Gilbert B Norman wrote: ↑Fri Jul 26, 2019 12:26 pm
Regardless of where their editorial standing lays, the News, Newsday, and the Post are all locally circulated papers, while that of The Journal and Times is worldwide in scope.
"It figures" that those three papers (one of which is based "on the Island") are opposed to Gateway, for how often will their base of readers use any Trans-Hudson X-ing in their daily lives?
This isn’t totally correct. The Post and News both have large regional readership bases, and seem generally sensitive to notions of public good however tabloid-y they may be.
The fact of the matter is that Gateway has the potential to be a great project, but without serious operations/cost reforms, stands a pretty * value proposition. Spending north of 12 bil for a new pair of tunnels which will only provide trans-Hudson redundancy, and then having to drop another, what, 20 billion to actually leverage the capacity benefits of said tunnels is a tough pill for even the NY region to swallow. There are some pretty simple ways to tinker with operational and managerial policy to make this cheaper/more impactful, but in a city (and country) so averse to rectifying managerial inefficiency, I have little faith that anything but more “give us money” talk will happen.
Backshophoss wrote: ↑Thu Jul 25, 2019 9:04 pm
Using PANYNJ as the general contractor/project supervisor would be the best bet to get Gateway DONE!
IT would keep in state politics at bay between NJ and NY.
The PANYNJ has repeatedly shown itself to be nothing more than a high cost political tool for NY/NJ politicos (LGA Airtrain, Calatrava, Bridgegate). I wouldn’t put any faith in them.