Register now !    Login  
Main Menu
Who's Online
29 user(s) are online (16 user(s) are browsing Message Forum)

Members: 0
Guests: 29

more...




Browsing this Thread:   1 Anonymous Users




(1) 2 3 »


Re: Port Authority To Jersey City - Drop Dead
#73
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined :
2015/5/28 0:34
Last Login :
Yesterday 17:03
From Jersey City
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 911
Offline
Quote:

Dolomiti wrote:

Quote:
PATH is just grossly mismanaged.

So are a ton of those Chinatown bus lines. What's your point?

You do realize that the fantasy of tearing apart PA ultimately won't change anything, yes? No matter what, someone needs to manage the bridges and tunnels; it's going to be an interstate agency; it's going to be in charge of billions in revenues; accountability is always going to be tough. And if any governor decides to use it as a patronage giveaway instead of a responsible agency, it's going to be poorly run.


John Degnan, is that you? Hahaha. I'm all for exploiting a man-made crisis until policy is changed to get better results. So for now, it looks like the winners in all this are the developers that are using PATH to increase the value of their land and forcing the Port Authority to absorb the ridership demands caused by new development, at a loss, and expensive capital improvements to increase capacity.

I hope they continue to make a bundle until PATH looks to Asia and other well run systems to improve efficiency. A 41 percent farebox recovery ratio on a system as small and as packed as PATH is pathetic.

PA should lease PATH to MTA or New Jersey Transit for a $1a year and sell air rights at Journal Square and elsewhere along the lines. PA can also Trump local zoning, so they have a huge advantage for profit potential over local developers.

Until this is implemented, let the clusterf*ck continue! The private developers will continue to rape.

Posted on: 2016/6/7 20:04
Top


Re: Port Authority To Jersey City - Drop Dead
#72
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined :
2011/11/30 12:46
Last Login :
2017/8/3 1:06
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 1776
Offline
Quote:

caj11 wrote:
Quote:

WhoElseCouldIBe wrote:
Quote:

moobycow wrote:
Quote:



And how would they do that? (Outside of blatant fraud)

You realize the PATH is audited by KPMG, right?


Something like new station is a PATH expense (potentially), when there is actually a very large RE component.


Do you understand the accounting concept of depreciation on facilities?

They can't just expense the cost of facilities/fixed assets all at once. They must be depreciated over the long term.


PATH supposedly has a farebox recovery ratio of 41% as compared with London's 92% and over 100% for Hong Kong and Tokyo. This is supposedly fare revenue divided by total operating expenses, so I don't think it would include depreciation on the new WTC station (nor would the revenue portion include any money the aforementioned systems get from real estate deals). It probably would, however, include things like maintenance, upkeep and security for the station, and then other costs like Port Authority police salaries for police that aren't patrolling the PATH system 100% of the time could get unfairly charged as a PATH expense. There is always the opportunity for manipulating the numbers in this context, even with the KPMG audit. That said, 41% is still rather pitiful given the volume of riders, frequency of service and the fact that fares have been raised so many times over the last few years. I recall another thread on here some time ago about how high the window washers and other maintenance works on PATH get paid, along with generous pensions. No doubt that cuts the recovery ratio down.


So your issue is with the magnitude of PATH's costs.. not the accounting treatment. Maintenance and salaries should be expensed in the current period instead of amortized over a longer time.

That being said, PATH's salaries and pension costs seem way too high.

Posted on: 2016/6/7 19:12
Top


Re: Port Authority To Jersey City - Drop Dead
#71
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined :
2008/10/19 1:18
Last Login :
6/20 11:43
From somewhere else
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 1577
Offline
Quote:

Dolomiti wrote:

My guess is that current management hates JC, because:
• Fulop is suing PA for not paying millions in taxes
• Fulop is gunning for gov, and if he's elected, then the friends of Christie are out of a job
• PATH loses money

Degnan likely sees Fulop as both a nuisance and a threat.


Regardless of who wins the next election, the friends of Christie are likely out of a job come Jan. 2018. Christie is term limited.

Posted on: 2016/6/7 18:06
Top


Re: Port Authority To Jersey City - Drop Dead
#70
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined :
2007/10/1 1:03
Last Login :
Yesterday 23:39
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 1180
Offline
Quote:

WhoElseCouldIBe wrote:
Quote:

moobycow wrote:
Quote:



And how would they do that? (Outside of blatant fraud)

You realize the PATH is audited by KPMG, right?


Something like new station is a PATH expense (potentially), when there is actually a very large RE component.


Do you understand the accounting concept of depreciation on facilities?

They can't just expense the cost of facilities/fixed assets all at once. They must be depreciated over the long term.


PATH supposedly has a farebox recovery ratio of 41% as compared with London's 92% and over 100% for Hong Kong and Tokyo. This is supposedly fare revenue divided by total operating expenses, so I don't think it would include depreciation on the new WTC station (nor would the revenue portion include any money the aforementioned systems get from real estate deals). It probably would, however, include things like maintenance, upkeep and security for the station, and then other costs like Port Authority police salaries for police that aren't patrolling the PATH system 100% of the time could get unfairly charged as a PATH expense. There is always the opportunity for manipulating the numbers in this context, even with the KPMG audit. That said, 41% is still rather pitiful given the volume of riders, frequency of service and the fact that fares have been raised so many times over the last few years. I recall another thread on here some time ago about how high the window washers and other maintenance works on PATH get paid, along with generous pensions. No doubt that cuts the recovery ratio down.

Posted on: 2016/6/7 17:23
Top


Re: Port Authority To Jersey City - Drop Dead
#69
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined :
2011/11/30 12:46
Last Login :
2017/8/3 1:06
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 1776
Offline
Quote:

moobycow wrote:
Quote:



And how would they do that? (Outside of blatant fraud)

You realize the PATH is audited by KPMG, right?


Something like new station is a PATH expense (potentially), when there is actually a very large RE component.


Do you understand the accounting concept of depreciation on facilities?

They can't just expense the cost of facilities/fixed assets all at once. They must be depreciated over the long term.

Posted on: 2016/6/7 16:11

Edited by WhoElseCouldIBe on 2016/6/7 16:27:55
Top


Re: Port Authority To Jersey City - Drop Dead
#68
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined :
2008/11/10 4:48
Last Login :
Today 4:01
From Chilltop, Chilltown
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 404
Offline
The issue isn't PA ineptitude (surprise), it's national transport policy. In parts of Asia, transit companies are also developers and landlords and capture profits from the developments and businesses that benefit from the transit service. That is why the Hong Kong transit company is profitable.

In the US we don't do that, at least not for the past 70 years. We separate transit operation from the development and land use. If we were in Hong Kong, PATH would be developing the condos in JC, and/or receiving money from KHovnanian and from Gotham West and from LeFrak. The developers would pay money to the transit operator for providing the transit service that makes their own developments valuable.

Instead, transit in the US is a public utility that relies on traditional public sector revenue streams to operate.

http://www.theatlantic.com/china/arch ... sportation-system/279528/

Posted on: 2016/6/7 15:55
Top


Re: Port Authority To Jersey City - Drop Dead
#67
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined :
2012/8/6 22:56
Last Login :
7/4 21:40
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 1021
Offline
Quote:

Bike_Lane wrote:
I'm not sure why everyone's giving the PA a hard time on this.

Because PA is...

• raking in craploads of revenues from tolls and airport fees
• notoriously unresponsive and uninformative to the public
• pretty high-handed with the public and local pols
• a political chew toy for the governors
• a scratching post for its ridership, for whom #FirstWorldProblems abound
• a big player in the hot mess known as WTC


Quote:
Why can we not do the same here for our transit system? Developers getting filthy rich by adding hundreds of new commuter colonies should contribute to a fund that finances transit improvements....

Sometimes that works, sometimes it doesn't. Funding for PA is pretty complex, as it tries to self-fund via tolls and airport fees. PA's involvement in development spectacularly backfired at WTC.

Abatements in JC do typically try to redirect funds. E.g. a big construction project at JSQ put in a huge sum designated to rebuild the Loew's Theater. (That money is now getting redirected, due to an unrelated political mess.)


Quote:
You can't expect the PA, which loses money on every train it runs to just throw away more money just to be a good pal and support the development feeding frenzy.

It loses money on the PATH, it makes money in other divisions.

It also has no choice but to do some of the upgrades in progress. E.g. they were required by federal law to upgrade all the switches to PTC.

My guess is that current management hates JC, because:
• Fulop is suing PA for not paying millions in taxes
• Fulop is gunning for gov, and if he's elected, then the friends of Christie are out of a job
• PATH loses money

Degnan likely sees Fulop as both a nuisance and a threat.

Posted on: 2016/6/7 15:54
Top


Re: Port Authority To Jersey City - Drop Dead
#66
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined :
2009/12/22 20:28
Last Login :
2017/11/7 17:48
From 8th st
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 730
Offline
Quote:



And how would they do that? (Outside of blatant fraud)

You realize the PATH is audited by KPMG, right?


Something like new station is a PATH expense (potentially), when there is actually a very large RE component.

Posted on: 2016/6/7 15:52
Top


Re: Port Authority To Jersey City - Drop Dead
#65
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined :
2012/8/6 22:56
Last Login :
7/4 21:40
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 1021
Offline
Quote:

JCGuys wrote:
Quote:

Private ownership of public transportation just doesn't work.


That's not true. H&M was a for-profit, privately built subway back in the day.

H&M did great... when governments were building tunnels and stations for it.

Once the Holland Tunnel opened, ridership declined, they went into bankruptcy, and limped on subsidized support for years. PA didn't want it, and refused to take ownership of itm until it was required to do so as part of the WTC construction compromise / pact with the devil.


Quote:
Look at the Jitney's

Jitneys do short hops to, wait for it... subsidized public transport stations. Impressive.

Meanwhile, private ferries are not making a killing, they're getting killed. When the WTC PATH was out for a few years, the ferry services had to expand; when the PATH re-opened, they were stuck with expensive infrastructure that they couldn't afford, and had to get bailed out.


Quote:
or public transportation systems in Asian countries are turning a profit.

Like what? Tokyo's subways, perhaps? You do understand that while in many respects that system is run well, it's also horrendously overcrowded during rush hour, to the point where the PATH today looks luxurious?

Resized Image

Resized Image

Resized Image


Quote:
PATH is just grossly mismanaged.

So are a ton of those Chinatown bus lines. What's your point?

You do realize that the fantasy of tearing apart PA ultimately won't change anything, yes? No matter what, someone needs to manage the bridges and tunnels; it's going to be an interstate agency; it's going to be in charge of billions in revenues; accountability is always going to be tough. And if any governor decides to use it as a patronage giveaway instead of a responsible agency, it's going to be poorly run.

Posted on: 2016/6/7 15:38
Top


Re: Port Authority To Jersey City - Drop Dead
#64
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined :
2011/11/30 12:46
Last Login :
2017/8/3 1:06
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 1776
Offline
Quote:

moobycow wrote:
Quote:

caj11 wrote:
Quote:

hero69 wrote:
want to go see crowded rush hour trains - go to hong kong, sao paolo, tokyo, london, shanghai, beijing, mexico city..stop whining and deal with it


At least Hong Kong and Tokyo trains get zero public subsidies and in fact turn a profit and London almost breaks even. The PATH, despite being packed to the gills during rush hour and pretty busy on weekends doesn't even recover half its costs. I have no idea about the other transit systems you mention.


I'm pretty sure the PA is using accounting tricks to move costs to the PATH and make it 'unprofitable'. It's pretty easy to allocate expenses where you want them allocated.


And how would they do that? (Outside of blatant fraud)

You realize the PATH is audited by KPMG, right?

Posted on: 2016/6/7 15:38
Top


Re: Port Authority To Jersey City - Drop Dead
#63
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined :
2009/12/22 20:28
Last Login :
2017/11/7 17:48
From 8th st
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 730
Offline
Quote:

caj11 wrote:
Quote:

hero69 wrote:
want to go see crowded rush hour trains - go to hong kong, sao paolo, tokyo, london, shanghai, beijing, mexico city..stop whining and deal with it


At least Hong Kong and Tokyo trains get zero public subsidies and in fact turn a profit and London almost breaks even. The PATH, despite being packed to the gills during rush hour and pretty busy on weekends doesn't even recover half its costs. I have no idea about the other transit systems you mention.


I'm pretty sure the PA is using accounting tricks to move costs to the PATH and make it 'unprofitable'. It's pretty easy to allocate expenses where you want them allocated.

Posted on: 2016/6/7 15:33
Top


Re: Port Authority To Jersey City - Drop Dead
#62
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined :
2015/5/28 0:34
Last Login :
Yesterday 17:03
From Jersey City
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 911
Offline
Quote:

Private ownership of public transportation just doesn't work.


That's not true. H&M was a for-profit, privately built subway back in the day. Look at the Jitney's or public transportation systems in Asian countries are turning a profit.

PATH is just grossly mismanaged.

Posted on: 2016/6/7 15:15
Top


Re: Port Authority To Jersey City - Drop Dead
#61
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined :
2012/8/6 22:56
Last Login :
7/4 21:40
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 1021
Offline
Quote:

borisp wrote:
Quote:

Dolomiti wrote:
Quote:

OneSkirt wrote:
JC Mayors and Planning have been way over-building without any planning for infrastructure growth and improvements.

As in, Jersey City is supposed to build a multi-billion dollar tunnel to NYC? All by its lonesome? C'mon, man.

Water, sewage, streets etc yes. Mass transit? No.


I'm confused. Could someone enlighten me - why some of you here believe that somebody else should pay for your convenience?

Because everyone benefits from that type of infrastructure. It's a public good, and (obviously) it crosses numerous political areas.

PATH is primarily a commuter line, meaning it provides benefits for residents along its route, and the businesses who hire those individuals. More people on mass transit means less vehicular congestion and far less pollution.

And in case you missed it: the PATH does not go from one part of JC to another. It goes through numerous municipalities and across state lines. It benefits a broad array of individuals, which means that the costs and responsibility should also be broadly distributed.


Quote:
Do you really think that people in the NJ area who want to commute to the NYC are the most downtrodden in the USA so much so that the whole country must subsidize their transportation needs?

Do you genuinely not understand that mass transportation is a public good?


Quote:
If not, - then let some private firm build it, and let them charge those who uses it.

Wow. Just... wow.

The original NYC subways AND the original PATH line were privately built, but that was only possible because government footed a lot of the bill. Despite that early boost, they basically all failed, and got bought out or taken over by various government agencies.

Private ownership of public transportation just doesn't work.

Posted on: 2016/6/7 15:03
Top


Re: Port Authority To Jersey City - Drop Dead
#60
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined :
2004/11/14 2:38
Last Login :
Yesterday 1:08
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 3634
Offline
Quote:

MikeyTBC wrote:
Quote:

brewster wrote:
What I don't understand is why the ferry service is so expensive. A ferry can be bought for the cost of one or 2 subway cars ($1.28 million each, cost of ferries) , and you don't need track, electric supply or signaling, just 2 docks. Ferry used to be the ONLY way to cross the Hudson, and I doubt it cost the equivalent of buying lunch a century ago. I can't find any data on historic ferry fares. But it is worth noting how NYC provides free ferry service to Staten I in order to promote it's economy. But the PA and the NJ governors could care less about the economy of Hudson County.

Interesting page History of Hudson Ferries


this is a great point.
why not fix up and open the newport ferry terminal and increase service?
i believe nj state nixed the idea of jersey city acquiring ny waterway - this was masybe 7 or 8 years ago

Posted on: 2016/6/7 15:01
Top


Re: Port Authority To Jersey City - Drop Dead
#59
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined :
2004/6/17 2:16
Last Login :
Yesterday 10:39
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 4811
Offline
The reason the Port Authority gets away with so many things, there are no activists attending their meetings. The late Morris Pesin, father of Liberty Park attended their meetings and kept the fare at thirty cents when the Park Authority tried to raised it to fifty cents for many years. He reminded the Port Authority that they made their money on the bridges. Morris said once it goes above thirty cents, they would continue to increase. By the way, there was great service at thirty cents. If you want accountability then attend their meetings, public officials are uncomfortable being questioned.

Posted on: 2016/6/7 14:58
Top


Re: Port Authority To Jersey City - Drop Dead
#58
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined :
2005/9/20 14:11
Last Login :
7/17 19:36
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 889
Offline
Quote:

brewster wrote:
What I don't understand is why the ferry service is so expensive. A ferry can be bought for the cost of one or 2 subway cars ($1.28 million each, cost of ferries) , and you don't need track, electric supply or signaling, just 2 docks. Ferry used to be the ONLY way to cross the Hudson, and I doubt it cost the equivalent of buying lunch a century ago. I can't find any data on historic ferry fares. But it is worth noting how NYC provides free ferry service to Staten I in order to promote it's economy. But the PA and the NJ governors could care less about the economy of Hudson County.

Interesting page History of Hudson Ferries


this is a great point.
why not fix up and open the newport ferry terminal and increase service?

Posted on: 2016/6/7 14:49
Top


Re: Port Authority To Jersey City - Drop Dead
#57
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined :
2004/11/14 2:38
Last Login :
Yesterday 1:08
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 3634
Offline
Quote:

TonyTwoPoops wrote:
Quote:

hero69 wrote:
Quote:

iGreg wrote:

Quote:

hero69 wrote:
want to go see crowded rush hour trains - go to hong kong, sao paolo, tokyo, london, shanghai, beijing, mexico city..stop whining and deal with it



Over 770 Million Indians and 329 Million Chinese people don't have a toilet in their home.. This means basically they shit outside in the street.. Just thought i would share that useless information with you..
really, is path overcrowding on par with not having a toilet?


No but it certainly provides you with an example of how pointless and stupid your analogy is.
if you say so, i was merely pointing out that PATH has someway to go before it reached maximum capacity.

Posted on: 2016/6/7 14:43
Top


Re: Port Authority To Jersey City - Drop Dead
#56
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined :
2014/8/25 19:18
Last Login :
2018/6/1 0:23
From the village
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 292
Offline
Quote:

hero69 wrote:
Quote:

iGreg wrote:

Quote:

hero69 wrote:
want to go see crowded rush hour trains - go to hong kong, sao paolo, tokyo, london, shanghai, beijing, mexico city..stop whining and deal with it



Over 770 Million Indians and 329 Million Chinese people don't have a toilet in their home.. This means basically they shit outside in the street.. Just thought i would share that useless information with you..
really, is path overcrowding on par with not having a toilet?


No but it certainly provides you with an example of how pointless and stupid your analogy is.

Posted on: 2016/6/7 14:40
Top


Re: Port Authority To Jersey City - Drop Dead
#55
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined :
2008/10/19 1:18
Last Login :
6/20 11:43
From somewhere else
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 1577
Offline
Quote:

bodhipooh wrote:
Quote:

JCSHEP wrote:
Here are two quick facts:
-1927: 113,141,729 riders
-2015: 76,565,452 riders

Seemed to work for years with more riders than now. What am I missing here?


This has been explained many times before... back then, factories used to run ALL DAY, with three or four shifts per day. As such, there was wide ridership spread out over the entire day. Nowadays, you have "rush hour" commutes.


Also, Newark was a much larger, more economically robust city in 1927 - there's a good chance that ridership wasn't as unidirectional as it is today.

Posted on: 2016/6/7 14:14
Top


Re: Port Authority To Jersey City - Drop Dead
#54
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined :
2013/1/23 19:44
Last Login :
7/15 16:59
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 308
Offline
Quote:

Dolomiti wrote:
Quote:

Monroe wrote:
Quote:

Dolomiti wrote:
Uh, yeah, I don't exactly see a "drop dead" in there. I see Degnan sniping at Fulop, who is already suing and bashing PA.

PA is obviously taking a lot of steps to expand both PATH service and Hudson crossings. These just aren't the kinds of things that can happen overnight -- especially when a now-absent governor killed a major tunnel project, and redirected those funds to projects that had nothing to do with PA.



Yes, postponing the tunnel will save NJ taxpayers billions of dollars, since the new project is equally shared between NY, NJ, and the Feds-with the added bonus that the money 'redirected' went to fix the Pulaski Skyway-which directly benefits Jersey City, which it traverses.

Please, spare us such utter bull.

Christie INCREASED the costs for EVERYONE when he killed the ARC. He didn't bother to talk to anyone about costs, he didn't try to negotiate, he just killed it because he wanted to build his conservative bona fides... for an election where he belly flopped.

And no, there is no excuse WHATSOEVER for redirecting funds to the Pulaski. No matter how badly it needed it, no matter how much I support fixing it, it was improperly funded and in a way that burned Christie with Congress for years.

You do realize that you're the last person in NJ who actually thinks Christie has done a tolerable job as gov, right?


well said, agree.

Posted on: 2016/6/7 14:14
Top


Re: Port Authority To Jersey City - Drop Dead
#53
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined :
2004/11/14 2:38
Last Login :
Yesterday 1:08
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 3634
Offline
Quote:

iGreg wrote:

Quote:

hero69 wrote:
want to go see crowded rush hour trains - go to hong kong, sao paolo, tokyo, london, shanghai, beijing, mexico city..stop whining and deal with it



Over 770 Million Indians and 329 Million Chinese people don't have a toilet in their home.. This means basically they shit outside in the street.. Just thought i would share that useless information with you..
really, is path overcrowding on par with not having a toilet?

Posted on: 2016/6/7 14:13
Top


Re: Port Authority To Jersey City - Drop Dead
#52
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined :
2011/11/30 12:46
Last Login :
2017/8/3 1:06
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 1776
Offline
Quote:

bodhipooh wrote:
Quote:

JCSHEP wrote:
Here are two quick facts:
-1927: 113,141,729 riders
-2015: 76,565,452 riders

Seemed to work for years with more riders than now. What am I missing here?


This has been explained many times before... back then, factories used to run ALL DAY, with three or four shifts per day. As such, there was wide ridership spread out over the entire day. Nowadays, you have "rush hour" commutes.


Seems to me that one solution will be having NYC companies offering up more flex schedules for employees. I get to Newport around 9-915 am and the PATH is not crowded at all. It's not an ideal scenario but it will help.

Posted on: 2016/6/7 13:54
Top


Re: Port Authority To Jersey City - Drop Dead
#51
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined :
2008/8/12 18:31
Last Login :
7/17 14:13
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 3744
Offline
Quote:

Azul_the_Cat wrote:
Quote:

brewster wrote:
What I don't understand is why the ferry service is so expensive.


I always thought it was because the ferries were not subsidized like the trains were. I could stomach a $5 ride (with bicycle included) for the ferries, if it meant riding my bike more.


Personally, I always thought it was simple greed. How else would you explain charging an extra dollar to bring onboard a bicycle!?

They now run weekend service for a reduced price ($4) that makes the ferry an attractive alternative on Saturdays and Sundays. Two years ago, when the ferry was price matching the PATH fare on weekends (subsidized by the PA, I believe, to make up for the loss of WTC service) the ferries were often riding full, or even stuffed to the gills. I am sure that if NYW lowered their prices, ridership would go up and the whole thing would be much more profitable.

Posted on: 2016/6/7 13:40
Top


Re: Port Authority To Jersey City - Drop Dead
#50
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined :
2009/3/19 15:20
Last Login :
7/10 16:42
From Scenic McGinley Square
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 671
Offline
Quote:

brewster wrote:
What I don't understand is why the ferry service is so expensive.


I always thought it was because the ferries were not subsidized like the trains were. I could stomach a $5 ride (with bicycle included) for the ferries, if it meant riding my bike more.

Posted on: 2016/6/7 13:01
I eat fu*king hipsters and sh*t out fixie bikes.
-J.Parow
Top


Re: Port Authority To Jersey City - Drop Dead
#49
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined :
2009/4/24 18:36
Last Login :
2017/6/16 17:37
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 221
Offline
Quote:

Monroe wrote:
@dolomiti, the cost overruns were always on NJ taxpayer backs-100%. Period. The best offer we ever got, even in the cooling off time to renegotiate, was some Federal low interest loans.

Bad deal, rightly squashed. The Tunnel to Macy's Basement didn't happen.


"Mr. Christie also misstated New Jersey’s share of the costs: he said the state would pay 70 percent of the project; the report found that New Jersey was paying 14.4 percent. 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."

Posted on: 2016/6/7 11:57
Top


Re: Port Authority To Jersey City - Drop Dead
#48
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined :
2010/8/17 1:45
Last Login :
4/21 11:12
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 3043
Offline
Quote:

borisp wrote:
...
I'm confused. Could someone enlighten me - why some of you here believe that somebody else should pay for your convenience? Do you really think that people in the NJ area who want to commute to the NYC are the most downtrodden in the USA so much so that the whole country must subsidize their transportation needs?

If not, - then let some private firm build it, and let them charge those who uses it.



+1

Commuters should pay. Subsidies should be limited to pretax programs like http://www.rideeco.org/ - and discounted fares for those on low-income.


Posted on: 2016/6/7 11:54
Top


Re: Port Authority To Jersey City - Drop Dead
#47
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined :
2013/5/15 14:11
Last Login :
7/16 19:38
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 4411
Offline
@dolomiti, the cost overruns were always on NJ taxpayer backs-100%. Period. The best offer we ever got, even in the cooling off time to renegotiate, was some Federal low interest loans.

Bad deal, rightly squashed. The Tunnel to Macy's Basement didn't happen.

Posted on: 2016/6/7 10:30
Top


Re: Port Authority To Jersey City - Drop Dead
#46
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined :
2015/4/15 3:56
Last Login :
3/11 14:10
From JC
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 933
Offline

Quote:

hero69 wrote:
want to go see crowded rush hour trains - go to hong kong, sao paolo, tokyo, london, shanghai, beijing, mexico city..stop whining and deal with it



Over 770 Million Indians and 329 Million Chinese people don't have a toilet in their home.. This means basically they shit outside in the street.. Just thought i would share that useless information with you..

Posted on: 2016/6/7 6:41
Top


Re: Port Authority To Jersey City - Drop Dead
#45
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined :
2004/11/14 2:38
Last Login :
Yesterday 1:08
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 3634
Offline
Quote:

third_street_hats wrote:
Quote:

hero69 wrote:
want to go see crowded rush hour trains - go to hong kong, sao paolo, tokyo, london, shanghai, beijing, mexico city..stop whining and deal with it


this argument boils down to, "it is worse there, so we should do nothing here." is that accurate to how you feel?
it boils down to get real. i often see wasted space on "crowded" path trains

Posted on: 2016/6/7 5:38
Top


Re: Port Authority To Jersey City - Drop Dead
#44
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined :
2008/11/10 4:48
Last Login :
Today 4:01
From Chilltop, Chilltown
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 404
Offline
I'm not sure why everyone's giving the PA a hard time on this.

In many parts of the country, if a developer wants to build housing or offices or something else he's going to make tens of millions of dollars on, the developer has to contribute to improvements to the roads, installing traffic signals, or other improvements to ensure that the traffic generated by his development doesn't paralyze the transportation system. Why can we not do the same here for our transit system? Developers getting filthy rich by adding hundreds of new commuter colonies should contribute to a fund that finances transit improvements. A $5000 per unit fee times 10,000 units would yield $50 million, which could do something (maybe just a small something) to help with the capacity problem. I doubt the city has engaged the PA in any of the city planning that has allowed these thousands of new units and just assumed the PATH would absorb it all. You can't expect the PA, which loses money on every train it runs to just throw away more money just to be a good pal and support the development feeding frenzy. It would be in the city's best interest to capture some of the value of this development and direct it to securing transit capacity if for no other reason than to protect the value of future development.

Posted on: 2016/6/7 3:53
Top




(1) 2 3 »




[Advanced Search]





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