Christie kiled the ARC tunnel

[Devil's Advocate]

I'm not sure where you see, or are reading into things, that it was Mr. LaHood's call on moving that money to roads.

So what is the author talking about when he specifically references LaHood? Presumably the real issue is the way the funding bill was written and has nothing to do with LaHood making demands. You seem to be spending all your time on me instead of looking at what the author actually wrote. If anyone is contradicting you it's him, not me.

 

[Ryan]

The only think that the author is saying that Mr. LaHood made a decision on was about the getting the state to repay money that the feds have already spent on the project (since it was canceled). The fact that the money can't go straight from the ARC tunnel to this extension is a completely separate matter. Like Alan, I have no idea why you're bringing roads into the equation at all.

 

[Devil's Advocate]

The only think that the author is saying that Mr. LaHood made a decision on was about the getting the state to repay money that the feds have already spent on the project (since it was canceled).

I figured the repayment was part of the original bill's wording and not even up to LaHood? As for wanting to redistribute rail money to roads, yeah I must just be imagining that since nobody has ever made such a request.

 

[Ryan]

The only think that the author is saying that Mr. LaHood made a decision on was about the getting the state to repay money that the feds have already spent on the project (since it was canceled).

I figured the repayment was part of the original bill's wording and not even up to LaHood?

You figured incorrectly.

As for wanting to redistribute rail money to roads, yeah I must just be imagining that since nobody has ever made such a request.

I don't see where anyone has claimed that, or what its relevance is.

 

[AlanB]

Daxomni,

It's Mr. LaHood's job to demand the money back from NJ because they have failed to live up to their obligations to run the train. Again, I do believe that in this case it might have been possible for the money to be shifted to a road project, but I'm not aware of any such request from New Jersey to do so. And as I mentioned before, it would be highly unusual to do so with this much money involved and so many clamouring for transit monies from the Fed.

But unlike the Stimulus monies that Wisconsin and Ohio seem to be about ready to reject, the money from the NJT project has different rules and conditions. It will take an act of Congress to allow Ohio and Wisconsin to either use those funds on roads or at least prevent it from going to other states, so as to reduce the deficit. Of course it's totally laughable to think that $1.2 Million is going to make a dent in a $13+ Trillion deficit.

And I'm sorry that you feel that way, but I wasn't targeting you. You'll know when I do that. I still don't see what you're seeing in that article that led you to believe that Mr. LaHood made the decision to tell NJ "No, you can't use these funds on your roads." I ask you to please point out the specific language that you believe is saying this, because again, I'm not seeing that. Sorry!

I do see a reference to New York City officials hoping that perhaps they could have gotten Mr. LaHood to give them the money so as to advance the idea of sending the #7 Trains under the river to NJ. And I suspect that Mr. LaHood might well have the power to do that, but I'm not sure that he will. In large part simply because at present this is just an idea. There are no plans and no funding agreements between NY, NYC, NJ, and the Port Authority.

 

[jis]

I do see a reference to New York City officials hoping that perhaps they could have gotten Mr. LaHood to give them the money so as to advance the idea of sending the #7 Trains under the river to NJ. And I suspect that Mr. LaHood might well have the power to do that, but I'm not sure that he will. In large part simply because at present this is just an idea. There are no plans and no funding agreements between NY, NYC, NJ, and the Port Authority.

You are correct. The money cannot be transferred just like that because in order to get to the FFGA (Full Funding Grant Agreement) stage, there must be a NEPA (National Environmental Policy Act) FEIS (Final Environmental Impact Statement) approved in a so called RoD (Record of Decision). This will take at least 2 years for a new project, maybe a little shorter if they are able to use substantial parts of the work done for the ARC tunnels FEIS. The ARC tunnels left clear the easement for future Amtrak tunnels so that won't be a problem.

On the matter of source of the ARC funds,the Federal component of it was from the FTA New Starts Grant program, which is governed by a completely different set of rules from the Stimulus ones,and indeed La Hood has considerable leeway to move the money around to whatever, as long as it is a project that qualifies for the New Start Program, which has a complicated set of qualifying criteria. That is why Senator Gillibrand is merely grandstanding and whistling in the wind when she talks about allocating the money to ESA or 2nd Ave. Subway. That simply cannot be done. They are not New Start Projects any more and FTA has capped both of those as far as FTA contribution is concerned.

 

[Green Maned Lion]

I've always liked the idea of the 7 to Secaucus. I say it'll never happen, though. MTA is not chartered to operate service in New Jersey itself, and it is not within the pervue of the NYCTA. Adding the NYCTA to the general bureaucracy surrounding Hudson River crossings would be... problematic.

In the real world of solving commuters problems, though, it is an ideal solution. I think, by the way, it would greatly reduce the need for additional tunnels, because I think it will eventually reduce the number of trains NJT sends to New York on peak, just as they did with Hoboken.

 

[Devil's Advocate]

It's Mr. LaHood's job to demand the money back from NJ because they have failed to live up to their obligations to run the train.

If he did not demand it back could they simply keep it? I'm just curious because I honestly don't know how these things work.

And I'm sorry that you feel that way, but I wasn't targeting you. You'll know when I do that. I still don't see what you're seeing in that article that led you to believe that Mr. LaHood made the decision to tell NJ "No, you can't use these funds on your roads."

It wasn't meant as a statement so much as a question. If my assumption was incorrect, as it appears it was, then no biggie.

 

[AlanB]

It's Mr. LaHood's job to demand the money back from NJ because they have failed to live up to their obligations to run the train.

If he did not demand it back could they simply keep it? I'm just curious because I honestly don't know how these things work.

First please understand that I'm not 100% certain of all the rules and as I've mentioned before, the some of the rules are very different for Stimulus monies.

That said, it is important to know that in general the Fed doesn't just hand a state a check for the entire amount promised. Much like a bank holding a loan does to a new home builder, the Fed pays out portions of the monies promised as certain bench marks are reached. In the case of the home builder, dig the foundation, the bank sends a check for X. Get the house framed, the bank sends another check for Y. And so on and so on.

The same applies here, as things are built and mile stones are reached, the Fed sends off a check. Of course these days it might even be an electronic transfer.

So the bulk of the $3B promised by the Fed still remains in Federal coffers and not in NJ's hands. What Mr. LaHood is demanding that NJ repay is one or maybe two of those installment payments. However, in this case and especially for the amount in question, I'm of the mind that Mr. LaHood probably could have said to NJ, "just keep the money or use it on this rail project or even use it on this road."

I think however that he was somewhat frustrated by Mr. Christie's entire attitude. It's a pretty big snub when Mr. LaHood says "let's talk about this first please before you decide anything" and then he opens the paper to find that Mr. Christie has announced that he's killing the project the day before their meeting is to take place.

I also think that Mr. LaHood is playing hard ball here to also send a message to Wisconsin & Ohio, that they aren't going to keep that money either. Although again, here the rules are more different, since that is Stimulus money that must go to trains unless Congress changes things and the President agrees. But again, Mr. LaHood is still sending a message, "kill what we want and you guys will get the bill."

 

[jis]

So the bulk of the $3B promised by the Fed still remains in Federal coffers and not in NJ's hands. What Mr. LaHood is demanding that NJ repay is one or maybe two of those installment payments. However, in this case and especially for the amount in question, I'm of the mind that Mr. LaHood probably could have said to NJ, "just keep the money or use it on this rail project or even use it on this road."

Actually, strictly speaking none of the $3 billion is in NJT's hands, since the FFGA for that has never been signed. It was a special agreement between NJT and FTA which allowed NJT to temporarily draw certain amount from FTA which would have been charged against the $3 billion after the FFG was signed. Since it wasn't, theoretically NJT is on the hook for whatever they have already spent out of the temporary grant against a full grant that has not been approved, nothwithstanding all the huffing and puffing that Weinstein and Christie are exercising their lungs in.

 

[Shanghai]

Personally, I think it was a big mistake for Governor Christie to cancel the ARC Tunnel,

however, I think it would have been a bigger mistake for Christie not to cancel the tunnel

when a projected 2.3 billion cost overrun has been identified - before the project seriously

got underway and who knows what the actual overrun would be to completion. The taxpayers of

New Jersey should not be responsible for such an irresponsible plan.

 

I do hope that a resolution can be found to properly fund the tunnel, with proper Manhattan

terminations. I feel that in the future, the tunnel will be required for NJ and for Amtrak

services.

 

[jis]

Actually, strictly speaking none of the $3 billion is in NJT's hands, since the FFGA for that has never been signed. It was a special agreement between NJT and FTA which allowed NJT to temporarily draw certain amount from FTA which would have been charged against the $3 billion after the FFG was signed. Since it wasn't, theoretically NJT is on the hook for whatever they have already spent out of the temporary grant against a full grant that has not been approved, nothwithstanding all the huffing and puffing that Weinstein and Christie are exercising their lungs in.

Pardon me for responding to my own post, but I have come across an interesting analysis from someone I trust, though I am not going to name the person since I have not obtained permission for doing. But notwithstanding I would like to point out that this is not something that I dreamed up, it has some basis in fact. However, for all practical purposes you should take this as hearsay for now.

Apparently it is now coming out that when the FTA approved the early access fund for NJT to start work on ARC, the $271 million that is being talked about, FTA was already aware of the possible cost overruns. The funding was arranged through a motion of the Congress arranged by a certain Senator from a certain Mid-Atlantic state adjacent to New York, and officials at FTA signed off on it, knowing full well that it was most likely sunk money (one of those officials being Simpson, the current Transportation Commish in the same said state). This also involved a quick nod-nod wink-wink between said Senator and the then Governor of the same state, and neither NJT (which already knew of the budget shortfall issues and was hoping nobody else would notice before the FFGA is signed ), nor the new incoming Governor (who then was not aware of the budget overrun issues) were made aware of the nature of this deal by the outgoing Governor, who was busy sticking a shovel in the ground and tearing down one McDonalds in Bergen County to get the ball rolling before he left office. So now there is most likely going to be an investigation of who did what to whom in Washington DC, while NJ gets to sit tight on the money until investigations get to the bottom of it all.

Isn't politics fun? Also illustrates why it is important to flip the control of government from one party to another from time to time Helps uncover some unsavory stuff.

 

[PRR 60]

I'm willing to bet that senior citizen Senator from a state adjacent to New York will not be in a great hurry to open that investigation into the cancellation of ARC that he so vocally promised. Those sorts of things can get out of hand when you have issues you would prefer not to become public. That would not be the type of legacy he is seeking.

 

[Green Maned Lion]

I'm willing to bet that senior citizen Senator from a state adjacent to New York will not be in a great hurry to open that investigation into the cancellation of ARC that he so vocally promised. Those sorts of things can get out of hand when you have issues you would prefer not to become public. That would not be the type of legacy he is seeking.

'Course not. He likes his legacies to contain granite and marble and arise from the middle of marshlands like a Soviet monument to largess.

 

[jis]

Given the hanky-panky that went on in the waning days of the Corzine administration, I was certain that this was coming:

From the WSJ:

Gov. Chris Christie plans to challenge the $271 million bill the federal government says New Jersey owes after canceling a rail tunnel.
The administration is completing plans to retain a Washington law firm to try to stop the Federal Transit Administration from collecting money spent on engineering and construction for the $8.7 billion Hudson River tunnel, Christie spokesman Michael Drewniak said Wednesday. The unnamed firm has expertise in federal transit matters.

Read the whole article here.

Notice that the senior senator is in the act too trying to get the Fed DOT to reduce the bill.

I'm willing to bet that senior citizen Senator from a state adjacent to New York will not be in a great hurry to open that investigation into the cancellation of ARC that he so vocally promised. Those sorts of things can get out of hand when you have issues you would prefer not to become public. That would not be the type of legacy he is seeking.

Specially, since he would not want his name taken off from the station that it is applied to like happened with Harrison Williams at Metropark. :giggle: