From: jishnu@nospam.verizon.net   
      
   On 6/9/2014 5:06 PM, hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:   
   > On Monday, June 9, 2014 3:30:17 PM UTC-4, Jishnu Mukerji wrote:   
   >   
   >> Absolutely! PATH should have not only been extended to the airport but   
   >> when the new Terminals A, B, C were designed they should have made   
   >> accommodation for such future construction. But the PANYNJ Project   
   >> Managers were dead set against any rail connection to EWR, and specially   
   >> PATH. So they actually went out of their way to design the terminals to   
   >> make it very difficult to bring PATH to the terminals. (This is now for   
   >> a fact from someone who was part of the team that was given explicit   
   >> directions to design such that it is hard to add rail connection later).   
   >> This whole frickin' disaster of transportation to EWR is entirely a   
   >> creation of PANYNJ architects for reasons that are hard to fathom.   
   >> Shades of Robert Moses survived in PANYNJ perhaps? Who knows?   
   >   
   > When the plans were first proposed, did anyone ever ask (and press the   
   issue) the Port Authority why they didn't choose a more desirable approach?   
   >   
      
   Port authority was even more insualar back then. I bet not many outside   
   of the PA knew what they were exactly upto most likely.   
      
   --- SoupGate/W32 v1.03   
    * Origin: LiveWire BBS -=*=- UseNet FTN Gateway (1:2320/1)