Register now !    Login  
Main Menu
Who's Online
49 user(s) are online (45 user(s) are browsing Message Forum)

Members: 0
Guests: 49

more...


Forum Index


Board index » All Posts (JCGuys)




Re: Sweeney proposes slapping payroll tax on Jersey City businesses to fund schools
#91
Home away from home
Home away from home


Quote:

JSleeze wrote:
Quote:

JCGuys wrote:

The ones suffering in all this is the students and the shitty education they receive.


Case in point.


Keep in mind that this illegal tax does nothing to improve student education. It merely sustains that status quo.

Sometimes the only way to fix the system is to break it. I'm not even close to Republican but these tax and spend policies are a shame. Last in the state in extra circular activities and music, bottom of the barrel for performance. Top 10 in per capita spending. Something is wrong with this situation.

Give the $25,000 per capita to a charter.

Posted on: 2019/2/3 23:57
 Top 


Re: Sweeney proposes slapping payroll tax on Jersey City businesses to fund schools
#92
Home away from home
Home away from home


This tax is illegal, and JC schools are so poorly run that I wish we could import the school trustees from Lakeland so they would defund the school board.

The ones suffering in all this is the students and the shitty education they receive.


Posted on: 2019/2/3 16:32
 Top 


Re: PATH (pathetic attempt at transporting humans)
#93
Home away from home
Home away from home


Quote:

Bike_Lane wrote:
Quote:

JCBORN wrote:
what is the status of opening another path stop in the marion section? Is this still being considered?


The Port Authority does not want to build a station in Marion. City forced the Port Authority to study it as part of the legal settlement over back taxes. Study is supposed to be done sometime this year. I'd be shocked if it said anything other than "Marion station is not feasible in the near term due to (x, y, z reasons), so no further action will be taken."


You're probably right but all that's needed is a politically connected property owner and POOF there it appears.

Posted on: 2019/1/25 6:25
 Top 


Re: Jersey City fighting $2.7M court award over Journal Square property
#94
Home away from home
Home away from home


Quote:

bodhipooh wrote:
Quote:

JCGuys wrote:
Another week and another legal defeat for Jersey City. Next Mayoral election, I'm voting for the candidate that won't continue pissing away valuable tax dollars on legal fees fighting lost causes.


This is sad news. I do believe the mayor's heart and intentions are in the right place, but there has to be a better way to go about these things. It seems like JC has been on the losing end of too many recent court cases.

Take politics out of the process and do what is best for residents. It seems from the details of the case that the entire argument of the city was "well, even though it was a deposit towards future charges once you opened, we already spent the money, we don't want to give it back, nor are we able to do so."


It's the politics. For example, the Mayor should have never fought the prior reval company. They should have just paid for work preformed and call it a day. Instead, thousands had to be spent on legal fees using a tactic that would make Trump blush. I wish the courts would have award tens of millions in punitive damages against the city so we would learn not to weaponize the legal system and be fair. There is also the robinhood property where the developer is alleging the city is dragging their feet after being order by a prior court case to grant approval. The city never learns.

Posted on: 2019/1/24 18:58
 Top 


Re: Jersey City fighting $2.7M court award over Journal Square property
#95
Home away from home
Home away from home


Quote:

Chris_NJ wrote:
Is this property cursed? Will anything ever happen there? I remember when the previous structures were finally demolished in like 2005 thinking that something would finally be built.


Yup. It's cursed. I can even predict the future by looking at the past: There will be another owner proposing a new twin tower development in 5 years, even taller than the last iteration It will gain planning board approval and a tax abatement. Site will be cleared, maybe even excavated. Then something will happen (economic crash) and it will remain vacant for another generation. Mark my words it will occur, unfortunately.


Posted on: 2019/1/24 18:54
 Top 


Re: Jersey City fighting $2.7M court award over Journal Square property
#96
Home away from home
Home away from home


Another week and another legal defeat for Jersey City. Next Mayoral election, I'm voting for the candidate that won't continue pissing away valuable tax dollars on legal fees fighting lost causes.

Posted on: 2019/1/24 11:25
 Top 


Re: New Jersey-New York area lost 5,700 millionaires in 2018
#97
Home away from home
Home away from home







Quote:

brewster wrote:
Quote:

Dolomiti wrote:
The same research entity ("Wealth-X" -- who?) also indicated that NYC alone had nearly 1 million millionaires.


Yes, being a millionaire is not nearly as impressive as it once was. All it takes is having bought a nice house or apartment 20 or 30 years ago. Remember laughing at Dr Evil demanding a million dollars ransom? And that was quite some time ago.

Posted on: 2019/1/24 3:40
 Top 


Re: New Jersey-New York area lost 5,700 millionaires in 2018
#98
Home away from home
Home away from home


Quote:

Monroe wrote:
The top 1% of NJ taxpayers pay 43% of NJ income taxes.


I guess that number will be going down as the top 1 percenters come to their senses and move to a tax friendly state. Haha!!

What was the number before that billionaire hedge fund guy moved to Florida.

Posted on: 2019/1/22 23:51
 Top 


Re: New Jersey-New York area lost 5,700 millionaires in 2018
#99
Home away from home
Home away from home


Quote:

bodhipooh wrote:
Not at all surprising. They better have good record-keeping, though! NYC (and NYS) are notoriously aggressive in pursuing millionaires who meet (or, exceed) the 183-days threshold that triggers residency. If memory serves me right, some CT billionaire ended up getting dinged (but later prevailed in appeal) when his private jet landed in LGA late at night on a Sunday, instead of past midnight on a Sunday, pushing him over the limit.

That one day difference could have resulted in him having to pay several millions more in taxes to NYC/NYS. It is no wonder so many ultra wealthy people are fleeing the area, especially now.


Funny!


Posted on: 2019/1/22 18:07
 Top 


Re: NJ TRANSIT does not own bus stops, nor does NJ TRANSIT shovel snow at bus stops.
Home away from home
Home away from home


Cities have no problem issuing a citation to a homeowner if the snow isnt cleared in the allotted time. Maybe NJ should use its hammer and impose a fine in each instance a bus stop isn't cleared when the city is responsible.

Posted on: 2019/1/21 3:42
 Top 


Re: NJ TRANSIT does not own bus stops, nor does NJ TRANSIT shovel snow at bus stops.
Home away from home
Home away from home


Quote:

bodhipooh wrote:
Quote:

JCGuys wrote:
They're right though. This is a city issue and they are skirting on their responsibility.


Just because something might be right, it doesn?t make it correct.

The sole purpose of NJ Transit is to provide transportation solutions to NJ residents. They can?t do this if the infrastructure to do so is buried in snow. Instead of throwing their hands up in the air and exclaiming ?... nor does NJ TRANSIT shovel snow at bus stops. Keep the phone number of the local municipality handy in order to request a bus stop to be shoveled.? they could be proactive about the situation and, as part of the job of route supervisors that do spot checks along bus routes, those same clipboard toting supervisors could call the appropriate city or county agency that can help clear or shovel a particular stop. Heck, drivers themselves could make a notation of inaccesible stops and turn that in after completing their runs for someone to call theight agency.


This sounds reasonable to me. But let's take it a step further. Bring in the heavy hand of the state to order municiaplities to maintain NJ Transit stops. Right now if NJ transit called a municipality about the bus stops, I'm not sure if they will respond in a reasonable amount of time.

Also, why should NJ transit be calling hundreds of municipalities about the bus stops. Local citizens should do their part instead of relying on a transit agency to make the calls.

I dont disagree with anything you said though.

Posted on: 2019/1/20 21:31
 Top 


Re: NJ TRANSIT does not own bus stops, nor does NJ TRANSIT shovel snow at bus stops.
Home away from home
Home away from home


They're right though. This is a city issue and they are skirting on their responsibility.

Posted on: 2019/1/20 0:35
 Top 


Re: Would MTA be a better operator for PATH? And other ideas...
Home away from home
Home away from home


Quote:

brewster wrote:
Quote:

T-Bird wrote:
to think "fitness freaks" are the only audience for a pedestrian/bike bridge misses the mark and to me is another symptom of the chronic obesity that plagues our country. Walking a mile and a half several times a week is the bare minimum of activity an adult should be getting.


I'll just note that there are plenty of people for which a greater than 10 minute walk to the subway or PATH takes a neighborhood out of consideration for them.


T-Bird, I agree with you but this is unrealistic when considering the harsh and cold winters.

PATH needs another tunnel. Period. I heard a crazy idea of converting two lanes in the Lincoln Tunnel for a new PATH line to midtown. The car nuts would never let it happen of course, but it would be one way to increase transit capacity without spending the $10 billion for a tunnel.

Posted on: 2019/1/17 0:00
 Top 


Re: A new N.J. bar’s dress code was called racist. The owner says it was ‘an oversight.’
Home away from home
Home away from home


Quote:

On_The_3rd wrote:
If the dress code for The Ashford is anything like Surf City, it's more sexist than racist. 90% of the clothing items they describe are typically worn by men. There's no mention of skirts too short, heels too high, or clothing too revealing. They are trying to keep certain kinds of men out, but have no objection to letting any kind of woman in. If you're comfortable supporting businesses with these kinds of bro-douche policies that aim to keep male attendance low and female attendance high, then have at it.


Reminds me of a bar in college... Cover was $20 for men. But for women it was AYCD (All You Can Drink) for free. It's where you went if you wanted to get laid that night.

Posted on: 2019/1/16 23:55
 Top 


Re: A new N.J. bar’s dress code was called racist. The owner says it was ‘an oversight.’
Home away from home
Home away from home


It's not so much the rules but selective enforcement to keep blacks out. A simple business casual required (collar shirt, dress shoes required) would have done the trick if they were serious about the dress code.

Why anyone would patronage that spot now is beyond me.
The dress code they posted is some pretentious shit, racist or not.

Per Yelp, the food probably isn't even that good.

Posted on: 2019/1/16 23:52
 Top 


Re: Old plans for PATH station
Home away from home
Home away from home


Quote:

yesandno wrote:
I came upon this article about the Hoboken station from 2005...sounds like at the time they were going full speed ahead with plans at the time to fancy up the station with stores and whatnot. There really is a lot of huge space there that's not being used as far as I know. I wonder what happened?

https://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/21/rea ... -of-hoboken-terminal.html


It's still very much an active plan.

(I would not want to build in Hoboken because they're all sorts of hoops they make developers jump through then they change their hearts last minute to deny or slow approval. Although NJ Transit is immune from local zoning, they've been playing nice with Hoboken, trying to come to an amendable agreement for political reasons. Personally, I wish the legislature would pass a law ordering NJ Transit to tell Hoboken to flick off and develop the lands to the highest and best use so the revenue can go towards improving NJ Transit. The land is too valuable to the economic health of New Jersey to be pussyfooting with a fiefdom.)

Sept. 2018 updates:
https://www.politico.com/states/new-je ... oboken-development-622562
https://betterwaterfront.org/?p=5023

Websites:
http://www.hobokenterminalandrailyard.com/
http://www.hobokennj.org/docs/communi ... ent-Plan-October-2014.pdf


Posted on: 2019/1/14 4:43
 Top 


Re: Would MTA be a better operator for PATH? And other ideas...
Home away from home
Home away from home


Quote:

brewster wrote:
Quote:

hero69 wrote:
maybe a cable car across the hudson could be made to make sense

http://www.bbc.com/future/gallery/201 ... se-of-the-urban-cable-car


That was very interesting. I guess it's viability depends on the numbers, but it still faces the "eyesore" hurdle and land use issues. I'm impressed that "One line in the Bolivian capital La Paz carries up to 65,000 people every 24 hours". That would be about half the capacity of the WTC PATH line, nothing to sneeze at, and a Hudson crossing would probably be a tourist draw on the order of the London Eye. What would be fascinating would be to have it multi-station, like Lincoln Park to McGinley Sq to Exchange Place to BPC.

Something is perplexing me about the numbers here https://www.panynj.gov/path/pdf/2017-P ... thly-Ridership-Report.pdf. It appears only 80% of the people who arrive in Manhattan by PATH leave by PATH. The ridership is quite asymmetric. What can account for this? Fare evasion in on the NJ side? It seems unlikely that 20% of riders who arrive by PATH would exit by NJT bus or train.


The answer is not everyone heads to Manhattan. There are a lot of folks that get on in Journal Square going to Newark.

Posted on: 2019/1/14 4:31
 Top 


Re: JC Council to Vote on Canceling Two Abatement Deals for Non Compliance
Home away from home
Home away from home


Quote:

terrencemcd wrote:
Quote:

JCGuys wrote:
One last thought - did the city give advance warning to the developer that they were failing to meet the conditions of the tax abatement? Was the developer given an opportunity for due process or an opportunity to correct deficiencies with the tax abatement while the building was under construction.


The tax abatement agreement says if the city warns of default, the developer has 30 days to fix the problem. There is the opportunity for a default.

The city issued the default on Oct. 23. 30 days later was Nov. 22.

The developer's lawyer last night claimed they didn't know until Dec. 17 about the potential revocation of the abatement, so he claims the 30-day period is still happening.


Thanks Terrence!

Posted on: 2019/1/11 1:53
 Top 


Re: JC Council to Vote on Canceling Two Abatement Deals for Non Compliance
Home away from home
Home away from home


One last thought - did the city give advance warning to the developer that they were failing to meet the conditions of the tax abatement? Was the developer given an opportunity for due process or an opportunity to correct deficiencies with the tax abatement while the building was under construction.

Bad process can kill a legal case. Just saying...

Posted on: 2019/1/11 0:42
 Top 


Re: Would MTA be a better operator for PATH? And other ideas...
Home away from home
Home away from home


Quote:

Toonces wrote:
If walking is really an option people are seriously suggesting, how about using the upper portion of the Holland Tunnel? Now, I don't know what sort of infrastucture is in there, but the tunnel itself is round - yet when you're driving, the visible "ceiling" of the tunnel is apparently 8-10 feet below the top of the circle (demonstrated, in part, by this picture taken during construction). Seems to me there's plenty of room above the roadway for a pedestrian/bike path.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/67827566@N00/11639849305


I feel claustrophobic just looking at that photo.

Posted on: 2019/1/11 0:13
 Top 


Re: JC Council to Vote on Canceling Two Abatement Deals for Non Compliance
Home away from home
Home away from home


Quote:

bodhipooh wrote:
One can only hope the city administration (and the council) have done their due diligence and ensured this move to rescind the abatement is within the stipulated terms of the contract, including timeframes for claims, etc.

The last few lawsuits brought against the city have resulted in monetary losses in the form of punitive fees, including having to pay the legal fees of plaintiffs.

I am in favor of the city holding developers to their commitments, but I am definitely not cool with the city grandstanding for PR purposes, only to leave the citizens holding the bag in the end.


Every news article I've read in the past two years about legal action against the city were about the city losing the lawsuit, especially when it comes to property and development issues.

We have the reval x 2 (the contractor hired to do the old one and against the state), the robinhood property, One Journal Square's record request, 16 Perrine "arbitrary and capricious" denial, etc...

I don't fault legal consul as they are obligated to inform when there is a weak or strong case. I fault the pols for playing politics with taxpayer's money.

I'm far from an attorney, but trying to define what constitutes "a good faith attempt" to hire locally and to legally prove that the developer failed to do so seems like an uphill battle for the city. Let's be honest - a good faith attempt is wishy washy language. Put in a hard requirement: "a minimum of 40% of the construction workers must be residents of Jersey City." That would be much easier to define and to verify compliance or noncompliance.

Bookmark this thread. bodhipooh is right. This will be another lawsuit where the city is overruled on appeal and the developer is entitled for repayment of taxes plus interest and punitive damages.

Also, is the city monitoring all developer agreements that contain the good faith attempt language to hire locally... because if it's selective enforcement or they are holding this developer to a higher standard than other developers...

The one owns who really make money in this state are the lawyers.

Posted on: 2019/1/11 0:11

Edited by JCGuys on 2019/1/11 0:38:59
 Top 


Re: JC Council to Vote on Canceling Two Abatement Deals for Non Compliance
Home away from home
Home away from home


Quote:

jc_dweller wrote:
Quote:

JCGuys wrote:
Quote:
At this point, the City has granted ZERO market rate tax abatements (anywhere in the city) for nearly two years! So our plan is working and we should all be proud.


Is this a true statement? If one unit is 'affordable' in a 500 unit building, does the building cease to be "market rate" and thus eligible for an abatement?


I believe that units are granted abatement, not buildings. So if there was a 500 unit building with 1 affordable unit, he's saying that 499 units were not abated. The other one may have been.


This makes sense for condo units, but I wasn't aware that rental properties could have some units abated and others not.

A 500-unit rental building would show up as a single-parcel on the tax roll. A 500-unit condo would show up as 501 parcels (the units plus the condo association common area).

Posted on: 2019/1/10 23:46
 Top 


Re: Would MTA be a better operator for PATH? And other ideas...
Home away from home
Home away from home


The only thing the Port Authority knows how to do well is raise fares, so, right or wrong, my demand pricing suggestion is the most likely thing to happen. :D

The problem is the Port Authority will just raise fares for all times if given the opportunity, not just during peak periods, with the extra funds being pissed away.

Posted on: 2019/1/9 3:57
 Top 


Re: Would MTA be a better operator for PATH? And other ideas...
Home away from home
Home away from home


The Bayonne Bridge is being raised to 215 feet to allow for taller ships to pass. The article states this fantasy proposal to be a 200ft, so it should accommodate most tall ships. Since it's pure fantasy, I'm sure they could just increase it to 215ft or taller if warranted.

Quote:

hero69 wrote:
would this pedestrian bridge be high enough for big ships to pass underQuote:

JCGuys wrote:
Quote:

bodhipooh wrote:
Quote:

Dolomiti wrote:
Quote:

bodhipooh wrote:
Quote:

brewster wrote:
Quote:

ConstantReader wrote:
1) During rush hour, run fewer trains on the 33rd-Hoboken schedule and make up the difference with more 33rd-JSQ trains. The Hoboken trains on the 33rd St. line are significantly less crowded than their JSQ equivalents.

As I understand it, the problem is traffic and signalling in tunnels, not a shortage of rolling stock.

Dolomiti, are you just trying to tweak me with the bridge comment knowing it drives me nuts? Of all the stupid ideas, it's the stupidest. Even if it was doable (it's not) there's probably no lower return on transportation investment than allowing the relatively few people who live downtown and work in Lower Manhattan AND are inclined to walk or bike to do so.


And, inclined to walk ~30 minutes just to cross that hypothetical bridge.

And yet, thousands of people do exactly that, every day, with the Manhattan and Brooklyn Bridges.


Quote:
There are no pedestrian bridges in the world with that kind of length for very good reason.

Try again.

Big Dam Bridge is 1.28km; Bob Kerrey Bridge is 940m; Nescio is 740m. Those are all relatively new bridges.

It's not common, but that alone does not prove it's a bad idea. E.g. almost no transit systems in the US use open gangway cars; does that, in and of itself, prove that it's a bad idea?


The width of the Hudson is twice that of the East River where all three bridges (Williamsburg, Manhattan, and Brooklyn) are located. You are comparing apples to oranges.

A bridge from DTJC to Lower Manhattan would be over 1.25 to 1.5 miles, at a minimum. None of the examples you mention are nowhere near that. Try again.

Very few people commute via the Brooklyn. It is estimated that 4,000 people cross it every day. Take away the sizable amount of visitors/tourists, and the number that is actually commuting to/from work is very small. About 2.5K cyclists cross it every day. Even under the best/rosiest of estimates, you have 5,000 commuters crossing the Brooklyn bridge every day. That's about 5 - 7 PATH trains, or 30 minutes of added rush hour service.

If you want to see a more efficient method to add capacity, at least suggest cable cars/gondolas. That could be a much more effective solution than the idiocy that is a pedestrian bridge over the Hudson.


Let's say this thing was somehow built at a billion dollars* or less. It will probably have no impact to reduce PATH overcrowding. It may even attract more people to PATH as a shitload of tourists will use the system to get off at exchange place or WTC to then walk/bike/rollerskate over the Hudson to Manhattan... The billion dollars or whatever is actually spent on the 1.5 mile pedestrian bridge could probably serve more people by doing transit investments.

Resized Image
Resized Image

*Let's be real. This is New Jersey and the real cost will probably be $5 billion plus.

Quote:

Resized Image

The proposal is a 5,000-foot-long, 200-foot-high bridge that would allow pedestrians and cyclists to avoid the circuitous, increasingly crowded, and frequently frustrating PATH trains. The conceptual two-level span features paths for walking and biking, sweeping views, greenery and seating. The design also includes cafes, retail spaces, solar panels, artwork and free WiFi. The idea is to originate at the abandoned Pennsylvania Railway Embankment in downtown Jersey City, gradually increase in height, and terminate at a higher elevation in Manhattan, with elevators, stairs and ramps to reach the ground.

From NextCity: https://nextcity.org/daily/entry/desig ... w-jersey-to-new-york-city

Posted on: 2019/1/9 3:53
 Top 


Re: Would MTA be a better operator for PATH? And other ideas...
Home away from home
Home away from home


Quote:

bodhipooh wrote:
Quote:

Dolomiti wrote:
Quote:

bodhipooh wrote:
Quote:

brewster wrote:
Quote:

ConstantReader wrote:
1) During rush hour, run fewer trains on the 33rd-Hoboken schedule and make up the difference with more 33rd-JSQ trains. The Hoboken trains on the 33rd St. line are significantly less crowded than their JSQ equivalents.

As I understand it, the problem is traffic and signalling in tunnels, not a shortage of rolling stock.

Dolomiti, are you just trying to tweak me with the bridge comment knowing it drives me nuts? Of all the stupid ideas, it's the stupidest. Even if it was doable (it's not) there's probably no lower return on transportation investment than allowing the relatively few people who live downtown and work in Lower Manhattan AND are inclined to walk or bike to do so.


And, inclined to walk ~30 minutes just to cross that hypothetical bridge.

And yet, thousands of people do exactly that, every day, with the Manhattan and Brooklyn Bridges.


Quote:
There are no pedestrian bridges in the world with that kind of length for very good reason.

Try again.

Big Dam Bridge is 1.28km; Bob Kerrey Bridge is 940m; Nescio is 740m. Those are all relatively new bridges.

It's not common, but that alone does not prove it's a bad idea. E.g. almost no transit systems in the US use open gangway cars; does that, in and of itself, prove that it's a bad idea?


The width of the Hudson is twice that of the East River where all three bridges (Williamsburg, Manhattan, and Brooklyn) are located. You are comparing apples to oranges.

A bridge from DTJC to Lower Manhattan would be over 1.25 to 1.5 miles, at a minimum. None of the examples you mention are nowhere near that. Try again.

Very few people commute via the Brooklyn. It is estimated that 4,000 people cross it every day. Take away the sizable amount of visitors/tourists, and the number that is actually commuting to/from work is very small. About 2.5K cyclists cross it every day. Even under the best/rosiest of estimates, you have 5,000 commuters crossing the Brooklyn bridge every day. That's about 5 - 7 PATH trains, or 30 minutes of added rush hour service.

If you want to see a more efficient method to add capacity, at least suggest cable cars/gondolas. That could be a much more effective solution than the idiocy that is a pedestrian bridge over the Hudson.


Let's say this thing was somehow built at a billion dollars* or less. It will probably have no impact to reduce PATH overcrowding. It may even attract more people to PATH as a shitload of tourists will use the system to get off at exchange place or WTC to then walk/bike/rollerskate over the Hudson to Manhattan... The billion dollars or whatever is actually spent on the 1.5 mile pedestrian bridge could probably serve more people by doing transit investments.

Resized Image
Resized Image

*Let's be real. This is New Jersey and the real cost will probably be $5 billion plus.

Quote:

Resized Image

The proposal is a 5,000-foot-long, 200-foot-high bridge that would allow pedestrians and cyclists to avoid the circuitous, increasingly crowded, and frequently frustrating PATH trains. The conceptual two-level span features paths for walking and biking, sweeping views, greenery and seating. The design also includes cafes, retail spaces, solar panels, artwork and free WiFi. The idea is to originate at the abandoned Pennsylvania Railway Embankment in downtown Jersey City, gradually increase in height, and terminate at a higher elevation in Manhattan, with elevators, stairs and ramps to reach the ground.

From NextCity: https://nextcity.org/daily/entry/desig ... w-jersey-to-new-york-city

Posted on: 2019/1/9 1:08
 Top 


Re: Would MTA be a better operator for PATH? And other ideas...
Home away from home
Home away from home


Quote:

Dolomiti wrote:
Quote:

JCGuys wrote:
So far I've heard lots of defense of the status quo and no solutions being offered. I propose a solution. It gets shot down. Nothing proposed in it's place. It's this 'it is what it is' mentality why we can't have nice things.

The system is at a breaking point.

Alrighty then

First, we should also note that the PATH train is nowhere near a "breaking point." (Again, let us know when PA hires subway pushers.) One of the reasons the PATH has a big deficit is because PA is already spending money to expand capacity, with new switches and (eventually) 10-car trains.


How many more daily riders is needed until we hit that breaking point? We're already at 300,000 a day. Would another 10, 20, 30,000+ get us there? Whatever that number is, it's coming soon due to development at Newark, Harrison and Jersey City.

Quote:

Another option occasionally mentioned here is using open gangway cars. I don't know if regulations allow that, but it would provide numerous benefits, including expanded capacity and better distribution of passengers on partially crowded trains.

I love this idea and other metro systems have demonstrated that it works well. The problem is the Port Authority would need to place an order for the open gangway cars to replace the current rolling stock. Since this isn't even on the radar for now, it's probably not happening within our lifetimes (or maybe it will for yours if you're really, really young). I hope I'm wrong about this point because it's a fantastic idea.


Quote:

However, even the most brilliant ideas to expand capacity on the existing lines probably can't outrun population growth. (I would discuss induced demand, but I think developers will keep building in JC, Harrison and Newark no matter what.)


Agreed!

Quote:
Eventually, the region will require a major expansion of infrastructure. I for one am a fan of building a pedestrian/bicycle bridge across the Hudson....

While I appreciate your input to brainstorm better ideas for transhudson crossings, it's rich to call out my demand pricing suggestion for peak hours while proposing something that will cost billions and has an extremely minimal chance of being built. If it ever is built by some miracle of God, I would love to walk/bike across it though!!

Posted on: 2019/1/9 1:06
 Top 


Re: Would MTA be a better operator for PATH? And other ideas...
Home away from home
Home away from home


Quote:

bodhipooh wrote:
Quote:

JCGuys wrote:
Quote:

jc_dweller wrote:
I pretty much universally support demand pricing for cars, but the whole point in the metro area is to get people NOT to use their cars. So punishing them for using PATH seems self-destructive. Even if the effort is to get people to shift schedules, it's still discouraging people from using transit.


The car isn't a viable choice. Driving into Manhattan is crazy, reserved for the likes of Yvonne. There is no (cheap) parking and the tunnels are near gridlocked. Transit is the only way to go and that will become even more obvious in 10 or 20 years. The thousands of apartments under construction in Journal Square, Harrison and Newark will be the breaking point for both PATH and the tunnels.


I think you are getting the value/cost analysis all wrong. Obviously, lots of people choose to drive, as evidenced by the very gridlock you reference. I personally know a bunch of people who choose to drive into the city, instead of dealing with mass transit. If you do it right, it can be the same, or less, to drive, particularly if you do so with another person (or two) and split the costs. Heck, I myself often choose driving over mass transit, but there are factors that favor my doing so (I can commute on a motorcycle, which means I am able to find free on street parking, and I am also able to adjust my commuting times to avoid the usual crush from 7:00 to 9:00) but other people (like couples who both work in the city) can choose to drive and break even, without the hassle of the packed trains and things like inclement weather.


Roads are a nightmare during inclement weather. If you're coming from and going to the immediate areas serviced by PATH, I don't see how driving is an alternative unless someone just wants to waste money and enjoys traffic.

Door to door Journal Square to my office at WTC area was 35 minutes and $2.75. Driving would push 45 minutes on a good day along with cost of cost parking + tolls + gas + maintenance + depreciation + expected value probability some ahole got into an accident with me. People who drive fail to account for the true economic costs of driving.

I can see uber/lyft being an alternative, depending on where you're heading in NYC if 2 or 3 people use it. No need to worry about parking so it's really just the fare and tolls split 2 or 3 ways. But if you're heading from Journal Square to WTC area - there is no cost reasonable substitute to PATH. Your situation with the motorcycle, allowing you to pay less for gas, less for tolls, traveling the roads at less busy times, and being able to find free parking is an extremely unique case.

Posted on: 2019/1/9 0:56
 Top 


Re: JC Council to Vote on Canceling Two Abatement Deals for Non Compliance
Home away from home
Home away from home


Quote:
At this point, the City has granted ZERO market rate tax abatements (anywhere in the city) for nearly two years! So our plan is working and we should all be proud.


Is this a true statement? If one unit is 'affordable' in a 500 unit building, does the building cease to be "market rate" and thus eligible for an abatement?

Posted on: 2019/1/9 0:31
 Top 


Re: Would MTA be a better operator for PATH? And other ideas...
Home away from home
Home away from home


So far I've heard lots of defense of the status quo and no solutions being offered. I propose a solution. It gets shot down. Nothing proposed in it's place. It's this 'it is what it is' mentality why we can't have nice things.

The system is at a breaking point.

Posted on: 2019/1/7 16:31
 Top 


Re: Would MTA be a better operator for PATH? And other ideas...
Home away from home
Home away from home


Quote:

jc_dweller wrote:
I pretty much universally support demand pricing for cars, but the whole point in the metro area is to get people NOT to use their cars. So punishing them for using PATH seems self-destructive. Even if the effort is to get people to shift schedules, it's still discouraging people from using transit.


The car isn't a viable choice. Driving into Manhattan is crazy, reserved for the likes of Yvonne. There is no (cheap) parking and the tunnels are near gridlocked. Transit is the only way to go and that will become even more obvious in 10 or 20 years. The thousands of apartments under construction in Journal Square, Harrison and Newark will be the breaking point for both PATH and the tunnels.

Posted on: 2019/1/7 16:26
 Top 



TopTop
« 1 2 3 (4) 5 6 7 ... 33 »






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