Browsing this Thread:
1 Anonymous Users
|
Re: Light at the end of the tunnel?
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
 
|
And Obama has sat on it for half a decade since, if that's the case. Gotcha! (And since the Transportation Trust Fund has been coming up, let's not forget that while it was going bankrupt we had Corzine as Governor and a Democratic majority in the Statehouse. They had their chance to pass a gas tax hike then. They punted).
And keep in mind that Christie canceling the tunnel to Macy's basement took place before his re-election campaign. NJ voters supported him.
Posted on: 2015/7/31 17:21
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Light at the end of the tunnel?
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
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
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Light at the end of the tunnel?
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
@dolomiti, the bluff called was that NY wasn't putting a single penny into the tunnel project, and now they will. And the Feds will be putting in more money.
As far as the funding, the Feds said that the projection at the time was for a 10 billion dollar cost. Since the most similar project, the East Side MTA tunnel is running about 50% over cost, figure NJ would be on the hook for another 5 billion dollars. Re: the Pulaski Skyway, the rationalization is that it's a feeder to the tunnel entrances. Of course, this was a Port Authority quid pro quo, as they pumped all that money into the WTC project. You'd rather the PA spend more money on another NY project than our own infrastructure? Did you really repeat the canard about NJ not being on the hook for the cost overruns? Of course the paperwork was signed off, the project was cancelled-exactly because we WERE on the hook! The Feds offered planning 'help' to reduce the initial cost, and offered low interest LOANS for overruns, and suggested the PA put in more money, and said NJT should add a ticket surcharge, but that's not extra funding, is it?
Posted on: 2015/7/31 10:26
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Light at the end of the tunnel?
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
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.
Posted on: 2015/7/31 10:13
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Light at the end of the tunnel?
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
Gateway was already in the works before ARC broke ground.
Posted on: 2015/7/31 2:51
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Light at the end of the tunnel?
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
What bluff?!? Most of the money was being put up by the federal government and Port Authority. There is no evidence NJ was going to be solely on the hook. He didn't ask Paterson to contribute. If there hadn't been issues with Amtrak's lines recently, he STILL wouldn't be even paying lip service to a tunnel project. Quote: Anyone claiming that the project would've come in at budget hasn't put down the crack pipe, because every project like this always overruns. Yes, projects like that can well be expected to go into overruns. Again, the problem with that rationalization is that contracts were not final and not settled, thus there is no indication that the state of NJ would have been exclusively on the hook for all cost overruns. By the way, the ARC Tunnel was projected to hit $14 billion; the replacement Gateway Project is already estimated to cost $20 billion. NJ is already talking about spending $3 to $4 billion on it, which is MORE than the state was initially committed to spend on the ARC Tunnel. Yes, Chris saved NJ a negative $2 billion already, and the nation negative $6 billion already! Thanks Christie. Again, it is screamingly obvious that Christie killed the ARC Tunnel so he could look better on the national stage -- a plan that has backfired, as he has failed to improve NJ's fiscal situation, and his national status is in the crapper, and we don't have a tunnel, and the tunnel will cost everyone more. Quote: Further, the Pulaski Skyway diversion is pennies compared to what the PA dropped into the WTC rebuild. Stop deflecting. The Pulaski Skyway has NOTHING to do with PA. They don't own the bridge, they don't operate the bridge, it doesn't connect to anything they own. There is no justification whatsoever for diverting PA funds to the Skyway. In case you missed it: Not only does the PA own WTC, they were also pushed into a huge rebuild by pretty much every political entity, including much of the public. It's a sucky situation, but at least there's a reason why PA is on the hook for some of those costs. And if some other government agency was in charge, they'd still build the Calatrava station, they'd still build the memorials, they'd still spend billions and go into cost overruns and you know it. You said so yourself.... in pointing out that these types of projects go over budget.
Posted on: 2015/7/31 2:19
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Light at the end of the tunnel?
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
Joined:
2006/11/13 18:42 Last Login : 2022/2/28 7:31 From 280 Grove Street
Group:
Registered Users
Posts:
4192
 |
9 billion dollars wow !
What can you buy for just 1 billion dollars ? http://www.therichest.com/expensive-l ... -had-a-billion-dollars-2/
Posted on: 2015/7/30 23:23
|
|||
|
My humor is for the silent blue collar majority - If my posts offend, slander or you deem inappropriate and seek deletion, contact the webmaster for jurisdiction.
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Light at the end of the tunnel?
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Obama's Transportation Secretary LaHood did propose two new revenue streams for the cost overruns-a $.50 per ticket surcharge for NJTransit riders and a larger contribution from the Port Authority. Otherwise, their extra 'contribution' was suggesting ways to keep the costs of the project down-as if they know how to do that in Washington!
Following a meeting between U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood and New Jersey Governor Chris Christie on October 8, the U.S. Department of Transportation worked with NJ Transit and put forward a range of options for continuing the vitally important ARC tunnel project. These proposals submitted to Governor Christie addressed the need to close the ARC project?s financial gap, improve connectivity for New Jersey Transit customers and ensure the ARC tunnel project would be well-positioned to serve the region for generations to come.
Posted on: 2015/7/30 23:17
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Light at the end of the tunnel?
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
The Feds offer to 'share the costs' was low interest loans. Which isn't sharing at all.
http://www.examiner.com/article/lahoo ... -estimates-for-arc-tunnel
Posted on: 2015/7/30 22:43
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Light at the end of the tunnel?
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
Again, this is not true that the feds offered no extra funding for any cost overruns. "And while the governor said that an agreement with the federal government would require the state to pay all cost overruns, the report found that there was no final agreement, and that the federal government had made several offers to share those costs." hmmm... now i wonder who is the delusional one.... would that be you?
Posted on: 2015/7/30 22:15
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Light at the end of the tunnel?
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
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?
Posted on: 2015/7/30 22:11
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Light at the end of the tunnel?
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
Joined:
2013/3/29 21:43 Last Login : 2023/9/5 18:27 From Bergen Hill
Group:
Registered Users
Posts:
1980
|
Quote:
I'm aware of the difference. My comment was in regards to the argument Christie made about how he, as president, would create new tunnels. Essentially, he'd create new ones that cost more to New Jersey residents due to the delayed start. It is a farce.
Posted on: 2015/7/30 21:57
|
|||
|
Dos A Cero
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Light at the end of the tunnel?
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
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
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Light at the end of the tunnel?
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
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
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Light at the end of the tunnel?
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
Joined:
2013/3/29 21:43 Last Login : 2023/9/5 18:27 From Bergen Hill
Group:
Registered Users
Posts:
1980
|
Quote:
If your only defense is "The New York Times is biased!" then you don't really have a defense. I'm also not sure why you'd mention Nancy Pelosi as that has nothing to do with this (though she is right on the Iran deal, if you actually paid attention to what is in the deal). The tunnel is a necessity. Saying that there will be overruns doesn't matter. It has to happen. Now, the tunnel is behind which means it will cost even more to build. Do those additional costs counter balance whatever you believe that NY gives for whatever reason you think they would want to give? You're wrong in thinking that New York gains more by having people live outside the state. I can guarantee that the numbers don't add up that way. Put it this way: why was Fulop trumping the idea that Jersey City will be the largest city, population wise, in New Jersey? Ultimately, what occurred was bad for our state. We'll have a brain drain as productive residents won't want to wait on the commute and they'll leave thus leaving our state with less tax revenue.
Posted on: 2015/7/30 21:21
|
|||
|
Dos A Cero
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Light at the end of the tunnel?
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
I don't agree. The Feds offered loan guarantees, not extra funding for any cost overruns. NYS and NYC hadn't committed to a penny for the project, why would they then say 'yeah, let's split the multi-billion dollar cost overruns with you'.
East side tunnel, Big Dig, Seattle tunnel, all cost wildly more than proposed. Anyone who thinks it was a good deal is as delusional as Nancy Pelosi today calling the Iran deal a 'diplomatic masterpiece'.
Posted on: 2015/7/30 21:10
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Light at the end of the tunnel?
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Monroe, regardless of whatever else you believe, you continually refuse or fail to recognize that the decision to terminate a megaproject like ARC cannot be made with reasonable competence in only a month?s time.
Posted on: 2015/7/30 20:46
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Light at the end of the tunnel?
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
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
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Light at the end of the tunnel?
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Debunked by the partisan NYT's?
Vindicated is more like it. We bailed on a bad deal. We'll be getting a proper deal, with all the stakeholders as partners. Given that when the East Side tunnel project started it was a 6 billion dollar project, and is at 9 billion now (and will go over 10, easy, because they keep pushing back the completion date), any thought that we wouldn't have been on the hook is idiotic. Someone earlier said we didn't ask Gov Patterson for money-we did ask NYS for money at the start and they refused. Why would we think they would help with the cost overruns? The deal was killed, and now it's back on track. That's a problem exactly how for NJ?
Posted on: 2015/7/30 20:10
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Light at the end of the tunnel?
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
Again, your version of the story has been debunked. Are you saying that what the article below states is untrue? http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/10/nyr ... project-in-2010.html?_r=0
Posted on: 2015/7/30 20:03
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Light at the end of the tunnel?
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
You don't 'lose' imaginary money in property value; in fact, it's making real estate more affordable! The 44,000 jobs-are NYC jobs, paying NYC sales tax and NY income tax-of course you're in favor of it!
Posted on: 2015/7/30 18:31
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Light at the end of the tunnel?
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
NJ already lost $18 billion in projected land value increases. http://www.njfuture.org/2010/07/30/rp ... ome-values-by-18-billion/ It also lost tax revenue from the 6,000 construction jobs http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2010 ... er_tunnel_project_is.html As well as 44,000 permanent jobs. http://www.njtransit.com/tm/tm_servle ... eTo&PRESS_RELEASE_ID=2477 But Christie was penny-wise and pound-foolish (not a fat joke). Quote:
Again, almost nobody in NYC cares. The number of New Yorkers who are impacted by NJTransit is a statistical rounding error.
Posted on: 2015/7/30 18:12
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Light at the end of the tunnel?
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Just to add, the East Side MTA tunnel project is running about 50% over budget, with no end in sight.
Posted on: 2015/7/30 17:41
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Light at the end of the tunnel?
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
Exactly right.
Posted on: 2015/7/30 15:55
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Light at the end of the tunnel?
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Nonsense. Christie called their bluff, and will end up saving NJ billions of dollars. Anyone claiming that the project would've come in at budget hasn't put down the crack pipe, because every project like this always overruns.
Further, the Pulaski Skyway diversion is pennies compared to what the PA dropped into the WTC rebuild. Just how does an office tower come under the umbrella of transportation needs? Quid pro quo, baby, that's all that was. And listening to comrade De Blasio cry about how NJ made a mistake by not proceeding with the earlier project-sure he's crying, now NYC will have to put in some dough to bring in all those commuters paying NYC and NY sales and income taxes! Tough nuts. Why does NY not want to pay their fair share? Because they're used to NJ being chumps. Well, Corzine signed on a chump deal, and Christie properly stepped on it. So we start again, this time with everyone sharing the pain equally. Had that been done before the tunnel would be started already.
Posted on: 2015/7/30 15:29
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Light at the end of the tunnel?
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
No, what he said was "I don't want to pay for cost overruns." The Feds were coughing up $4.45 billion. Port Authority, another $3 billion. NJ Turnpike was ponying up $1.25 billion. Paterson claims Christie never contacted him, and that NY State would be willing to contribute. Christie claimed that cost estimates had gone up, and the state of NJ -- not any of the existing contributors -- would be forced to pay for 100% of the cost overruns. Unsurprisingly, the GAO disagreed with that assessment. It found that the contracts still were not signed, the agreements were not complete, thus it is impossible to determine who would have to pay. (http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2012/04/gov_christie.html) Quote: If you're the type of NJ taxpayer that enjoys getting screwed by NY and the Feds, well I can see why you'd oppose that type of arrangement. I'm the type of NJ taxpayer who realizes that the Federal government and Port Authority were putting up most of the money to pay for a critical piece of infrastructure, that will be FAR more expensive to build now that it's been delayed by well over 5 years. Quote: Christie did the right thing.... Bullshit. Christie tried to shine up his "fiscal conservative" credentials by killing a big infrastructure project, rather than negotiate on cost overruns. Plus, he has done NOTHING to propose an alternative or replacment. All he did was refuse to pay for funds already spent, and redirect Port Authority funds to the Pulaski Skyway -- which has Jack Squat to do with the PA's mandate. None of that strikes me as a positive form of political ethics.
Posted on: 2015/7/30 14:20
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Light at the end of the tunnel?
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
No mental gymnastics, just common sense. If the NJ Governor is held responsible for the shortcomings of NJ's run rail service, than the POTUS should be held responsible for the Federal rail service.
Posted on: 2015/7/29 22:58
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Light at the end of the tunnel?
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
Posted on: 2015/7/29 16:02
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Light at the end of the tunnel?
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
I think that trying to argue whether or not there is a financial benefit to New Yorkers or not is irrelevant. Maybe there is, maybe there isn't. But day to day, for the average New Yorker, whether or not it takes people in suburban New Jersey residents 45 minutes or 90 minutes or 120 minutes to get to Manhattan jobs, nobody cares. New Yorkers want capital spent expanding the subway. They way want more reliable subway trains. They want to never have to go to Penn Station.
Posted on: 2015/7/29 15:44
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Light at the end of the tunnel?
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
Joined:
2013/3/29 21:43 Last Login : 2023/9/5 18:27 From Bergen Hill
Group:
Registered Users
Posts:
1980
|
Quote:
I used to be one of those people that worked in NY and lived in NJ. It isn?t hard to figure out that NY would have been happier getting more of my taxable income by me living there. On top of that, I?d be taking up residence in the state which means I?d be paying property taxes and utilizing the restaurants and nightlife. My income would have been cycled back through in NY. You are correct that they are paying for parks but those costs decrease with the number of people utilizing them. More people and the cost per person goes down, not up. I don?t know why you think I?d need to use prison services, though? 
Posted on: 2015/7/29 13:37
|
|||
|
Dos A Cero
|
||||
|
||||