Register now !    Login  
Main Menu
Who's Online
132 user(s) are online (107 user(s) are browsing Message Forum)

Members: 0
Guests: 132

more...


Forum Index


Board index » All Posts (ianmac47)




Re: PATH gets United CEO fired?
#31
Home away from home
Home away from home


Let's review: 3 Bergen County senators who represent constituents who will not benefit directly from the PATH extension want the Port Authority to spend money on a bus terminal that their constituents must use because of poor rail connections or a new rail tunnel that would provide their constituents more reliable access to Manhattan.

It should be pretty clear that their interest in redirecting the Port Authority money is not about whether the PATH extension is a good project or whether it was illegally lobbied for. They are rightfully arguing to spend money on their constituents rather than residents of Essex, Hudson, or Manhattan Counties.


Posted on: 2015/9/10 20:46
 Top 


Re: PATH gets United CEO fired?
#32
Home away from home
Home away from home


Quote:

moobycow wrote:
The plan is to have it open to Newark so the neighborhood can use it.

In a perfect world I think the better idea would have been to somehow extend the light rail to EWR. They already have a connection to NY and Newark Penn St with the existing connections (just need to open it up to the neighborhood).



Technically speaking, the Port Authority has not confirmed that the station will have access to the neighborhood. The whole project still needs to go through the design phase. There has been a lot of debate regarding that issue and it is by no means resolved one way or the other.

The Newark Light Rail was supposed to connect to the Airtport as well as into Elizabeth. The original plan name was the Newark-Elizabeth Light Rail. For now the Elizabeth remains much like the Bergen in the HBLR: a misnomer.

Posted on: 2015/9/9 18:19
 Top 


Re: PATH gets United CEO fired?
#33
Home away from home
Home away from home


Quote:

JCGuys wrote:
Other areas?! LOL!!!


The second the PATH extension to Newark is killed, the money will go to the World Trade Center, LaGurdia Airport, new PABT or if it does stay in Jersey, the skyway bridge!

No, the $2 billion will not be reinvested in PATH If the EWR extension is killed. Let's take the extension and then gun for capacity improvements so the PA will have fast, reliable service between Manhattan and Newark Airport.

The AirTrain people move has reached the end of its useful life. This is an excellent opportunity to improve the link between PATH and the new AirTrain.


Also its a very important investment in revitalizing the city of Newark. Even though it remains unclear whether the airport station will initially be open to street (rather than just the monorail and NJTransit station), the big cost is the link, not opening it up to Newark. Once its built, lobbying to open it up to the city becomes much easier and it will serve as a catalyst to developing another area of Newark.

Posted on: 2015/9/9 16:24
 Top 


Re: PATH gets United CEO fired?
#34
Home away from home
Home away from home


Quote:

JCMan8 wrote:
The article states that "the airline was being investigated over alleged favors done for the then-head of the Port Authority, David Samson, as United was seeking public investment in the Newark Airport."

The GWB situation was unrelated.

And United received the "public investment" that they wanted in the form of a (so far) $2 billion commitment from the Port Authority to extend the PATH to Newark Airport. An extension that is completely ridiculous and unnecessary, and one that Christie championed.

If in fact it turns out that these United execs resigned in part because the PA illegally did them a favor by committing almost $2 billion of taxpayer money to this money pit, is there any chance the extension gets halted?


Don't be retarded. The Port Authority has been talking about extending PATH since before Corzine was in office. Its part of the long term plan to connect the airport directly with another one of their valuable assets, the World Trade Center. That isn't to say Christie didn't leverage his vote to get United lobbyist money to pour into his campaign, but that extension has been part of the long term capital plans for at least a decade.

Posted on: 2015/9/9 1:18
 Top 


Re: Bike Share System
#35
Home away from home
Home away from home


The racks should have been installed in the street in former parking spaces.

Posted on: 2015/9/6 15:13
 Top 


Re: Jersey City has second most Ashley Madison accounts in NJ
#36
Home away from home
Home away from home


I guess they don't teach anything about percentages anymore.

As the state's second largest city, its really unremarkable that it has the second largest number of users.

What is much more remarkable is that Hoboken, a city of 50,000, has 6,000 users, which is more than 10% of the population.

Posted on: 2015/8/27 20:41
 Top 


Re: Christie down to 3% in New Hampshire following first debate
#37
Home away from home
Home away from home


Quote:

Asif wrote:


He's practically guaranteeing that Fulop becomes the next governor.....only time will tell if Fulop can be worse than him.


Hahahah, Fulop won't even be second in a Primary.

Posted on: 2015/8/27 14:43
 Top 


Re: PATH (pathetic attempt at transporting humans)
#38
Home away from home
Home away from home


Quote:

JCGuys wrote:
With the Fulton Subway station redesign happening at the same time, the PATH trains should have been configured to better link up, with plenty of space to handle projected passenger demand to 2050 or beyond. Do we really need two landmark train stations so close to each other? Egotism.


When the PATH station is completed it will be connected to Fulton Transit center. Without going above ground you will be able to travel from the JZ tracks to the Winter Garden, and without going outside, you will be able to walk as far as the ferry terminal.

Posted on: 2015/8/21 14:26
 Top 


Re: Our Two Cities
#39
Home away from home
Home away from home


Quote:

user1111 wrote:
Yes! Giuliani did why can't Mr I want to be mayor without doing much?


No, he didn't. New York City under Giuliani did not see crime rates change relative similar changes in other cities. At best, Giuliani did not hinder the trend towards less crime, at worse he instituted a system of oppression, police brutality, and statistical manipulation.

Posted on: 2015/8/20 15:11
 Top 


Re: NY Times editorial on Hudson tunnel project
#40
Home away from home
Home away from home


Quote:

devilsadvocate wrote:

The larger picture is that we need the right people moving here - people with money, education and generally desirable people to make this their home. NJ also needs companies to set up shop here and grow existing presences. You don't do that by removing all of the incentives for them to do that. This is what liberals fail to understand.


Why would educated, high income people move to a state that doesn't have access to the high paying jobs in Manhattan? Rail access was the key to bringing those workers back.

New Jersey has a horrible record of retaining its college educated.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/c ... 1/24/gIQARhUoNQ_blog.html

And businesses are not interested in "setting up shop" in suburbs. That's why New Jersey's office vacancy rate is between 25 and 30% while Manhattan is under 10% -- some submarkets in Manhattan are under 5% vacancy rate. There is a competitive advantage to have a business in urban centers where there is a better availability of labor to choose from. When you locate a business in the suburbs, its much more difficult to attract talent from competitors.


Posted on: 2015/8/19 16:12
 Top 


Re: NY Times editorial on Hudson tunnel project
#41
Home away from home
Home away from home


Quote:

bodhipooh wrote:

Long Island?! Are you being serious?? Surely, you must be joking. If you are going to move out of NJ because of exorbitant property taxes, you wouldn't move into LI, where property taxes are just as onerous.



While NJ cancelled the ARC tunnel, the MTA has been studiously building the East Side Access tunnel linking LIRR to Grand Central station. This will save commuters 20 to 40 minutes off of their trip. So assuming some people still want to move to the suburbs, LIRR is about to get much closer to the high paying jobs in midtown, while NJ suburbs are about to have the lifeline to jobs in New York severed.

Also the MTA is looking into expand MetroNorth service to Penn Station via the Amtrak tracks along the west side of the Hudson, which will also reduce travel time for MetroNorth Riders.

So to review: NJTransit commuters are increasing while MTA commuter rail commutes are decreasing.

Posted on: 2015/8/19 15:58
 Top 


Re: NY Times editorial on Hudson tunnel project
#42
Home away from home
Home away from home


Quote:

devilsadvocate wrote:

Right, as a NJ voter no way will I vote for anyone that is interested in your proposals.


Without a new tunnel, New Jersey is going to lose a huge portion of its tax base, primarily the high income professionals who work in New York City who generate money through sales tax and pay higher property taxes on more expensive homes. So the choices really are pay for the short term capital expense of construction or pay for the difference in lost revenue when that money shifts from northern New Jersey to upstate New York and Long Island.

Posted on: 2015/8/19 15:17
 Top 


Re: NY Times editorial on Hudson tunnel project
#43
Home away from home
Home away from home


Quote:

Pebble wrote:
Quote:

user1111 wrote:
Gov. Chris Christie, New Jersey's two Democratic senators and the head of the federal transportation department said after a meeting in Newark on Tuesday morning that they were all "committed to working together" to find a way to pay for a Hudson River tunnel project.

http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2015 ... _tunnel.html#incart_river

Article title should have been "Words are said which will never be backed up"

Christie is a fraud, like a rest. He'll do nothing but talk.


Its possible now that Christie knows he will never be president that he would support funding a new tunnel. Assuming he doesn't go to jail, he still has two and a half years left in the state.

Posted on: 2015/8/18 19:50
 Top 


Re: NY Times editorial on Hudson tunnel project
#44
Home away from home
Home away from home


NJ Transit current relies on 21 trains per hour at peak times.

ARC would have provided access for 25 (or 27 depending on the source information) trains per hour for NJTransit.

Gateway will provide space for 25 trains -- 13 of which will be NJTransit trains.


Expected 2018 Capacity with ARC:
21 Trains (existing)
25 Trains (ARC)
-----
46 Trains (Total)


Expected 2035 Capacity with ARC and Gateway
21 Trains (existing)
25 Trains (ARC)
13 Trains (Gateway)
----
59 Trains (Total)


Actual Conditions Now
21 Trains (Existing)
----
21 Trains (Total)


Estimated Conditions 2018 (Assuming closure of one tunnel)
6 Trains (Existing)
----
6 Trains (Total)


2018 With Tunnel Closure and ARC
6 Trains (Existing)
25 Trains (ARC)
----
31 Trains




Posted on: 2015/8/18 19:22
 Top 


Re: NY Times editorial on Hudson tunnel project
#45
Home away from home
Home away from home


Quote:

Wishful_Thinking wrote:
Back to the tunnel - here's an op-ed piece supporting Christie's cancelling the ARC project, the writer basically concluding (cost issues aside) the ARC tunnel was not the best design, and better options would enable more connections to NYC's transit network.

http://newyorkyimby.com/2015/01/why-t ... nnel-deserved-to-die.html

Problems which the GATEWAY plan could solve - thus the urgency in getting both governors off their respective soapboxes and into the hard work of raising political and financial support for this project! Sure, it will be expensive but it will be 21st century solution providing maximum inter-connectivity for the metro area, vs. a 19th century solution (the ARC plan) providing yet another terminal.


ARC would have created space for 27 more NJTransit commuter trains per hour. Gateway, which was originally planned as Amtrak's High Speed rail network tunnel, will bring in 24 TOTAL trains per hour, of which Amtrak will have priority.

Also because ARC would have used separate platforms and separate tracks, catastrophic failures (Like this one http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/19/nyr ... F7A3E4776182&gwt=pay&_r=0 or this one http://gothamist.com/2011/08/09/nj_tr ... in_derails_between_pe.php ), the ARC tunnel would have provided a backup system for things get terrible at Penn.

Posted on: 2015/8/18 19:06
 Top 


Re: NY Times editorial on Hudson tunnel project
#46
Home away from home
Home away from home


Quote:

JCMan8 wrote:
It is amusing you talk about unsophisticated individuals yet don't know the difference between "fair" and "fare." You also cut out the entire argument that the government isn't "starved" of anything, the revenue is already there in the form of bloat and corruption and can simply be reallocated.


As to your other point: http://www.wired.com/2014/08/wuwt-typos/

"The reason typos get through isn?t because we?re stupid or careless, it?s because what we?re doing is actually very smart, explains psychologist Tom Stafford, who studies typos of the University of Sheffield in the UK. ?When you?re writing, you?re trying to convey meaning. It?s a very high level task,? he said."


Posted on: 2015/8/18 15:46
 Top 


Re: NY Times editorial on Hudson tunnel project
#47
Home away from home
Home away from home


Quote:

JCMan8 wrote:

How about this? You adjust your ideology to agree the first place the government should look for new revenue is in cutting the bloat and waste from itself and reallocating it. Then, after trimming the fat, if there is not enough money, we can require corporations and high net worth individuals (the devil is in the details, which is why we wait) to pay their "fair share."


I don't disagree that New Jersey should merge about 2/3 of its municipalities and eliminate about 80% of school districts. However, the primary reason this has not been done is that white school districts don't want their children to attend schools with minorities, and municipalities don't want to merge either because they prefer racial or economic segregation over lower taxes. However, that's describing a problem of property taxes, not income taxes, and has nothing to do with state funded infrastructure projects or other state services.

Posted on: 2015/8/18 15:41
 Top 


Re: NY Times editorial on Hudson tunnel project
#48
Home away from home
Home away from home


Quote:

JCMan8 wrote:

No, the answer isn't just keep raising taxes. We are already taxed to the brink.


The amazing part about this argument is its usually made by people who would most benefit from a more progressive taxation system. When corporations and high wealth individuals pay their fare share, we all benefit from services, the economy grows, and everyone ends up with a better quality of life. When unsophisticated individuals buy into this nonsense about lower taxes, we starve the government of the revenue it needs to provide services and invest and maintain infrastructure resulting in decreased quality of life and stagnant economy.

Posted on: 2015/8/18 15:28
 Top 


Re: NY Times editorial on Hudson tunnel project
#49
Home away from home
Home away from home


Quote:

Monroe wrote:
And Ian, look up the history of the Tappan Zee bridge. When they first built it, it was done to be outside the zone of the Port Authority-because the NY State Thruway wanted all the toll money. It was pretty cheap to do construction in those days. This time, they wanted to include the Port Authority because things have changed dollar wise.


At the time the Port Authority was created it was responsible for bi-state projects. Then its scope was expanded to economic development within 25 miles of the Statue of Liberty to allow for the World Trade Center. Then it was expanded again to include Stewart International Airport and then to take control of managing Atlantic City International. Because Cuomo and Christie are mutually corrupt, they were both making a money grab for Port Authority funds. For Cuomo, he wanted to offset the cost of the Tappan Zee bridge. When New Jersey refused to let the money flow, he cut out the rail-ready design to cheapen the bridge. Christie of course went ahead and stole money for the Pulaski without approval, but that was at least justified as the counterbalance to the investment in the World Trade Center site.

Either way, New Yorkers really don't give a single shit whether or not New Jersey residents can get to the high paying jobs of Manhattan easily or whether they have to sit on a bus for three hours waiting to get into Port Authority Bus terminal. For the several billion dollars you expect New York to contribute, an entire phase of the Second Avenue subway could be built or the Tri-Boro X subway line could be built or the trains in south Brooklyn could be extended.

With a little luck, Cuomo and Christie can share a jail cell and reflect on how they both fucked over the tristate area.

Posted on: 2015/8/18 0:09
 Top 


Re: NY Times editorial on Hudson tunnel project
#50
Home away from home
Home away from home


If New York is going to contribute towards a tunnel, NJTransit should pay rent in perpetuity to New York to offset the lost capital that could otherwise be used on the subway system or other transportation projects.

At least with the ARC tunnel, Port Jervis and Spring Valley trains would have connected directly to Manhattan. That could have been a convenient argument for getting funds from the MTA. But the Gateway tunnel is not going to connect the Bergen county train lines to midtown, so its even more useless to New York. Really, New York should be investing in a rail line crossing the Hudson in the north that can link to the Metro North lines and Amtrak lines. Cuomo's too much of a dipshit to committed to running a train line over the Tappan Zee replacement, but that could have helped serve southern upstate and northern New Jersey. But come to think of it, Cuomo did ask for the Port Authority to contribute to the bridge to fund the rail line-- and again New Jersey balked at that. So when it comes back down to it, New Jersey is asking for a handout on the Hudson tunnel project insisting its a regional issue while simultaneously rejecting using Port Authority funds for regional transit in the north.


Posted on: 2015/8/17 22:17
 Top 


Re: Mural painting - Community not being notified
#51
Home away from home
Home away from home


Its difficult to notify a community when a community insists government officials leave community meetings.

Posted on: 2015/8/16 16:48
 Top 


Re: Christie down to 3% in New Hampshire following first debate
#52
Home away from home
Home away from home


Quote:

JCMan8 wrote:
Curious if Monroe has anything to say about this.


Its a biased poll slanted by the liberal statisticians. Christie is a 9/11 hero who saved the state from having access to high paying jobs and New Jersey's unemployment rate and pension problem is because of Obama and Ted Kennedy.

Posted on: 2015/8/12 3:08
 Top 


Re: McGreevey is asked to leave a community meeting
#53
Home away from home
Home away from home


Are you planning on also complaining about how the city doesn't listen to your community? Because all you accomplished by removing a representative of the city administration from a community meeting is that you have shut down an avenue of communication between the constituents and the decision makers.

Posted on: 2015/8/10 16:14
 Top 


Re: Bike Share System
#54
Home away from home
Home away from home


The way this is laid out, the system is not going to be very helpful for people, so few people are likely to use it, and when the contract is up, everyone will claim the program is a failure.

Posted on: 2015/8/6 13:46
 Top 


Re: Bike Share System
#55
Home away from home
Home away from home


Wow. Those are pretty thinly spaced out.

Posted on: 2015/8/5 20:22
 Top 


Re: Light at the end of the tunnel?
#56
Home away from home
Home away from home


Quote:

Monroe wrote:
Quote:

ianmac47 wrote:
Quote:

Monroe wrote:
The Federal/Amtrak Gateway tunnel was proposed one year after Christie pulled the plug on the ARC.

Where is the outrage over Obama sitting on this project and not funding it? How much more will this cost now because of the delays under Obama?



Gateway was already in the works before ARC broke ground.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gateway_Project

The project was unveiled in February 2011 after the 2010 cancellation of the somewhat similar Access to the Region's Core (ARC) project.


The NJDOT and the Port Authority were already working on Gateway before ARC was broke ground as far as the early 2000s. For a time it was unclear which route NJTransit would take -- whether to work towards a dedicated NJTransit tunnel (ARC) or build an Amtrak tunnel (what eventually became Gateway).

Ultimately NJTransit decided to move ahead with ARC because they needed the tunnel immediately, they needed the greater capacity of a dedicated tunnel, and Amtrak was pretty obviously being underfunded by Washington. Also at the time there was federal money available to begin construction.

Gateway, or at leas the route that Gateway ultimately will take, was under consideration by Amtrak to be the cornerstone of expanding Generation 2 high speed rail across the northeast. It was part of a larger plan to build out a new high speed rail route that was straighter than the existing northeast corridor and capable of handling faster trains. The best case scenario had that system beginning construction in 2030 but was more likely closer to midcentury.

After Christie cancelled ARC, it became clear that Gateway would have to be a substitute. That the project was so readily available to be unveiled was only made possible by the fact that preliminary work had already been done on the project.

Posted on: 2015/7/31 16:02
 Top 


Re: Light at the end of the tunnel?
#57
Home away from home
Home away from home


Quote:

Monroe wrote:
The Federal/Amtrak Gateway tunnel was proposed one year after Christie pulled the plug on the ARC.

Where is the outrage over Obama sitting on this project and not funding it? How much more will this cost now because of the delays under Obama?



Gateway was already in the works before ARC broke ground.

Posted on: 2015/7/31 2:51
 Top 


Re: Light at the end of the tunnel?
#58
Home away from home
Home away from home


Quote:

Pebble wrote:
Now, the tunnel is behind which means it will cost even more to build.


Don't confuse Gateway and ARC. ARC is not behind, its been cancelled. One main difference is the number of NJTransit trains per hour. ARC would have been 27 per hour. Gateway will be less. Also because ARC would have had separate platforms, it would have been immune to service interruptions at the existing Penn platforms -- and vice versa. Finally, ARC included replacing the Portal Bridge and building a link for Bergen County trains to arrive in Manhattan. Gateway doesn't include those items. The Portal bridge will still need replacement regardless.

Posted on: 2015/7/30 21:28
 Top 


Re: Light at the end of the tunnel?
#59
Home away from home
Home away from home


Quote:

Pebble wrote:

If your only defense is "The New York Times is biased!" then you don't really have a defense.


The NY Times is biased. The worst part of that conservative rag sheet is people think its liberal.

Posted on: 2015/7/30 21:24
 Top 


Re: Light at the end of the tunnel?
#60
Home away from home
Home away from home


Quote:

Monroe wrote:
We'll be getting a proper deal, with all the stakeholders as partners.


Everyone is hanging their hats on the Gateway tunnel these days. Gateway when it was originally conceived as part of Amtrak's high speed network to be built somewhere between 2030 and 2050, would only add 6 peak hour NJTransit trains. The other 18 slots would be for Amtrak. For those of you bad at math, that is fewer NJTransit trains than the 27 per hour ARC would have accommodated. Those 6 trains in Gateway were intended as a supplement to the 27 going to ARC because by the 2030s it was projected that NJTransit would have expanded its system to fill the 27 trains per hour at ARC as well as the trains using the older tunnels.

Other stakeholders might pay for a new Gateway Tunnel, but that means they will also own part or all of the tunnel. Instead of owning the tunnel, NJTransit will give priority to Amtrak and end up paying rent to whatever other agencies contribute.


Posted on: 2015/7/30 20:22
 Top 



TopTop
« 1 (2) 3 4 5 ... 81 »






Login
Username:

Password:

Remember me



Lost Password?

Register now!



LicenseInformation | AboutUs | PrivacyPolicy | Faq | Contact


JERSEY CITY LIST - News & Reviews - Jersey City, NJ - Copyright 2004 - 2017