Every few years, politicians from Rockland County drum up some outrage over their inclusion in the MTA, and every few years, they demand something — usually more — while bemoaning having to pay more. It’s an odd little dance that isn’t entirely without a sound basis in fact, but it also underscores the inherent contradictions in New York State politics and how no one is ever held responsible for them.
The latest come to us from Rockland County Legislative Chairman Alden Wolfe and Legislator Harriet Cornell who is the Chair of the Special Committee on Transit. As part of the MTA Every One Has a Pet Project Commission Reinvention Commission, the two sent comments with their views on reinvention. Wolfe’s words were fairly neutral. “Rockland has documented for years the disparity in the tax revenues generated from Rockland,” he said, “which far exceed annual expenditures made by the MTA to serve the County: it’s a $40 million value gap.”
I delved into that study back in 2012 when Rockland started making noises about leaving the MTA. It was not without merit, and SAS commenters found it to be at least discussion-worthy. I thought it didn’t quite account for the positive benefits of regular, if sporadic, train service.
Cornell used her statement as a soapbox. “Institutional, intergovernmental and jurisdictional barriers are at the heart of MTA’s insufficient attention to Rockland’s transit needs,” she said. “Rockland on the west side of the Hudson is a transportation orphan, long overdue for substantial new investment in our transportation infrastructure. The MTA has not met customer needs!”
Most New Yorkers west of the Hudson would love to be as “orphaned” as Rockland which, as I noted, has regular, if sporadic, service. But maybe Rockland deserves an improvement. Let’s see what happened when the state last tried to raise revenue for transit service. If you guessed “complain about the payroll tax,” well, you’re the next contestant on “The Gripe Is Right.”
In 2009, when the state approved the MTA Payroll Tax as a funding measure for the cash-starved MTA, the same two Rockland County legislators complaining this week led the charge to oppose the payroll tax and agitate for withdrawal from the MTA, a threat that seems to disproportionately impact only themselves. Perhaps Rockland needs to learn a lesson in politics: Sometimes you have to give first if you want to receive later.
Ultimately, Rockland does seem to draw a shorter end of the straw than the rest of the MTA counties, but moaning about improvements on the one hand while objecting to funding schemes five years earlier isn’t productive policymaking. It is though business as usual when it comes to transit politics in New York. How frustrating.
69 comments
I have trouble arguing with them myself, but are there any constructive projects they’d like to see done?
So what exactly do they want? More busses ?? !! ??
I think they shot down the high speed ferry from Nyack idea way back in the late ’90s. As far as their Pascack Valley Line, there’s no place to extend that ROW to the north. NJTransit doesn’t even run 2 tracks up to Hackensack – and it’s the County seat! So it isn’t likely to ever have more than sporadic service to Spring Valley. 15 suburban stops is a long way to travel on a single pair of tracks.
The problem isn’t with the MTA. The problem is that the new crossing to replace the Chimpan-Zee Bridge didn’t include rail service across the Hudson. I’m sure MetroNorth would have been delighted to run a spur out to the Park-N-Ride just west of the Palisade Center Mall – and from there north along the perfectly good existing ROW all the way up to West Point. THAT would have served Rockland County. Even NJT’s plan for that ROW would have light rail service up to West Haverstraw – but we’re more likely to see a subway to Staten Island before that happens. New Jersey still hasn’t gotten to the B in their HBLR.
If Rockland County wants to bitch about MTA inclusion, then let them fight for rail tracks across the Zee. You can’t beat a single-seat ride from West Haverstraw to GCT. Even Richmond County would be green with envy -and they’re one of the boroughs.
Come to think of it, has anyone explored what it would take to simply use the old bridge for rail transit? Rather than 7 lanes of humming traffic, all day and all night, maybe the service life of the old monkey bars could be extended if it only had to handle a pair of rail tracks used a couple of times an hour. MUCH less wear and tear on the aging infrastructure.
KEEP the old Chimpan-Zee Bridge in place – but convert it to rail !! Straddle the NYS Thruway ’til you cross Mountainview Ave, then parallel it on the north side up to the Palisade Mall. Then from there head north to Haverstraw along the existing ROW. Easy-peasy!
If we can’t get them to build the rail option on the new bridge, then run it over the old bridge.
I’ve asked myself, and have never seen a satisfying answer for why it’s not possible. Obviously the bridge will need a major refurbishment.
And the costs would be borne by whom exactly? The Thruway Authority, which is already struggling to come up with exactly how they’re paying for the new bridge and the Governor has had to cobble together funding from multiple sources to get it underway?
The MTA, which can barely keep the existing system functioning and for which the politicians continue to under-fund?
The region needs more and better infrastructure, and Cuomo’s refusal to include even BRT on the new bridge shows his bias against smart transit and infrastructure moves.
Rockland’s existing transit options via the MTA are the PJ line, which stops in Suffern and where service is pretty good and the Pascack Valley line, which has seen significant improvements in recent years as NJ Transit has built out sidings so that they can run trains in both directions – there’s still single tracking in some areas, but it’s better than it was even a decade ago. Those benefits flow to Rockland since service is much better than it had been.
If Rockland wants more service, they’d have to figure out what it is they want, and how to pay for it. Want the bridge to have transit link – work with other counties and the state to make it happen. Want expanded rail service to places like MetLife and Hoboken or NYPenn? Work with NJT and NJ to make it happen – with a spending plan and how to pay for it.
Otherwise, it’s the gripes of county politicians who are trying to gain a few votes and then do nothing to get the transit improvements done.
Well, Rockland has so much in-fighting that it is a wonder that they agree on anything…or do they?
I’d like to see what it would cost, first of all. It could be the structure is so dilapidated that it’s impractical, but if that’s the case then I don’t see how it should be carrying traffic now. Since the new bridge will be completed at some point, there is no need to let traffic interfere with a refurbishment.
As for BRT, it’s not operative here anyway. BRT sometimes works for urban transit. A bus across the TZB would be a prioritized commuter bus at best, and those are at best already expensive and usually don’t attract many riders. One-seat rail could at least move people and attract people to live in the area to improve the tax base.
The region is already growing without trans hudson rail. And the buses wouldn’t have been focused on manhattan, they would have gone to places like tarrytown and white plains mostly. Getting the lanes off the bridge is harder than getting them on it anyway.
Growing without rail has an incredibly long history of bad consequences. It doesn’t matter where commuter buses go. They aren’t going to be as attractive as rail.
I’m not saying rail there is an inherently good idea, but it’s certainly a better idea than a bunch of highway lanes.
What’s the difference between commuter buses and urban transit buses?
Not to say the two don’t sometimes blend together, but a commuter bus will tend to travel between two distant points either non-stop or make a few stops near end points. Service tends to focus on peak hours. People tend to sit like in a coach rather than stand.
The bus system that was being considered before it was eliminated from the bridge project was 22 stations (6 rockland, 16 westchester) over the roughly 33 miles from Hilburn to Port Chester, 11.5k daily trips would have stayed within Rockland county, 31.1k within Westchester, and only 5.9k would have crossed the bridge. Service would have been heavier at peak hours, sure, but would have run all day. This looked more like a local bus service than MTA express buses. And given the wide shoulders on the bridge if either county really wants to revisit the busway they’d have room to run buses over the bridge.
One point worth mentioning is those rider estimates assumed MNR would run in Rockland over the bridge. Without that rockland ridership and ridership over the bridge would likely increase.
Yeah – the assumption was (and probably correctly) that the BRT would take traffic off the I287 corridor in Westchester. The area roughly between White Plains and Purchase (neighboring Port Chester) was known as “Platinum Mile” because of all the Manhattan companies that moved up there in the 80’s and 90’s. Though many of those corporations de-camped to Connecticut.
It sounds like a series of park ‘n rides.
The problem isn’t with its current state of delapidation. It is well maintained. The problem is the rising cost of maintenance. It is basically 7 lanes wide and 3 miles long over brackish water. That requires a lot of upkeep. It probably has among the highest maintenance costs of any bridge in the country.
But if that were narrowed down to 2 lanes wide, and had the extra dead weight in superstructure and pavement removed, the bridge that remained would cost a fraction to maintain.
“And the costs would be borne by whom exactly?”
I think an important question to ask is, “What will be the cost of removing the existing structure?” You can’t just leave the rotting, rusting carcass of bridge to decay over the Hudson. You have to take it down, and well below the water line. You can’t leave a crumbling menace to navigation just south of the new bridge.
So … what will be the cost of demolishing all those concrete piers, and all the pile caps they sit on? Marine work off barges is inherently expensive – much more so than simple demolition on the ground. The cost of divers alone is staggering.
What portion of the total replacement budget includes removing the old substructure? $75 Million? $100 Million??
As an alternative, take the money you save by leaving the bulk of the substructure alone, add that to the money you get by recycling the unused superstructure – 5 lanes of structural steel times 3 miles in length – and put all that money into building a rail connection.
Maybe a MetroNorth across the Zee to West Nyack will pay for itself. Or perhaps just pennies on the dollar. Somebody should run the numbers.
Well a trestle to connect the hudson line to the new bridge was projected to cost 263 million, but they didn’t like it because it would have ruined people’s views. Also the 1.3 billion dollar tunnel loop they suggested instead would have been overbuilt to better facilitate a future cross westchester 287 corridor commuter rail line that the trestle would make harder since the interlocking would have to be on the bridge.
From the contract it looks like 65 million for demolition of the existing bridge.
Thanks for that. So clearly as part of the existing contract, you already have all the mobilization costs – barges, cranes, etc – from the new bridge construction already nearby or in place. That explains the reduced costs. The numbers make sense.
If there were a separate contract to another bidder for removal of the old bridge, I suspect it could be $20 million more.
The seemingly low cost is probably because the present bridge has a high-ish salvage value.
What are the grades on the old bridge like?
The grades on the old bridge are quite mild – as in nothing a train couldn’t breeze through – because the bridge starts up on palisades from both approaches. Neither side starts at river elevation. The significant grades would be the trestle to reach the deck coming up from the Hudson line – and to a lesser extent, the western approach, which ascends through a rock cut on the Palisade.
The trestle is the trickiest, because it is dependent on how far south you start the ascent. The further south, the easier it would be, because you’d be building over shallow water. If you’re forced to start your ascent further north (because of NIMBYs not wanting their view obstructed) then it means you have to meet the old deck further out in the Hudson. In any event, the closest location would probably be dictated by where the new bridge expects to meet the old western approach to the toll plaza. I don’t imagine they plan on changing that.
The Palisade climb is academic, because if it called for it, you could start a very gradual ascent soon after you pass the main span – the “monkey bars” that cross at the middle of the channel. By the time you’re over land, you could be halfway up the slope – but you won’t need to be, because it is not that steep.
There are some challenges – but nothing approaching the challenge of trying to build a 3 mile long cross-Hudson rail bridge from scratch. All of the marine substructure is already in place. Unless the plans for the new bridge preclude it in some unexpected way, running trains across the old span would be, from an engineering standpoint, a very doable project.
One might be able to reuse the main span supports but so much of everything else would have to be redone and/or reconfigured or repositioned it would hardly be worth it and would no doubt look quite tacky. The lower-lying causeway section (2/3rds or more of the crossing) is said to have been built on wood pilings (of dubious future lifespan) driven into the riverbed. It’s kind of moot anyway, as I think that they are going to put the second roadway in more or less the same place as the existing one once the first new one is complete and the old bridge removed.
Regarding the grade, the existing bridge has a clearance of 138 ft. according to wikipedia – call it 150 feet. At a 1% grade that would be about 3 miles; at 2%, about 1.5 miles; at 3%, about 1 mile; etc. Sunnyside (Washington Irving’s House) is about 3/4 to one mile south of the beginning of the bridge and right at sea level (a small stream forms a break in the generally high river banks) and right up close to the tracks and the river. I would think that any kind of viaduct rising up to meet the bridge would need to avoid being an eyesore there, so if the viaduct is to run along the shore then curve to meet the bridges, it would get about 3/4 of a mile along the shore and the rest as it curves out to meet the bridges. While the main span starts quite close to the eastern shore, I think that there is still enough room for a doable grade.
There are several other historical/tourist sites closer to the bridge, but they are not quite as close to the river and are on top of the river banks. A small and presumably affluent neighborhood is also nestled into the corner made by the highways and the river. One might think that they were used to noise and unpleasant intrusions in the viewfield, but they might also be litigious. Someone seemed to have had some clout to get that expensive tunnel into consideration.
In any case, if the slope of the new bridge’s main span is the same as the old, it eyeballs as a little steeper than one might want for a railroad, so I would expect the rail span to be extended over a wider distance. I don’t know how they plan to support the railbed, whether on its own pilings or attached and supported by the roadways on either side, so I don’t know if a different slope interferes with the design or not, but I hope that if they do build it, it doesn’t look too weird.
As to the climb on the western side, I can’t really see a heavy rail train making the route along the thruway with its curves and narrow cut and steep grade. I think that the proposals call for a tunnel portal in the hillside on the western shore to soften the climb and minimize the impact on Nyack Nimbys.
“One might be able to reuse the main span supports but so much of everything else would have to be redone and/or reconfigured or repositioned it would hardly be worth it and would no doubt look quite tacky.”
Worth it as compared to what? Worth it as compared to running 3 miles of brand new rail bridge across the Hudson? Of course it’s worth it. Compared to that, it’s a steal. Whether or not it is “worth it” bears directly on the question of whether or not running trans-Hudson rail to Rockland County is itself worth it. I say it is – but I advocate mass-transit infrastructure expansion. For people who don’t, it will never be worth it.
As for looking tacky, it will look like shit. It will be an obstructing eyesore to anyone viewing the new bridge from the south, and an incongruous background for anyone viewing from the north. The only place the new bridge might look best from would be while riding the train across the old one. The car drivers get an up-close and personal look at the old, ugly bridge. The mass-transit riders get to gaze out on the pretty new bridge. I’m OK with that. In fact, it’s downright poetic.
But so what? The main span across the Zee is an ugly set of monkey bars, and has been for the past 60 years. It would be far more beautiful to have no bridge in that location at all. But it certainly isn’t the only place in the country where incongruous, even ugly bridges run parallel to each other. It’s done all the time.
Of course, depending on how they build it, it would look better if they just added a pair of rail tracks to the new bridge. I certainly would have preferred that. A precast, pre-stressed, post-tensioned concrete trestle construction would be the sleekest, prettiest option … and the least maintenance cost by far. Steel trestles over brackish water tend to have high maintenance costs, and are often hideous.
Well, the bridge was the option given to us, but there are others. Given Hudson Line grades, tunneling wouldn’t be an irrational option either. Besides, since we’re starting from scratch, there is no reason not to do a rail crossing further north, where geography would make it easier.
The real problem here is Cuomo won’t consider anything.
The new bridge is supposedly designed and constructed to be able to accommodate rail.
Needed context: Rockland County is going bankrupt despite being an affluent suburban county.
http://www.publicsectorinc.org.....out-in-ny/
This is so typical of government in New York. The descendants of those who pillaged NYC in the 1950s and 1960s, leading to the 1970s, moved to the suburbs and have repeated the trick. (In fact, from the suburbs and suburban portions of the city they continue to pillage NYC too).
Just as the LIRR is much a much worse deal for the serfs than NYCT, so it is with government in general. And they way they keep it from being worse still is to such money out of a future in which — as a result of their actions — they will be in even greater decline.
As on Staten Island, meanwhile, Rockland demands transit until some its proposed. Then they are against.
Larry, Rockland is not an affluent county. It’s population growth (150k to 300k +) is almost entirely due to Chasidic Jews living in self imposed poverty in the boomtown of Ramapo
More affluent than NYC, on average. But I suppose it would be interesting to see if median household income has been doing down more than other places, or poverty has been rising.
Check out this map:
http://www.nytimes.com/newsgra.....verty-map/
All of the densely populated parts of Rockland have staggeringly high poverty rates (above 40%) – Kaser, Monsey, New Hempstead, Spring Valley, New Square and so on. Rockland is a rapidly changing place at the moment with almost zero planning.
Wow, that’s amazing. No wonder the averages look good — near zero poverty in most of Rockland County. Then one concentrated area with massive poverty.
County is still richer per capita than NYC
The manor house usually had higher income than the villeins’ hovels. So what?
It’s not really true that it’s almost zero planning. The initial Satmar move to Kiryas Joel was planned by the rebbe.
Fair enough. But the current planners working for the municipalities and county have their head in the sand, sticking to trip generation rates in the ITE manual.
Piece on transit poverty in the ‘burbs.
http://www.theguardian.com/new.....rt-poverty
I think in is more telling to see the Census data for the Town of Ramapo, where all the growth has been – 21.8% poverty rate, 41% Renter occupied housing, 17% of household with no vehicle present and 32% with only 1 vehicle.
The demand for public transportation is certainly there.
Run Ramapo town, Rockland County, New York through American Fact Finder:
http://factfinder2.census.gov/.....acts.xhtml
The 59 bus is a busy route, and that corridor is a busy one in general.
It’s not that people are against whatever is proposed, but they never want to pay for it, or have any inconvenience.
Right now on Staten Island, the Staten Island Expressway is undergoing a major renovation and traffic can be miserable, and people are bitching left and right. Yet, the road was already a parking lot for a good portion of the day not just because of too much volume, but flaws from when the road was designed in the 1950s. The renovation will correct some of the flaws and extend a bus lane (which saves a lot of time) a couple of miles. Combine this work with the coming re-decking of the VZ Bridge, and SI Express buses will have their own lane from Victory Boulevard to the Battery/Carey Tunnel.
But everyone wants to happen magically, overnight, with no cost or hassle.
The HOV lane has been under construction since at least 1997 (the Brooklyn portion). Is there something in between “overnight” and “20 years”, or are those the only options? Plus, even when the HOV lane is completed, there’s no guarantee it will be faster than the regular lanes, due to the large number of violators at the merge with the Belt Parkway, where the lane is not physically separated.
I’m not talking about the Gowanus.. that’s a whole other story.
The reason that has taken so long, is the project changed. It was supposed to be a temporary fix while an entirely new road was designed. The plan was to bury most of the road, similar to Boston’s Big Dig project. That idea died a few years back, and the state decided to rebuild the present road.
The problem of course is doing that while keeping it open, so they’ve been limited to working on short stretches of one lane at a time. I’m sure if they were able to close the road for year or so, the project would have done much faster, but that wasn’t possible.
As far as the Belt Merge (inbound to Manhattan), that problem has been eliminated. The HOV lane is now a flyover at that point that goes right into the existing HOV lane past that merge. My wife, who takes an express bus every morning, said that has knocked at least five to ten minutes off the ride.
What I would like to know about the Gowanus project, and the same goes for the Staten Island Expressway project, is why it isn’t a 24 hour work schedule with three shifts. I live right alone the expressway here and they work from 7:00 am to 3:00pm. Why isn’t there another shift from 3:00pm to 10:00pm? Yes, I know the costs are higher, but the project gets done a lot faster.
They got screwed on the TZB- for twenty years they were told rail to GCT was a when, not if and now it’s been taken out.
Now they have to negotiate with CSX for half the River Line ROW- CSX single tracks for a good portion. The bad deal CSX is offering is half the ROW, if NJT/MTA. Pay for rebuilding the ROW to four tracks and eliminates the grade crossings with installation. Of PTC.
Free infrastructure. For CSX, two tracks for commuters…with a difficult. Connection. To the Penn Station tunnels. Just south of NJ 49T (would require a loop just outside the portal…)
The complexity of the needed connection is illustrated here:
https://www.google.com/maps/ms?msid=211520341051968923910.0005010f1a6e2edf601eb&msa=0&ll=40.772141,-74.044697&spn=0.006979,0.013937
You know the planned connection to the Hudson line had a loop too.
The overall problem with transit in our region, and why politicians can get away with complaining out of both sides of their mouth, is the lack of any kind of planning for growth. The answer to “why can’t we have more transit?” should be “because it’s not in the plan”, and the answer to “why are we getting transit option X and not Y” should be “because X is in the plan, such-and-such ROW was set aside for it, and the results of demographic research and a public outreach event made the planners choose that option.” This is how other states and cities so it: by having a long-range or comprehensive plan, which comes together through the joined efforts of transit agencies and local land use planners. We don’t have such a system.
It’s Cuomo to whom Rockland should direct their anger, and not the MTA. They could have had rail access across the new TZ, but he killed that one.
The state will regret opting for turning a 7 lane bridge into a de-facto 14 lane bridge with two spans.
Instead of a single 8 lane bridge with a one-lane busway each way.
Don’t think, however, that everyone in Rockland and Westchester were united in favor of transit and Cuomo turned them down on a personal whim. Cuomo isn’t a bridge builder with opinions on bridge building.
The opponents of transit were there in the same place, and they won. Older folks and business interests with points of view based on 20 or 30 years ago, not where things are heading now.
Yeah the train was to go to Tarrytown and then use the Hudson Line. There was to be BRT across I-287 straight to Stamford, CT – stopping in White Plains and Port Chester. They were to stop at the Harlem and New Haven lines. It all sounded great – but none is happening. Sad!
If there was an option that went to CT it died early. Later cross corridor transit alignments of all modes terminated at Port Chester MNR.
Meaning from Port Chester – you could get to Stamford… Stamford being the more likely goal – rather than Port Chester itself (as opposed to midtown – which you could get to from Tarrytown). I wrote that incorrectly.
They talk about not wanting to pay the tax (A) because the transit offered them is insufficient (B), and we all assume they want B improved. B isn’t the point. All they want is A, but saying B is a way to say A without looking like empty whining.
Also regarding potential increases in service, it’s worth keeping in mind that ~30% (and growing) of Rockland residents have no interest in public transportation, and never will, preferring private vehicles or private shuttles between Rockland and Brooklyn.
Um, no. What you’re saying is that (a subset of the) 30% of Rockland residents are interested in travel to a city neighborhood that is not in the CBD, so the rail network misses them entirely, and the private shuttles fill in the gap. The same can be said of any network of ethnic enclaves – people in Flushing and Sunset Park are disproportionately interested in visiting Chinatown rather than the subway hubs of Midtown and Lower Manhattan, people in many sections of the South Bronx are disproportionately interested in visiting Washington Heights and West Harlem, etc.
Some ethnic hubs can be written off as too hard to serve, and I suspect that Williamsburg is one of them. But in many cases, the presence of ethnic hubs means transit agencies should actually serve secondary hubs and not just the primary CBD. In the case of black New Yorkers, that’s the function of the A train, which connects Bed-Stuy and Harlem. Presumably, many Russians are riding the F between Forest Hills and Coney Island. In the case of Dominicans, the MTA should be investing in east-west bus service in the Bronx and Upper Manhattan. Etc.
Monsey Trails, receives subsidies from NYS and does providde public transportation from Rockland (serving this subset) to Midtown, Downtown, Williamsburg and Borough Park already. They have the franscised route and even keep CoachUSA out of their Ramapo territory.
Their bus schedule is pretty robust, for a private line:
http://www.monseytrails.com/us.....ooklyn.pdf
This is not true at all. They have some of the highest rates of bus use, especially since many women don’t drive and many families cannot afford a car.
I should have been clearer that I’m referring to the assumed increases in service being something like trains to Penn Station or Grand Central. I don’t think local bus service enters into this discussion.
It is my understanding that it was Rockland county that killed NJTransit’s desire to run the line to Suffern instead of to Spring Valley only (is that called the Piedmont branch?). Even though small that flexibility would have been very important and would have allowed to run more service on the line. When one combines that with other NIMBY issues the line has — a siding in Oradell was never build even though there is plenty of ROW, Cristie cancelled the ARC and the direct link to Manhattan, etc. — it is easy to understand why they do not get much service and unfortunately until the region is willing to spend more on transportation infrastructure that would remain the case.
Speaking of which, Rockland and orange are calling for one-seat rides and the construction of the loop at Secaucus to get trains into NYP. How they would manage to squeeze more trains into NYP through 2 tunnels is beyond me given that they’re already at max capacity. ARC was cancelled and Gateway is years from funding.
I think that is the Bergen Loop were constructed tomorrow, we would we direct trains to Penn from all lines, but reduced direct NY service on the NEC and NJCL, with some of those diverted to Hoboken or ending in Newark.
One question here, is why is Gateway needed to provide access to Manhattan from the Hoboken Division?
Why hasn’t a tunnel from Hoboken to Lower Manhattan to Brooklyn been seriously considered?
Capacity. The predominant destination is Midtown. Probably Midtown East, but certainly Midtown overall.
An LIRR tunnel was considered about a decade ago. It was a Pataki pet project, and it was quietly forgotten probably before he even left office.
Sounds like a chicken vs. egg problem – could it be that most jobs and building developments are in midtown because that is where GCT, PABT and Penn are?
I don’t know have an explanation for this, but the predominant high-end employment area seems to be north of GCT on the east side. That’s why the 7 empties out at Queensboro Plaza with transfers to Manhattan-bound BMT Broadway/Astoria Blvd services in the morning. It’s at least part of the justification for the Q going up Second Avenue, and I would think part of the justification for it diverting to 125th and Lex instead of continuing to The Bronx.
I would like to run this analysis in the office tomorrow. We have employment data by NTA,I am curious.
Well, please report back!
Rocklander here, since 1998. Before that, lived in Port Chester. Part of it is a demand issue. Many of us work in Westchester or northern NJ, so a train to NYC would not meet our needs. Part of it, however, is a different mentality than Westchester residents, and especially the NYC subway local yokels who don’t even know where Rockland is. We pay the same as the Westchester folks for mass transit services, except we don’t get the same level as they do. Now many others who live elsewhere say if we want better service, we should be willing to pay even more. Most of us respond that if you can’t give us the level of services we currently pay for, give us our tax money back.
Most Rocklanders work in Rockland County. The second biggest place they are employed is Manhattan and then Bergen County. Fourth is Westchester with almost as many as Bergen. Sending trains or buses to Westchester doesn’t get the people who work in Rockland, Manhattan or Bergen county to work.
It might not be politically correct – but bluntly – Westchester contributes more to the state coffers. It’s just a pecking order.