Posted on

Why are road, bridge and transit projects so expensive in NJ? Lawmaker wants answers

10329180_706803452716024_6845165961212394791_n-1-669x272

10329180_706803452716024_6845165961212394791_n-1-669x272

Why are road, bridge and transit projects so expensive in NJ? Lawmaker wants answers

Why do roads, bridges and transit projects cost so much to build in New Jersey?

State Senator Michael Doherty, R-Warren, has proposed a bill to try and answer that question and recommend ways to cut those costs.

His bill to form a State Transportation Analysis Task Force will attempt to answer findings in a recent Reason Foundation report, which said New Jersey spent $2 million a mile for road bridge and transit construction. The foundation ranked the state 48th in overall performance and cost effectiveness.

A task force is proposed as lawmakers are wrestling with finding revenue to finance major road, bridge and transit projects through the state’s Transportation Trust Fund. On July 1, all revenues raised through the state gas tax and other related taxes will be consumed by debt payments, leaving no money for construction.

In an opinion article that  Doherty wrote on NJ.com, he said the state needs “our own analysis of the factors that drive New Jersey’s road costs and a look at other states to determine how they are able to operate more efficiently.”

https://www.nj.com/traffic/index.ssf/2015/03/why_is_road_bridge_and_transit_construction_so_exp.html

Posted on

New Jersey Tries to Make Excuses for Expensive State Highways in Poor Condition

imgres-3

Road_work_theridgewoodblog.net_2-300x223-11

New Jersey Tries to Make Excuses for Expensive State Highways in Poor Condition

Taxpayers get traffic congestion, poor pavement conditions, deficient bridges and a big bill for state roads

David T. Hartgen and Baruch Feigenbaum
February 23, 2015

Reason Foundation’s Annual Highway Report, which found New Jersey’s state-controlled highway system ranks 48th out 50 states in cost-effectiveness and performance, has resonated with New Jersey’s taxpayers who have long complained of bumpy pavement and gridlocked roads and highways.

The Annual Highway Report measures the condition and cost-effectiveness of state-owned roads in numerous categories, including pavement condition on urban and rural Interstates, urban traffic congestion, deficient bridges, unsafe narrow lanes, traffic fatalities, total spending and administrative costs.

With a proposed increase to the state gas tax putting New Jersey’s roads under new scrutiny, Jamie Fox, commissioner of the New Jersey Department of Transportation, recently commented on the Annual Highway Report. Mr. Fox wrote, “Without the benefit of having the numbers the Reason Foundation used to base its calculations, there is no way to independently review its findings.”

That’s strange. Our Annual Highway Report is based on data that New Jersey, and other states, provide themselves to the federal government. And we’ve readily shared the report’s data with state transportation departments and members of the media across the country. The full Annual Highway Report is here (.pdf). Many of the tables we used are publicly available on the Federal Highway Administration’s website. Some of the key tables are HM-10 (mileage), SF-3 (Revenues for State-Administered Highways) and SF-4 (Disbursements for State-Administered Highways).

Mr. Fox also wrote, “NJDOT has jurisdiction over only 6 percent of the entire roadway network in the state.” That’s right, and the Reason Foundation’s Annual Highway Report ranks New Jersey based only on the roads the state actually controls. And that should be even more worrying New Jersey’s taxpayers: Despite the small size of the state-controlled highway system, New Jersey still has big trouble taking care of it. The state ranks near the bottom in poor pavement condition — 46th in urban Interstate pavement condition, 46th in rural primary road pavement condition—and 36th in deficient bridges.

New Jersey’s state government controls just over 3,300 miles of highway. Texas and North Carolina, for comparison, each control more than 20 times as much — over 80,000 miles of highway each. Texas ranks 11th in overall highway performance and cost-effectiveness, while North Carolina ranks 20th, and New Jersey ranks 48th.

Mr. Fox takes issue with how the state’s transportation spending is reported:

New Jersey gives out nearly $330 million a year in local transportation aid to counties and municipalities. This helps local government take care of local roads without having to raise property taxes. The Reason Foundation counts the spending we give to local government but doesn’t count all the miles of local roads that are repaired or built.

Like it does for county and municipal aid, the Reason Foundation also counts the investments made to maintain and run New Jersey Transit as part of our highway spending but gives the state no benefit for that spending. New Jersey is the only state that operates a statewide transit system, so including transit expenditures into highway construction costs is both inaccurate and unfair.

The report’s spending totals are pulled directly from numbers the state of New Jersey provided to the Federal Highway Administration under the category of “Disbursements For State-Administered Highways – 2012.” This federal table, used in our report, shows the breakdown that New Jersey provided for its spending on “capital outlays for roads and bridges; maintenance and highway services; administration research and planning; highway law enforcement and safety; interest; bond retirement; reserves for highway work; and reserves for debt service.”

None of those categories include “local transportation aid” or “statewide transit system.” If the state is claiming it mistakenly included local aid and mass transit spending in clearly defined state highway categories, New Jersey should correct the data it provided to FHWA.

Mr. Fox makes another claim:

The Reason Foundation uses a centerline mile as its denominator. A centerline mile measures the total length of a given road from Point A to Point B, but it doesn’t measure how many actual lanes of highway are going from Point A to Point B.

When was the last time you were on a single-lane highway in New Jersey? There are some, but not many. When we spend money to maintain or build a multiple lane highway, the Reason Foundation acts as if all that spending is to construct a single lane of highway, not the multiple lanes that are actually built.

Lane-miles are part of the report’s calculations. In fact, lane miles are inherent in calculating many of the report’s rankings, including traffic congestion and pavement condition. The Annual Highway Report clearly states: “The average number of lanes per mile is 2.40 lanes, but a few states (New Jersey, Florida, California and Massachusetts) manage significantly wider roads, averaging more than 3.0 lanes per mile.” The report goes on to detail the miles, lane miles and the average number of lanes for all 50 states. These factors are then used to adjust our figures to account for wider roads in some states, like New Jersey. So if New Jersey’s big spending were resulting in smoother pavement and less traffic congestion across many lanes, the state’s overall ranking and its rankings in those individual categories would be better. Instead, New Jersey ranks 31st or worse in nine of the 11 categories, and 41st or worse in seven of 11 categories.

It is incorrect, but let’s test the claim anyway — if the spending per mile metric is punishing New Jersey for having highways that are six or eight lanes wide, as Mr. Fox alleges, then it would make sense that other states with wide highways would suffer too. But that is not the case. California, home to many of the busiest and widest highways in the country, spends $500,000 per mile. New Jersey spends four times that — $2 million per mile. New Jersey spends three times as much as Massachusetts ($675,000 per mile), three-and-a-half times more than Florida ($572,000 per mile), four times as much as New York ($462,000 per mile), and 12 times more than Texas ($157,000 per mile), which is home to six of the 20 most populous cities in America.

– See more at: https://reason.org/news/show/new-jersey-excuses-poor-highway-con#sthash.xDjW1TIZ.dpuf

Posted on

Doherty on Transportation Trust Fund funding debate: New Jersey must make “informed decisions”

10329180_706803452716024_6845165961212394791_n-1-669x272

10329180_706803452716024_6845165961212394791_n-1-669x272

Doherty on Transportation Trust Fund  funding debate: New Jersey must make “informed decisions”
February 19, 2015
By Senator Mike Doherty (R-23)

There has been much discussion recently about a report on state highway systems by the Reason Foundation that found New Jersey’s roads to be the nation’s most expensive to build, operate and maintain.

According to that report, New Jersey’s state-administered highways cost taxpayers $2 million per mile, which the Reason Foundation claims to be 12 times the national average, three times the cost in the next highest state and four times the cost in New York.

The next most expensive state, according to the Reason Foundation, is Massachusetts, which spends a comparatively paltry $675,000 per mile. By most measures other than cost, apparently, our highway systems and the conditions they face seem nearly identical.

We have similar population densities — we are ranked first and they third in the nation — and our roads are both heavily travelled.

We share harsh northeast winters and maintain a comparable surface area of highway — they have 9,572 highway lane miles to our 8,496.

We also have similarly sized highways, with our state maintained roads averaging 3.65 lanes per mile and theirs 3.17 lanes per mile.

It also should be noted that Massachusetts is home to America’s most-expensive transportation project – the $24 billion “Big Dig” – that Bay State taxpayers will be paying off for the next 20+ years.

Despite all of the similarities in density, climate, actual area of road surface maintained and its own massive transportation spending, Massachusetts still manages to build and operate highways for what the Reason Foundation contends is one-third of what New Jersey pays.

If those numbers are correct, New Jersey’s taxpayers should be outraged and policymakers should take action.

Some, including state Transportation Commissioner Jamie Fox, have questioned the report’s findings and underlying methodology. Those concerns are valid and deserve to be investigated.

Despite his objections, Commissioner Fox concedes, however, that it is “more expensive to build a mile of road in New Jersey,” and few dispute the claim that New Jersey drivers and taxpayers pay more for our highways than anyone else in the nation.

It’s for that reason that the Reason Foundation report has suddenly become a central issue in the growing debate over how to address the long-term funding needs of the state’s Transportation Trust Fund (TTF).

The TTF, which helps pay for road and bridge projects around New Jersey, is in a perpetual state of financial distress and debt. Some would say it’s broke.

While we shouldn’t base state transportation funding policy on one organization’s report, we should pay attention when a seemingly well-formulated analysis raises such serious questions about where our money is going.

The Reason Foundation report, with its shocking conclusions, has fueled the argument that our transportation funding problem isn’t one of insufficient money, but of unreasonable spending.

A TTF plan put forward by New Jersey Democrats – who control both houses of the Legislature – doesn’t address spending, however. They simply want to increase the state’s gas tax, perhaps by 25 cents per gallon.

Such an increase would cost the average New Jersey driver $300 more per year at the pump, and the additional expense to our businesses would drive up the cost of virtually every product and service sold in the state.

According to the Tax Foundation, New Jersey residents already shoulder the second highest combined state and local tax burden, driven by our state’s highest in the nation property and business taxes, and sales and income taxes that are among the highest.

Perhaps the only source of relief for New Jerseyans in our entire tax structure is our gas tax, currently 14.5 cents per gallon, which is the second lowest in the nation.

Yet, this is precisely why Democrats see our gas tax as ripe for increasing. In their myopic view, we’re undertaxed!

Before we let Trenton politicians reach into the pockets of taxpayers yet again, shouldn’t we demand that we first find out why we spend so much more for our highways than every other state?

Shouldn’t we ask why we spend so much more than our peers, including Massachusetts, that have highway systems that are so similar to ours?

I think so, which is why I will introduce legislation requiring our own analysis of the factors that drive New Jersey’s road costs and a look at other states to determine how they are able to operate more efficiently.

If there were objections to the methodology employed by the Reason Foundation, the study I am proposing will be our opportunity to address those concerns and reach our own conclusions.

I hope Commissioner Fox, Governor Christie and other legislators will agree that this is necessary.

Until we determine exactly why we spend more than every other state, it will be impossible to lower our costs or make informed decisions about how much funding is really needed to complete important transportation projects at a cost reasonable to New Jersey taxpayers.

Coffee.clubshow?id=mjvuF8ceKoQ&bids=363195

Hotwire US

Microsoft Store

Posted on

Jamie Fox’s inane op-ed illustrates why we went broke in the first place

Road_work_theridgewoodblog

Road_work_theridgewoodblog.net_2-300x223-11

Jamie Fox’s inane op-ed illustrates why we went broke in the first place

Posted by Matt Rooney On February 16, 2015 2 Comments

By Matt Rooney | The Save Jersey Blog

The logic behind a guy seeking the GOP nomination for president appointing a former Torricelli/McGreevey bureaucrat to a critical cabinet post still eludes me, Save Jerseyans.

But here we are. We’re saddled with Jamie Fox now. And this is how he’s spending his time: advocating for a punishing increase in the one tax in New Jersey that isn’t suckily high (the gas tax) and, this past Sunday, penning a guest op-ed in the Star-Ledger claiming that New Jersey’s per-mile road maintenance isn’t nearly as expensive as claimed by gas tax hike opponents.

For starters, he complains that the study treats multiple lane highways like single-lane ones. Moreover, “New Jersey gives out nearly $330 million a year in local transportation aid to counties and municipalities. This helps local government take care of local roads without having to raise property taxes,” Commissioner Fox explains. “The Reason Foundation counts the spending we give to local government but doesn’t count all the miles of local roads that are repaired or built. Therefore, states with greater jurisdiction over local infrastructure fare better in the analysis as those centerline miles are credited to the state.”

You can find a copy of the eye-opening study here.

https://savejersey.com/2015/02/jamie-fox-gas-tax-hike-new-jersey/

Posted on

Congressman Scott Garrett’s tax plan would be a real gas for Jersey drivers: Mulshine

scott-garrett

scott-garrett

Congressman Scott Garrett’s tax plan would be a real gas for Jersey drivers: Mulshine

In the New York Times the other day a panel of experts debated the wisdom of lowering the drinking age. Those in favor of doing so pointed out that current law encourages younger people to binge on hard liquor in private instead of drinking beer or wine at a bar.

The article was sent to me by Assemblyman Mike Carroll of Morris County. Carroll, who is a father of five or six or some such number, said he supports lowering the drinking age to the voting age, which is 18.

“If you’re not capable of making a determination to drink a beer, are you capable of making a determination that Barack Obama should be president of the United States?” asked Carroll.

As you might deduce from that remark, Carroll is a conservative Republican. But there are liberal Democrats who also support lowering the drinking age. It all makes for a high-toned and illuminating debate and it might have great meaning – if this were a free country.

Unfortunately it’s not. Americans love to yammer on about their love for freedom, but they love pushing other people around even more. That’s how we ended up with such draconian regulations as a national 55-mph speed limit and a national drinking age of 21.

Scott Garrett has an idea that would end all that over-regulation – and free up a lot of money for transportation as well. Garrett, a conservative Republican who represents the northwest corner of the state, is sponsoring a bill that would accomplish both those ends through the simple expedient of turning the federal gas tax into a state tax.

https://www.nj.com/opinion/index.ssf/2015/02/congressman_scott_garretts_tax_plan_would_be_a_rea.html

Posted on

Reader says Time for Beneficiaries of Squandered NJ Transportation Funds to Return Them

DSCF1820

DSCF1820

file photo by Boyd Loving

Reader says Time for Beneficiaries of Squandered NJ Transportation Funds to Return Them

When a Ponzi scheme goes broke prosecutors appoint a trustee and use a “clawback” cause to force those who received beneficial $$$ to return it, and it’s distributed to investors/victims.

The same needs to be applied to the municipalities/homeowners who received the “benefit” of the sounds walls from money that was dedicated to road repairs, NOT to improve privat property of those who chose a poor location to live.

Until those funds that were pissed away on sound barriers are returned from the beneficiary homeowners and municipalities, no increase in taxes.

dunhillretaileroftheyear

Don't wait to WOW her! Save 25% when you select early delivery for your Valentine's Day orders at 1800flowers.com. Use Promo Code: DLVRCUPID at checkout. (Offer Ends 02/12/2015)show?id=mjvuF8ceKoQ&bids=216823

wine.comshow?id=mjvuF8ceKoQ&bids=209195

Chemistry.com 14 dyas free

Posted on

Union Group pushes for new ways to fund N.J. transportation projects

RIDGEWOOD_TRAFFIC_ALERT_theridgewoodblog

RIDGEWOOD_TRAFFIC_ALERT_theridgewoodblog.net_-300x2251

Union Group pushes for new ways to fund N.J. transportation projects

February 9, 2015, 3:01 PM    Last updated: Monday, February 9, 2015, 3:03 PM
By JOHN REITMEYER
STATE HO– USE BUREAU |
The Record

A group that’s been pushing state lawmakers and Governor Christie to come up with a new way to fund transportation projects in New Jersey brought that effort to Trenton on Monday, holding a news conference to put more pressure on leaders to act.

“Now is the time for the final push,” said Tom Bracken, chairman of Forward New Jersey, a group made up of 75 different organizations, including labor unions, local government representatives and business groups.

New Jersey pays for its road, bridge and rail work primarily using funds raised from borrowing and from the state’s gas tax. But later this year the revenue generated by the gas tax will be going only to pay off debt, with few funds left in the state Transportation Trust Fund for new projects.

Bracken called that “the most critical issue facing the state right now.” He stopped short of endorsing an increase of the gas tax, which at 14.5 cents per gallon is among the lowest in the country, but said it should be among the options up for discussion as the leaders try and find a solution.

“I support a long-term, sustainable, dedicated solution,” Bracken said.

Members of labor unions had the strongest presence at Monday’s event, filling much of the room.

https://www.northjersey.com/news/group-pushes-for-new-ways-to-fund-n-j-transportation-projects-1.1267743

Posted on

N.J. lawmakers: ‘Close’ on plan to extend transportation fund

unnamed-22-1

unnamed-22-1

file photo Boyd Loving

N.J. lawmakers: ‘Close’ on plan to extend transportation fund

FEBRUARY 4, 2015, 1:38 PM    LAST UPDATED: WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 4, 2015, 5:31 PM
BY JOHN REITMEYER AND DUSTIN RACIOPPI
STATE HO– USE BUREAU |
THE RECORD

State lawmakers on Wednesday tried to assure anxious local officials that they are close to reaching an agreement to extend the state fund that pays for road, bridge and rail improvements in New Jersey.

The lawmakers, however, provided no new details about what that plan could look like even as the state comes closer to the date the current funding source will go broke, and as they await a state budget proposal later this month from Governor Christie.

And for all their talk of agreement, the legislative leaders who participated in a panel discussion as part of the New Jersey League of Municipalities’ annual mayor’s legislative day in the State House also showed ways in which they still remain deeply at odds on the transportation issue — particularly over the potential for raising New Jersey’s gas tax.

Senate President Stephen Sweeney, D-Gloucester, said he and Assembly Speaker Vincent Prieto, D-Secaucus, have been in talks to come up with a plan for extending the state Transportation Trust Fund, which is set to run out of money in a few months, and now are “close.”

“I think we can come to a solution,” Sweeney said. “I hope we can get an agreement with the administration.”

https://www.northjersey.com/news/n-j-lawmakers-close-on-plan-to-extend-transportation-fund-1.1264286

Posted on

State lists 40 bridges that may need fixing fast, but the question remains what did they do with all the money in the Transportation fund ?

imgres-3

imgres-3

State lists 40 bridges that may need fixing fast, but the question remains what did they do with all the money in the Transportation fund ?

FEBRUARY 3, 2015, 4:25 PM    LAST UPDATED: WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 4, 2015, 10:12 AM
BY JOHN CICHOWSKI
RECORD COLUMNIST |
THE RECORD

As Governor Christie’s new transportation commissioner sees it, you don’t need a civil engineering degree to recognize some of the obvious weaknesses in the 40 bridges that his engineers have placed on the Department of Transportation’s high-priority list for immediate inspection, including the Route 3 link over the Hackensack River that’s now undergoing emergency repair.

Related: High priority N.J. bridges for 2015

“It’s quite simple,” Jamie Fox observed. “As anyone can see, our bridges are old and crumbling. If we don’t identify a dedicated funding source now, we’ll have no choice but to close more bridges to ensure public safety.”

In addition to the Route 3 span that connects East Rutherford to Secaucus, 12 of the 40 are in North Jersey — four in Bergen County, four in Hudson and two each in Morris and Essex. Replacing or rehabilitating all 13 would cost a minimum of $300 million — a preliminary DOT estimate that would surely rise sharply by the time work is completed.

https://www.northjersey.com/news/road-warrior-state-lists-40-bridges-that-may-need-fixing-fast-1.1263678

Posted on

Obama Wants to Hike Corporate Taxes to Pay For Infrastructure. Here’s Why That’s a Bad Idea.

10329180_706803452716024_6845165961212394791_n-1

10329180_706803452716024_6845165961212394791_n-1

Obama Wants to Hike Corporate Taxes to Pay For Infrastructure. Here’s Why That’s a Bad Idea.

Curtis Dubay / @CurtisDubay / Emily Goff / February 02, 2015

It is fitting that President Obama released his 2016 budget on Groundhog’s Day. Like Bill Murray’s character Phil Connors in the famous movie Obama is stuck in an endless loop where he keeps pushing economically destructive tax hikes that have little chance of becoming law.

This is the seventh budget he has released, and each of them had trillions of dollars of tax hikes that would needlessly increase the tax burden on American families and increase the already bloated size of the federal government.

This year’s headline-grabbing and nonsensical tax hike targets U.S. multinational businesses. Obama wants to apply a 19 percent minimum tax on their foreign income going forward and a 14 percent tax on the foreign income they previously earned but have not yet returned to the U.S. (and therefore have not paid their U.S. tax on yet).

Businesses would have to pay the minimum tax each year. Thus, it would end the long practice of deferral, which applies extra U.S. tax to foreign earnings only when businesses return those profits home. It is unclear from the text of the budget if businesses could continue to use their foreign tax credits, or if the minimum tax would apply on top of the foreign tax businesses already pay. Either way, ending deferral and raising taxes on foreign income will reduce investment by U.S. business both abroad and here at home. The result will be fewer jobs and lower wages for U.S. workers.

This tax hike is so perplexing because the U.S. already has the worst corporate tax system in the developed world. We have the highest rate, 15 percentage points above the average of our competitors, and we are effectively the only nation in that group that taxes the foreign income of our businesses.

We should be lowering the corporate tax rate and moving to a territorial system that would not tax overseas earnings to put our businesses back on competitive footing. However, by raising rates on the foreign income of our businesses, Obama’s proposal goes in the exact opposite direction.

This is an especially alarming development because corporate tax reform was supposed to be one area of potential compromise between Obama and the new Congress. Obama has said he is interested in doing it and even has a framework of a plan. These new proposals reduce the already slim chances of advancing much-needed reform.

This tax hike is so perplexing because the U.S. already has the worst corporate tax system in the developed world. We have the highest rate, 15 percentage points above the average of our competitors, and we are effectively the only nation in that group that taxes the foreign income of our businesses.

We should be lowering the corporate tax rate and moving to a territorial system that would not tax overseas earnings to put our businesses back on competitive footing. However, by raising rates on the foreign income of our businesses, Obama’s proposal goes in the exact opposite direction.

This is an especially alarming development because corporate tax reform was supposed to be one area of potential compromise between Obama and the new Congress. Obama has said he is interested in doing it and even has a framework of a plan. These new proposals reduce the already slim chances of advancing much-needed reform.

Obama is sure to argue that the policies he is proposing are similar to ones proposed by Republicans, such as in former Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee Dave Camp’s tax reform proposal last year. However, like in many of the president’s policies, the context matters immensely.

Camp’s proposal was part of a tax reform plan that established a territorial tax system. As part of that system, anti-base erosion and profit shifting (BEPS) policies are necessary to stop U.S. businesses from shifting too much U.S. income abroad. Obama proposing BEPS policies without simultaneously moving to a territorial regime is like trying to install a security system on a house that has not been built yet.

The president is also likely to argue that his tax on unrepatriated earning is a tax cut, since he would apply a lower rate to them than under current law. This is nonsense. By deeming the money repatriated and forcing businesses to pay tax on it, he is forcing businesses to pay tax on money they never intended to bring back to the U.S. and therefore would never have paid tax on.

The tax hike on multinationals is supposed to pay for half of a six-year, $478 billion highway and transit program reauthorization proposal. Obama wants to dramatically increase spending on underutilized mass transit rail systems and federal grants to local rail, road and port projects. Concentrating transportation decision-making in Washington is the wrong way to go; states, localities and the private sector know the mobility needs and consumer preferences on the ground. Obama’s proposal would give them less control over their transportation funding and spending when they need more.

Posted on

Underpass woes in Ridgewood

10329180_706803452716024_6845165961212394791_n-1

10329180_706803452716024_6845165961212394791_n-1

Letter to the Editor published in The Record, Sunday, June 8, 2014

Underpass woes in Ridgewood

Ridgewood’s underpass brouhaha won’t be over until it’s over.

Meanwhile, the question is how to go under.

We’re assured that a full complement of staff professionals worked on this plan for years and the council approved it unanimously. Responding to public outcry, however, the council quickly agreed to demolish 800 to 900 feet of just-poured curbing to halve the center divider’s width from eight feet to four feet. Previously it was 3.5 feet. That enables two driving lanes to be restored later, if desired.

Good, but what a waste. And aren’t the bicycle lanes the basis of a $146,500 grant under the state’s “Complete Streets” program? Would removing them forfeit the grant?

Since a narrow median can’t support trees, wood chips or gardeners, it will be “hardscaped,” not landscaped. That’s okay, said new Village Manager Roberta Sonenfeld, because the median plantings on Grove Street have gone to weeds anyway. Moreover, the $5,000 “saved” on trees and $20,000 “saved” on an irrigation system can go toward the $45,000 needed to replace the new curbing.

Communications were inadequate, admitted Sonenfeld. Residents who instantly saw the plan as untenable would have weighed in long ago had they been informed.

During World War II, my father worked with Army traffic in Europe. Pins were stuck into road maps with different pin colors representing the number and extent of accidents at intersections. Where “too many” deaths were tallied, someone was sent to direct traffic.

Is that what will happen at the underpass?

Marcia Ringel
Ridgewood, June 5

– See more at: https://www.northjersey.com/opinion/opinion-letters-to-the-editor/the-record-letters-sunday-june-8-1.1031360?page=all#sthash.tHmAVDFU.dpuf

Posted on

Congestion, conditions and safety shortfalls cost NJ drivers $1,951 a year, says report

Route_17_Glen062_theridgewoodblog

Route_17_Glen062_theridgewoodblog.net

file photo by Boyd Loving

Congestion, conditions and safety shortfalls cost NJ drivers $1,951 a year, says report

EDISON – Advocates for a long-term transportation funding plan in New Jersey have gained a new argument: You’re already spending the money, even without a gas tax hike.

You spend it on mechanics, due to repairs triggered by subpar roads. You pay it to gas stations, filling up more often after sitting in traffic. And you’re forking it over to insurance companies through higher rates that result from crashes on roads lacking modern safety measures.

The tab for such deficiencies, according to a report issued last week by Washington-based transportation research group called TRIP, is $11.8 billion a year. That comes to a sticker-shock average of $1,951 a year per New Jersey driver.

“The total number in New Jersey is a little bit higher than other states, and it’s basically because of congestion costs,” said Will Wilkins, TRIP’s executive director, as the report was issued last week at the NJ Carpenters Funds offices. “New Jersey’s one of the most densely populated states, so the cost goes up when you’re sitting in traffic congestion both for your time and also the motor fuel that’s wasted as you sit there in traffic.”

https://www.app.com/story/news/politics/new-jersey/2015/01/25/report-says-drivers-pay-big-even-without-gas-tax-hike/22239687/

Posted on

Road Warrior: Route 4 bridge in Teaneck gets no respect

012515-l-bridgerst50p

012515-l-bridgerst50p

PHOTO COURTESY OF BOB LEAFE
Bob Leafe, a reader from of Hackensack, recently spotted this large crack on the bridge near River Road in Teaneck.

Road Warrior: Route 4 bridge in Teaneck gets no respect

JANUARY 25, 2015 LAST UPDATED: SUNDAY, JANUARY 25, 2015, 2:49 PM
BY JOHN CICHOWSKI
RECORD COLUMNIST |
THE RECORD

During a stroll along the Hackensack River walkway on the day after Christmas, Bob Leafe became intrigued by the geese taking shelter under the Route 4 bridge in Teaneck, so he pulled out his camera and started shooting.

But when he looked closely at his work, Bob realized he had shot something a bit less idyllic than wildlife. His photo, as shown here, depicts what appears to be a vertical gash that extends along one of the giant pillars holding up part of the span that carries more than 100,000 vehicles each day, according to the state Department of Transportation.

“I’m no engineer, but that does NOT look good,” he wrote in an email. “Pretty scary,” he said later on the phone, adding that he would look for other ways to cross the Hackensack River from Teaneck to his home in Hackensack.

DOT engineers insist the span is safe enough for traffic — safer certainly than the Route 3 bridge over the same river between East Rutherford and Secaucus, whose left eastbound lane had to be closed last week for at least a month to repair persistent deterioration. Such road conditions rarely attract much attention from Trenton policymakers. But the Route 3 one attracted reporters and photographers to a DOT yard about a half-mile from the bridge, where Transportation Commissioner Jamie Fox again made his pitch for a “revenue enhancer.”

This term is code for some sort of additional levy that Fox believes is necessary to replenish the state’s Transportation Trust Fund, which has reached its bonding capacity. But the commissioner again avoided endorsing any hike to the hated 10.5-cent-a-gallon motor-fuels tax, which has always fueled most of the fund.

https://www.northjersey.com/news/nj-state-news/bridge-gets-no-respect-1.1251241

Microsoft Store

Posted on

NJ transportation fund or NJ transportation Slush fund?

RIDGEWOOD_TRAFFIC_ALERT_theridgewoodblog

RIDGEWOOD_TRAFFIC_ALERT_theridgewoodblog.net_-300x2251

NJ transportation fund or NJ transportation Slush fund

Readers Demand A Full Accounting of the NJ transportation fund before any New Revenue Sources are Sought

“The Federal Highway Administration tracks all revenues collected by states for use on transportation. The two main sources are the gas tax and tolls. NJ gasoline taxes are low, but the state’s toll collections rank second in the nation behind only the much larger New York. The result is that NJ actually has, according to the Feds, the eighth highest annual revenues to devote to roads and bridges of any state. And yet the NJ Transportation Fund is bust? Why you ask? According to a 2013 study by the Reason Foundation, NJ spends 8.4 TIMES the national average for every mile of road it maintains or builds… it’s not because of the low gas tax, it’s because of inflated union wage rates to build & maintain roads at 8X the national average.

Reader says , We all know that the transportation fund is a black hole of graft an corruption. Why else do the unions want it fully funded? Also gotta love how Senate Budget Committee Chairman Paul Sarlo sees no alternative other than raising the gas tax, but then in the next breath he proposes lowering or doing away with taxes on pension benefits!!! How are the two related you ask? Good question, but probably too difficult for our union hacks to answer because they love riding this gravy train.

No kidding, Senate Budget Committee Chairman Paul Sarlo is strongly in favor of raising gasoline taxes, but he also wants to do away with taxes on pension benefits. Wonder whose pocket he’s in ?
https://www.nj.com/politics/index.ssf/2014/11/potential_nj_gas_tax_increase_comes_up_against_christie_2016_prospects.html

He is sometimes referred to as “Senator Sanzari’ since his employer (Sanzari) benefits as a major road builder if the gas taxes are raised..and actually spent on road projects instead of just going into the general fund.

N.J. transportation chief orders immediate review of state’s bridges

JANUARY 20, 2015, 4:39 PM    LAST UPDATED: TUESDAY, JANUARY 20, 2015, 11:09 PM
BY CHRISTOPHER MAAG
STAFF WRITER |
THE RECORD

The fight over New Jersey’s nearly-broke transportation fund ratcheted up two notches Tuesday when Transportation Commissioner Jamie Fox called for immediate safety inspections on every bridge in the state and local officials were warned not to count on $200 million in state transportation aid this year.

If the transportation fund is empty on July 1, that could throw into limbo an additional $100 million in matching federal aid for towns, endanger scores of road and bridge projects, and cause fiscal headaches for local officials. It also might increase pressure on the Legislature and Governor Christie to fix the transportation fund quickly, some politicians said.

Fox’s inspection order came hours after the collapse of an interstate bridge in Cincinnati, and after the department closed a smaller bridge in New Jersey that engineers discovered was unsafe.

“I’ve ordered an expedited review of all our bridges, state and local,” Fox said. “I’d rather be safe than sorry, so we know definitively whether we have any unsafe bridges.”

Fox’s move illustrates how depleted the transportation fund has become. Officially called the Transportation Trust Fund, it raises $1.2 billion a year, mostly from highway tolls and motor fuels taxes. After years of state borrowing against the fund’s revenues, however, nearly all of the money raised goes to paying the fund’s $18.2-billion debt, and little remains for repair or construction work.

https://www.northjersey.com/news/n-j-transportation-chief-orders-immediate-review-of-state-s-bridges-1.1228720

Posted on

FDU Poll: 68% oppose a gas tax hike

imgres-3

imgres-3

FDU Poll: 68% oppose a gas tax hike

With gas prices below $2 a gallon in some parts of the state, policymakers are considering raising the gas tax. Legislators say the additional revenue would go to fund much-needed bridge and road repairs in the state. However, the public isn’t buying it. The most recent statewide survey from Fairleigh Dickinson University’s PublicMind finds respondents oppose the idea of additional taxes by a more than two-to-one margin, with many (31%) saying their opposition is driven by skepticism that the funds would be used as intended, and the belief that residents are already overburdened by taxes (45%). (PolitickerNJ)

FDU Poll: 68% oppose a gas tax hike | New Jersey News, Politics, Opinion, and Analysis