Monroe wrote:
Quote:

Dolomiti wrote:
Quote:

Monroe wrote:
Nonsense, it made perfect sense for NJ to kill the tunnel to Macys basement. Here's a good piece for you to read.

No, it was a miserable decision, possibly one of Christie's worst to date.

ARC would have doubled tunnel capacity, and built a new station in NYC next to Penn Station. This is a much-needed infrastructure improvement, and every year of delay produces a huge increase in costs.

Worst of all, he almost certainly killed the ARC tunnel not to save money, but to snatch it and redirect it to unrelated road projects, and build his cred with conservatives (http://www.streetsblog.org/2012/04/10 ... -lied-to-kill-arc-tunnel/).

His short-sighted move almost certainly pushed back any solution to this major issue by 10 years, possibly more.

The only person to whom it makes sense is Christie, and those who inexplicably worship him.

Nonsense. It was a bad deal for NJ because NEW YORK WAS NOT PUTTING UP A SINGLE RED CENT towards a tunnel that was designed to put more NJ workers paying income tax to NY.

And of the stakeholders, only NJ would be responsible for the inevitable, multi-billion dollar cost overruns. Not the Port Authority, not the Feds, and NY was absent from any funding.

Dolomiti wrote:
Quote:

Monroe wrote:
Nonsense, it made perfect sense for NJ to kill the tunnel to Macys basement. Here's a good piece for you to read.

No, it was a miserable decision, possibly one of Christie's worst to date.

ARC would have doubled tunnel capacity, and built a new station in NYC next to Penn Station. This is a much-needed infrastructure improvement, and every year of delay produces a huge increase in costs.

Worst of all, he almost certainly killed the ARC tunnel not to save money, but to snatch it and redirect it to unrelated road projects, and build his cred with conservatives (http://www.streetsblog.org/2012/04/10 ... -lied-to-kill-arc-tunnel/).

His short-sighted move almost certainly pushed back any solution to this major issue by 10 years, possibly more.

The only person to whom it makes sense is Christie, and those who inexplicably worship him.

Monroe wrote:
Nonsense, it made perfect sense for NJ to kill the tunnel to Macys basement. Here's a good piece for you to read.

Monroe wrote:
Quote:

nafco wrote:
Quote:

WhoElseCouldIBe wrote:
Quote:

nafco wrote:
Why would people want less options for getting to LSP over more? It makes no sense to say its just 5 minutes longer out of the way. And whether real crime happens on the current bridge or not is besides the point. No ones going to argue its an ugly entrance to the park. Once this is built, Im sure all those opposed to it will be happy to use it once its there.

Opportunity cost, opportunity cost, opportunity cost

Since money and resources are limited, it's best to allocate them towards the highest priorities. How is shortening a ride by 2 full minutes a high priority?

Its myopic thinking that killed the ARC tunnel which would've absolutely benefitted NJ and its residents in the future. This on a much smaller scale will benefit JC residents and those visiting the city and LSP. I agree 10 mil sounds like a lot of money, and is to us, but probably isnt on the grand scheme of things for what JC needs to do to maintain and improve this city.

Nonsense, it made perfect sense for NJ to kill the tunnel to Macys basement. Here's a good piece for you to read.

http://www.nj.com/opinion/index.ssf/2 ... ulshine.html#incart_river

nafco wrote:
Quote:

WhoElseCouldIBe wrote:
Quote:

nafco wrote:
Why would people want less options for getting to LSP over more? It makes no sense to say its just 5 minutes longer out of the way. And whether real crime happens on the current bridge or not is besides the point. No ones going to argue its an ugly entrance to the park. Once this is built, Im sure all those opposed to it will be happy to use it once its there.

Opportunity cost, opportunity cost, opportunity cost

Since money and resources are limited, it's best to allocate them towards the highest priorities. How is shortening a ride by 2 full minutes a high priority?

Its myopic thinking that killed the ARC tunnel which would've absolutely benefitted NJ and its residents in the future. This on a much smaller scale will benefit JC residents and those visiting the city and LSP. I agree 10 mil sounds like a lot of money, and is to us, but probably isnt on the grand scheme of things for what JC needs to do to maintain and improve this city.

WhoElseCouldIBe wrote:
Quote:

nafco wrote:
Why would people want less options for getting to LSP over more? It makes no sense to say its just 5 minutes longer out of the way. And whether real crime happens on the current bridge or not is besides the point. No ones going to argue its an ugly entrance to the park. Once this is built, Im sure all those opposed to it will be happy to use it once its there.

Opportunity cost, opportunity cost, opportunity cost

Since money and resources are limited, it's best to allocate them towards the highest priorities. How is shortening a ride by 2 full minutes a high priority?

WhoElseCouldIBe wrote:
Quote:

nafco wrote:
Why would people want less options for getting to LSP over more? It makes no sense to say its just 5 minutes longer out of the way. And whether real crime happens on the current bridge or not is besides the point. No ones going to argue its an ugly entrance to the park. Once this is built, Im sure all those opposed to it will be happy to use it once its there.

Opportunity cost, opportunity cost, opportunity cost

Since money and resources are limited, it's best to allocate them towards the highest priorities. How is shortening a ride by 2 full minutes a high priority?

nafco wrote:
Why would people want less options for getting to LSP over more? It makes no sense to say its just 5 minutes longer out of the way. And whether real crime happens on the current bridge or not is besides the point. No ones going to argue its an ugly entrance to the park. Once this is built, Im sure all those opposed to it will be happy to use it once its there.

moobycow wrote:
At the end of the say I'm almost always going to be for a project that adds connectivity between neighborhoods.

FakeGreenDress wrote:
Quote:

craigslistdiva wrote:
3. The rape lane/rape bridge is unsafe (due to lack of foot traffic after sundown). Having a new wider road (hopefully with more street lights), will make it more accessible.

Has there ever been a reported crime of any kind on that bridge? I've never felt unsafe there even pretty late at night -- there's a surprising amount of foot traffic to and from the marina, not to mention park security. Think the worst you might run into is a parked car with people getting busy inside.

mwa7368 wrote:
It's so people who live in downtown don't have to drive through the war zone of iron barred porches and bodegas of Pacific and Johnson avenues. Increased likelihood of being a victim of carjacking or shooting there. Who wants to go to the awesome restaurants in LSP but have to travel through that neighborhood? Not me if I have the choice.

JSleeze wrote:
The casino is never going to happen. The bridge is being built to make the land behind the hospital more attractive to developers. Tens of millions of dollars of infrastructure and remediation needs to be done back there. Getting the bridge in place (with the state paying for it) is an incentive on the part of the city.

K-Lo wrote:
Oh, puh-leeze. You're embarrassing yourself.

WhoElseCouldIBe wrote:
Quote:

craigslistdiva wrote:
I don't know much about the casino or the "true" motive behind the proposal of the new bridge but as a resident of the area, I think this may be a good change.

Here's why:

1. The area, although full of wildlife, is gross and nasty and a graveyard for abandoned boats etc. This area is in need of remediation or a major clean up.

2. There are new developments in the area; the remediation will help property values.

3. The rape lane/rape bridge is unsafe (due to lack of foot traffic after sundown). Having a new wider road (hopefully with more street lights), will make it more accessible.

4. It will boost the area as an overall. More development means more businesses will move into the Pathmark plaza. That area is also in need of serious remediation.

5. There will be better access to the restaurants in the park that remain open until 10-11 (i think) when the ferry and other public transportation shuts down.

As for LSP itself, it would be wonderful if they started a shuttle within the park that connects the different picnic areas to the Liberty Science Center and Audrey Zapp Drive for people that use the current bridge.

And to the point someone made here, whatever development they do do, I hope it doesn't harm the wildlife that inhabits the area. We shouldn't completely destroy the area, just enhance whatever is built there and preserve all the natural elements as much as we can.

Remediation is great.. but considering it takes less than 5 minutes to go from Grand & Jersey to the current 4 way stop sign in Liberty Park, why is the new roadway needed? So it takes 2 minutes less to get there? Not necessary.

craigslistdiva wrote:
3. The rape lane/rape bridge is unsafe (due to lack of foot traffic after sundown). Having a new wider road (hopefully with more street lights), will make it more accessible.

craigslistdiva wrote:
I don't know much about the casino or the "true" motive behind the proposal of the new bridge but as a resident of the area, I think this may be a good change.

Here's why:

1. The area, although full of wildlife, is gross and nasty and a graveyard for abandoned boats etc. This area is in need of remediation or a major clean up.

2. There are new developments in the area; the remediation will help property values.

3. The rape lane/rape bridge is unsafe (due to lack of foot traffic after sundown). Having a new wider road (hopefully with more street lights), will make it more accessible.

4. It will boost the area as an overall. More development means more businesses will move into the Pathmark plaza. That area is also in need of serious remediation.

5. There will be better access to the restaurants in the park that remain open until 10-11 (i think) when the ferry and other public transportation shuts down.

As for LSP itself, it would be wonderful if they started a shuttle within the park that connects the different picnic areas to the Liberty Science Center and Audrey Zapp Drive for people that use the current bridge.

And to the point someone made here, whatever development they do do, I hope it doesn't harm the wildlife that inhabits the area. We shouldn't completely destroy the area, just enhance whatever is built there and preserve all the natural elements as much as we can.

Monroe wrote:
Quote:

WhoElseCouldIBe wrote:
Quote:

Monroe wrote:
Quote:

WhoElseCouldIBe wrote:
Quote:

Monroe wrote:
Quote:

WhoElseCouldIBe wrote:
Quote:

Monroe wrote:
Quote:

tommyc_37 wrote:
I am also bewildered by why this is being made a priority. In theory this would only help downtown residents get to LSP by car. Of the downtown residents that go to LSP, how many of them drive a car? Unless you are disabled, walking or biking seems to be the preferred method for downtowners to enter the park.

This project is not cheap, and will drastically impact a very nice, somewhat quiet neighborhood. I think this is really a mistake.

First, it's a schlep from the bridge to much of LSP-the playground, the central parking area near the Nature Interpretative Center, the picnic area at the south end of the park, so it is a plus in that regard rather than driving Grand to Pacific to Johnston.

Second, it's not about LSP access, it's about Fulop's casino access.

The drive from Grand to Pacific to Johnston takes less than 5 minutes. How is this a top priority?

Who said it was a top priority? Fulop may think it is. VVP residents not as much. BeLa residents will like it. It'll be a hyper-local and hyper-partisan issue, except it's already a done deal seemingly.

Who ever put the project in motion, obviously. Are you arguing for the sake of arguing?

No, but it's been proposed for years, hasn't it? So now it's getting the green light to mesh with the proposed casino down the block.

Never said it hasn't been proposed for years. I said why is it a top priority now?

As for the casino, it's a nice theory, however, the casino is not a done deal yet.

Occam's razor at play.

WhoElseCouldIBe wrote:
Quote:

Monroe wrote:
Quote:

WhoElseCouldIBe wrote:
Quote:

Monroe wrote:
Quote:

WhoElseCouldIBe wrote:
Quote:

Monroe wrote:
Quote:

tommyc_37 wrote:
I am also bewildered by why this is being made a priority. In theory this would only help downtown residents get to LSP by car. Of the downtown residents that go to LSP, how many of them drive a car? Unless you are disabled, walking or biking seems to be the preferred method for downtowners to enter the park.

This project is not cheap, and will drastically impact a very nice, somewhat quiet neighborhood. I think this is really a mistake.

First, it's a schlep from the bridge to much of LSP-the playground, the central parking area near the Nature Interpretative Center, the picnic area at the south end of the park, so it is a plus in that regard rather than driving Grand to Pacific to Johnston.

Second, it's not about LSP access, it's about Fulop's casino access.

The drive from Grand to Pacific to Johnston takes less than 5 minutes. How is this a top priority?

Who said it was a top priority? Fulop may think it is. VVP residents not as much. BeLa residents will like it. It'll be a hyper-local and hyper-partisan issue, except it's already a done deal seemingly.

Who ever put the project in motion, obviously. Are you arguing for the sake of arguing?

No, but it's been proposed for years, hasn't it? So now it's getting the green light to mesh with the proposed casino down the block.

Never said it hasn't been proposed for years. I said why is it a top priority now?

As for the casino, it's a nice theory, however, the casino is not a done deal yet.

Monroe wrote:
Quote:

WhoElseCouldIBe wrote:
Quote:

Monroe wrote:
Quote:

WhoElseCouldIBe wrote:
Quote:

Monroe wrote:
Quote:

tommyc_37 wrote:
I am also bewildered by why this is being made a priority. In theory this would only help downtown residents get to LSP by car. Of the downtown residents that go to LSP, how many of them drive a car? Unless you are disabled, walking or biking seems to be the preferred method for downtowners to enter the park.

This project is not cheap, and will drastically impact a very nice, somewhat quiet neighborhood. I think this is really a mistake.

First, it's a schlep from the bridge to much of LSP-the playground, the central parking area near the Nature Interpretative Center, the picnic area at the south end of the park, so it is a plus in that regard rather than driving Grand to Pacific to Johnston.

Second, it's not about LSP access, it's about Fulop's casino access.

The drive from Grand to Pacific to Johnston takes less than 5 minutes. How is this a top priority?

Who said it was a top priority? Fulop may think it is. VVP residents not as much. BeLa residents will like it. It'll be a hyper-local and hyper-partisan issue, except it's already a done deal seemingly.

Who ever put the project in motion, obviously. Are you arguing for the sake of arguing?

No, but it's been proposed for years, hasn't it? So now it's getting the green light to mesh with the proposed casino down the block.

WhoElseCouldIBe wrote:
Quote:

Monroe wrote:
Quote:

WhoElseCouldIBe wrote:
Quote:

Monroe wrote:
Quote:

tommyc_37 wrote:
I am also bewildered by why this is being made a priority. In theory this would only help downtown residents get to LSP by car. Of the downtown residents that go to LSP, how many of them drive a car? Unless you are disabled, walking or biking seems to be the preferred method for downtowners to enter the park.

This project is not cheap, and will drastically impact a very nice, somewhat quiet neighborhood. I think this is really a mistake.

First, it's a schlep from the bridge to much of LSP-the playground, the central parking area near the Nature Interpretative Center, the picnic area at the south end of the park, so it is a plus in that regard rather than driving Grand to Pacific to Johnston.

Second, it's not about LSP access, it's about Fulop's casino access.

The drive from Grand to Pacific to Johnston takes less than 5 minutes. How is this a top priority?

Who said it was a top priority? Fulop may think it is. VVP residents not as much. BeLa residents will like it. It'll be a hyper-local and hyper-partisan issue, except it's already a done deal seemingly.

Who ever put the project in motion, obviously. Are you arguing for the sake of arguing?

Monroe wrote:
Quote:

WhoElseCouldIBe wrote:
Quote:

Monroe wrote:
Quote:

tommyc_37 wrote:
I am also bewildered by why this is being made a priority. In theory this would only help downtown residents get to LSP by car. Of the downtown residents that go to LSP, how many of them drive a car? Unless you are disabled, walking or biking seems to be the preferred method for downtowners to enter the park.

This project is not cheap, and will drastically impact a very nice, somewhat quiet neighborhood. I think this is really a mistake.

First, it's a schlep from the bridge to much of LSP-the playground, the central parking area near the Nature Interpretative Center, the picnic area at the south end of the park, so it is a plus in that regard rather than driving Grand to Pacific to Johnston.

Second, it's not about LSP access, it's about Fulop's casino access.

The drive from Grand to Pacific to Johnston takes less than 5 minutes. How is this a top priority?

Who said it was a top priority? Fulop may think it is. VVP residents not as much. BeLa residents will like it. It'll be a hyper-local and hyper-partisan issue, except it's already a done deal seemingly.

WhoElseCouldIBe wrote:
Quote:

Monroe wrote:
Quote:

tommyc_37 wrote:
I am also bewildered by why this is being made a priority. In theory this would only help downtown residents get to LSP by car. Of the downtown residents that go to LSP, how many of them drive a car? Unless you are disabled, walking or biking seems to be the preferred method for downtowners to enter the park.

This project is not cheap, and will drastically impact a very nice, somewhat quiet neighborhood. I think this is really a mistake.

First, it's a schlep from the bridge to much of LSP-the playground, the central parking area near the Nature Interpretative Center, the picnic area at the south end of the park, so it is a plus in that regard rather than driving Grand to Pacific to Johnston.

Second, it's not about LSP access, it's about Fulop's casino access.

The drive from Grand to Pacific to Johnston takes less than 5 minutes. How is this a top priority?

Monroe wrote:
Quote:

tommyc_37 wrote:
I am also bewildered by why this is being made a priority. In theory this would only help downtown residents get to LSP by car. Of the downtown residents that go to LSP, how many of them drive a car? Unless you are disabled, walking or biking seems to be the preferred method for downtowners to enter the park.

This project is not cheap, and will drastically impact a very nice, somewhat quiet neighborhood. I think this is really a mistake.

First, it's a schlep from the bridge to much of LSP-the playground, the central parking area near the Nature Interpretative Center, the picnic area at the south end of the park, so it is a plus in that regard rather than driving Grand to Pacific to Johnston.

Second, it's not about LSP access, it's about Fulop's casino access.