Join the discussion on the following article:
Sandy damage will require closing Hudson River tunnels for repair
If through tunnels are needed, dead end tunnels would not do the job or handle the required capacity.
The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and US Attorney for NJ are investigating Governor Christie over his cancellation of the Access to the Region’s Core (ARC) tunnel project. Here’s a recent newspaper article about the ongoing investigation:
http://www.nj.com/politics/index.ssf/2014/08/in_bond_prospectus_port_authority_details_probes_by_regulators_and_prosecutors_1.html
It is complicated mess and I am not sure I entirely understand it, but here’s my best attempt at a summary:
(1) The ARC was to cost $8.7 billion.
(2) The Port Authority of NY and NJ sold municipal bonds that were going to be used to pay for $3 billion of the ARC’s cost.
(3) Christie cancelled the ARC.
(4) After cancelling the ARC, Christie then used $1.8 billion (of the Port Authority’s $3 billion) to pay for rebuilding the Pulaski Skyway (in NJ) and roadways leading to the Holland Tunnel.
(5) The problem: Under its 1921 charter, the Port Authority of NY & NJ is responsible for access roads to the Lincoln Tunnel, but not to the Holland Tunnel.
(6) Consequently, the bonds sold by the Port Authority to fund Port Authority projects were actually used to pay for state of NJ projects… which apparently qualifies as municipal bond fraud.
I suspect that the Governor and/or people close to him will be indicted on some sort of financial fraud charges.
Also, FWIW, the SEC previously charged the State of NJ with securities fraud back in 2010:
http://www.sec.gov/news/press/2010/2010-152.htm
Back then, the SEC said NJ had misrepresented and failed to disclose to investors in billions of dollars worth of municipal bond offerings that it was underfunding the state’s two largest pension plans.
ARC had issues in that the new tunnels would feed a separate station on Manhattan, not connected with Penn. However, I really don’t think that was the reason Gov. C killed it. The plans could have been modified and we could be building the new tunnels right now, instead of being back at square one.
Richard Andre YOU are correct. Christie stopped a collasal folly toited by brain dead bureaucrats.
christie a backwards thinking fool.
Chris Christie made the right call here. The ARC project was not a good solution and we can thank Christie for killing it before any more money was spent or actual construction begun.
ARC was stupid. The new plan - having the tunnels go into an expanded penn station - is the right way to go.
However, I object to having it paid for by taxes. Raise the ticket prices for people who travel through the tunnel. If it is worth it, then they will pay - if it’s not worth it to them, then they’ll find another way to get across the Hudson River.
Nobody cares about building thins for the common good of the country anymore, people always look at themselves first. But then the populace probably learned most of this from the U.S. Congress
Wow! Don’t pay for anything I won’t use. Also the idea that people will find a way to cross the Hudson without the tunnels. Swim, maybe or large canoes? No wonder this country is going (has gone) to hell.
Mr. Dickey is right!! All taxpayers should not have to pay for something many of them don’t actually use even though it’s available to all. For example, I do not use I-88 in New York: never have; never expect to. Therefore, none of my tax dollars should have gone to the construction of this route and none should go to its upkeep. I could add a mile-long list of other examples, from airports to tunnels to bridges to urban transit, etc., etc.
Chris Christie may have made the right call, but for the wrong reasons and may have committed fraud in the process. Unfortunately, the courts will have to figure that out at additional expense. In the meantime, this problem highlights the fundamental problem with transit: its’ dependency on government, who in turn has to depend on taxpayer revenue, a double funnel, both of which are unpredictable revenue sources.
I’ve said before that I think it’s legitimate for government to use a reasonable formula for how much traffic transit takes off the road and therefore how much money they’re saving on road expenses, which can the be applied toward transit, but beyond that, the more revenue that can be generated by people actually willing to use the system, the better. But when the infrastructure costs overwhelm the available funding, and the trains don’t even cover their operating costs, we seriously have to ask ourselves, is it worth it?
It’s sexy, and I sure like having rail transit, and even in rural Tennessee, I use it as much as I can when I travel, but if it is to be sustainable, these issues need to be overcome. Otherwise, future generations will look back at our abandoned passenger rail infrastructure like we look back on things like Stone Henge.