Register now !    Login  
Main Menu
Who's Online
55 user(s) are online (47 user(s) are browsing Message Forum)

Members: 0
Guests: 55

more...




Browsing this Thread:   1 Anonymous Users




(1) 2 »


Re: Petition to reconsider Pulaski Skyway closure
#48
Quite a regular
Quite a regular


Hide User information
Joined:
2008/12/30 23:10
Last Login :
2014/12/5 15:04
From Harsimus Cove
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 55
Offline
The Harsimus Cove Assocaiton was satisfied with neither the location nor the time of the public hearing regarding the closing of the Pulaski Skyway's inbound lanes for two years while the span is repaired. We wrote a letter to Assemblyman Ruben Ramos who represents the 33rd District and also sits on the Transportation, Public Works and Independent Authorities committee. We have asked for another hearing.

http://www.harsimuscove.org/news/pulaski-skyway-hearing

http://www.harsimuscove.org/sites/def ... ay%20Closure%20Appeal.pdf

Posted on: 2013/4/22 0:06
 Top 


Re: Jersey City officials challenge state plan to shut NYC-bound lanes of Skyway
#47
Just can't stay away
Just can't stay away


Hide User information
Joined:
2011/4/13 4:53
Last Login :
2014/1/28 0:17
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 83
Offline
We have to fix the skyway, no question. But the traffic problems is going to be a major headache, since there just are not many alternatives, and no GOOD alternatives.

Maximize the bandwidth on the bridge. It seems like a good idea to have the bridge open one way, but reversible so that max traffic can go INBOUND towards the Holland Tunnel in the mornings, and OUTBOUND in the afternoon and evening. Carpool/ridership requirements are also ok.

Public education. Make sure that people know the alternatives, and that you do your worrying ahead of time, not 2 days before you close the thing.

Heavy enforcement, especially as new traffic patterns start, and occasionally to prevent slippage.

Posted on: 2013/3/4 16:42
 Top 


Re: Jersey City officials challenge state plan to shut NYC-bound lanes of Skyway
#46
Quite a regular
Quite a regular


Hide User information
Joined:
2010/8/30 4:10
Last Login :
2015/3/1 3:20
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 44
Offline
I have a bad feeling it was an appeasement and not really a meeting. But I did like the idea of requiring carpooling during the construction period. instead of a full closure.

Posted on: 2013/3/3 4:39
 Top 


Re: Jersey City officials challenge state plan to shut NYC-bound lanes of Skyway
#45
Quite a regular
Quite a regular


Hide User information
Joined:
2013/2/9 22:11
Last Login :
2014/1/2 18:35
From Journal Square
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 53
Offline
Was there any outcome of the meetings?

Posted on: 2013/3/3 1:16
Follow the yellow brick road.
 Top 


Re: Jersey City officials challenge state plan to shut NYC-bound lanes of Skyway
#44
Quite a regular
Quite a regular


Hide User information
Joined:
2013/1/9 16:16
Last Login :
2013/6/11 5:14
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 55
Offline
Quote:

The meeting, held at a Hudson County Community College facility in Union City, was sparsely attended, with fewer than a dozen members of the public on hand.


These guys are incapable of managing anything. The only reason there were hearings was because of public pressure led by Steve Fulop and his petition with over 1500 signatures.

NJ DOT has always said their concern about interim plans is directed at rush hours commuting. So what do these geniuses do? Schedule the hearing closest to the bridge at a time when rush hours commuters are at work. I would have been there except for this inconvenient thing I have called a job.

But they did schedule an evening session. Where you might ask? In Union City, so that Chris Christie's best friend could bring his troops to praise the governor.

I don't know what's the best solution to this mess. I would like to hear consideration of a reversible one-way path, so that in the mornings you have two lanes open inbound to NY, and in the afternoons two lanes outbound.

But the hearings seem like a joke, like NJ DOT's whole approach to the public. In the end they'll do exactly what they planned to do before us poor citizens inconvenienced them by asking for some consideration.

Posted on: 2013/3/1 14:42
 Top 


Re: Jersey City officials challenge state plan to shut NYC-bound lanes of Skyway
#43
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2005/7/13 15:03
Last Login :
6/6 21:12
From Western Slope
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 4421
Offline
Quote:
Were the at-large council persons in attendance along with the mayor and ward E councilman ?

Posted on: 2013/3/1 14:09
Get on your bikes and ride !
 Top 


Jersey City officials challenge state plan to shut NYC-bound lanes of Skyway
#42
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2012/1/11 18:21
Last Login :
2019/12/26 15:30
From GV Bayside Park
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 4954
Offline

Posted on: 2013/3/1 13:26
 Top 


Re: Petition to reconsider Pulaski Skyway closure
#41
Just can't stay away
Just can't stay away


Hide User information
Joined:
2013/2/24 20:45
Last Login :
2014/8/23 19:32
From hamilton park
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 135
Offline
brewster wrote:
"I'll just bite off one piece of this turd. It's pure idiocy to create pressure to use public transport when the trans hudson rails are already strained far beyond capacity. It's like turning up the flame high under a boiler with no exhaust valve. Do it the other way around, create capacity THEN create pressure to use it!"
"turd" "idiocy"
Why do you have to be so mean and hurtful. No one has talked to me like that since grammar school. FYI: I was bullied in grammar school.
My plan has other components than just public transportation. There is a car pooling.
What is your solution/recommendation? I am interested in having a respectful discourse but I don't appreciate being treated so harshly.
Peace, Arcy

Posted on: 2013/2/25 1:22
 Top 


Re: Petition to reconsider Pulaski Skyway closure
#40
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2004/11/6 21:13
Last Login :
2021/4/5 17:57
From Hamilton Park
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 5557
Offline
I'll just bite off one piece of this turd. It's pure idiocy to create pressure to use public transport when the trans hudson rails are already strained far beyond capacity. It's like turning up the flame high under a boiler with no exhaust valve. Do it the other way around, create capacity THEN create pressure to use it!
Quote:

arcy wrote:
Wow! This thread is so refreshing. I appreciate reading people's awareness of the need to repair the Pulaski (ala Minnesota Bridge circa summer 2007) and Christie's destruction of the Arc tunnel (although I hear there are explorations for a new tunnel (won't be done until after the Pulaski Skyway closure).
Why I support the northbound closure of the Pulaski Skyway.
I support the closure of the Pulaski skyway.
The Pulaski skyway is in need of drastic repair. I support the DOT's decision. In fact, they should fix it immediately instead of waiting for the Super Bowl.
NJ needs to stop being so dependent on cars and fossil fuels. If anything, we learned from Sandy that we need more sustainable alternatives immediately (like yesterday).
Here is are some idea:
1. Discounted parking at Newark/Secaucus train stations, bus stops and Bergen Co. light rail stations for car-poolers from the suburbs
2. Additional trains (How about an ARC tunnel? Oh, Christie squashed that idea).
3. Shuttles/buses from suburbs and local areas who normally commute over Pulaski Skyway.
4. Limiting alternate thoroughfare to emergency, buses and car pools.
5. Increasing tolls at Holland and Lincoln tunnel to $20 for single passengers and giving a hearty discount for car pools (the current $3).
6. Raise the New Jersey Gas tax. Our state has the lowest gas tax.
7. Hire DOT workers and NOT consultants. DOT workers actually cost less than consultants.
8. Possibly shutting the Pulaski skyway down to vehicles forever and making it a park/bicycle pathway.
The "keep the Pulaski Skyway Open" drum beat, is reactionary and not very progressive. We need innovative solution-oriented measures for the future. We need to expand public transportation and stop relying on foreign oil.
(full disclosure: I have the Pulaski Skyway tattooed on my arm so I think I have authority on this subject :) ).

Posted on: 2013/2/25 0:57
 Top 


Re: Petition to reconsider Pulaski Skyway closure
#39
Just can't stay away
Just can't stay away


Hide User information
Joined:
2013/2/24 20:45
Last Login :
2014/8/23 19:32
From hamilton park
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 135
Offline
Wow! This thread is so refreshing. I appreciate reading people's awareness of the need to repair the Pulaski (ala Minnesota Bridge circa summer 2007) and Christie's destruction of the Arc tunnel (although I hear there are explorations for a new tunnel (won't be done until after the Pulaski Skyway closure).
Why I support the northbound closure of the Pulaski Skyway.
I support the closure of the Pulaski skyway.
The Pulaski skyway is in need of drastic repair. I support the DOT's decision. In fact, they should fix it immediately instead of waiting for the Super Bowl.
NJ needs to stop being so dependent on cars and fossil fuels. If anything, we learned from Sandy that we need more sustainable alternatives immediately (like yesterday).
Here is are some idea:
1. Discounted parking at Newark/Secaucus train stations, bus stops and Bergen Co. light rail stations for car-poolers from the suburbs
2. Additional trains (How about an ARC tunnel? Oh, Christie squashed that idea).
3. Shuttles/buses from suburbs and local areas who normally commute over Pulaski Skyway.
4. Limiting alternate thoroughfare to emergency, buses and car pools.
5. Increasing tolls at Holland and Lincoln tunnel to $20 for single passengers and giving a hearty discount for car pools (the current $3).
6. Raise the New Jersey Gas tax. Our state has the lowest gas tax.
7. Hire DOT workers and NOT consultants. DOT workers actually cost less than consultants.
8. Possibly shutting the Pulaski skyway down to vehicles forever and making it a park/bicycle pathway.
The "keep the Pulaski Skyway Open" drum beat, is reactionary and not very progressive. We need innovative solution-oriented measures for the future. We need to expand public transportation and stop relying on foreign oil.
(full disclosure: I have the Pulaski Skyway tattooed on my arm so I think I have authority on this subject :) ).

Posted on: 2013/2/24 23:43
 Top 


Re: Petition to reconsider Pulaski Skyway closure
#38
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2012/2/20 18:20
Last Login :
6/23 22:54
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 2710
Offline
State Assembly Transportation Committee to hold special hearing on planned Pulaski Skyway closure; move comes after petition drive

Feb 24, 2013
Hudson Reporter

HUDSON COUNTY ? The Assembly Transportation Committee will hold a special hearing on Thursday, Feb. 28 in Union City to discuss state Department of Transportation (DOT) plans to close the northbound lanes of the Pulaski Skyway for two years beginning in 2014 while the roadway is reconstructed.

The hearing will begin at 9:30 a.m. at Hudson County Community College, North Hudson Higher Education Center, 4800 Kennedy Boulevard, Union City.

The committee has invited the DOT commissioner and other experts on transportation matters in the state to testify regarding the repair and rehabilitation of the Pulaski Skyway and other issues concerning the DOT. The committee will also hear from members of the public who wish to testify on the issue.

?For commuters in my district and the surrounding areas, this will undoubtedly create major headaches,? said Assembly Transportation Committee member Ruben J. Ramos Jr. (D-Hudson). ?It?s imperative that the state lay out a clear plan for alternate options for commuters and what impact this will have on those alternate routes as well.? Jersey City Councilman Steven Fulop welcomed the news that the Assembly Transportation Committee will hold a public hearing in Hudson County. Fulop organized an online petition drive that garnered approximately 1,400 signatures from residents who expressed concern that the closure of the Skyway will create major traffic problems on the streets of Jersey City.

?I want to thank the 1,400 Jersey City residents who signed our petition demanded to have Legislative hearings in Jersey City on the closure of the Pulaski Skyway,? Fulop said. ?I look forward to testifying and hearing from other residents about how the closure will impact their lives and their businesses.?

Fulop said he understands the need to repair the aging elevated roadway so that it meets today?s safety standards, but believes a better solution can be found than the one proposed by the DOT.

?I am confident we can come up with a way to minimize impact to Jersey City while repairing the Pulaski Skyway,? Fulop added.

Opened in 1932, the Pulaski Skyway that carries Route 1 and 9 traffic over the Hackensack and Passaic rivers between Jersey City and Newark. The bridge handles nearly 70,000 crossings per day.

Read more: Hudson Reporter - State Assembly Transportation Committee to hold special hearing on planned Pulaski Skyway closure move comes after petition drive

http://hudsonreporter.com/view/full_s ... e=up_to_the_minute_jersey

Posted on: 2013/2/24 22:55
 Top 


Re: Petition to reconsider Pulaski Skyway closure
#37
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2004/11/8 3:36
Last Login :
2020/5/9 11:15
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 930
Offline
Quote:

williepnewton wrote:
"One of the four-lane expressways that feed into the Holland Tunnel, the Pulaski Skyway, is nearing the end of its life. This expensive steel structure has contributed to the destruction of the sensitive Hackensack Meadowlands since 1932. Naturally, there is a plan to rebuild the structure, and lots of rehabilitation in the meantime. Remember the ARC Tunnel that Chris Christie killed? $1.8 billion of the money is paying for that rehabilitation.

Some people like the way the Skyway looks - from a distance, or from the inside of a moving car, at least. I admit that it has a certain beauty to it. But its function is destructive. If there were some way to turn it into a dedicated busway, that might be nice, but I don't get the impression it would work. If we like the look, let's keep a small piece of it up somewhere for posterity's sake, but don't hold people's lives hostage to aesthetics.

In sum, we're diverting more than a billion dollars from critical transit improvements to maintain a road that blasts 30,000 cars a day (yes, only cars) into one of the densest, most walkable business districts in the country. If this thing were towering over a neighborhood instead of a swamp, it would definitely be on the CNU's list. Is it any less deserving of a teardown because it only saturates the area with cars?"


http://capntransit.blogspot.com/2012/ ... ay-different-freeway.html


I'm sure you'd love to get rid of a major roadway and watch the 30,000+ cars filling the streets of your neighborhood going to the Holland Tunnel. Removing a major roadway doesn't automatically eliminate the traffic.

Posted on: 2013/2/13 0:41
 Top 


Re: Petition to reconsider Pulaski Skyway closure
#36
Newbie
Newbie


Hide User information
Joined:
2011/10/6 15:27
Last Login :
2013/2/21 19:34
From Jersey City
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 15
Offline
"One of the four-lane expressways that feed into the Holland Tunnel, the Pulaski Skyway, is nearing the end of its life. This expensive steel structure has contributed to the destruction of the sensitive Hackensack Meadowlands since 1932. Naturally, there is a plan to rebuild the structure, and lots of rehabilitation in the meantime. Remember the ARC Tunnel that Chris Christie killed? $1.8 billion of the money is paying for that rehabilitation.

Some people like the way the Skyway looks - from a distance, or from the inside of a moving car, at least. I admit that it has a certain beauty to it. But its function is destructive. If there were some way to turn it into a dedicated busway, that might be nice, but I don't get the impression it would work. If we like the look, let's keep a small piece of it up somewhere for posterity's sake, but don't hold people's lives hostage to aesthetics.

In sum, we're diverting more than a billion dollars from critical transit improvements to maintain a road that blasts 30,000 cars a day (yes, only cars) into one of the densest, most walkable business districts in the country. If this thing were towering over a neighborhood instead of a swamp, it would definitely be on the CNU's list. Is it any less deserving of a teardown because it only saturates the area with cars?"


http://capntransit.blogspot.com/2012/ ... ay-different-freeway.html

Posted on: 2013/2/12 17:10
 Top 


Re: Pulsaki Skyway Closure=Higher Tolls for JC Residents
#35
Not too shy to talk
Not too shy to talk


Hide User information
Joined:
2012/11/5 19:41
Last Login :
2014/6/19 0:39
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 33
Offline
easy, just like it does in staten island. if your ez-pass is registered to a qualifying address, i.e. in JC, etc. you pay a lower toll.

Quote:

H-Parker wrote:
Quote:

GrovePath wrote:


Quote:

jimmythesaint1 wrote:
i am a reverse commuter...can we start a petition to implement reduced toll rates for jc residents similar to what staten island has for its residents relative to the bridge tolls out there?


I like that idea -- higher tolls should not be for reverse commuters on the turnpike! I also think they should limit all autos allowed to turn into or out of the Holland Tunnel from surface streets like Marin to JC register only.



How would that work?

Posted on: 2013/2/4 19:58
 Top 


Re: Pulsaki Skyway Closure=Higher Tolls for JC Residents
#34
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2013/1/15 19:31
Last Login :
2013/7/1 17:12
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 154
Offline
Quote:

GrovePath wrote:


Quote:

jimmythesaint1 wrote:
i am a reverse commuter...can we start a petition to implement reduced toll rates for jc residents similar to what staten island has for its residents relative to the bridge tolls out there?


I like that idea -- higher tolls should not be for reverse commuters on the turnpike! I also think they should limit all autos allowed to turn into or out of the Holland Tunnel from surface streets like Marin to JC register only.



How would that work?

Posted on: 2013/2/2 21:09
 Top 


Re: Petition to reconsider Pulaski Skyway closure
#33
Newbie
Newbie


Hide User information
Joined:
2012/9/17 0:12
Last Login :
2013/3/11 18:23
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 11
Offline
I've seen other major closures work well, but only when planned in advance with lots of public input and notice. Given the limited number of highways to get from Newark to JC, this plan isn't ready for prime time.

Posted on: 2013/2/2 12:51
 Top 


Re: Petition to reconsider Pulaski Skyway closure
#32
Just can't stay away
Just can't stay away


Hide User information
Joined:
2012/11/15 14:55
Last Login :
2016/6/6 21:33
Group:
Banned
Posts: 106
Offline
This is going to be awful, but the alternative is having that POS fall out of the sky one day.

Posted on: 2013/2/1 22:23
 Top 


Re: Petition to reconsider Pulaski Skyway closure
#31
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2006/4/10 13:29
Last Login :
6/15 16:59
From Mars
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 2634
Offline
If the biggest complaint people have is over tolls, suck it up. Mass transit riding taxpayers have been subsidizing your "free" roads for decades. Just because there is no toll, that doesn't mean there isn't maintenance costs and capital costs.

Posted on: 2013/2/1 20:27
 Top 


Re: Pulsaki Skyway Closure=Higher Tolls for JC Residents
#30
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2004/9/15 19:03
Last Login :
2020/8/25 18:25
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 9079
Offline


Quote:

jimmythesaint1 wrote:
i am a reverse commuter...can we start a petition to implement reduced toll rates for jc residents similar to what staten island has for its residents relative to the bridge tolls out there?


I like that idea -- higher tolls should not be for reverse commuters on the turnpike! I also think they should limit all autos allowed to turn into or out of the Holland Tunnel from surface streets like Marin to JC register only.

Posted on: 2013/2/1 19:40
 Top 


Re: Pulsaki Skyway Closure=Higher Tolls for JC Residents
#29
Not too shy to talk
Not too shy to talk


Hide User information
Joined:
2012/11/5 19:41
Last Login :
2014/6/19 0:39
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 33
Offline
because it is longer/out of the way and the toll is much higher.

Quote:

brewster wrote:
Quote:

jimmythesaint1 wrote:
gotcha. however, i'm coming up the NJTP. is there a way to get to the covered roadway after getting off at 13A?


Wouldn't you want to get off at 15w to take rt 7?

Posted on: 2013/2/1 17:59
 Top 


Re: Petition to reconsider Pulaski Skyway closure
#28
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2010/11/17 1:11
Last Login :
1/28 19:30
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 1182
Offline
Quote:

jcboyz wrote:
IT HAS TO BE DONE!! JUST ADD A SHOULDER OTHERWISE ITS ALL A WASTE OF TIME!
Not sure if you've been on the Skyway, but you can't just add a shoulder to that thing.

Posted on: 2013/2/1 15:27
 Top 


Re: Petition to reconsider Pulaski Skyway closure
#27
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2010/7/9 11:16
Last Login :
6/23 1:34
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 2510
Offline
Quote:

jcboyz wrote:
IT HAS TO BE DONE!! JUST ADD A SHOULDER OTHERWISE ITS ALL A WASTE OF TIME!


That won't happen... The Skyway really needs to be replaced, but the Transportation Trust Fund is broke. The governor and legislature has been raiding the fund to cover general revenues for years.

Posted on: 2013/2/1 14:12
 Top 


Re: Petition to reconsider Pulaski Skyway closure
#26
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2009/5/18 21:22
Last Login :
2014/1/7 17:35
Group:
Banned
Posts: 209
Offline
IT HAS TO BE DONE!! JUST ADD A SHOULDER OTHERWISE ITS ALL A WASTE OF TIME!

Posted on: 2013/2/1 13:45
 Top 


Re: Pulsaki Skyway Closure=Higher Tolls for JC Residents
#25
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2007/9/1 14:14
Last Login :
2021/3/15 20:01
From Downtown - H.P. area
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 452
Offline
I have exactly the same commute; to Edison. 1&9 Truck is not going to be a good option. The local side of 1&9 is already always backed up around Newark exits. Now it's going to be even worse. I think the only other alternative to 14C might be 15E, but it's not great and it puts you in West Side by Rt 440.

Quote:

jimmythesaint1 wrote:
i am a reverse commuter. i live downtown and travel to central jersey for work everyday. i enter/exit the NJTP at 13A and take the pulaski every morning/evening in order to avoid the ridiculous toll at 14C. (13A toll isn't much better). when the pulaski closes i'll be pretty much forced to take 14C/78 and pay the riducuous toll that is intended for NYC commuters/tourists. anyone in the same position? can we start a petition to implement reduced toll rates for jc residents similar to what staten island has for its residents relative to the bridge tolls out there?

Posted on: 2013/2/1 13:34
 Top 


Re: Pulsaki Skyway Closure=Higher Tolls for JC Residents
#24
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2010/10/18 18:59
Last Login :
2020/12/23 21:08
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 536
Offline
YOu are right... Rte 7 to 280 West.

Posted on: 2013/1/31 23:42
 Top 


Re: Pulsaki Skyway Closure=Higher Tolls for JC Residents
#23
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2004/11/6 21:13
Last Login :
2021/4/5 17:57
From Hamilton Park
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 5557
Offline
Quote:

jimmythesaint1 wrote:
gotcha. however, i'm coming up the NJTP. is there a way to get to the covered roadway after getting off at 13A?


Wouldn't you want to get off at 15w to take rt 7?

Posted on: 2013/1/31 22:36
 Top 


Re: Petition to reconsider Pulaski Skyway closure
#22
Quite a regular
Quite a regular


Hide User information
Joined:
2010/3/25 13:40
Last Login :
2017/11/21 19:53
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 48
Offline
Opposition growing to state plan to close Pulaski Skyway lanes

By Terrence T. McDonald/The Jersey Journal, updated January 31, 2013




Opposition is growing to the state Department of Transportation's plan to close northbound lanes on the Pulaski Skyway for two years starting in 2014.


Assemblyman Ruben Ramos, of Hoboken, announced today that he wants a special legislative hearing in Hudson County to discuss the proposed closure, which the DOT has said is the most cost-effective way to make improvements to the 80-year-old roadway.


Jersey City officials are also getting involved. Ward E Councilman Steve Fulop, who is running for mayor in the May 14 city election, urged his supporters to sign a petition seeking alternatives to the DOT's plan.


Shutting down the northbound lanes on the Skyway, which connects Newark and Jersey City and is used by more than 30,000 drivers daily, would create a "traffic nightmare" in the region, Fulop said in a statement.


"I firmly support repairs on the Pulaski Skyway to ensure our aging overpass meets today's safety standards," Fulop said. "However, I am concerned that suspending all northbound traffic on the Skyway will negatively impact Jersey City's roads and residents, especially in the event of an unfortunate emergency," Fulop said.


When DOT officials on Jan. 22 announced the closure, set to begin next February the Super Bowl, they said that some alternatives for drivers include the NJ Turnpike Extension, Route 3, the Lincoln Tunnel, and the George Washington Bridge.


Shutting down the northbound lanes will help save the state an estimated $216 million and four years of work, DOT officials said. The Skyway renovation is expected to cost $355 million, they said.


Hudson County businesses are also concerned, according to Hudson County Chamber of Commerce President Maria Nieves. Shop owners are worried about their employees getting to work on time, and about possible shoppers skipping Hudson County altogether to avoid traffic related to the Skyway closure, Nieves said.


"One of my concerns is there didn't appear to be any type of economic-impact study done prior to this decision," she said. "Nor did there seem to be any outreach with the community here."

Posted on: 2013/1/31 22:19
 Top 


Re: Pulsaki Skyway Closure=Higher Tolls for JC Residents
#21
Not too shy to talk
Not too shy to talk


Hide User information
Joined:
2012/11/5 19:41
Last Login :
2014/6/19 0:39
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 33
Offline
gotcha. however, i'm coming up the NJTP. is there a way to get to the covered roadway after getting off at 13A?

Quote:

ianmac47 wrote:
Quote:

jimmythesaint1 wrote:
i'm not sure why you think the closure will somehow make the evening in-bound JC commute easier? all routes inbound are congested at night now, subtract one of them and the rest all get more congested.

Quote:

ianmac47 wrote:
The traffic is going to be permanently outbound for the duration of the closure. This is not a problem for Jersey City residents.

If you have a reverse commute -- out in the morning, in at night -- traffic volume is too low to cause a problem. In fact it might make the return commute easier because fewer cars are pouring into the covered roadway.

If for some reason you commute out at night, this doesn't change anything because two lanes will remain open, outbound.


Relatively to outbound evening rush, there are very few inbound cars. Also, if you take route 7 to the covered roadway but don't have any traffic coming off the Pulaski, then the 6 lanes that pour into the covered roadway or reduced to 4.

Posted on: 2013/1/31 21:45
 Top 


Re: Petition to reconsider Pulaski Skyway closure
#20
Newbie
Newbie


Hide User information
Joined:
2013/1/31 21:32
Last Login :
2016/1/27 3:40
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 2
Offline
A travel disaster in the making. They need to think this one through again.

Posted on: 2013/1/31 21:38
 Top 


Re: Pulsaki Skyway Closure=Higher Tolls for JC Residents
#19
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2006/4/10 13:29
Last Login :
6/15 16:59
From Mars
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 2634
Offline
Quote:

jimmythesaint1 wrote:
i'm not sure why you think the closure will somehow make the evening in-bound JC commute easier? all routes inbound are congested at night now, subtract one of them and the rest all get more congested.

Quote:

ianmac47 wrote:
The traffic is going to be permanently outbound for the duration of the closure. This is not a problem for Jersey City residents.

If you have a reverse commute -- out in the morning, in at night -- traffic volume is too low to cause a problem. In fact it might make the return commute easier because fewer cars are pouring into the covered roadway.

If for some reason you commute out at night, this doesn't change anything because two lanes will remain open, outbound.


Relatively to outbound evening rush, there are very few inbound cars. Also, if you take route 7 to the covered roadway but don't have any traffic coming off the Pulaski, then the 6 lanes that pour into the covered roadway or reduced to 4.

Posted on: 2013/1/31 21:05
 Top 




(1) 2 »




[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