ARC Tunnel - Revisited (Again)

Thomas wrote:

Tommy Meehan wrote:New York's MTA also made it plain way-back-when that with ESA and the SAS it had no funds to make available. In other words, they were tapped out.

So then realistically speaking, how do fund future trans-hudson capacity expansions?

This federal government program plus similar in the private sector?

http://www.telework.gov/Guidance_and_Le ... index.aspx

Isn't Gateway going to the be on the same ARC alignment from Swift until the Tunnel Portals?

*pokes bear*

http://www.nj.com/opinion/index.ssf/201 ... orial.html

I agree ARC was flawed but nothing in that article isn't true. Doesn't seem like we're any closer to more capacity than before and no one has a concrete plan on how to fix it. Some sort of plan B should have been introduced by now.

* In 2012, the feds’ Government Accountability Office reported that Christie’s cost-overrun claims were exaggerated. The nonpartisan office also refuted his oft-repeated claim that New Jersey would have been responsible for all of those overruns – one of the governor’s primary arguments for pulling out of the project.

Really? Oh yes, government projects always come in on or close to budget. Right. If the feds were so sure it wouldn't have been a big cost overrun, they should have guaranteed the excess rather than leave it dangling over NJ taxpayers. I have little/no faith in govt budgeting. This isn't just a "NJ" project (albeit NJ commuters benefit the most). This is the national conduit for Amtrak from all points West/South of NY (not counting the West/North routes, I know). This should have been a fully federal project with minor contributions from NJ or, at the very least, a fixed-cost to NJ that would have guaranteed any overrides would not fall on NJ taxpayers.

Okay, that's my two cents.
Anyone can disagree. But sitting atop the finance world I see private vs public budgets way too much to believe the GAO's refutations...

BigDell wrote:

* In 2012, the feds’ Government Accountability Office reported that Christie’s cost-overrun claims were exaggerated. The nonpartisan office also refuted his oft-repeated claim that New Jersey would have been responsible for all of those overruns – one of the governor’s primary arguments for pulling out of the project.

Really? Oh yes, government projects always come in on or close to budget. Right. If the feds were so sure it wouldn't have been a big cost overrun, they should have guaranteed the excess rather than leave it dangling over NJ taxpayers. I have little/no faith in govt budgeting. This isn't just a "NJ" project (albeit NJ commuters benefit the most). This is the national conduit for Amtrak from all points West/South of NY (not counting the West/North routes, I know). This should have been a fully federal project with minor contributions from NJ or, at the very least, a fixed-cost to NJ that would have guaranteed any overrides would not fall on NJ taxpayers.

Okay, that's my two cents.
Anyone can disagree. But sitting atop the finance world I see private vs public budgets way too much to believe the GAO's refutations...

ARC would have made minimal impact on Amtrak operations particularly since NJT was planning to stuff the new station with additional service from other areas. While I wasn't a fan of ARC, let's call what Gov Christie did what it actually is: a money grab.

He did not leave the money intact for NJ's portion of a new tunnel nor did anyone at the Port Authority roll back the toll increases that were implemented to pay for ARC.

That was his primary concern. I wish Lahood would have called his bluff and said the feds would eat the overruns.

BigDell wrote:

* In 2012, the feds’ Government Accountability Office reported that Christie’s cost-overrun claims were exaggerated. The nonpartisan office also refuted his oft-repeated claim that New Jersey would have been responsible for all of those overruns – one of the governor’s primary arguments for pulling out of the project.

...This isn't just a "NJ" project (albeit NJ commuters benefit the most). This is the national conduit for Amtrak from all points West/South of NY (not counting the West/North routes, I know). This should have been a fully federal project with minor contributions from NJ or, at the very least, a fixed-cost to NJ that would have guaranteed any overrides would not fall on NJ taxpayers...

ARC was most definitely a New Jersey project. New Jersey wanted to control it -- and they did -- with the right to design it and have veto power over the design. They got that. Why should it have been a fully federal project with New Jersey making only minor contributions. New York State is largely financing the ESA and SAS projects; New York State isn't complaining.

The GAO also disputes the notion New Jersey would've been solely responsible for any cost overruns. Should the U.S. have guaranteed any overruns? With New Jersey having control of the project that doesn't sound like a smart idea. IIRC New Jersey and US DOT could have negotiated a formula for paying cost overruns but Christie rejected that.

I understand why Christie (and others) didn't like the project. The problem is, I don't think adding cross-Hudson rail capacity is a big priority with Christie and I think in the long term that's going to be bad for the Garden State. We're already seeing that. The Christie Administration is supporting construction of thousands of housing units in new 'transit villages,' many located along the NEC. NJ Transit does not now have the capacity to move thousands of additional commuters into or out of Penn Station at rush hour and won't have the capacity for many years.

This is from a document released by NJ DOT four months ago.

The New Jersey Department of Transportation (NJDOT) and NJ TRANSIT spearhead a multi-agency Smart Growth partnership known as the Transit Village Initiative. The Transit Village Initiative creates incentives for municipalities to redevelop or revitalize the areas around transit stations using design standards of transit-oriented development (TOD)....Studies have shown that adding residential housing options within walking distance of a transit facility; typically a one-half mile radius, increases transit ridership more than any other type of development. Therefore, one of the goals of the Transit Village Initiative is to bring more housing, businesses and people into the neighborhoods around transit stations. Link

Phase break (Brake a you phase)
http://www.northjersey.com/news/nj-tran ... -1.1114198" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Unbelievable!

Honesty is the best policy?????

This is what chris christy stuck NJT with. At least if he had saved some of the tunnel money, this site could be remediated and preserved for tunnel use no problem. Now who knows.... bothers the hell out of me, that's one thing I DO know.

25Hz wrote:This is what chris christy stuck NJT with. At least if he had saved some of the tunnel money, this site could be remediated and preserved for tunnel use no problem. Now who knows.... bothers the hell out of me, that's one thing I DO know.

Hudson County juries are revered by the plaintiffs' trial bar for being extraordinary generous in giving away other people's money, that of the taxpayers in this instance.

Maybe the jurors just like being in good health.

I thought one interesting comment in the Carmine Franco article was this:

Meanwhile the surrounding neighborhood was experiencing a transformation. Thanks partly to NJ Transit’s light rail trains, which pass immediately north of the site, the area has exploded in recent years with new luxury condominiums and apartment buildings.

Something opponents often overlook when claiming transit or commuter projects "cost too much." The new lines or routes often trigger lots of development which produces lots of property taxes.

Tommy Meehan wrote:I thought one interesting comment in the Carmine Franco article was this:

Meanwhile the surrounding neighborhood was experiencing a transformation. Thanks partly to NJ Transit’s light rail trains, which pass immediately north of the site, the area has exploded in recent years with new luxury condominiums and apartment buildings.

Something opponents often overlook when claiming transit or commuter projects "cost too much." The new lines or routes often trigger lots of development which produces lots of property taxes.

And population growth.