ARC Tunnel - Revisited (Again)

Ken W2KB wrote:Except that the rural and more suburban areas have no transit and it would not be cost effective to provide it. There is no choice but to drive and distances will be long. From an environmental standpoint, cars creeping in city traffic for three miles wil spew out as much emissions as someone traveling on a rural road for 50 miles. A mileage-based tax would be grossly unfair. Use of gasoline is far more equitable, with a mileage tax there is little incentive for someone in densely populated areas to not drive since their tax would be nil.

Actually, use of gasoline is not "far more equitable" (that's completely hyperbolic), because differences in MPG and driving style have an effect on how much gas one might use for a trip versus another person in another vehicle making the same trip. To say nothing of the fact that the gasoline tax has not been indexed to inflation, has not been raised in 20 years, and in no way is a "user fee" the way that highway advocates use the term. In fact, as wider acceptance of EVs takes hold (a *very* long-term prospect I understand - I'm not a Pollyanna believer in alt fuels and EV technology), revenues from the gasoline tax will fall yet more quickly. Think we have a problem maintaining roads now? Wait until the actual users of the roads are even *less* linked economically to the costs of driving.

A mileage-based fee, if you abolish the gasoline tax, is on the whole more equitable because it reflects actual usage, and it's applied on a consistent and equal basis across the board. It's not perfect by any means, but at least it links the user to the cost more closely than the current tax.

Jishnu wrote:Yes the mileage tax should be used for highway and other roadways maintenance funding. The gas tax should remain in place to fund the armed forces, one of whose primary missions appears to be to keep the sources of fuel accessible.

I think the idea of a mileage-based fee is a tough sell already (and I support it). If you don't abolish the gasoline tax, though, it will be a nearly impossible sell, IMHO.

What am I missing? ARC is DEAD.
Moderator: Please creat a "gas tax" thread for the ongoing discussion.

NY&LB wrote:...Moderator: Please creat a "gas tax" thread for the ongoing discussion.

Or...just can the whole "gas tax" discussion. This is railroad.net, not cars.net or highway.net or gascompany.net.

Let's go back to beating ARC to death even more.

We don't need a separate "gas tax" discussion thread.

If the tax applies to trains, it can be discussed in applicable threads, if not, it should not be discussed in here.

Half of this topic is Gateway anyway. Some day I'll split it.

michaelk wrote:I don't think it's that clear cut at all that it only was a NJ project. Nothing occurs in a vacuum. First NY benefits from labor being cheaper and consumers spending more money there when it's easier to get into the city. If NJ is too much of a pain to commute from then more people are going to move to Long Island and West Chester making those commutes worse. Anything you can do to fix a bottleneck in transportation has repercussion elsewhere....

I guess you could label this, "Do we need more rail capacity between New Jersey and Manhattan?"

Michael I don't think it was "only" a New Jersey project. I wrote -- and I do really believe -- that once the ARC tunnel became a deadend line it became "basically" a New Jersey project. Not entirely but for all intents and purposes it was mostly New Jersey that cared about it, that wanted it.

New York would benefit from cheaper labor? People in New Jersey will work for less money? That's good to know, I have to tell my Boss that. Maybe some of your neighbors might not agree with you?

But as for ARC boosting retail sales in Manhattan or ensuring the commute to Westchester and Long Island don't become too crowded, that's kind of a stretch. In theory I'm sure you're right but in reality I don't think it would have a whole lot of effect.

What would've been interesting to see is the effect all those commuters would've had on Herald Square. I think that would've been great for the City. But I don't think too many New Yorkers are gnashing their teeth over the fact it didn't happen.

Jeff Smith wrote:Half of this topic is Gateway anyway. Some day I'll split it.

Do you mean you'll split the gateway posts into the existing Amtrak forum Gateway thread, or are you planning to have 3 threads, Gateway, ARC, and Gateway comments originally posted in the ARC thread? Will we then get a 4th thread for ARC comments originally posted in the Amtrak Gateway thread?

Patrick Boylan wrote:Do you mean you'll split the gateway posts into the existing Amtrak forum Gateway thread,....?

As has been mentioned in this thread, there doesn't seem to BE an Amtrak Gateway thread. I don't see one listed at any rate. A topic search on "Gateway" returns no hits. A word search on Gateway in the Amtrak Forum only returned a few posts in the thread about Moynihan Station. (When I've looked at it the discussion doesn't seem to touch on the Gateway plan very much.)

In other words I'm not sure there is an Amtrak Gateway thread. Which strongly suggests by the way, as I mentioned to Michael K, the people who mostly care about all of this are people in New Jersey. (Which is why it's here.)

Or you could just combine all the various threads and toss 'em into the 7277 Sideswipe/Nosense thread, because that is what most of this talk is. Nonsense.

lirr42 wrote:...because that is what most of this talk is. Nonsense.

Yet you continue to read it. Hmm fascinating.

lirr42 wrote:Or you could just combine all the various threads and toss 'em into the 7277 Sideswipe/Nosense thread, because that is what most of this talk is. Nonsense.

If you think this talk is nonsense, read the posts in the 7277 Sideswipe/Nonsense/Where's Cruiser thread. There, you'll find real nonsense.

Tommy Meehan wrote:

michaelk wrote:I don't think it's that clear cut at all that it only was a NJ project. Nothing occurs in a vacuum. First NY benefits from labor being cheaper and consumers spending more money there when it's easier to get into the city. If NJ is too much of a pain to commute from then more people are going to move to Long Island and West Chester making those commutes worse. Anything you can do to fix a bottleneck in transportation has repercussion elsewhere....

I guess you could label this, "Do we need more rail capacity between New Jersey and Manhattan?"

Michael I don't think it was "only" a New Jersey project. I wrote -- and I do really believe -- that once the ARC tunnel became a deadend line it became "basically" a New Jersey project. Not entirely but for all intents and purposes it was mostly New Jersey that cared about it, that wanted it.

New York would benefit from cheaper labor? People in New Jersey will work for less money? That's good to know, I have to tell my Boss that. Maybe some of your neighbors might not agree with you?

But as for ARC boosting retail sales in Manhattan or ensuring the commute to Westchester and Long Island don't become too crowded, that's kind of a stretch. In theory I'm sure you're right but in reality I don't think it would have a whole lot of effect.

What would've been interesting to see is the effect all those commuters would've had on Herald Square. I think that would've been great for the City. But I don't think too many New Yorkers are gnashing their teeth over the fact it didn't happen.

Nothing happens in a vacuum. A Gnat farting off the coast of Africa can make a hurricane hit NYC or not.

So while, No people from NJ don't get paid less than people from NY, as it gets harder and harder to get into NYC then less and less people from NJ are willing to make the trip so the wages have to go up to entice others. It's supply and demand. The easier it is as a whole to get into NYC, the larger the number of people willing to go there to work, the lower the wages that need to get paid.

As it gets harder to travel into NYC from NJ then less people from NJ take the jobs and so more of the commuters come from Westchester and LI. So yes not having ARC makes the NY/CT commuters have a harder time also.

Similarly the ease of getting into NYC effects how much people are willing to go there to spend. My tiny example= I've had the Yankees Saturday ticket package for about a dozen years. I used to live in Matawan and used every single ticket myself, took NJCL to every game- it was just so easy and quick. Then I moved here to Hunterdon county- my own doing- yet it is a bit harder to get to NYC from here the change in newark, the drive to Raritan, the bazallion stops from Raritan to NY- and so we just started going a little less. Probably skipped 3-4 weeks a year. Then NJT ditched the round trip discount and the free kids on the weekend and raised ticket prices (not complained- just stating the facts) . Price went from like 20 to closer to 50. So now we drive more then take the train. Now I sell more tickets then i use on stub hub (many more sadly). I took my boys to the game today- first time this year- didn't even bother with the train. Rather I drove and then on the way home got stuck in traffic for an hour to travel the first ~5 miles because the Alexander Hamilton bridge and Major Deagen interchange is being reconstructed. I'lll probably schlep to one more regular season game- but that will be about it till the playoffs. It's just too painful. I realize I'm not everyone and there's a million different variables but my family at least is one example of how mass transit getting more difficult makes us spend less money in NY.

All of the above aren't going to make or break NYC. But it's larger then NIL when added together particularly over time as the effects get compounded. And I've consistently said NJ has the most to gain from any new tunnel into NYC- but seems we just happen to disagree as to how much it benefits others. There's no need to argue the point- you dont think ARC mattered all that much to anyone but NJ- I think it would benefit others more then a tiny amount. We've both read hundreds of posts about the subject and have our opinions formed. My humble opinion was that NJ was slated to pay more than it's fair share- a larger share or the costs then the share of benefit to be gained. (and as above I think a more equitable mix was easily within reach)

Tommy Meehan wrote:

Patrick Boylan wrote:... Which strongly suggests by the way, as I mentioned to Michael K, the people who mostly care about all of this are people in New Jersey. (Which is why it's here.)

actually that's your best point yet. LOL.

Maybe you are onto something.

michaelk, you're quoting Tommy Meehan. Looks like you commited copy and paste without correct cut and made it look like my quote.

Tommy Meehan wrote: As has been mentioned in this thread, there doesn't seem to BE an Amtrak Gateway thread. I don't see one listed at any rate. A topic search on "Gateway" returns no hits. A word search on Gateway in the Amtrak Forum only returned a few posts in the thread about Moynihan Station. (When I've looked at it the discussion doesn't seem to touch on the Gateway plan very much.)

In other words I'm not sure there is an Amtrak Gateway thread. Which strongly suggests by the way, as I mentioned to Michael K, the people who mostly care about all of this are people in New Jersey. (Which is why it's here.)

Oops, I thought there was a separate Gateway thread, but I must have been thinking of the Moynihan thread. Thanks for checking for me.
I think you need to rephrase. Doesn't it only suggest that the rr.net people who mostly care are the New Jersey forum participants? Do you consider that to be a scientifically pollable set of normal prudent people?
Another reason for more posts in the NJT-ARC thread I believe is that although Amtrak participated in the beginning, and Moynihan conversion, if I remember correctly, was to have been part of the early plans, for most of the time planning, money spent, and actual earth moved, this new tunneling-new station set of projects has been ARC. The current Moynihan-Gateway stuff sure seems to me to be son of ARC, some people might think a fancy dress on a pig which is still a pig.
I just have a hard time thinking that they're actually brand new projects.

Tommy Meehan wrote:

lirr42 wrote:...because that is what most of this talk is. Nonsense.

Yet you continue to read it. Hmm fascinating.

Me too, I can't stop myself. I need the help only a well trained mental health professional can give.