|
Posted by
Olog-hai
on Sun Apr 29 02:32:28 2012, in response to Report Disputes Christie’s Basis for Halting ARC Tunnel project, posted by Gold_12TH on Tue Apr 10 13:30:43 2012.
edf40wrjww2msgDetail:detailStr fiogf49gjkf0d Newark Star-Ledger
What the heck? The Times gets the tunnel wrong againPublished: Wednesday, April 11, 2012, 3:49 PM | Updated: Wednesday, April 11, 2012, 4:16 PM
By Paul Mulshine/The Star LedgerI've noted before that the people who run the New York Times seem to have not the vaguest notion of just how their island is connected to New Jersey.
Now it seems they don't understand who runs their subway system either.
There was an article in Wednesday's Times on Chris Christie's response to a soon-to-be-released study on the canceled ARC Tunnel.
In it, we come across this puzzling passage about the governor's views:While the tunnel would have expanded the number of subway lines available to those who commute to Pennsylvania Station in New York City, he characterized it on Tuesday as a dead-end to a department store. Huh? ARC had nothing to do with expanding subway lines.
The plan called for two tunnels carrying NJ Transit trains, not MTA subways.
And the new tunnels could not have expanded subway access for those who commute to Penn Station for the simple reason that they would not have gone to Penn Station. They would have gone to a new station to be built deep underground right next to Penn Station.
The reporter seems to be talking about an entirely different project, the proposal by Mayor Mike Bloomberg to extend the No. 7 subway to New Jersey. That's a good idea, though the MTA chief recently nixed it. But it had nothing to do with ARC.
And then there's this:The tunnel would have doubled capacity for commuters on New Jersey Transit and Amtrak trains, (my italics) which now share two 100-year-old single track tunnels to cross the Hudson. The tracks are at capacity, and commuter demand is expected to rise 38 percent by 2030. No, it wouldn't have. Amtrak trains could not have used the tunnels for the simple reason that the tracks would have dead-ended deep under New York City and Amtrak trains need to continue north to Boston. That's why Amtrak chief Joseph Boardman said he opposed the ARC plan at a press conference last year.
But at least this Times reporter realizes there are two NJ Transit tunnels. When I did a column on ARC errors by Times columnist Paul Krugman last year, I wrote this:Krugman went on to add, "right now there’s just one century-old rail tunnel linking New Jersey and New York — and it’s running close to capacity."
Krugman is a brilliant guy. But like most New Yorkers, he needs to get out more. In fact, there are six rail tunnels connecting New Jersey and Manhattan. Two run to Penn Station and are shared by NJ Transit and Amtrak. Four others are used by PATH trains. The ARC plan would add an additional two for a total of eight. But who’s counting? Certainly not the Times staff.
Read that entire column of mine for a list of other elementary Times errors on ARC.
No wonder these guys supported the ARC project. If it would have increased subway capacity to New Jersey, added Amtrak access to New York, and done all the other wonderful stuff they report, you'd have to be crazy to oppose it.
Unfortunately, you'd have to be crazy to take the Times seriously when they keep getting such basic facts wrong.
The funny thing it, the Times reporters actually do a very good job of reporting on faraway places as Afghanistan. But Jersey? That's really a foreign country when seen from Manhattan.
|
