quote:

---

Originally posted by Snowbird:

I don't mind that northern split section because the westerly side of that is less congested than the eastern section that runs thru Jersey but is closer to NYC. I am talking about the section of the map that has 95 running through Philadelphia starting up near Trenton but there is no easy way to get over there. (looking at the map you have to take 195 west to 295 north which loops around and becomes 95 south? ) Just happens that the "official" 95 that runs down the Pennsylvania side is free while the Jersey turnpike charges about $18 bucks to go down thru that section on the Jersey side. I don't know, maybe that is why they are resistant to build a good direct link to the real 95? I am just guessing but 95 is a fed highway I think that is why it is free?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by 442dude:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Snowbird:

I don't mind that northern split section because the westerly side of that is less congested than the eastern section that runs thru Jersey but is closer to NYC. I am talking about the section of the map that has 95 running through Philadelphia starting up near Trenton but there is no easy way to get over there. (looking at the map you have to take 195 west to 295 north which loops around and becomes 95 south? ) Just happens that the "official" 95 that runs down the Pennsylvania side is free while the Jersey turnpike charges about $18 bucks to go down thru that section on the Jersey side. I don't know, maybe that is why they are resistant to build a good direct link to the real 95? I am just guessing but 95 is a fed highway I think that is why it is free?

---

I did a little research and it turns out that Route 95 has a missing link that they were supposed to build that paralleled Route 1 and the turnpike and met up with the other end of 95 near Trenton but they abandoned the idea in 1980.

That's why some signs say Route 95 and some say "To 95" Here's the link:
http://www.nycroads.com/roads/nj-turnpike/

Interesting reading about the history of the NJ Turnpike

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Snowbird:

quote:

---

Originally posted by 442dude:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Snowbird:

I don't mind that northern split section because the westerly side of that is less congested than the eastern section that runs thru Jersey but is closer to NYC. I am talking about the section of the map that has 95 running through Philadelphia starting up near Trenton but there is no easy way to get over there. (looking at the map you have to take 195 west to 295 north which loops around and becomes 95 south? ) Just happens that the "official" 95 that runs down the Pennsylvania side is free while the Jersey turnpike charges about $18 bucks to go down thru that section on the Jersey side. I don't know, maybe that is why they are resistant to build a good direct link to the real 95? I am just guessing but 95 is a fed highway I think that is why it is free?

---

I did a little research and it turns out that Route 95 has a missing link that they were supposed to build that paralleled Route 1 and the turnpike and met up with the other end of 95 near Trenton but they abandoned the idea in 1980.

That's why some signs say Route 95 and some say "To 95" Here's the link:
http://www.nycroads.com/roads/nj-turnpike/

Interesting reading about the history of the NJ Turnpike

---

Thanks for the great history lesson. The NJ turnpike has been there longer than I originally expected. And it seems to pre-date some parts of i-95. In my mind I had imagined one of those big political boondoggles (spelling?) Where I thought the federal government was trying to build I-95 and NJ was standing in the way wanting to have payment road thru their state and so they would do everything possilble to block the free flow of traffic so that it could easily get over to 95. It looks like 95 is more of an afterthought in the true history compared to the NJ Turnpike and horse and buggy carriages. When NJ was having financial troubles I was hearing that your govenor was thinking of selling off the turnpike to a private company to get a big one time cash infusion for the state? Is anything still happening with that?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by 442dude:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Snowbird:

quote:

---

Originally posted by 442dude:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Snowbird:

I don't mind that northern split section because the westerly side of that is less congested than the eastern section that runs thru Jersey but is closer to NYC. I am talking about the section of the map that has 95 running through Philadelphia starting up near Trenton but there is no easy way to get over there. (looking at the map you have to take 195 west to 295 north which loops around and becomes 95 south? ) Just happens that the "official" 95 that runs down the Pennsylvania side is free while the Jersey turnpike charges about $18 bucks to go down thru that section on the Jersey side. I don't know, maybe that is why they are resistant to build a good direct link to the real 95? I am just guessing but 95 is a fed highway I think that is why it is free?

---

I did a little research and it turns out that Route 95 has a missing link that they were supposed to build that paralleled Route 1 and the turnpike and met up with the other end of 95 near Trenton but they abandoned the idea in 1980.

That's why some signs say Route 95 and some say "To 95" Here's the link:
http://www.nycroads.com/roads/nj-turnpike/

Interesting reading about the history of the NJ Turnpike

---

Thanks for the great history lesson. The NJ turnpike has been there longer than I originally expected. And it seems to pre-date some parts of i-95. In my mind I had imagined one of those big political boondoggles (spelling?) Where I thought the federal government was trying to build I-95 and NJ was standing in the way wanting to have payment road thru their state and so they would do everything possilble to block the free flow of traffic so that it could easily get over to 95. It looks like 95 is more of an afterthought in the true history compared to the NJ Turnpike and horse and buggy carriages. When NJ was having financial troubles I was hearing that your govenor was thinking of selling off the turnpike to a private company to get a big one time cash infusion for the state? Is anything still happening with that?

---

Selling the Turnpike seems to come up from time to time but there's no political clout to be had in it as the majority of the population is against it so I thinking its not going to happen anytime soon. I also think that the Turnpike (and the Garden State Parkway for that matter) are too important to be leased to a private operator.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Snowbird:

I cannot even imagine how that would all work? Did any of the proposals say how much the toll costs would be? As a private company the NJT could charge outrageous amounts of money for going just 3 or 4 miles.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by 442dude:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Snowbird:

I cannot even imagine how that would all work? Did any of the proposals say how much the toll costs would be? As a private company the NJT could charge outrageous amounts of money for going just 3 or 4 miles.

---

Any discussion of it always includes a cap which would limit the amount that the tolls could increase in any given amount of time. Its not a very popular discussion in NJ. Plus, our politicians would lose a place to offer cushy. executive level jobs to their supporters...

Since they've merged the Turnpike Authority and the Parkway Commission into one it seems that they've saved enough money where the financials aren't very appealing anymore to privatize it...and IMO that's a good thing. The citizens of NJ paid to build it and we should be able to own it outright. Its not that its not a profitable venture, its just that the folks in Trenton are looking for the "one-shot" lump sum that would come with a lease. That's all well and good this year but what happens next year?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Snowbird:

quote:

---

Originally posted by 442dude:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Snowbird:

I cannot even imagine how that would all work? Did any of the proposals say how much the toll costs would be? As a private company the NJT could charge outrageous amounts of money for going just 3 or 4 miles.

---

Any discussion of it always includes a cap which would limit the amount that the tolls could increase in any given amount of time. Its not a very popular discussion in NJ. Plus, our politicians would lose a place to offer cushy. executive level jobs to their supporters...

Since they've merged the Turnpike Authority and the Parkway Commission into one it seems that they've saved enough money where the financials aren't very appealing anymore to privatize it...and IMO that's a good thing. The citizens of NJ paid to build it and we should be able to own it outright. Its not that its not a profitable venture, its just that the folks in Trenton are looking for the "one-shot" lump sum that would come with a lease. That's all well and good this year but what happens next year?

---

It does not seem to make sense to me? Would a lease include the leasing company paying for the inevitable repaving of the road in the future? Without stuff like that being included it seems to me that NJ would still be responsible for all of the maitenance costs of the road and with the new set up they would be sharing the biggest percentage of the profits with a road managing company (the ones leasing the road)? I don't see how that would mean more money in the long or short run.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by 442dude:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Snowbird:

quote:

---

Originally posted by 442dude:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Snowbird:

I cannot even imagine how that would all work? Did any of the proposals say how much the toll costs would be? As a private company the NJT could charge outrageous amounts of money for going just 3 or 4 miles.

---

Any discussion of it always includes a cap which would limit the amount that the tolls could increase in any given amount of time. Its not a very popular discussion in NJ. Plus, our politicians would lose a place to offer cushy. executive level jobs to their supporters...

Since they've merged the Turnpike Authority and the Parkway Commission into one it seems that they've saved enough money where the financials aren't very appealing anymore to privatize it...and IMO that's a good thing. The citizens of NJ paid to build it and we should be able to own it outright. Its not that its not a profitable venture, its just that the folks in Trenton are looking for the "one-shot" lump sum that would come with a lease. That's all well and good this year but what happens next year?

---

It does not seem to make sense to me? Would a lease include the leasing company paying for the inevitable repaving of the road in the future? Without stuff like that being included it seems to me that NJ would still be responsible for all of the maitenance costs of the road and with the new set up they would be sharing the biggest percentage of the profits with a road managing company (the ones leasing the road)? I don't see how that would mean more money in the long or short run.

---

The $ to the state in the short run is the amount that the operating company pays up front as a lump sum to the state for the lease of the road. The operating company would then hope that they would recoup that cost through operating the road for the specified time of the lease.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by R-Nox:

quote:

---

Originally posted by 442dude:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Snowbird:

quote:

---

Originally posted by 442dude:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Snowbird:

I cannot even imagine how that would all work? Did any of the proposals say how much the toll costs would be? As a private company the NJT could charge outrageous amounts of money for going just 3 or 4 miles.

---

Any discussion of it always includes a cap which would limit the amount that the tolls could increase in any given amount of time. Its not a very popular discussion in NJ. Plus, our politicians would lose a place to offer cushy. executive level jobs to their supporters...

Since they've merged the Turnpike Authority and the Parkway Commission into one it seems that they've saved enough money where the financials aren't very appealing anymore to privatize it...and IMO that's a good thing. The citizens of NJ paid to build it and we should be able to own it outright. Its not that its not a profitable venture, its just that the folks in Trenton are looking for the "one-shot" lump sum that would come with a lease. That's all well and good this year but what happens next year?

---

It does not seem to make sense to me? Would a lease include the leasing company paying for the inevitable repaving of the road in the future? Without stuff like that being included it seems to me that NJ would still be responsible for all of the maitenance costs of the road and with the new set up they would be sharing the biggest percentage of the profits with a road managing company (the ones leasing the road)? I don't see how that would mean more money in the long or short run.

---

The $ to the state in the short run is the amount that the operating company pays up front as a lump sum to the state for the lease of the road. The operating company would then hope that they would recoup that cost through operating the road for the specified time of the lease.

---

Shouldn't the government always be able to do a project for less than a private company? (Meaning NJ should be able to make more profit without using a middleman?)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nascr:

quote:

---

Originally posted by R-Nox:

quote:

---

Originally posted by 442dude:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Snowbird:

quote:

---

Originally posted by 442dude:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Snowbird:

I cannot even imagine how that would all work? Did any of the proposals say how much the toll costs would be? As a private company the NJT could charge outrageous amounts of money for going just 3 or 4 miles.

---

Any discussion of it always includes a cap which would limit the amount that the tolls could increase in any given amount of time. Its not a very popular discussion in NJ. Plus, our politicians would lose a place to offer cushy. executive level jobs to their supporters...

Since they've merged the Turnpike Authority and the Parkway Commission into one it seems that they've saved enough money where the financials aren't very appealing anymore to privatize it...and IMO that's a good thing. The citizens of NJ paid to build it and we should be able to own it outright. Its not that its not a profitable venture, its just that the folks in Trenton are looking for the "one-shot" lump sum that would come with a lease. That's all well and good this year but what happens next year?

---

It does not seem to make sense to me? Would a lease include the leasing company paying for the inevitable repaving of the road in the future? Without stuff like that being included it seems to me that NJ would still be responsible for all of the maitenance costs of the road and with the new set up they would be sharing the biggest percentage of the profits with a road managing company (the ones leasing the road)? I don't see how that would mean more money in the long or short run.

---

The $ to the state in the short run is the amount that the operating company pays up front as a lump sum to the state for the lease of the road. The operating company would then hope that they would recoup that cost through operating the road for the specified time of the lease.

---

Shouldn't the government always be able to do a project for less than a private company? (Meaning NJ should be able to make more profit without using a middleman?)

---

Ever heard of the $800 hammer? That was the cost the US government las timeI checked had paid tor a hammer. That they had a company develop for them only not uo use it once speaks volumes.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by R-Nox:

Ever heard of the $800 hammer? That was the cost the US government las timeI checked had paid tor a hammer. That they had a company develop for them only not uo use it once speaks volumes.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by 442dude:

quote:

---

Originally posted by R-Nox:

Ever heard of the $800 hammer? That was the cost the US government las timeI checked had paid tor a hammer. That they had a company develop for them only not uo use it once speaks volumes.

---

And the $ 1200.00 toilet seat (In the P-3 Orion plane)...and the $ 2500.00 coffee maker (Air Force One)! We could go on all day. Its all been documented.

There's nothing that government does that its does more efficiently than the private sector. But the government is consistent and that's what a lot of people want and are willing to look past a lot of other stuff.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by R-Nox:

quote:

---

Originally posted by 442dude:

quote:

---

Originally posted by R-Nox:

Ever heard of the $800 hammer? That was the cost the US government las timeI checked had paid tor a hammer. That they had a company develop for them only not uo use it once speaks volumes.

---

And the $ 1200.00 toilet seat (In the P-3 Orion plane)...and the $ 2500.00 coffee maker (Air Force One)! We could go on all day. Its all been documented.

There's nothing that government does that its does more efficiently than the private sector. But the government is consistent and that's what a lot of people want and are willing to look past a lot of other stuff.

---

But then the question would be can GM or Ford or one of the car makers do something more effeciently than the government (or the private aftermarket makers)? Maybe they can, or maybe because of all of the union rules and regulations that they have to go through to build a part or add some accessory maybe the aftermarket makers are more effecient than the OEM's? Should that be even possible?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by 442dude:

quote:

---

Originally posted by R-Nox:

quote:

---

Originally posted by 442dude:

quote:

---

Originally posted by R-Nox:

Ever heard of the $800 hammer? That was the cost the US government las timeI checked had paid tor a hammer. That they had a company develop for them only not uo use it once speaks volumes.

---

And the $ 1200.00 toilet seat (In the P-3 Orion plane)...and the $ 2500.00 coffee maker (Air Force One)! We could go on all day. Its all been documented.

There's nothing that government does that its does more efficiently than the private sector. But the government is consistent and that's what a lot of people want and are willing to look past a lot of other stuff.

---

But then the question would be can GM or Ford or one of the car makers do something more effeciently than the government (or the private aftermarket makers)? Maybe they can, or maybe because of all of the union rules and regulations that they have to go through to build a part or add some accessory maybe the aftermarket makers are more effecient than the OEM's? Should that be even possible?

---

Anybody can do most things more efficiently than government can.

Suppliers often have better economies of scale and can produce parts cheaper than the OEM because they can sell parts across vehicle manufacturers. The same part might work in both a Ford and a GM...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Skyfox:

A couple of years back (way before the whole auto industry went into the tank, wasn't there some proposal for Ford and General Motors to share some parts?

---