• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Time for some TRAFFIC!

Spindrift said:
Unless the study is to see what happens if you remove some access lanes to the busiest bridge in the country.
Click to expand...

Tricky said:
They were studying what happens when you close two-thirds of the traffic lanes. R&D stuff.
Click to expand...

Which would beg the question on why anyone would even want to know about that.

Unless there was a proposal somewhere to permanently close those lanes and they wanted a study to see just how much it would hurt ingress to the bridge this just sounds like a very flimsy excuse.
 
Travis said:
Which would beg the question on why anyone would even want to know about that.

Unless there was a proposal somewhere to permanently close those lanes and they wanted a study to see just how much it would hurt ingress to the bridge this just sounds like a very flimsy excuse.
Click to expand...

Oh, there could be legitimate reasons for such a study. If the routes to/from the bridge were in need of major overhaul, they might want to test the impact of closing a lane or two at various times. That's sometimes the difference between doing a construction job in four months (working 'round the clock) and doing it in a year (working only during 10 pm to 6 am, say).

The thing is... they didn't need such a study because they know exactly how bad it can get. There was a period in the 90s when they had to do major reconstruction and some lanes were closed every day, for several months. The traffic backup was the highlight of the traffic news every afternoon. It was backed up some days 10 miles up the Palisades Parkway. With roughly the same amount of commuters (saturation is saturation, after all), the results would be the same as in the previous go-round. That's why this is a bogus excuse.
 
Foolmewunz said:
Oh, there could be legitimate reasons for such a study. If the routes to/from the bridge were in need of major overhaul, they might want to test the impact of closing a lane or two at various times. That's sometimes the difference between doing a construction job in four months (working 'round the clock) and doing it in a year (working only during 10 pm to 6 am, say).

The thing is... they didn't need such a study because they know exactly how bad it can get. There was a period in the 90s when they had to do major reconstruction and some lanes were closed every day, for several months. The traffic backup was the highlight of the traffic news every afternoon. It was backed up some days 10 miles up the Palisades Parkway. With roughly the same amount of commuters (saturation is saturation, after all), the results would be the same as in the previous go-round. That's why this is a bogus excuse.
Click to expand...


And even if you had legitimate reasons for a study, then you'd ask: Why did Wildstein explicitly instruct that Fort Lee officials not be notified? Why did no one else at the PA even know about it? Why is there no documentation?

And most importantly... Why, since those questions were being asked in the public record months ago, did it take until the day before yesterday for Christie to become curious about it?
 
hgc said:
And even if you had legitimate reasons for a study, then you'd ask: Why did Wildstein explicitly instruct that Fort Lee officials not be notified? Why did no one else at the PA even know about it? Why is there no documentation?

And most importantly... Why, since those questions were being asked in the public record months ago, did it take until the day before yesterday for Christie to become curious about it?
Click to expand...

Give the guy a break, you libtards! He was busy. (There was a Krispy Kreme having a going out of business sale on Route 9 in Paramus.)












I'll just wait for the RIGHTeous indignation of picking on chunky butt for his weight and not his views. I'm an equal opportunity opportunist - I'll pick on him for any reason.








.
 
Travis said:
What kind of traffic study closes lanes anyways? That doesn't make sense. Traffic studies are supposed to be done under normal conditions or else the data is rather useless.
Click to expand...

I thought the same thing. Can't think of a logical reason to do that, other than to assess the impact of closing traffic lanes. But, you could do that when they have to be closed anyway for routine maintenance. You already know it's going to inconvenience people and hurt the economy, to some extent, the only question is how much? Oh yeah, and some old lady actually died while an ambulance was stuck in the traffic, while many others were delayed including emergency vehicles.

Studies aren't supposed to intentionally create unnecessary harm, unless there's a very good reason, and it's unavoidable.
 
Last edited:
funk de fino said:
Made it to prime time news programs on the big channels in the UK.
Click to expand...

Yup. The extensive coverage has given Christie's enemies (for want of a better word) enough of an excuse to scattershot into the blogospheres the accusations of bullying, how petty he is etc etc.

Bottom line, **** sticks. Locally, his political future is likely fine. Nationally? May be done.
 
I think Christie is in good shape, politics-wise. He has demonstrated to the fascist right that he can throw his weight around, both literally and figuratively, and is willing to use his power as governor to inconvenience his political foes.

That is, after all, exactly what the GOP is on about these days, consider:

Voting rights elimination
Gerrymandering to put foes at disadvantage
Holding country hostage for things they invented in the first place
Anti-women's rights, women must be bullied by men, it's god's will

And so on.

I think he just proved he's a mainstream Republican with this little traffic stunt, myself.
 
Puppycow said:
Can't think of a logical reason to do that, other than to assess the impact of closing traffic lanes. But, you could do that when they have to be closed anyway for routine maintenance...
Click to expand...
Or just run a nice little simulation program. Maybe lay in a hot Bruce Springsteen soundtrack for narrative oomph.
 
Last edited:
I think Christie is lying about everything. Recall that my OP title is a quote from an email from Bridget Kelley.

Bridget Anne Kelly: “Time for some traffic problems in Fort Lee.”

David Wildstein: "Got it."
Click to expand...

Ask yourself if you got an email problem from Kelley like that, and didn't already know what she was talking about, would you respond "got it"? Wouldn't you ask "what do you mean by that?"

This suggests that this was an ongoing way of retaliating against people who had "wronged" Christie. That they had previously gamed out such a scheme. And no one says "don't let the Governor know about this". No one seems the least bit concerned that their actions would get them or the governor in trouble. And then Christie kept talking about the traffic study, even though everyone here knows that there was no traffic study at all and that was just a flimsy excuse. And he also said a few other incriminating things.

-- He claimed to have slept badly for two nights, when he also claimed to have only heard of the emails the morning before.
-- He was asked if he'd asked Bridget Kelley point blank about the emails and he said:

I have — I have not had any conversation with Bridget Kelly since the email came out. And so she was not given the opportunity to explain to me why she lied because it was so obvious that she had. And I'm, quite frankly, not interested in the explanation at the moment.
Click to expand...

Again, he didn't want to know the details about how his most trusted aide had just screwed him up the butt? You only refuse to ask if you already know the answers.
 
Puppycow said:
I thought the same thing. Can't think of a logical reason to do that, other than to assess the impact of closing traffic lanes. But, you could do that when they have to be closed anyway for routine maintenance. You already know it's going to inconvenience people and hurt the economy, to some extent, the only question is how much? Oh yeah, and some old lady actually died while an ambulance was stuck in the traffic, while many others were delayed including emergency vehicles.

Studies aren't supposed to intentionally create unnecessary harm, unless there's a very good reason, and it's unavoidable.
Click to expand...

And even better, they apparently decided not to tell any local authorities or media. Of course, those people would have probably screamed, but that was inevitable anyway. That's why I said it was a teenager's response - it's laughably stupid, and even if it's true, you're still in for a lot of trouble. As soon as I heard that excuse, my absolute first thought was "Oh, absolutely no way, there's something else at work here," and if I thought it, a lot of other people thought it as well.

Only thing that surprises me is if the PA workers ordered to do this didn't get it in writing. If it were me, there's no way I'd want to be held responsible for this house of cards, even if I had no clue it was connected to the governor.
 
barehl said:
He didn't have to investigate; he knew about it before it happened. His claim that he didn't know about it is nonsense. To put this more simply: Chris Christie is a liar and is trying desperately to both save his career and avoid jail.

No. He was also in on the cover story.

No, it was payback over Helen Hoen. There never was any legitimate reason. I understand that it is easy to listen to Fox and Limbaugh and pretend ever so desperately that Christie was a victim. However, this is not reality. Christie was well known to micro-manage everything so claiming that people in his own office knew but he didn't does pass the laugh test. Secondly, it is impossible that he didn't hear about the lane closings which took place over four days and equally impossible that he didn't look into it. No, this has his seal of approval all over it.
Click to expand...

Sure seems that way.

Hopefully he at least never wins another election (if he doesn't face any criminal charges).
 
Originally Posted by barehl
.....

No, it was payback over Helen Hoen. There never was any legitimate reason. I understand that it is easy to listen to Fox and Limbaugh and pretend ever so desperately that Christie was a victim. However, this is not reality. Christie was well known to micro-manage everything so claiming that people in his own office knew but he didn't does pass the laugh test. Secondly, it is impossible that he didn't hear about the lane closings which took place over four days and equally impossible that he didn't look into it. No, this has his seal of approval all over it.
Click to expand...

Fox News, which has been ignoring the developments, now admits, or at least one guy does, that this Christie story is a "scandal".

While the revelations were all over CNN, MSNBC and the front pages of the nation's newspapers, Fox News paid relatively little attention to the story — on Wednesday, it spent just 15 minutes on the topic, according to Media Matters.

But Thursday afternoon, Greg Gutfeld, one of the hosts of "The Five," admitted the story is a "scandal."


"We cannot sit here and dismiss this as a distraction," he said. "That makes us look like complete hypocrites, because we would explode. ... We have exploded here at this table when somebody says Benghazi is a distraction or...is a phony scandal."



"This is not a distraction. This is a scandal," he added.
Click to expand...

I didn't quite follow the reasoning behind the Helen Hoen judgeship story by Rachel Maddow.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom