)
> As well as the ones you mentioned, there was also the Jersey Central to
> Jersey City (now Liberty State Park - the old rail station is still
> there); the Erie and the Lakawanna had their own before merging. PATH runs
> up and sown the NJ shore partly to serve these various rail terminals.
There it is again. :-)
Jim Guthrie
Oh for corn sake!
The CNJ ran ferries to the Jersey Shore as well as the Jersey City
waterfront.
Jim
PS -- It was always great sport in the old days to walk up innocently to
the information counter at Penn Station and ask the time f the next train
to "Jersey Shore."
Most clerks would, in complete frustration, demand to know "Which station
on the 'Jersey Shore'?"
--------------------------------------------
On Aug 02, 1996 03:35:59 in article <Re: Commuter ferries (was: Re: (no
MKortlander
jgut...@usa.pipeline.com(Jim Guthrie) wrote:
>On Aug 01, 1996 14:49:09 in article <Re: Commuter ferries (was: Re: (no
>subject))>, 'MKortlander' wrote:
>>>They are supplementary to PATH -- skimming off daytime and rush-hour
>>>capacity (at a premium on PATH). They are able to skim off business at a
>>>premium rate, not operate in bad weather, since the PATH alterative is
>>>available.
>>I have never in 3 or so years seen the ferry across the hudson
>>canceled because of inclement conditions, I have seen the PATH "crash"
>>numerous times for various reasons.
>>>
>
>I will admit to not watching the ferries 7 days a week for three years or
>any fraction thereof, but I trust the traffic reports on WINS and WCBS and
>WOR and other radio stations when they announce the ferry is not running
>for some reason.
>
>PATH is still the prime carrier -- and yes, they occasionallyhave problems
>as well. But it's still the ferry that's doing the skimming without the
>hassle of being prime carrier.
>
I'll say it again, it has been my experiance as a ferry user for over
the past 3 years that the path is out of service more often than the
ferry, regardless of what any radio says
>
>>>The old railroad ferries had to operate 24 hours, whether their were
>>>passengers or not, and keep to a schedule no matter what -- even using
>>>railroad tugs as icecutters.
>>>
>>>It's easy to run "unsubsidized" when the high-cost aspects of the
>operation
>>>are removed.
>>>
>>who made the railroads operate like that, maybe that could be a clue
>>as to why they all went bankrupt.
>
>Railroad marketing -- even such as it was in the 19th Century -- was
>sophisticated enough to know that Jersey City, Hoboken, Weehawken,
>Bushwick, Long Island City, St. George, and Atlantic Ave. Brooklyn were not
>the prime destinations of potential customers.
>
>Jim
>
you're out there on this one big guy!
Peter Rosa
In <4tskf8$o...@news.monmouth.com> mkort...@monmouth.com writes:
>
>
>>And even if the East River ferry at Hunterspoint Ave isn't
"subsidized", the
>>advertising blitz the LIRR puts on occasionally (not to mention the
pricing
>>incentives offered to LIRR commuters to use the ferry) to promote the
>>service certainly isn't hurting it.
>
>the lirr is promoting it as a way to boast ridership among people who
>work on the east side and shun the railroad because of the
>inconvienence of going to hunters point and then having to use the
>subway.
>
ferry has now become irrelevant ....
Jim Guthrie
On Aug 03, 1996 02:11:13 in article <Re: Urban ferries (was: Re: (no
subject))>, 'pro...@ix.netcom.com(Peter Rosa)' wrote:
>>the lirr is promoting it as a way to boast ridership among people who
>>work on the east side and shun the railroad because of the
>>inconvienence of going to hunters point and then having to use the
>>subway.
>>
>
>Well, it looks like any disucssion of subsidies on the Hunters Point
>ferry has now become irrelevant ....
>
the schlep from the LIC station to the ferry.
Jim
Alexander Medwedew
> >> Stephen Bauman <SBA...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> >>
> >>>Most of the other ferries could not compete against the "new" East River Bridges - such as the Brooklyn,
> >>>Manhattan, Williamsburgh and Queensborough. They went out of business on their own.
> >>
> >> How do you account for the recent increases in people using ferries
> >> now? Thousands of people commute into NYC every via these
> >> UNSUBSIDISED ferry services every day.
>
> >I'm not so sure about the unsubsidized part - I'll let others comment on
> >that (except that the Staten Island Ferry is run by the NYC-DOT, and at 50
> >cents for a round trip, I'm sure it must be heavily subsidized).
> ferries from southern NJ recieve one nickle from any govermental
> agency.
> >trains) are not a realistic option eg. Staten Island. The only one that
> >puzzles me is the Hoboken ferry, which would appear to compete directly
> >with PATH. In this case, there are capacity issues - in a sense the ferry
> >supplements the trains rather than competing with them.
>
> in addition to the hoboken ferry there is one from Jersery City less
> than 100 yards from the exchange place station. The explantion on why
> people are willing to pay twice as much to go to and from the same
> place is that (especially in hoboken) the ferry is faster and a much
> more pleasant way to comute, in jersey city one incentive is a less
> expansive place to park, even still there are many who walk to the
> ferry and still choose it over going into the hole.
> >--
> >##### |\^/| Colin R. Leech ag414 or crl...@freenet.carleton.ca
> >##### _|\| |/|_ Civil engineer by training, transport planner by choice.
> >##### > < Opinions are my own. Consider them shareware if you want.
> >##### >_./|\._< "If you can't return a favour, pass it on." - A.L. Brown
Many of the ferries connect to points not directly accessible from the PATH
trains requiring transfers to other means of transportation. In addition free
shuttle bus services are provided by the ferry operators from the west side of
Manhattan to points on the east side. The convenience aspect seems to
overshadow the higher cost.
The waterways around New York City are an extremely under utilized mass transit
alternative. Manhattan is surrounded by water! Using higher speed ferries
like the large hovercrafts used on the English Channel could make for some real
exciting commutes. In the early sixties during the World's Fair in New York
there was a ferry service using hydrofoils to shuttle people back and forth
from midtown. I believe it was discontinued partly due to the high level of
debri in the river causing damage to the foils. Hovercrafts wouldn't have this
problem at all.
--
Alexander Medwedew
Computer Ventures, Inc.
comp...@tribeca.ios.com
http://tribeca.ios.com/~compvent/
mkort...@monmouth.com
ag...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Colin R. Leech) wrote:
>Colin R. Leech (ag...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA) writes:
>> There used to be about 4-6 train/ferry terminals up and down the NJ shore.
>Somebody pointed out in e-mail that "waterfront" would have been a better
>choice of word than "shore", as "shore" conjures up visions of beaches
>further south, rather than the riverfront opposite Manhatten (Jersey City,
>Hoboken, Weekawken, etc.)
once again colin, you don't have a clue,
in addition to just crossing the hudson, there were ferries that ran
daily commuter runs to the shore. In fact one unsubsidised one has
been in operation for 10 years and brings in excess of 800 people per
day into manhattan.
Colin R. Leech
Bob Scheurle (sche...@eclipse.net) writes:
> Most of NY Waterway's
> passengers from Hoboken arrive on NJ Transit trains, many of which
> operate over the Waterfront Connection which was paid for by the Port
> Authority of NY and NJ.
Now that's an interesting twist. I thought all the major rail projects in
northern NJ were NJT-initiated. Why would the PA build the Waterfront
Connection? (I understnad this to be the switches and track allowing NEC
trains to travel to Hoboken - the so-called "reverse Kearny".)
Bob Scheurle
mkort...@monmouth.com wrote:
>what I am saying is that ferries recieve no money in the sense that
>private bus companies recieve huge operating subsidies like free
>equipment.
And what you are saying is WRONG! NY Waterway (formerly Arcorp) has
received money from the US DOT and the PA for terminals and ferry
boats. For an example, see http://www.dot.gov/affairs/4196sp.htm
Bob Scheurle
Not just build the Waterfront Connection, but pay for the Arcorp-Hartz
(now NY Waterway) ferry terminals at Hoboken and the World Financial
Center.
Why? Because during peak hours, PATH's Newark - WTC line is at
capacity. The combination of the Waterfront Connection and the
Hoboken Ferry helps to reduce congestion on the PATH NWK-WTC line.
--
Bob Scheurle | "If you want a 20th century solution,
sche...@eclipse.net | the obvious answer is helicopters!"
sche...@itt.com | -- Bob Scheurle
mkort...@monmouth.com
Alexander Medwedew <comp...@tribeca.ios.com> wrote:
>mkort...@monmouth.com wrote:
>>
>> ag...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Colin R. Leech) wrote:
>>
>Many of the ferries connect to points not directly accessible from the PATH
>trains requiring transfers to other means of transportation. In addition free
>shuttle bus services are provided by the ferry operators from the west side of
>Manhattan to points on the east side. The convenience aspect seems to
>overshadow the higher cost.
>
>The waterways around New York City are an extremely under utilized mass transit
>alternative. Manhattan is surrounded by water! Using higher speed ferries
>like the large hovercrafts used on the English Channel could make for some real
>exciting commutes. In the early sixties during the World's Fair in New York
>there was a ferry service using hydrofoils to shuttle people back and forth
>from midtown. I believe it was discontinued partly due to the high level of
>debri in the river causing damage to the foils. Hovercrafts wouldn't have this
>problem at all.
>
>--
there was an attempt to start a ferry service from the north shore of
LI but it failed due to geography and superior service from the LIRR,
also there was an attempt to start one from the south shore stopping
at sheaphead bay but that failed because of high costs and geography.
Currently there is a ferry that operates between wall st, 34 st to the
marine air terminal. it makes about 8 runs a day.
the ferry that runs between wall street and the nj shore operates a
service that brings people to monmouth race track on tuesdays and on
weekends they operate a boat to shea stadium.
mkort...@monmouth.com
>>
>
>The 20 minute running times for the .6 miles trip didn't help; neither did
>the schlep from the LIC station to the ferry.
Daniel Convissor
>Now that's an interesting twist. I thought all the major rail projects in
>northern NJ were NJT-initiated. Why would the PA build the Waterfront
>Connection? (I understnad this to be the switches and track allowing NEC
>trains to travel to Hoboken - the so-called "reverse Kearny".)
The PA paid for it. NJT did the planning, implementation.
--Dan
--
|| D A N I E L C O N V I S S O R : Newt has all the answers. Too bad they
|| e-mail: dan...@panix.com : aren't the ones that will solve the
|| Transport Policy Analyst :___problems.(NEWT: geor...@hr.house.gov)
|| Brooklyn, New York http://www.panix.com/~danielc/
mkort...@monmouth.com
sche...@eclipse.net (Bob Scheurle) wrote:
>ag...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Colin R. Leech) wrote:
>>Why would the PA build the Waterfront Connection?
>
>Not just build the Waterfront Connection, but pay for the Arcorp-Hartz
>(now NY Waterway) ferry terminals at Hoboken and the World Financial
>Center.
>
>Why? Because during peak hours, PATH's Newark - WTC line is at
>capacity. The combination of the Waterfront Connection and the
>Hoboken Ferry helps to reduce congestion on the PATH NWK-WTC line.
>
holes for your theories
1, if and when there is another ferry operator aren't they going to
use the same terminals? these are not exclusive terminals!
2.doesn't waterway pay a head fee at each terminal? kind of like
paying rent!
3. stop being so anal, there are other, sometimes more effcient ways
to commute!
mkort...@monmouth.com
sche...@eclipse.net (Bob Scheurle) wrote:
>mkort...@monmouth.com wrote:
>>what I am saying is that ferries recieve no money in the sense that
>>private bus companies recieve huge operating subsidies like free
>>equipment.
>
>And what you are saying is WRONG! NY Waterway (formerly Arcorp) has
>received money from the US DOT and the PA for terminals and ferry
>boats. For an example, see http://www.dot.gov/affairs/4196sp.htm
>
without verifying your rant, let me remind you that waterway is not
the only ferry operator, but one of many that operate ferries. And I
know for a fact that the one I commute on receives not one nickel from
anyone but its riders
mkort...@monmouth.com
ag...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Colin R. Leech) wrote:
>
>Bob Scheurle (sche...@eclipse.net) writes:
>> Most of NY Waterway's
>> passengers from Hoboken arrive on NJ Transit trains, many of which
>> operate over the Waterfront Connection which was paid for by the Port
>> Authority of NY and NJ.
>
>Now that's an interesting twist. I thought all the major rail projects in
>northern NJ were NJT-initiated. Why would the PA build the Waterfront
>Connection? (I understnad this to be the switches and track allowing NEC
>trains to travel to Hoboken - the so-called "reverse Kearny".)
The reason is that a few years ago the politicians found a treasure
trove of cash at the PA and have ben looting it ever since, Bob's idea
that the link was in any built exclusively for the use of the Hoboken
ferry is ludicrous at best!
Colin R. Leech
Bob Scheurle (sche...@eclipse.net) writes:
> ag...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Colin R. Leech) wrote:
>>Why would the PA build the Waterfront Connection?
>
> Not just build the Waterfront Connection, but pay for the Arcorp-Hartz
> (now NY Waterway) ferry terminals at Hoboken and the World Financial
> Center.
>
> Why? Because during peak hours, PATH's Newark - WTC line is at
> capacity. The combination of the Waterfront Connection and the
> Hoboken Ferry helps to reduce congestion on the PATH NWK-WTC line.
I'm wondering if we're talking about the same thing ... ?
I thought that the switches at Kearny which allow NEC trains to get to
Hoboken, and the trains themselves operated by NJT using these switches,
were referred to as the "Waterfront Connection". But these go to the same
multimodal terminal at Hoboken which services NJT, PATH, and the ferries,
right?
I can see how the Hoboken-Manhattan ferries would provide overflow
capacity for PATH. I'm not so sure how the NJT switches and trains help
this cause. If anything, they worsen the congestion at Hoboken by
siphoning off passengers who are otherwise headed toward NY Penn.
(Obviously this help relieve congestion at NY-Penn, but that's a separate
issue.) Surely these trains reduce PATH ridership between Newark and
Hoboken, but I'm assuming that the maximum load point on PATH would be
between Hoboken and Manhattan, right?
> --
> Bob Scheurle | "If you want a 20th century solution,
> sche...@eclipse.net | the obvious answer is helicopters!"
> sche...@itt.com | -- Bob Scheurle
Indeed! <g>
Bob Scheurle
mkort...@monmouth.com wrote:
>Bob's idea that the [Waterfron Connection] was in any built exclusively
>for the use of the Hoboken ferry is ludicrous at best!
I had several meetings with NJ Transit while the Waterfront
Connecition service was being planned. The primary purpose is to
serve the Hoboken Ferry (the goal is to reduce congestion on PATH's
NWK-WTC line). That's why the Waterfront Connection trains use tracks
14 and 15 at Hoboken Terminal; those tracks are closest to the ferry
terminal.
Yes, there are a few riders making trips like Bay Head to Ramsey, or
even Raritan to Clifton. However, these riders will use the Secaucus
Transfer after it's completed.
BTW, it was my idea to extend the weekend Raritan Valley Line trains
to Hoboken.
Bob Scheurle
ag...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Colin R. Leech) wrote:
>I thought that the switches at Kearny which allow NEC trains to get to
>Hoboken, and the trains themselves operated by NJT using these switches,
>were referred to as the "Waterfront Connection".
Right.
>But these go to the same multimodal terminal at Hoboken which
>services NJT, PATH, and the ferries, right?
Right again.
>I can see how the Hoboken-Manhattan ferries would provide overflow
>capacity for PATH. I'm not so sure how the NJT switches and trains help
>this cause. If anything, they worsen the congestion at Hoboken by
>siphoning off passengers who are otherwise headed toward NY Penn.
>(Obviously this help relieve congestion at NY-Penn, but that's a separate
>issue.) Surely these trains reduce PATH ridership between Newark and
>Hoboken, but I'm assuming that the maximum load point on PATH would be
>between Hoboken and Manhattan, right?
Wrong on several counts. Let's take a step back and look at who's
going where and the "traditional" (pre-ferry, pre-Waterfront) ways of
getting there. There are two main destinations in Manhattan: Midtown
(in the 50's) and Downtown (WTC, WFC, Wall St, etc).
The people riding NJT's Newark Division trains are pretty much evenly
split between Midtown and Downtown destinations. Those heading to
downtown change to PATH's NWK-WTC line at Newark Penn Station.
Those heading to Midtown take NJT trains to NY Penn Station. Some
of these riders have to change trains at Newark (e.g., Raritan
Valley Line riders). Note that people generally do not take PATH
from Newark to NY Penn Station; NJT is much faster.
About 85% of the people riding the Hoboken Division trains are headed
Downtown, with only 15% headed to Midtown. (This is mainly because
the buses provide a one-seat ride to Midtown, and the PABT is closer
to the main employment area.) From Hoboken Terminal, riders take
PATH to their destinations in NYC.
The busiest route on the PATH system is NWK-WTC. HOB-WTC is second
busiest. Although PATH carries only half as many riders as the H&M
did during its heyday, the ridership drop has been in off-peak hours.
Peak hour ridership is pretty much at capacity on the NWK-WTC line.
That was the way things used to be:
Newark - Downtown: PATH NWK-WTC
Newark - Midtown: NJT NEC
Hoboken - Downtown: PATH HOB-WTC
Hoboken - Midtown: PATH HOB-33rd
Fast-forward to the 1990's...
Enter the Hoboken Ferry. This obviously gives people passing through
Hoboken an alternative to PATH's HOB-WTC line, helping to reduce
crowding on the PATH trains. By itself, the Hoboken Ferry does
nothing to help the big problem, PATH's NWK-WTC line.
Enter the Waterfront Connection. This provides an alternative for
people who would otherwise take PATH's NWK-WTC line. Instead of
changing to the PATH train at Newark, they change to the NJT train
to Hoboken (if they're coming from the lower NJCL Line, they just
stay on their train). At Hoboken, they have a short walk to the
ferry which takes them to Downtown. The combination of the
Waterfront Connection and the Hoboken Ferry reduces crowding
on PATH's NWK-WTC trains.
The Hoboken Ferry and/or the Waterfront Connection have no effect
on travelers to Midtown. Newark Division riders take NJT to NY
Penn Station, while Hoboken Division riders take PATH to 33rd St.
But remember, PATH's HOB-33rd trains aren't as crowded as the
other two lines. (We'll ignore the JSQ-33rd trains.)
Also, the Waterfront Connection trains are not really intended to
provide transportation to Hoboken. (You mentioned something about
riders taking PATH from Newark to Hoboken; there isn't much of a
demand for this service.) The Waterfront Connection trains are
there to feed passengers from the Newark Division to the Hoboken
Ferry, bypassing PATH's NWK-WTC line. Some people do use the
Waterfront Connection trains to transfer between the Newark and
Hoboken Divisions of NJT, but most people on these trains are
heading to Downtown Manhattan.
So, we can now travel:
Newark - Downtown: PATH NWK-WTC
NJT Waterfront Conn. + ferry
Newark - Midtown: NJT NEC
Hoboken - Downtown: PATH HOB-WTC
ferry
Hoboken - Midtown: PATH HOB-33rd
I hope this makes things a lot clearer. I think I've answered
your questions.
Bob Scheurle
mkort...@monmouth.com wrote:
>there were ferries that ran
>daily commuter runs to the shore. In fact one unsubsidised one has
>been in operation for 10 years and brings in excess of 800 people per
>day into manhattan.
It took 10 YEARS to get just 800 people on a ferry? Big deal. 800
people would fit in a single seven-car NJT train.
NJT's new Midotwn Direct service started out with 4,000 riders on Day
One, and is up to 5,000 riders per day after one month of operation.
The most popular train averages 700 riders.
mkort...@monmouth.com
sche...@eclipse.net (Bob Scheurle) wrote:
>mkort...@monmouth.com wrote:
>>there were ferries that ran
>>daily commuter runs to the shore. In fact one unsubsidised one has
>>been in operation for 10 years and brings in excess of 800 people per
>>day into manhattan.
>
>It took 10 YEARS to get just 800 people on a ferry? Big deal. 800
>people would fit in a single seven-car NJT train.
Bob are you a liberal politician?? is that what I said or is that the
twist you are trying to spin on this?
the ferries then eliminate the need for one 7 car train or 40 or so
buses, the fact remains that they pay their own way are making a
profit for the operator and take not one cent from ANY GOVERMENT
AGENCY!
>
>NJT's new Midotwn Direct service started out with 4,000 riders on Day
>One, and is up to 5,000 riders per day after one month of operation.
>The most popular train averages 700 riders.
>
what's the point??
Bob Scheurle
mkort...@monmouth.com wrote:
>
>>It took 10 YEARS to get just 800 people on a ferry? Big deal. 800
>>people would fit in a single seven-car NJT train.
>
>Bob are you a liberal politician??
What does that have to do with anything?
>>NJT's new Midotwn Direct service started out with 4,000 riders on Day
>>One, and is up to 5,000 riders per day after one month of operation.
>>The most popular train averages 700 riders.
>
>what's the point??
The point is that 800 people a day (after 10 years of marketing!) is
nothing to brag about. It's insignificant.
And the ferries DO take my tax dollars. They use the services and
facilities of the United States Coast Guard (part of the US Department
of Transportation) which has a budget of $3.5 million per year.
Lawrence Hughes
sche...@eclipse.net (Bob Scheurle) wrote:
[Concerning "unsubsidized" ferries]
>And the ferries DO take my tax dollars. They use the services and
>facilities of the United States Coast Guard (part of the US Department
>of Transportation) which has a budget of $3.5 million per year.
Even more on point--
Both New Jersey Transit and New York City Department of Transportation
operate feeder bus service to the ferries, bringing them customers who
might not have otherwise used the ferries (but for the feeder bus
service). Those feeder buses are subsidized, and their subsidy cost
ought to be considered a subsidy to the ferry company.
Colin R. Leech
Thanks for the detailed explanation! I guess I missed the obvious: it's
longer to take NJT into Hoboken and transfer to PATH than to make the
transfer at Newark. A quick check of a good map should have highlighted
this to me earlier.
Bob Scheurle (sche...@eclipse.net) writes:
>[lots of good stuff]
I had one final question, but it escapes me at the moment. :-(
Oh well.
Nelson Ricardo
Bob Scheurle (sche...@eclipse.net) wrote:
: mkort...@monmouth.com wrote:
: >actually Colin, he was partially correct, until about 3 years ago. He
: >mentioned the last Hudson River ferry that stopped in the late '60's
: >until a firm called NY Waterway began service again.
:
: Didn't Arthur Imperatore start his ferry from Weehawken over 10 years
: ago?
Isn't NY Waterway just the new name of Imperatore?
Nelson Ricardo nqr...@is2.nyu.edu http://pages.nyu.edu/~nqr1042 :-)
William C. Watson
In article <320e2cb4...@news.eclipse.net>, sche...@eclipse.net (Bob
Scheurle) wrote:
> mkort...@monmouth.com wrote: . . . .
> >
> >>And the ferries DO take my tax dollars. They use the services and
> facilities of the United States Coast Guard (part of the US Department
> of Transportation) which has a budget of $3.5 million per year.
Yes. Good This is the kind of thing we hope tax money supports. Also,
this is one of the functions of the Coast Guard. No problem. Right?
Merritt Mullen
>> mkort...@monmouth.com wrote: . . . .
>> >
>> >>And the ferries DO take my tax dollars. They use the services and
>> facilities of the United States Coast Guard (part of the US Department
>> of Transportation) which has a budget of $3.5 million per year.
>
The US Coast Guard is part of the US Department of the Treasury (not
Transportation). They are part of the Treasury because they guard
our shores from smugglers and others who would avoid paying required
tariffs. As such, they probably pay for themselves (compared with
the revenue that would be lost if they did not exist). Also, I
don't know what their budget is but it can't be $3.5 million per
year, which would only pay the salaries of about 30 people (did you
mean $3.5 billion?).
Merritt