18 The Herald Courier, Friday, January 1, 2016
HC
REAdERS WRITE
Delaying new bus terminal to cost us billions Three years ago in December 2012, New York City officials and developers broke ground for the new Hudson Yards project. This was to be built over the Long Island Rail Road Westside storage yard between 10th and 12th Avenues in Manhattan. However, transit riders and taxpayers are not happy. The existing 42nd Street Port Authority Bus Terminal is antiquated. It lacks sufficient capacity to deal with current and future needs. Upon completion of their morning rush hour trips, hundreds of buses have to dead head back to New Jersey for midday storage. They have to make another return trip in the afternoon back to New York City for outbound evening service. Eliminating dead heading of buses would open up additional capacity for the already overcrowded Lincoln Tunnel. Relocating this facility to the Hudson Yards site would have provided the ideal so-
lution. There would be the ability to expand capacity for new bus services. Hundreds of buses could lay over in Manhattan, saving the costs of both fuel and deadheading to and from New Jersey. Intermodal connections would have become available for the Long Island Rail Road, New Jersey Transit, Amtrak, #1,2,3,7,A,E & C subways, ferry services at Pier 79 on West 38th Street along with the 34th Street Bus Rapid Transit route and other local bus services. Long term, there is also the possibility of future connections with Metro North. These new Metro North services would use existing Amtrak connections via the Bronx and Manhattan Westside and or Bronx/Queens via the Hellgate Bridge at a later date to begin service. Relocation of the Port Authority Bus Terminal to this new location would also compliment the multi-
billion dollar ongoing Farley Buiding project. This project will convert the old Post Office to a new Amtrak Passenger Station as part of the Penn Station complex. Reopening the old Hilton passageway (which was abandoned in the early 1970’s), could provide a direct underground connection from the Long Island Rail Road at 7th Avenue to Herald Square at Broadway. This provides easy access to the B,D,F,M, R, N, Q and W subway lines along with PATH. Virtually all the connections would be underground and indoors, so easily walkable within minutes between services. With climate controlled facilities, passengers would be warm in the winter and cool in the summer. No one would be exposed to either rain, wind or snow. This would have been the greatest intermodal transportation
facility moving more riders utilizing public transportation than any in America. Are there enough potential tenants to fill all the new office space being created at Hudson Yards? Prospective businesses have many other options. These include numerous existing vacancies along with new office space under construction or planned for at the World Trade Center, rezoning of midtown East, other Manhattan locations, downtown Brooklyn, Hunters Point/Long Island City along with others scattered around Brooklyn, Queens, Bronx, Staten Island, Town of North Hempstead, Nassau County, other surrounding suburbs and across the river in New Jersey. The same holds true for new residential units. The current Hudson Yards project has been heavily subsidized by taxpayers, commonly known as corporate welfare. Between direct government
funding, low interest below market rate loans, long term tax exemptions, favorable eminent domain and free infrastructure improvements, the bill to taxpayers in the end could end up greater than the so-called public benefits. Have any of these “favors” been granted to the Hudson Yard developers in exchange for “Pay to Play” campaign contributions accepted by public officials who were in a position to “deliver” these “gifts? Fast forward to today. The PANYNJ now has to find $10 billion for a new 42nd Street Bus Terminal. The existing site is prime real estate worth $1 billion. They could have built a new facility at Hudson Yards for billions less. Larry Penner Great Neck (Larry Penner is a transportation historian and advocate who previously worked in the transportation field for 31 years).
Let families, not gov, choose on playing football Mr. D’Innocenzo, I want to start by saying thank you for your response to my letter. The main take away from your response that I would like to address is the cost/benefit analysis proposition. In the case of the abolishment of tackle football, I think that this analysis should be conducted in a household and not by government legislature. I’ll be the first person to tell you that the game of football is not for everyone, and that is perfectly fine.
With that being said, I think that society should respect the choice of families and athletes on whether or not they want to participate in football. I believe that the government has larger issues to tackle than tackle football, and organizations such as the NFL, NFLPA, NCAA, various high school sports associations, and youth leagues should continue to examine ways to make the game safer and implement them accordingly. Additionally, families should continue to effectively research youth sports, as there are growing concerns for concussions in
youth soccer, the most globally popular sport that is often considered a safer alternative. Families need to understand that there are concussion and injury risks in all sports and make a conscious choice on whether or not their young athlete can participate. To further expand on your examples of politicians with strong beliefs against the NCAA, plenty of politicians and professionals have used football as a platform to enhance their academic and career aspirations, such as former president Gerald Ford, Sen. Corey Booker etc.
Without football, many of these men would have not been afforded these opportunities. If government regulation abolishes tackle football, then many young athletes will be deprived of these phenomenal opportunities. Give the choice to the families, not the government. There’s much more to say, but I’m on a word count. Matthew Testani Williston Park Cornell University ‘16 Varsity Football #52
Look to rugby penalties to make football safer Concerning football safety, a question arises but first a quick comparison between football and rugby. As background, the former was born in 1830 at Rugby Public School, (private and upper class) England. In essence, both are physically demanding with the objective of scoring a try/touchdown but forward passing is not allowed in rugby. Football gear is long on heavy body protection while rugby gear consists of a shirt, shorts, socks and cleats. We hear and see the size of American
footballers; yet rugby players are comparable, ranging from 6 foot, 200 pounds to 6 foot eight and 300 pounds. So why is the incidence of severe immediate injury extremely high in football while trivial in rugby? Football has 22 players on the field plus six referees while rugby has 30 plus a single referee. But he is all present with a whistle stuck in his mouth and this is the difference. In rugby, anyone fouling; such as head butting, holding or kicking a player; is penalized by having the referee march off some 15
meters toward that team’s goal posts and a free kick given (similar to a field goal). If the foul is severe, the player is sent to the “sin bin: (equivalent to the penalty box in hockey) for up to 10 minutes and no substitution is allowed. If the foul is egregious, the player is tossed from the match, with no substitution. It is common, for foul-addicted teams, to have two players in the bin at the same time. In contrast, fouling is tolerated if not actively encouraged in football and the results are plain. Without change, the parents of young
boys, both black and white, who want the best for their sons, will, in time, turn their backs on football. The Greeks of Antiquity required prudence in their leaders; the wisdom to discern the impact on the future of actions taken in the now. Does Roger the Dodger and the merry yes men who surround him grasp any of this or do they subconsciously wish football to morph in to cage fighting with a ball? Tom Coffey Herricks
Proposed commuter income tax is a ‘false alarm’ The sky is falling! The sky is falling! A Democratic state senator from New York City introduces a bill for consideration by the Republican-controlled state Senate, where approximately one quarter
of the Republican senators are from Long Island, that would impose a commuter income tax. Give us a break. Supposedly the U.S. government is drowning in debt? Throw out debt amounts in
the trillions — that should scare everyone —wow! The only number that counts is the percent U.S. sovereign is to U. S. Gross National Product. That number hovers in the 7080 percent range. Perhaps a blink-
ing yellow warning light should go 200 percent. Raise concerns, but not false on when we reach 120 percent. And yet Japan continues to alarms. function well when over 200 percent. Gerald Peretsman, M.B.A. Greece experienced fiscal Great Neck problems only after approaching