NY–NJ Port Authority to consider renovating existing bus terminal

Dive Brief:

Port Authority of New York and New Jersey officials, in response to criticism from city residents and lawmakers, have agreed to consider the possibility of renovating the Port Authority Bus Terminal at its current site rather than moving it a block away, according to the Associated Press.
The estimated cost to move the terminal is $10 billion, but the Port Authority has allocated only $3.5 billion for the project. The agency said it could make up the difference with private financing.
If Port Authority officials decide to use the existing site rather than build new at the other location, the requisite environmental review will take between 18 months and two years.

Dive Insight:

New York lawmakers have said the current bus terminal location is in the midst of popular tourist attractions and that moving it would have a negative economic effect on the neighborhood. The bus station currently sees 250,000 commuters daily, and that number is expected to rise by 43% by 2040.

In February, the Port Authority approved a 10-year, $32.2 billion capital plan that will finance projects in New York and New Jersey. The plan will deliver a $56 billion economic benefit and generate an estimated $20 billion in wages locally. The agency is also putting $11 billion into the redevelopment of John F. Kennedy, LaGuardia and Newark Liberty airports and $2 billion into the George Washington Bridge as part of the capital plan.

The plan's approval came a few months after a December meeting at which Port Authority officials could not reach an agreement on which projects to fund.

While bus service doesn’t have the cachet of light rail these days, it is still a method of transportation many rely on to access employment and vital services. Some communities that have attempted to increase rail funding at the expense of bus service have experienced pushback from residents.

In October, the Dallas Area Rapid Transit authority approved a $2 billion spend for additional light-rail service that, as of the date of that decision, had to be subsidized because of low ridership. Critics said the authority was ignoring the needs of bus and train users in favor of an unrealistic desire to have a light rail system.