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.
I wish there were a way to turn WTC into a NJTransit / LIRR / Metro North Hub.
Imagine being able to access GCT, NYP and WTC from each of these? At a minimum, selfishly, bring NJTransit direct to WTC.
Cut the PATH out of the equation. Now, who's gonna pay for it? Thats the (multiple) trillion dollar question.
PATH uses a smaller gauge, part of the main problem as a result of taking over train lines from 110 years ago. So we'd have to widen the tunnels. I see the Gateway project as staggeringly more likely to happen, it's cheaper to just build a new one than to shunt traffic over on weekends, work for about 24 hours, then clean everything up and wait five more days.
I take the PATH every day, and yes, I know that they're working on the signals. I also don't think that the signals should have been left alone for 100 years.
My understanding is that the extensive damage caused by Sandy had a lot to do with the existing state of disrepair when the storm hit. As far as the platforms are concerned, It was a general comment
I'm no urban planner, but it seems to me that adding another branch that served Kearney, Northern Newark, perhaps Belleville, etc. would ease quite a bit of congestion. That's obviously very long term.
If you read my post more carefully, you'd realize that I was not blaming the planners and engineers, I'm upset at the amount of public investment. I'm upset that the PA director is getting up in front of engineers asking them to come up with creative ways to duct tape and bubblegum the system some more because they don't have any other options.
I find that pretty hard to believe, but in any case public transit is not supposed to be paid for entirely by fares. PATH has the advantage of the bridge tolls, but there obviously needs to be more public taxpayer investment. Federal and State.
I disagree with you there. I think people should be able to get on a train and have it get them to work without drama. I feel bad for you because I'm sure riders are frustrated and some of them put the blame where it doesn't belong. Just know that there are a bunch of us that see what goes on an appreciate what the PA workers, planners, and engineers do, we're just frustrated that you're not getting the resources you need.
No, the signals should not have been left alone for 100 years, but the Hudson-Manhattan system that became PATH was taken on by the PA fifty years ago to run at a loss, and yes, it loses tons of money. I used to know the numbers but I'm older and can't remember anymore, lol. But I do remember that the fares don't even cover the electric bill, which is millions per year.
You are correct that Sandy whacked a system that was already in need of upgrade. They were jerry-rigging the signal and switch systems the best they could after the storm because the damaged parts were manufactured in the 1920s.
The decisions on how public money is spent is made by politicians and their appointees, not Port Authority employees. Throwing money into a revenue-losing system probably wasn't a good political career booster, simple as that. Also, traditionally, projects that mostly benefit only Jersey residents have tended to be given less importance than NY projects or those that benefit the overall region.
PATH's a Port Authority system, and the PA by law does not and is not permitted to receive tax revenue from the states, so that option is out. It can, however, get federal funding, and does so when it can. That's mostly how the new WTC PATH Hub was built, with FTA funding, and the Goethals was a public-private partnership partly financed with a federal TIFIA loan.
The PA director was not asking for temporary fixes. They are looking for real solutions. As a matter of fact, I recall an RFP coming out not long ago to look at the rail systems in the whole region and come up with some better solutions for the next century. I think the PA took the lead and put out the RFP, but it included looking at the MTA systems (MetroNorth, LIRR, NYCT) as well as PATH and NJ Transit. There needs to be a cohesive solution for the entire region, not piecemeal efforts, so I see that as a step in the right direction. These agencies no longer have the in-house expertise to perform this work. Agency engineers and planners are now, with some minor exceptions, project managers who oversee consultants who actually do the work. That shift occurred starting back in the 80s. Hence the ED asking the industry for their ideas. Plus, of course, he is himself a political appointee, so his speech was of course geared to tout Governor Cuomo as the savior of the region's transportation needs and a booster of the engineering industry.
Geography and political borders are a problem in the NY/NJ area. Conflicting political ambitions on both sides of the river have always been a problem.
Then we have the delay in the Gateway project because the current US President is in a snit with a New York Senator and won't provide the previously-promised funding. No, it's not that simple, but it's a very real part of the problem. The Gateway project WILL get built eventually--it has to--but until someone with the power to ink the funding decides it's time to do it, the region waits.
FYI, the Port Authority's biggest revenue source has always traditionally been the airports, but the tunnel and bridge tolls bring in a good share of the revenue, as well as the ports.
However, some people seem to think that bridge tolls go into a piggy bank for fixing that bridge, or that tunnel tolls go into a piggy bank for fixing that bridge. That's not how it works in public agencies. The public agencies raise money by selling bonds, and in order to make those bonds attractive on the market, they have to show a healthy revenue for the future so that purchasers are confident that they will get a return on their investment. That's why the tolls and the flight fees and all the other revenue streams go up.
The article has lots of truth but is also leaving out an interesting trend. The Millennials are starting to drift into the marriage and kids years and are moving back into suburbia for the usual reasons - cheaper real estate with more space and better schools. Eventually, there will be increased demand for work space in the suburbs. These older buildings need to be updated or replaced. The towns are panicking and are trying to convert these office complexes into housing - and here is the kicker - this puts even more stress on the underfunded mass transit systems and roads.
In Montvale, NJ, there are currently has about 2900 households and there is approval to add 615 new housing units on former office park property. This is a 21% increase in housing. The Mt Laurel ruling is also involved as 106 of the 615 new units are for affordable housing obligations.
Without any central planning, this craziness will continue. Huge housing increases without a matching increase in mass transit and road capacity is going to be an even bigger problem. Mass transit commutes are only going to get worse, forcing companies to reconsider suburban office parks again.
I don't think that local officials are concerned with managing large scale transportation networks. Building extra capacity to meet the demands of a growing population is the job of the transit authority, and it requires substantial public investment. I think that's the issue we have here.
The local officials should not be concerned with the details of managing transportation network. However, state and local officials should be aware of the challenges that are being faced by the transportation network that their constituents use and in particular with any capacity constraints. They should not allow developers to build more housing units if the transportation networks are hopelessly over capacity. They should probably also make developer contribute to the upkeep and expansion of these transportation networks. I don't think any of these actions happen right now and hence we have this hopeless mess.
In addition, I believe it takes a lot longer to plan and build or upgrade transportation system in the US as compared to even any other European country. US costs are also the highest. All of these factors contribute to the hopeless situation we enjoy every day...
The PA director was not asking for temporary fixes. They are looking for real solutions. As a matter of fact, I recall an RFP coming out not long ago to look at the rail systems in the whole region and come up with some better solutions for the next century. I think the PA took the lead and put out the RFP, but it included looking at the MTA systems (MetroNorth, LIRR, NYCT) as well as PATH and NJ Transit. There needs to be a cohesive solution for the entire region, not piecemeal efforts, so I see that as a step in the right direction. These agencies no longer have the in-house expertise to perform this work. Agency engineers and planners are now, with some minor exceptions, project managers who oversee consultants who actually do the work. That shift occurred starting back in the 80s. Hence the ED asking the industry for their ideas. Plus, of course, he is himself a political appointee, so his speech was of course geared to tout Governor Cuomo as the savior of the region's transportation needs and a booster of the engineering industry.
From what I understand, this switch from substantial in house expertise to ridiculously over paid consultants contributed to the insane jump in construction costs and delays. The agency can not do anything without issuing RFPs, going through the bidding process and then paying for all the overhead of the contractors company's lavishly paid executive team and CEO. Plus the incentive to save money is largely gone from either the agencies themselves or the contractors. In this case, free market seemed to make the whole process much less efficient...
Without any central planning, this craziness will continue. Huge housing increases without a matching increase in mass transit and road capacity is going to be an even bigger problem. Mass transit commutes are only going to get worse, forcing companies to reconsider suburban office parks again.
Central planning? Or my God, only Communist countries do this. In the US, we let markets determine everything. With great results that we all live with
Central planning? Or my God, only Communist countries do this. In the US, we let markets determine everything. With great results that we all live with
Central planning is an unfortunate choice of words and should not be referenced as a group planning at the town level from the state level. It should be looked as setting up some rules as a way to limit overbuilding in larger areas than town level while taking transit into consideration. Without somebody telling towns that they can not keep adding housing units (or commercial property) in search of more property tax revenue, mass transit and roads will continue to be overrun with commuters.
NJ is already overrun with commuters going multiple directions because every town thought that in addition to housing, the towns should also have big commercial offices. There should be some statewide standards created that have to take into account what overbuilding does, not only as a benefit to the specific town, but as a detriment to the surrounding towns, roads, and mass transit system.
From what I understand, this switch from substantial in house expertise to ridiculously over paid consultants contributed to the insane jump in construction costs and delays. The agency can not do anything without issuing RFPs, going through the bidding process and then paying for all the overhead of the contractors company's lavishly paid executive team and CEO. Plus the incentive to save money is largely gone from either the agencies themselves or the contractors. In this case, free market seemed to make the whole process much less efficient...
Well, not exactly, though there's some truth in there. I spent a good chunk of the last two decades in public procurement. I do believe that it was more cost-effective to have the in-house staff and use consultants sparingly, which is how it was when I started my career. (I am not an engineer but have spent my life in the engineering industry.) I'm also pretty dang sure that changed because big engineering firms, like other money-makers, help put politicians in office who make things happen that benefit them.
A result of that change and the danger of out-of-control spending it would bring was the implementation of stricter procurement practices. Those RFPs are issued and the selection process carefully controlled and monitored to keep the costs down and get the lowest bid and best value. Where there is money, there is opportunity for collusion and corruption, so the procurement process exists to control and minimize those opportunities.
A result of that is that you now had to pay people like me to oversee those processes. So, the costs just shifted to somewhere else.
In-house staff still prepares an estimate of what a project will cost, and the bid or proposal is compared and analyzed against it, and in the case of proposals, we went back and hammered the consultants to lower their prices. Of course, they know we are going to do that, so they pad their prices in the first place. It's all a game.
For the record, my all-time best negotiation, performed along with my associate, was $14 million off a $157 million professional services proposal. You're welcome.
I was never going to get rich myself, but at least I always slept at night knowing I was on the side of the public interest.
Things also can vary depending upon how the economy is doing. During the recession, we were getting super cheap bids below the engineer's estimate on everything because construction companies just wanted to keep going and be able to pay their basic bills.
...Sorry for the tone, but not really. After almost 40 years in the public transportation industry, it is frustrating that the riding public seems hell-bent on not educating themselves with what's going on with the systems and facilities they use. It's just easier to complain.
Paris is pretty congested and France is heavily unionized. Yet for the same cost as building a few miles of new subway line in the U.S., they are building several new lines, almost 60 stations and more than 120 miles of track. And the entire project will be done, more or less, in about 15 years. Maybe we should be doing something like this.
I get frustrated being told there is nothing to be done about our collapsing infrastructure besides band aids and incremental improvements. Bringing our infrastructure into the modern era is just as important as the space race was in the 60's. I can't believe we don't have the money for it. We just need the political will.
I do believe that it was more cost-effective to have the in-house staff and use consultants sparingly, which is how it was when I started my career.
To use an electrical grid analogy, in San Diego, in house staff carry the base load while consultants are brought in like peaker plants. That's to preclude hiring more permanent full time public employees, that will be difficult to lay off during lean years.
Our problem is that it can take years for even basic projects to work their way through the Purchasing and Contracting department. It's brutally slow.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mightyqueen801
Things also can vary depending upon how the economy is doing. During the recession, we were getting super cheap bids below the engineer's estimate on everything because construction companies just wanted to keep going and be able to pay their basic bills.
Same here. The government got some sweet deals during 2008-2010, but missed out on many others because Purchasing and Contracting couldn't move fast enough to take advantage of them.
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.
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.
