Submitted by Castor_and_Pollux123 t3_ztg6do in newjersey
JeromePowellAdmirer t1_j1du4rx wrote
Reply to comment by Castor_and_Pollux123 in RIP To Anyone Travelling Out of Hoboken by Castor_and_Pollux123
This flooding issue could be fixed for good, for a third of the price of the pointless highway expansion, but that wouldn't line the right contractors pockets, so it won't happen.
lordGwillen t1_j1eag9s wrote
Just one more lane bro please I swear to God bro just one more please it will fix it bro I swear please just one more lane
HobbitFoot t1_j1dxiue wrote
A lot of the same contractors that do road work do this kind of work as well. It isn't a contractor issue.
warrensussex t1_j1e9fs1 wrote
Even if it was all the same contractors, just being 1/3 the price is a huge difference and it's definitely not all the same contractors.
HobbitFoot t1_j1eajmw wrote
Why is it a choice between these two projects/programs only?
Joe_Jeep t1_j1ecx36 wrote
Its not. They're choosing to fund explaining the highway.
Which is damn foolish in general given traffic will just continue bottlenecking at the tunnels but I digress
specialgravity t1_j1ehsm9 wrote
It's unaffordable to commute on the turnpike and 78 as it is right now. I can't imagine what it will cost when they add their $10b lane.
Please, for the love of god just expand our existing rail. There is plenty of dormant, unused rail that is going to waste. Unearth it and make it feasible to travel by train again. Make it so I don't have to transfer at Newark or Secaucus every trip and I will gladly use the train more. You'd think after Xanadu and Revel the state would listen to it's voters, but I guess corruption wins out.
emveetu t1_j1ezi6s wrote
Not trying to give you shit but why is it unaffordable to drive on 78?
HobbitFoot t1_j1edr6a wrote
Who is they?
The New Jersey Turnpike Authority is a self funding agency that makes money from tolls on its road. It is using that money to fund this program over decades.
NJTransit is an independent agency, but it relies on the state to cover deficiencies in its budget. This isn't a judgement against NJTransit, as mass transit typically requires subsidies. If NJTransit were to build this project, it would be funding from the state.
SyndicalistCPA t1_j1ed9t6 wrote
Its not. Literally anything would be more useful than expanding the highway.
warrensussex t1_j1ed0f6 wrote
Never said it was. Was just saying your logic was bad.
HobbitFoot t1_j1eenb5 wrote
My logic is that you have the same contractors for large Turnpike jobs as you do for large NJTransit jobs, and they make the same money when working for either client. Therefore, they don't really care which agency gives them work.
Why is that logic bad?
warrensussex t1_j1eg8ld wrote
They aren't going to be all the same contractors and unions involved. Even if they were, the fact that it's 1/3 price is significant.
p4177y t1_j1elr9k wrote
> fact that it's 1/3 price
The only fact is that someone on reddit says it's 1/3rd the price. Even if priced out only a year ago (and there's no ondication it was), you think that'd hold between materials escalation costs due to inflation and the spike in interest rates?
warrensussex t1_j1emw7k wrote
u/hobbifoot didn't dispute it in when he initially replied to u/jeromepowelladmirer so I figured it was a good enough number for the purposes of this discussion.
p4177y t1_j1er8u5 wrote
But there's nothing behind that number that anybody put out there. Someone made a comment that it was 1/3 the cost, then you say it was a "fact" in your comment? At least there's articles re: the Turnpike cost escalation to show ehen and how it's increased.
warrensussex t1_j1eyw6g wrote
You're right I shouldn't have said fact.
HobbitFoot t1_j1egym0 wrote
So it is only a choice between the two projects. Why?
Sunpurpleshine t1_j1f1ldw wrote
To repair the water/ change the flow of rainfall issue has to be designed by engineers and then workers to carry out the physical labor. It’s a hell of a lot less work than the building a new lane. In fact the water run off simply needs to allow for more water to flow during a short period of time to accommodate the increasing flash flooding we are having. Which franking larger piping should have been installed from the get go. Ancient civilizations have done a better job with irrigation than the United States ever has sad to say it.
HobbitFoot t1_j1f5vi2 wrote
The issue with Hoboken is coastal flooding, not local rainfall. To fix flooding in Hoboken, they are going to need walls preventing the Hudson from coming into the terminal. That is why they are costing the project in the billions. It is also why you need more than just better drainage at the terminal.
However, the goal of the NJTA project is to replace all the bridges from the Newark Bay Bridge to the Holland Tunnel approach. The project isn't just to add a lane, but replace the whole viaduct.
Sunpurpleshine t1_j1fk53b wrote
No matter where the water is coming from the drainage system has to be replaced to increase a far greater capacity. This is because the Hudson may be the source currently, but truth is water will make it to the lowest spots from anywhere and new sources will pop up bc the land can’t handle the water. Our drainage systems have to be built to larger capacity. The flash floods should not be assumed to not increase and cause even more flooding than seen here in future years.
HobbitFoot t1_j1flf8k wrote
It is hard to drain a place that is being flooded by a river.
Sunpurpleshine t1_j1gbu4x wrote
It’s going to have to happen one way or another. Obviously the water flow system in place has to be replaced to handle more water (from the river and future other areas as well) and the river needs yo gage new drainage age points created. Of course it’s hard to do or it would have been done by now, nonetheless it still has to be done. The weather is not waiting on us.
warrensussex t1_j1eiqlf wrote
Never said it was.
HobbitFoot t1_j1ellt6 wrote
But you keep going back to discussing it like the Contractors only get one or the other.
warrensussex t1_j1em346 wrote
They aren't the same job and require different skill sets and equipments. There's bound to be some overlap, but a paving company isn't going to be laying track. Just like a plumber isn't going to be wiring your house. They're both contractors, but for different jobs.
HobbitFoot t1_j1enads wrote
But the replacement of the I-78 viaduct isn't a paving job. They aren't spending the money mainly on asphalt, but on bridges and other structures. Most of the work to protect Hoboken from flooding is going to be different structures like retaining walls. You are going to need a heavy structural firm to do either job, so you are likely going to have the same set of contractors.
Mikemo05 t1_j1efrzd wrote
Cars pay for the roads.
JeromePowellAdmirer t1_j1elwum wrote
Do you think transit riders don't pay for transit too? User fees come nowhere close to covering the costs of these things.
Mikemo05 t1_j1em62f wrote
Exactly. Car infrastructure is mostly covered by gas tax and taxes when you buy the car. So it's not taking govement money to build new road projects. While on the other hand transit doesn't profit in most cities. Same reason why bike lanes suck.
Godsarefakezz t1_j1en5y9 wrote
“Mostly”
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments