eastside henry6: Actually those who live in NJ and work in NY have NY state, NYC, and NJ state taxes to be paid...and it can be costly...however it is "softened" in that both NY taxes in that they are "nonresident" thus less than what residents would pay. But I do believe both NY and NYC income taxes are paid. SImilar situation in Philadelphia and Pennsylvania but I don't believe there is a Philladelphia income tax. As I said, a person who lives in NJ but works in NY has income tax obligations to both states, but he pays in New York state and gets a credit to offset his NJ taxes. This is to avoid double taxation, but NYS, in this case, gets the money. If you're not a resident of New York City, you should not be paying New York City income tax at all. I didn't want to get involved in all the exceptions and details, but most cities outside the East do not have income tax. Philadelphia is one of those weird cases that taxes non-residents and the self-employed. I'm based in Manhattan and do income tax returns professionally. About 40% of the returns I do involve multi-state taxation.
henry6: Actually those who live in NJ and work in NY have NY state, NYC, and NJ state taxes to be paid...and it can be costly...however it is "softened" in that both NY taxes in that they are "nonresident" thus less than what residents would pay. But I do believe both NY and NYC income taxes are paid. SImilar situation in Philadelphia and Pennsylvania but I don't believe there is a Philladelphia income tax.
Actually those who live in NJ and work in NY have NY state, NYC, and NJ state taxes to be paid...and it can be costly...however it is "softened" in that both NY taxes in that they are "nonresident" thus less than what residents would pay. But I do believe both NY and NYC income taxes are paid. SImilar situation in Philadelphia and Pennsylvania but I don't believe there is a Philladelphia income tax.
As I said, a person who lives in NJ but works in NY has income tax obligations to both states, but he pays in New York state and gets a credit to offset his NJ taxes. This is to avoid double taxation, but NYS, in this case, gets the money. If you're not a resident of New York City, you should not be paying New York City income tax at all.
I didn't want to get involved in all the exceptions and details, but most cities outside the East do not have income tax. Philadelphia is one of those weird cases that taxes non-residents and the self-employed.
I'm based in Manhattan and do income tax returns professionally. About 40% of the returns I do involve multi-state taxation.
If you live in NJ and work in Philly, you pay the Phila wage tax - about 5% of your gross income, right off the top - no deductions for anything - on wages earned while you are in the city. Penna does not tax non-residents, I think. You pay NJ income tax only on income earned outside of Phila (interest income, income when traveling outside Phila) and the differential between your calculated NJ tax on income earned in Phila and what Phila took in wage tax (which is zero, for almost everybody)
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
Non-union contractor opposition has long been trying to repeal the Davis-Bacon Act (passed in 1931) on the grounds that the regulations are outdated, expensive and bureaucratic. In 1993 Representative Cliff Stearns (GOP) urged the repeal of the act. Sue Wilkins Myrick (GOP) tried to repeal it outright in the budget battles of 1995. Weakening it was part of the Republican Party platform in 1996 and 2000. In February 1999, GOP Representative Ron Paul attempted to repeal it. In 2004, Representative Marilyn Musgrave tried again.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
And with all due respect let me state that I have handled contracts for Federal, state, and local agencies which specified union labor be used. Sorry, sometimes I am right.
Oh, you can tell me I am wrong or misinformed, but you can't say I don't know what I am talking about. It is very offensive and as degrading to me as it is to you.
RIDEWITHMEHENRY is the name for our almost monthly day of riding trains and transit in either the NYCity or Philadelphia areas including all commuter lines, Amtrak, subways, light rail and trolleys, bus and ferries when warranted. No fees, just let us know you want to join the ride and pay your fares. Ask to be on our email list or find us on FB as RIDEWITHMEHENRY (all caps) to get descriptions of each outing.
henry6 ecoli: alphas, do you have references to support your assertion that contractors must use union workers and cannot simply pay prevailing wages and benefits to non-union workers? I have a reference to the contrary: The Washington Independent says that the stimulus legislation merely applies Davis-Bacon to areas of work (such as "weatherization") which previously were exempt. Note that one paragraph says "Contrary to popular belief and a recent Fox News Report..." It is true that Davis-Bacon increases labor costs because the federal "prevailing wage" table is influenced by union wages. It is not true that Davis-Bacon requires union labor, and so far as I can tell it is not true that stimulus projects require union labor. In reference to union labor being stipulated in this contract...this is not new, not extroadinary by any means...most government contracts have had that stipulation for many years. For our discussion, lets note it as a political issue and question and not be part of the overall solution or answer. In otherwords, lets not debate it here.
ecoli: alphas, do you have references to support your assertion that contractors must use union workers and cannot simply pay prevailing wages and benefits to non-union workers? I have a reference to the contrary: The Washington Independent says that the stimulus legislation merely applies Davis-Bacon to areas of work (such as "weatherization") which previously were exempt. Note that one paragraph says "Contrary to popular belief and a recent Fox News Report..." It is true that Davis-Bacon increases labor costs because the federal "prevailing wage" table is influenced by union wages. It is not true that Davis-Bacon requires union labor, and so far as I can tell it is not true that stimulus projects require union labor.
alphas, do you have references to support your assertion that contractors must use union workers and cannot simply pay prevailing wages and benefits to non-union workers? I have a reference to the contrary: The Washington Independent says that the stimulus legislation merely applies Davis-Bacon to areas of work (such as "weatherization") which previously were exempt. Note that one paragraph says "Contrary to popular belief and a recent Fox News Report..."
It is true that Davis-Bacon increases labor costs because the federal "prevailing wage" table is influenced by union wages. It is not true that Davis-Bacon requires union labor, and so far as I can tell it is not true that stimulus projects require union labor.
In reference to union labor being stipulated in this contract...this is not new, not extroadinary by any means...most government contracts have had that stipulation for many years. For our discussion, lets note it as a political issue and question and not be part of the overall solution or answer. In otherwords, lets not debate it here.
Henry6, with all due respect, you don't know what you are talking about. As far as I'm aware, there is not now nor has there ever been any requirement that a Federal contract be performed by union labor. Each administration tinkers with the regulations to make it more or less easy for unions to organize contractors on Federal projects, depending on that administration's attitude toward labor unions, but I've never heard of a requirement that a Federal project be unionized. Full disclosure - there are a few recent regulation changes I haven't yet read.
ecoli had it about right - union wages influence Davis-Bacon wage rates, because it's much easier to grab a union wage scale off a website than to conduct hundreds of interviews or inquiries, if you are the guy at Dept. of Labor tasked with determining the prevailing wage rate. By the way, Davis-Bacon only applies to Federally-funded construction.
Intriguing greyhounds, but how sure and how soon? Plus you are only talking "office" work...how 'bout real manufacturing or have we in America decided that all such work will be done off shore? And NYC, for instance, has so many jobs that are beyond just "office" work. No, doing nothing will be too costly to gamble on with nothing down but years to pay. And if it isn't done in NYC now, there are dozens of east coast cities which could take its place from Portland, ME to Newport News, VA and beyond. Philadelphia could regain the 1780's lead it once had; Providence, RI could draw on the vast population within 100 miles of center city; Atlantic City could start attracting more businesses; Baltimore and Washington, DC could flourish even more, too. Or just by happenstance anyplace along the coast could develope because it took the time to establish the needed infrastructure so ignored by those in charge of NYC's. And it may not be a bad idea.
What is the cost of doing nothing? Maybe nothing.
How we work is evolving. In the somewhat recent past you "just had to be there". All the files were "there." Your business correspondence came to, and went from, "there". If you gave presentation you gave it to people who were "there".
That's not true any more. The files are wherever you are. You can give a presentation to people in India and you can correspond with anyone in the world from any place in the world. There simply is much less need to be "there" any longer.
This is leading to a change in office work. Best Buy in Richfield, MN has taken a lead on this with the idea that: "Work is something you do, not a place you go." People at Best Buy work from their homes a lot. The place I work is evolving from a five day in the office standard to a work in the office three days and from your home two days standard. I think this will be like the move to business casual dress.
We used to have to wear a coat and tie. Then they let us go casual on Fridays. (No, I don't know why Friday was "Special") Now a coat and tie is rare on any day. I think the same thing will happen with the work at home thingy. It will grow. It's got a lot going for it.
While there will always be a need for some face to face interaction, this work from home ability will reduce the need for office workers to commute. Some jobs will continue to require that the worker "be there". Teachers and electricians come to mind. But for standard office work, why have someone spend an hour traveling to a computer, then another hour going home, when he/she can do the same thing with the same computer from home?
This needs to be considered before billions of dollars are spent digging new holes to get people to and from work. They may not be doing that so much in the near future.
Time and time again I have seen projects, plans, and needs talked and talked and talked about with never a resolution. But when a solution is reached or proposed it gets pulle a part and stomped on by those who either didn't figure it out or who are just opposed to anything anybody does. So here is NJ Gov. Christie. On one hand, this project has been talked about, debated, planned and unplanned since before 1900 in reality. And then finally a concept, a plan, is ironed out by someone and put into motion. Christie has done it in. Typically American. BUT Chirstie has the opportunity to wear the ride in on a white stallion waving a white hat. Instead of rejecting the plan out of hand he should come in with an alternative plan...and not one that repaves an inadequate highway system based on social, traffic, and buisiness patterns at least one hundred years old. Most all those opposed to the ARC plan cite the stub end terminal at a depth beyond what they feel is too much and with no connection for rail or pedestrians to other lines and terminals. As for Christie's claim that the cost is too much: what is the cost of doing nothing? what is the cost of doing something different? how much does it have to cost to produce an acceptable return on investment by the communities or groups involved? Lets have answers and solutions not just accusations and sitouts.
Murray Another OP-ED on the tunnel: http://www.courierpostonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=201010170317
Another OP-ED on the tunnel:
http://www.courierpostonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=201010170317
Well....I just read all of the report provided by Murray....What a shame our "system" has to work thru such a complicated and political mess.
I realize the tremendous costs involved in such a massive project and the means we're going to use to solve the politics of it. It sure needs to be discussed up and down and every way else, but given the politics we live with, I wonder how they will ever come to a working and affordable agreement on such seemingly useful tunnel project.
Quentin
At one point in my career I worked multiple points in Pennsylvania and actually lived in another point in PA....as I recall I got about 10 W-2's (or whatever the proper form designation is) showing the various local income taxes I had withheld for working in those locales a day here and two days there. Bad enough the money was withheld from me, but I can only imagine what was required of my employer to keep everything straight.
eastside I didn't want to get involved in all the exceptions and details, but most cities outside the East do not have income tax. Philadelphia is one of those weird cases that taxes non-residents and the self-employed. I'm based in Manhattan and do income tax returns professionally. About 40% of the returns I do involve multi-state taxation.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
henry6 Actually those who live in NJ and work in NY have NY state, NYC, and NJ state taxes to be paid...and it can be costly...however it is "softened" in that both NY taxes in that they are "nonresident" thus less than what residents would pay. But I do believe both NY and NYC income taxes are paid. SImilar situation in Philadelphia and Pennsylvania but I don't believe there is a Philladelphia income tax.
But to the crux of the problem: the ARC plan itself. Many off these pages also are not happy with the idea of a stub end terminal and so deep and not connected to NYP in any way. In the long run, NY has alway relied and will always rely on those living in NJ to provide a huge chunk of the working and professional staffs of virtually every business. It wasn't until NYP was built that there was a one seat ride to the city and it only involved those who travelled the PRR; everyone else transferred to ferry boats and the Tubes (today's PATH). Not until NJT's Midtown Direct of the late 90's did a one seat ride open for those other than PRR riders. I guess what I am trying to say is how sacred is the one seat ride? Even once you enter the city most have to take a bus or subway to their destinations. I think that maybe the one seat ride may be overrated, that improving or enlarging PATH might be a better dollar bet. And the need for another set of tracks or two sets connecting with the LIRR and MNRR to facilitate a regional rail system would be better...and this could be done in so many different ways, too...I've gone over it many times before here. In the end: eliminating the tunnel project in favor of repaving roads is not a viable option; NYS and NYC has to get involved because Manhatten cannot take anymore vehiclular traffic without virtually sinking; the air in NJ and NY cannot take anymore pollutants; the project has to provide more than just NJT dumping passenger loads and exiting; the project has to do more than solve today's problems but also be flexible enough to work toward solving future traffic problems. If it were up to me right now I would call for the formation of a regional rail authority with memberhips from the States of CT, NY, NJ and PA plus the Federal government and the NY-NJ Port Authority with the purpose of actively planning the needs of moving people in the region over the next 25, 50, 100 and 150 years and take action to meet those needs. And the authority would be autonomous or independent of politics as much as possible.
I'd like to clarify several things about state and local income taxes that I've noticed in this thread.
Let's say you reside in one state, NJ, but commute to your place of business, i.e. office, in another state, NY, then this is what happens:
1. Your company will withhold NY state income taxes from your paycheck, in addition to the normal Federal taxes. They will not withhold for taxes in your home state unless you specifically request so.
2. At the end of the year: first you will fill out a NY non-resident income tax return. Let's say your NY income tax is $5000. Assuming your payroll department has done its job and has estimated the withholding amount correctly you won't have to fork over anything more. Next, you do the NJ resident income tax return. Let's say your NJ income tax is $3500. To prevent double taxation you get a credit for the taxes you paid NY as an offset against your NJ taxes. Note that you paid $1500 more in NY than NJ. That's because NY has a much higher tax rate. Do you get that back from NJ or NY? Nope, it's what is called a non-refundable credit. However, on your Federal tax return you can claim a deduction $5000, the amount withheld, for state and local taxes.
Consultants, athletes, and performers have to withhold taxes and file returns in every state they work. Nowadays, every state wants its pound of flesh. I've seen cases where a consultant had to file 42 state income tax returns, a real nightmare for their accounting departments. I guess transportation workers are exempt from this mess?
Generally, it's the state you work in that gets your income tax money, not your home state. The above process is generally true all over the US.
What about New York City income tax? If you work in the city but reside outside of the city, even if it's in NY state, you don't pay New York City income tax. If you have, you should request a refund.
As Paul North says, economic incentives for fast completion can work miracles to get a project finished on time and within budget. Here's an example from the other side of the US, a company in California which rebuilt part of an Oakland freeway ahead of schedule after an accident destroyed it. The contractor submitted a bid that would actually have resulted in a loss rather than a profit had they not finished ahead of the deadline:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2007/05/08/MNGH0PMVIT1.DTL
http://articles.sfgate.com/2007-05-25/news/17244400_1_new-connector-girder-freeway
The contrast with the progress of California's high-speed rail project (or the Hudson tunnel proposals) couldn't be greater. Admittedly, repairing an existing design is easier than building an entirely new one, both technically and politically. But one suspects the real obstacle to new rail projects isn't the cost or the unions or the government bureaucrats or any of the other popular culprits: it's the "can't-do" spirit with which the US public today views any transportation proposal that isn't a highway.
henry6 That brings up an interesting concept. If the travel time savings is 16-30 minutes, then lets average it out at 20 minutes....lets say, too, that 120,000 people twice a day earn that time savings or 240,000 souls; that means that 40 minutes times 240,000 people is 96000000 minutes or 160000 man hours a day would be saved...if that meant work hours it would be worth a fortune to some companies! But is that even considered when planning transportation projects?
Well, that's an interesting approach. Per the link in my post back on 10-07-2010 about 1/3 of the way down Page 1 of 7 of this thread - http://www.arctunnel.com/pdf/news/Tunnel%20Info%20Kit_Dec2009_single%20page%20layout.pdf, see Page 2 of 11 there - the estimate is 90,000 peak AM trips, and I calculated the average cost at about $31.75 per round-trip. If each person saved 40 minutes = 0.67 hour per round trip by using the tunnel, anyone whose time savings is worth more than about $47.40 per hour greater than without the tunnel would find the tunnel to be a good deal, even if they had to pay and pay their entire share of it. Of course, this analysis ignores increases in real estate values, decreases in commute times from other modes, other avoided capital expenses, etc.
Nahh - that's rarely considered when planning transportation projects, in my experience. If it was, then a lot of road maintenance and improvement projects would get a much higher priority, and a different approach for how long they take and tie up traffic. For example, if 10,000 commuters per hour on a major road are delayed an average of 6 minutes = 0.10 hour by a road project - or the lack of one - that's 1,000 person-hours wasted per hour. If we treat their time as being worth $20 per hour on average, that's $20,000 per hour that's being wasted - every day ! - by the road delay. Over a typical year of about 250 working days, the delays during that rush hour amount to about $5 million per year = $50 million over 10 years - from just a single 6 minute daily delay ! But the prevailing mindset is to keep taxes low . . .
The only time that factor is taken into account in transportation projects is when a contract contains a substantial daily incentive for early completion. (That's superficially similar to - but in actuality, really different from - the usual 'liquidated damages' provision for late completion of a project beyond the allowed time.) Whenever that's been tried, it usually produces spectacular results. For example, some years ago a major road artery into Philadelphia - the Schuylkill Expressway, I-76 - was rebuilt with incentive contracts ranging from $5,000 to $25,000 per day for early completion. As I recall, the lead contractor with the biggest incentive finished something like 29 days early . . . .
- Paul North.
Sorry Lautenberg, I support THE Tunnel almost as much as you, but I have two words for you: Montclair Connection.
Nothing new here...
My Model Railroad: Tri State RailMy Photos on Flickr: FlickrMy Videos on Youtube: YoutubeMy Photos on RRPA: RR Picture Archives
That brings up an interesting concept. If the travel time savings is 16-30 minutes, then lets average it out at 20 minutes....lets say, too, that 120,000 people twice a day earn that time savings or 240,000 souls; that means that 40 minutes times 240,000 people is 96000000 minutes or 160000 man hours a day would be saved...if that meant work hours it would be worth a fortune to some companies! But is that even considered when planning transportation projects?
More tunnel news:
http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2010/10/study_says_hudson_river_tunnel.html
alphas Phoebe Vet, If you had been following the news concerning the road stimulus projects, you must have read where Obama has ruled the contractors must be union. They no longer can be non-union and pay the Davis-Bacon required "prevailing wage" when working on government funded projects--which has been the norm for years in many parts of the USA. In many parts of the country there are very few or no union contractors. Now its possible in northern NJ that all the contractors are union--I don't know. I can say that in my experience whenever a job had a mixture of union and non-union contractors [which actually offen occurred], there was no difference in the quality of the work and usually the non-union workers tended to work a little harder. If the primary contractor was non-union then the project mostly was completed on time or very close to it [and sometimes even early if the weather cooperated]. If the primary contractor was union then the project tended to run beyond the original estimated completion date, sometimes significantly. I have to wonder that if this tunnel project was allowed to bring in the equipment and personnel from the European company that did the Chunnel, could the project could be done cheaper and faster than what is now expected? I remember reading they did a good job for CN when they dug the new tunnel at Port Huron. If the main purpose behind building the new tunnel is to help the traveling public, then that or other possible solutions should be explored. However, if the main purpose in the eyes of the Feds is to create jobs for 8 or more years, my personal belief is the Obama administration should commit to covering any costs above the estimate at the time the construction began instead of placing all the overrun on the backs of the NJ taxpayers, many of whom probably don't significantly benefit from the tunnel's construction.
Phoebe Vet,
If you had been following the news concerning the road stimulus projects, you must have read where Obama has ruled the contractors must be union. They no longer can be non-union and pay the Davis-Bacon required "prevailing wage" when working on government funded projects--which has been the norm for years in many parts of the USA. In many parts of the country there are very few or no union contractors. Now its possible in northern NJ that all the contractors are union--I don't know. I can say that in my experience whenever a job had a mixture of union and non-union contractors [which actually offen occurred], there was no difference in the quality of the work and usually the non-union workers tended to work a little harder. If the primary contractor was non-union then the project mostly was completed on time or very close to it [and sometimes even early if the weather cooperated]. If the primary contractor was union then the project tended to run beyond the original estimated completion date, sometimes significantly.
I have to wonder that if this tunnel project was allowed to bring in the equipment and personnel from the European company that did the Chunnel, could the project could be done cheaper and faster than what is now expected? I remember reading they did a good job for CN when they dug the new tunnel at Port Huron. If the main purpose behind building the new tunnel is to help the traveling public, then that or other possible solutions should be explored. However, if the main purpose in the eyes of the Feds is to create jobs for 8 or more years, my personal belief is the Obama administration should commit to covering any costs above the estimate at the time the construction began instead of placing all the overrun on the backs of the NJ taxpayers, many of whom probably don't significantly benefit from the tunnel's construction.
The Chunnel was built by union labour so maybe that's not the best example..
I was also under the impression that most major public projects in Canada are Unionized..
"I Often Dream of Trains"-From the Album of the Same Name by Robyn Hitchcock
I always thought tunneling was biting the dust and rock and mud et.al. one bite, one inch at a time.
Maybe the governor owes favours to his friends in the "construction industry," You know, those fine folks who did an outstanding job with the Esplanade project and The Museum of Science and Trucking. Oh wait, that was "The Sopranos."
"On these representations of the Chicago, Burlington & Quincy officials, the committee secured the five per cent tax voted and other local aid. After the road was built and the subsidies secured, the Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad bought up tin; stock held by citizens (giving, as required by law, at six cents on the dollar) and leased the road for a term of ninety-nine years, the lease carrying with it the obligations of the original company.
The very inferior character of the service on this branch has resulted in driving a large amount of travel and traffic to competing lines, which will account somewhat for reduced receipts and lack of business, and that the business and growth of Mount Ayr has been seriously retarded thereby, and travel and traffic driven from them."
http://iagenweb.org/ringgold/newsclips/crime-cb_qRR.html
12th Annual Report of the Board of Railroad Commissiners Pp. 1004-5. General Assemby, G. H. KAGSDALE, State Printer. Des Moines. 1889.
All that tax money spent and still not able to get where you are going anytime soon. What's new?
ecoli alphas, do you have references to support your assertion that contractors must use union workers and cannot simply pay prevailing wages and benefits to non-union workers? I have a reference to the contrary: The Washington Independent says that the stimulus legislation merely applies Davis-Bacon to areas of work (such as "weatherization") which previously were exempt. Note that one paragraph says "Contrary to popular belief and a recent Fox News Report..." It is true that Davis-Bacon increases labor costs because the federal "prevailing wage" table is influenced by union wages. It is not true that Davis-Bacon requires union labor, and so far as I can tell it is not true that stimulus projects require union labor.
Sorry, I forgot the link to the Washington Independent. Here it is:
http://washingtonindependent.com/36146/labor-wins-prevailing-wages-in-stimulus-package
Murray, you insist that posting a speech by Dirksen is "historical" rather than "political" even though Dirksen is talking about a political issue and his point of view is debatable. Would you feel the same way if someone were to post a speech by Obama (or choose your favorite nemesis) and claim that simply because it was delivered in the past it is "historical"?
New Jersey is "broke" only because it chooses to be. The New Jersey gasoline tax is not indexed for inflation, so over the past decades revenue has not kept up with the price of pavement or even non-union labor. The governor (and, apparently, many of his constituents) likes the fact that inflation has cut taxes, but doesn't want to cut highway spending. He's taking money away from non-highway transportation projects and spending it on highways to support the illusion that you can have your cake and eat it too: the taxes that support highways can go down but the highways won't suffer.
Cititdude...Milton Shapp! Yes! Thank You. RRKEN...Chicago and its environs are not like NYC or Phila metro areas in that you have several states and mulitple authorities and agencies already in place doing their own thing, protecting their own turf so to speak. And Dave...PATH is an answer, but not the whole answer by any means. I like your thinking about PATH but it will only go so far.
I would like to see a single entity take over the whole commuter/regional railroad operations. Run through equipment wherever and whenever possible; ticket from one end of the extremities to the other and everyplace in between; provide service: on time, efficient, frequent, clean, convenient per line and convenient interchange or transfer to other lines. In other words make it as easy, convenient, and inexpensive to use. Understand the differences between heavy rail, light rail, rapid transit, and commuter trains and integrate the schedules and fare structures so that they serve bot the public and the business needs of the entire region. From south and west of Philadelphia; to Cape May and Atlantic City; to Montauk and Greenport, LI; to at least New Haven, Waterbury, Danbury, New Canaan in Connecticuit; Wassaic, north of Poughkeepsie on the east bank of the Hudson and north of Kingston on the west bank, into the Catskills, west of Port Jervis; then across the Poconos of Pennsylvania to Scranton/WilkesBarre to maybe Harrisburg then maybe over to near Wilmington, DE...this is a region within which people move around frequently, inside and to the extremes. In a way I agree with the GWBush administration's idea of regionalizing Amtrak but am not inlcuding Amtrak in this model. Amtrak would exist on its own merits as an intercity service working through the region and with the regions' services.
I still think PATH to Newark Airport would work better than NJT's present arrangement and could be managed under the regional conecpt with PATCO for instance. Each railroad (NJT, SEPTA, MNRR, LIRR) would not necessarily dissappear but would be operating divisions of the larger regional carrier; there would be run through equipment and ticketing but crew districts would be heldover and evolve to a larger area over time (50? 100? years?).
Perhaps a new tunnel connecting NJT to the LIRR at Atlantic Ave is a routing worth looking at either via downtown Manhatten or from Bayonne or Staten Island. Good for through services to eastern Long Island. Increased traffic on the Hell Gate Bridge via Fresh Pond Jct. from this line and of course from NYP.
Loops! Several loops can be effected. Not all traffic is into and out of center City be it NY or Philadelphia. NYP to Danbury to Brewster to Beacon to NYP; Hoboken to Netcong to Sparta to Hoboken; Philadelphia to BayHead to Rahway to Philadelphia; Philadelphia to Allentown to Hackettstown to Hoboken to Philadelphia. Reuse old rights of way where viable but doesn't have to be heavy rail, connections could be light rail if real loops cannot be built.
Think "moving people on a regional basis" rather on a line by line basis. The possiblities are endless and available. Not all are viable, not all are possible. But more than just thinking about it has to commence.
Paul_D_North_Jr First, some terminology clarification: This is often confusingly - at least to me - referred to as the "ARC" project, which stands for "Access to the Region's Core" - see http://www.arctunnel.com/ While perhaps technically correct in 'planner-speak', that doesn't lead me to an intuitive association with NJT, NYC, NYP, or anything related to them. It's also not terribly 'catchy' or 'sexy' . . . So now it joins a long list of big tunnel projects with false starts and/ or funding problems - Hoosac Tunnel, the English Channel Tunnel, the one in Seattle, Moffatt Tunnel - probably many others, too. Most of them eventually were dug/ built (?) - I suppose this one will, too - just not real soon, it seems. Let's examine some numbers. Take $10 Billion as a convenient estimate of the likely 'all-in' cost - assume a Capital Recovery for it based on 30 years at 6 % interest - then what is the daily cost, and how much for each of the 90,000 daily rush-hour trips, per - http://cs.trains.com/TRCCS/forums/AddPost.aspx?ReplyToPostID=1979590&Quote=False Since $1,000 borrowed costs just about $6.00 per month to repay on that basis per any convenient interest rate table or calculator, multiplying both figures by 10 million means that repaying $10 Billion would cost $60 Million per month. If there are on average about 21 working days each month - remember, this is NYC, and the bankers and stock brokers have lots of holidays - that would be $2.86 Million per peak traffic day - that's what's driving the need for this tunnel, not the weekend users. Allocating/ dividing that amount over the projected 90,000 daily rush-hour users - since all would benefit from the increased and faster service - yields about $31.75 additional per trip. Would those riders pay that much more - in addition to whatever they're paying now - to be able to take the train, instead of having to drive in and endure rush-hour traffic delays and pay premium rates for Manhattan parking spaces ? Compared to how much they earn per hour once they get to those jobs ? The janitors likely won't use it, but I'll bet many of the white-collar types would, even at those rates. So, yeah - let the users pay for it, not the taxpayers. It's NYC real estate that would really benefit, not the average NJ taxpayer - even if all 90,000 riders come from Jersey - from the improved access provided by the tunnel. So let NJT and/ or PATH float some revenue bonds to be repaid from fares by the tunnel users, and finish the tunnel on their own dime. - Paul North.
First, some terminology clarification: This is often confusingly - at least to me - referred to as the "ARC" project, which stands for "Access to the Region's Core" - see http://www.arctunnel.com/ While perhaps technically correct in 'planner-speak', that doesn't lead me to an intuitive association with NJT, NYC, NYP, or anything related to them. It's also not terribly 'catchy' or 'sexy' . . .
So now it joins a long list of big tunnel projects with false starts and/ or funding problems - Hoosac Tunnel, the English Channel Tunnel, the one in Seattle, Moffatt Tunnel - probably many others, too. Most of them eventually were dug/ built (?) - I suppose this one will, too - just not real soon, it seems.
Let's examine some numbers. Take $10 Billion as a convenient estimate of the likely 'all-in' cost - assume a Capital Recovery for it based on 30 years at 6 % interest - then what is the daily cost, and how much for each of the 90,000 daily rush-hour trips, per - http://cs.trains.com/TRCCS/forums/AddPost.aspx?ReplyToPostID=1979590&Quote=False
Since $1,000 borrowed costs just about $6.00 per month to repay on that basis per any convenient interest rate table or calculator, multiplying both figures by 10 million means that repaying $10 Billion would cost $60 Million per month. If there are on average about 21 working days each month - remember, this is NYC, and the bankers and stock brokers have lots of holidays - that would be $2.86 Million per peak traffic day - that's what's driving the need for this tunnel, not the weekend users. Allocating/ dividing that amount over the projected 90,000 daily rush-hour users - since all would benefit from the increased and faster service - yields about $31.75 additional per trip. Would those riders pay that much more - in addition to whatever they're paying now - to be able to take the train, instead of having to drive in and endure rush-hour traffic delays and pay premium rates for Manhattan parking spaces ? Compared to how much they earn per hour once they get to those jobs ? The janitors likely won't use it, but I'll bet many of the white-collar types would, even at those rates. So, yeah - let the users pay for it, not the taxpayers. It's NYC real estate that would really benefit, not the average NJ taxpayer - even if all 90,000 riders come from Jersey - from the improved access provided by the tunnel. So let NJT and/ or PATH float some revenue bonds to be repaid from fares by the tunnel users, and finish the tunnel on their own dime.
If New Jersey cuts off the increased capacity for Manhattan access with ARC, they really cap participation in the economy of New York City, and people will pay to live in new condos in Harlem instead of New Jersey.
As a side note, the relative demand may allow fare and toll increases to reduce subsidy levels. By the same token, this makes New York all the more unaffordable for the foundation of service workers on which the City is built.
I think New York State and New YOrk City have the following point of view:
New Jersey commuters earn money in New York City but pay taxes to New Jersey and not to New York. And the Port Authority is the agency that funds projects of value to both states.
Another third point of view: If the tunnel is for trains that dead-end in New York, could not the needed benefit, not the total benefit but the needed benefit, be accomplished at one-third the cost by a serious effort to upgrade the technology and capacity of the existing four PATH (ex H&M) tunnels with stations with longer platforms for longer trains, signalling for closer headways, and through service between Newark and Herald Square as well as WTC? One answer is that turn-back facilities at Newark could not accommodate closer headways, but this is false answer. By employing hostlers at Newark so engineers don't need to walk the length of the train on the two stub reversing tracks, headways could be as short as every 120 seconds with the proper signalling. Why should a commuter ride to Penn Station and then use a subway of bus to go down to 23rd or 14th Street, when a change at Newark could bring directly to the street of interest? Anyway, an extension to Newark Airport along the PRR RofW has been in the books for many years.
Boyd All of this talk and many links and I still haven't seen a map of the proposed tunnel anywhere.
All of this talk and many links and I still haven't seen a map of the proposed tunnel anywhere.
http://www.arctunnel.com/map/
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.