Monroe wrote:
At what point was the GWB shut down? Are you confused with the Ft Lee local access lanes being coned off for a couple of days??

Quote:

nafco wrote:
Quote:

caj11 wrote:
I tried calling the Port Authority and asking about this, all I get is "we don't know anything". No response to emails either.

The PATH manages to recover 41% of its costs from fares. Not great, but FAR higher than the 7% that the stupid RiverLine that goes from Trenton to Camden recovers, and Christie has nothing to say about that. The PATH train transports over 240,000 people a day, the RiverLine maybe 10,000 on a good day. Am I missing something here?

Maybe youre missing that Christie is a shitty politician that happens to not care about most of the citizens that live here. Only making big waves before a presidential run.

As for Port Authority, lets review what that garbage of an agency has done just this year.
1. Shut down one of the busiest bridges in the country, made no official apology of letting such corruption take place
2. Cut PATH service for about a year to WTC at night
3. Then continued to raise fares for bridges, tunnels and the PATH.
4. Now they want to Cut more service altogether at night to save chump change when they are dumping money into other things that are wasting much more than $10 million.

All PA does is #OOPS# over the public who need it. And no one is to blame and no one can stop it. This is basically criminal activity.

nafco wrote:
Quote:

caj11 wrote:
I tried calling the Port Authority and asking about this, all I get is "we don't know anything". No response to emails either.

The PATH manages to recover 41% of its costs from fares. Not great, but FAR higher than the 7% that the stupid RiverLine that goes from Trenton to Camden recovers, and Christie has nothing to say about that. The PATH train transports over 240,000 people a day, the RiverLine maybe 10,000 on a good day. Am I missing something here?

Maybe youre missing that Christie is a shitty politician that happens to not care about most of the citizens that live here. Only making big waves before a presidential run.

As for Port Authority, lets review what that garbage of an agency has done just this year.
1. Shut down one of the busiest bridges in the country, made no official apology of letting such corruption take place
2. Cut PATH service for about a year to WTC at night
3. Then continued to raise fares for bridges, tunnels and the PATH.
4. Now they want to Cut more service altogether at night to save chump change when they are dumping money into other things that are wasting much more than $10 million.

All PA does is #OOPS# over the public who need it. And no one is to blame and no one can stop it. This is basically criminal activity.

caj11 wrote:
I tried calling the Port Authority and asking about this, all I get is "we don't know anything". No response to emails either.

The PATH manages to recover 41% of its costs from fares. Not great, but FAR higher than the 7% that the stupid RiverLine that goes from Trenton to Camden recovers, and Christie has nothing to say about that. The PATH train transports over 240,000 people a day, the RiverLine maybe 10,000 on a good day. Am I missing something here?

PathH8Tr wrote:
Can we stop the baiter and trolls and get back to the core of the issues? Oh, I'm sorry, it's JClist. My bad!

corybraiterman wrote:
this is what i get for feeding the troll.

i should know better.

corybraiterman wrote:
Boris. Sigh.

There are no "major improvements" to be done, aside from their change to the signal system that has to happen on all parts of the line aside from EXP and WTC because they've done that already. That is a one-time thing. Your post is nothing but strawmans and idiocy. Their reasoning is bullshit.

here, let's answer your questions, just to show how goddamn stupid they are..

a) path just got new cars. because of obvious payola and corruption, they got the cheapest cars available and they're starting to malfunction already (this is a conversation i had with a conductor btw. person in charge of said purchase retired as soon as the deal was done. what a shock). path is putting in a new signal system. as far as US mass transit goes, yea it's actually fairly up to date. i think it could stand to gain about 2 or 3 new lines (south to bayonne, west to secaucus, north to meet the mythical 7-line in weehawken, so my version of major improvements are probably different from yours, but yea, i differ on pretty much everything you think it seems, so big surprise.

b) improvements are always done at night. grats on your stupid question. cancelling service for good has nothing to do with doing service work. ask me about the price of tea in china, it might have more relevance.

c) service delays and interruptions are not the same thing as cancelling service. again, grats on your stupid question. cancelling service for good has nothing to do with doing service work. ask me about the price of tea in china, it might have more relevance.

Quote:

borisp wrote:
Quote:

corybraiterman wrote:
Quote:

borisp wrote:
Interesting. I have a question to all those who so vehemently disapprove of the idea to interrupt service on weekend nights. Could you clarify which one is it?

(a) Do you think that PATH is pretty up-to-date, suffers from no outages and doesn't need any major improvements?

(b) Do you want those major improvements to be done at some other times?

(c) Do you want those major improvements to be done without service interruptions?

ah, we can always count on boris for his logical fallacies. thanks for never changing.

if you bothered to read the post, which obviously, you didn't, because that would take some slight amount of intelligence, you'd have noted that it isn't for repairs, it's for "operational and capital expense savings"

but thanks for playing, boris. it's truly nice to know that we can depend on you for an ignorant comment that has nothing to do with the topic.

Dear corybraiterman,

Right after the part that you quoted there is a phrase that actually explains what "caputal expense savings" means. Allow me to quote: "capital savings would result from allowing capital improvements to be conducted without train interruption".

In order to find this phrase, you need open the original post that started this discussion (yes, that same post that allowed you to brag how intelligent you are being able to read it), click on the second link, and read the text that the link leads to (not just the highlighted part, but all of it).

I leave the rest of the exercise to you.

Thanks.

P.S. In the future, if you don't understand something I write (and I'm going to rely on your claim it happens often), you should just ask politely.

borisp wrote:
Quote:

corybraiterman wrote:
Quote:

borisp wrote:
Interesting. I have a question to all those who so vehemently disapprove of the idea to interrupt service on weekend nights. Could you clarify which one is it?

(a) Do you think that PATH is pretty up-to-date, suffers from no outages and doesn't need any major improvements?

(b) Do you want those major improvements to be done at some other times?

(c) Do you want those major improvements to be done without service interruptions?

ah, we can always count on boris for his logical fallacies. thanks for never changing.

if you bothered to read the post, which obviously, you didn't, because that would take some slight amount of intelligence, you'd have noted that it isn't for repairs, it's for "operational and capital expense savings"

but thanks for playing, boris. it's truly nice to know that we can depend on you for an ignorant comment that has nothing to do with the topic.

Dear corybraiterman,

Right after the part that you quoted there is a phrase that actually explains what "caputal expense savings" means. Allow me to quote: "capital savings would result from allowing capital improvements to be conducted without train interruption".

In order to find this phrase, you need open the original post that started this discussion (yes, that same post that allowed you to brag how intelligent you are being able to read it), click on the second link, and read the text that the link leads to (not just the highlighted part, but all of it).

I leave the rest of the exercise to you.

Thanks.

P.S. In the future, if you don't understand something I write (and I'm going to rely on your claim it happens often), you should just ask politely.

borisp wrote:
Quote:

corybraiterman wrote:
Quote:

borisp wrote:
Interesting. I have a question to all those who so vehemently disapprove of the idea to interrupt service on weekend nights. Could you clarify which one is it?

(a) Do you think that PATH is pretty up-to-date, suffers from no outages and doesn't need any major improvements?

(b) Do you want those major improvements to be done at some other times?

(c) Do you want those major improvements to be done without service interruptions?

ah, we can always count on boris for his logical fallacies. thanks for never changing.

if you bothered to read the post, which obviously, you didn't, because that would take some slight amount of intelligence, you'd have noted that it isn't for repairs, it's for "operational and capital expense savings"

but thanks for playing, boris. it's truly nice to know that we can depend on you for an ignorant comment that has nothing to do with the topic.

Dear corybraiterman,

Right after the part that you quoted there is a phrase that actually explains what "caputal expense savings" means. Allow me to quote: "capital savings would result from allowing capital improvements to be conducted without train interruption".

In order to find this phrase, you need open the original post that started this discussion (yes, that same post that allowed you to brag how intelligent you are being able to read it), click on the second link, and read the text that the link leads to (not just the highlighted part, but all of it).

I leave the rest of the exercise to you.

Thanks.

P.S. In the future, if you don't understand something I write (and I'm going to rely on your claim it happens often), you should just ask politely.

corybraiterman wrote:
Quote:

borisp wrote:
Interesting. I have a question to all those who so vehemently disapprove of the idea to interrupt service on weekend nights. Could you clarify which one is it?

(a) Do you think that PATH is pretty up-to-date, suffers from no outages and doesn't need any major improvements?

(b) Do you want those major improvements to be done at some other times?

(c) Do you want those major improvements to be done without service interruptions?

ah, we can always count on boris for his logical fallacies. thanks for never changing.

if you bothered to read the post, which obviously, you didn't, because that would take some slight amount of intelligence, you'd have noted that it isn't for repairs, it's for "operational and capital expense savings"

but thanks for playing, boris. it's truly nice to know that we can depend on you for an ignorant comment that has nothing to do with the topic.

score09 wrote:
Quote:

JCbiscuit wrote:
Quote:

score09 wrote:
Quote:

FakeGreenDress wrote:
As I've seen a few others point out, overnight PATH service is also a safety issue -- how many of the people you see on the late-night weekend trains would you be comfortable seeing get behind the wheel of a car?

What?!? As if some Path riders double as taxi drivers?

And What?!? As if a taxi driver poses a threat?

Completely befuddled.

seriously? you are befuddled by the notion that, with no mass transit options, more NYC-bound partiers might opt instead to drive? and then drive home to NJ drunk?

this, to me, is a legitimate downside to eliminating overnight PATH service.

sorry if you cannot see it.

Oh, so the idea is that it's better a fellow on the train than behind the wheel? Okay, thanks for clarifying that. Because, clear not at all, was the post I responded to. It read as if path riders were to transform as taxi drivers, lol. Sorry, you couldn't see that as the impetus of reply.

JCbiscuit wrote:
Quote:

score09 wrote:
Quote:

FakeGreenDress wrote:
As I've seen a few others point out, overnight PATH service is also a safety issue -- how many of the people you see on the late-night weekend trains would you be comfortable seeing get behind the wheel of a car?

What?!? As if some Path riders double as taxi drivers?

And What?!? As if a taxi driver poses a threat?

Completely befuddled.

seriously? you are befuddled by the notion that, with no mass transit options, more NYC-bound partiers might opt instead to drive? and then drive home to NJ drunk?

this, to me, is a legitimate downside to eliminating overnight PATH service.

sorry if you cannot see it.

score09 wrote:
Quote:

FakeGreenDress wrote:
As I've seen a few others point out, overnight PATH service is also a safety issue -- how many of the people you see on the late-night weekend trains would you be comfortable seeing get behind the wheel of a car?

What?!? As if some Path riders double as taxi drivers?

And What?!? As if a taxi driver poses a threat?

Completely befuddled.

FakeGreenDress wrote:
As I've seen a few others point out, overnight PATH service is also a safety issue -- how many of the people you see on the late-night weekend trains would you be comfortable seeing get behind the wheel of a car?

Wishful_Thinking wrote:
On a related note - http://ny.curbed.com/archives/2014/12 ... rld_trade_center_site.php
I don't have a subscription to the WSJ, so couldn't read the entire article, but concur with the individual who replied. Is this covered in the same report as eliminating overnight PATH service? Is there some broader, spreading malfunction at the PA?

Sommerman wrote:
Mightn't this put the kibosh on a casino?

elsquid wrote:
Quote:

greenville wrote:
The only time I used the damn Path is on the late hours of night on the weekends. Time to start calling the mayor and members of city council. If this really happens, the traffic at the Holland tunnel and downtown would be unbearable on the weekends. It would reduce property values, and it would affect our hotels. Downtowners better get their pitch forks ready, because if this happens we all get f*cked.

Fulop was one of the first ones yelling about this, as was the Downtown council rep, Candice Osborne.

Whatever else you think of him, I have to ask the obvious rhetorical question: would Gov. Fulop be trying to cut PATH service?

elsquid wrote:
[quote]
greenville wrote:


Whatever else you think of him, I have to ask the obvious rhetorical question: would Gov. Fulop be trying to cut PATH service?

JCMan8 wrote:
Another possibility is Christie and Cuomo have no intention in letting this pass, but they condoned such an outrageous proposal so that there can be a big fight about it and they finally relent in the end. Leading to everyone cheering but the passage of no meaningful reform.

Remember, Christie and Cuomo have a history of this. It was revealed that they secretly asked the Port Authority to ask for completely outrageous toll hikes, so they could look like heroes by fighting and lowering the toll hikes. While nice theater, it screwed the average citizen, who now has to pay $14 to drive into the City.

Sommerman wrote:
Quote:

user1111 wrote:
Quote:

Sommerman wrote:
Mightn't this put the kibosh on a casino?

The casino was proposed to be in GV which is no where near a PATH train, so most people would most likely drive there, if this should even happen.

user, I was assuming that some of the tourists that come to NYC would visit and would need the PATH to cross the river.