U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 10-18-2010, 10:54 AM
 
Location: Sacramento
13,801 posts, read 24,119,443 times
Reputation: 6272

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by HC475 View Post
This would be a step in making things better... for business... people getting into and out of NYC... more business means more jobs... growing commerce... boosting economy... etc...
Or...move more of the jobs to the state where folks live.

Cheaper than a tunnel.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 10-18-2010, 10:58 AM
 
Location: Coastal New Jersey
59,630 posts, read 57,134,827 times
Reputation: 71085
Quote:
Originally Posted by NewToCA View Post
But, this would be a known risk when doing the project cost evaluation. It isn't like the initial evaluation was from 20 years ago, it is recent enough that the risk, and cost of mitigation, should have been known and disclosed.

Any large project only has one set of estimates. This should include the "most probable" estimate, along with a risk analysis and associated cost for potential problems.
One official set, yes. And as you probably know, the old joke goes that an estimate is defined as the cost of construction in heaven.

I am just saying from what I've been reading, and I won't vouch for its accuracy, that there are different opinions about what the true estimates are.

I'm not arguing for or against, people, except to say that the tunnel is needed, and no one is denying that, although there are different opinions on where the tunnel should go exactly, yada yada yada. What's not clear is whether Christie is actually looking to cancel the project or making a play to get some more money so that Jersey isn't on the hook for the potential overruns.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-18-2010, 10:59 AM
 
Location: Coastal New Jersey
59,630 posts, read 57,134,827 times
Reputation: 71085
Quote:
Originally Posted by NewToCA View Post
Or...move more of the jobs to the state where folks live.

Cheaper than a tunnel.
I like this idea the best!

Whose idea was this to build such a big city on such a small island in the first place????
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-18-2010, 11:00 AM
 
2,564 posts, read 1,331,698 times
Reputation: 347
Quote:
Originally Posted by NewToCA View Post
Or...move more of the jobs to the state where folks live.

Cheaper than a tunnel.
umm, moving the business hub of NYC to another state is "cheaper" than a tunnel
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-18-2010, 11:05 AM
 
Location: Sacramento
13,801 posts, read 24,119,443 times
Reputation: 6272
Quote:
Originally Posted by aspiesmom View Post
umm, moving the business hub of NYC to another state is "cheaper" than a tunnel
Like all folks who work in NYC live in NJ?

The technology improvements this past decade have allowed a lot of work flexibility that didn't exist in the past. Setting up smaller satellite sites in places outside of your central organization is often a cost effective way to do business. Perhaps it would allow 20-30% of the daily traffic to not have to go over the bridge, or through a tunnel.

The point is that there are multiple ways to address the issue of commuting and work. This is just one of those alternatives.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-18-2010, 11:10 AM
 
2,564 posts, read 1,331,698 times
Reputation: 347
Quote:
Originally Posted by NewToCA View Post
Like all folks who work in NYC live in NJ?

The technology improvements this past decade have allowed a lot of work flexibility that didn't exist in the past. Setting up smaller satellite sites in places outside of your central organization is often a cost effective way to do business. Perhaps it would allow 20-30% of the daily traffic to not have to go over the bridge, or through a tunnel.

The point is that there are multiple ways to address the issue of commuting and work. This is just one of those alternatives.
Great idea as one of MULTIPLE WAYS to address commuting and work, not a great idea to replace a commuter tunnel that goes to NYC business hub (major hub of America). There are plenty of tourists and outside business interests that travel to NYC as well.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-18-2010, 11:12 AM
 
1,064 posts, read 905,339 times
Reputation: 402
Good for Christie. The last thing New Jersey needs is a Big Dig debacle.

Better to put the brakes on it now, re-evaluate, consider alternatives, rather than steam forward with an already over-budget project. He's adopted an reasonable, fiscally responsible stance.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-18-2010, 11:13 AM
 
Location: Southeast
4,296 posts, read 6,353,980 times
Reputation: 1445
Good for Christie.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-18-2010, 11:17 AM
 
2,564 posts, read 1,331,698 times
Reputation: 347
Quote:
Originally Posted by MainelyJersey View Post
Good for Christie. The last thing New Jersey needs is a Big Dig debacle.

Better to put the brakes on it now, re-evaluate, consider alternatives, rather than steam forward with an already over-budget project. He's adopted an reasonable, fiscally responsible stance.
Do nothing, wait it out, let the next Democrat Governor deal with it, then have a "Tea Party" that Democrats spend too much.

Now I see what the GOP strategy is after the Bush mess, DO NOTHING. Actually, I hope GOP keeps this strategy, it is easier damage control while Democrats do the real work.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-18-2010, 11:19 AM
 
Location: Great State of Texas
86,068 posts, read 74,000,351 times
Reputation: 27598
Quote:
Originally Posted by NewToCA View Post
But, this would be a known risk when doing the project cost evaluation. It isn't like the initial evaluation was from 20 years ago, it is recent enough that the risk, and cost of mitigation, should have been known and disclosed.

Any large project only has one set of estimates. This should include the "most probable" estimate, along with a risk analysis and associated cost for potential problems.
We had one project here quoted at a few million a couple of years ago.
Now that quote has tripled so it got scraped.

Seems even with deflation and lack of jobs..prices for construction are skyrocketing.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2020, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top