CapTengu

One single inbound RVL train during the AM rush hour, which is more or less an in-service equipment move; there is no other service. More RVL and some NJCL service formerly also ran to Hoboken, but ridership was far too low relative to the capacity problems outbound trains caused on the NEC.

NJT RVL capacity on the Lehigh Line segment is fully maxed out. Nobody can add service there, not even Conrail. Not to mention that NJT avoids sending trains over the Waterfront Connection if at all possible since it's an operations nightmare for outbound trains.

Preserved farmland is exactly that; maintaining agricultral use of existing farmland through deed restrictions preventing other uses of the land. That was the intent of the Farmland Preservation program, and to that end it is a success. Solar farms are incompatiable with said deed restrictions.

The TWU has more or less admitted here with the law push that their negotiating position is too weak to block OPTO. In a news article at the time of the veto they straight up stated they "did not care what the data says" on train safety instead of actually providing a valid counterargument.

They're great for commutes but very bad for intercity distances. Headroom is low and luggage space is extremely limited.

The Reading system is autotransformer-based; the -24kV return lines are visible high up on the poles. The difference between the two systems is visible at Spring Mill on the Norristown line, where the PRR and Reading electrified next to each other.

The original suburban electrification in Philly used a +/-22kV (44kV net) transmission system feeding the 11kV overhead, which also was not an autotransformer-based system. This is why there are no direct 138kV lines or active substations between ZOO and Paoli, and why Amtrak is building ones now.

The PRR system is not an autotransformer system; there are no -25kV traction return lines. It's a straight 12kV to ground system fed from a +/-69kV distribution network. The linked article only discusses that equipment can run between the PRR and other systems as the traction voltage is identical.

The ex-PRR system is nothing like this and conversion would be extremely expensive; it is based around a large single-phase low frequency transmission grid very similar to those seen in the DACH countries (lighter rolling stock has no problems there) and not compatiable with the main power grid.

This was done in order to shut down the NH's power station at Cos Cob, which provided traction power up to that point. In any case, conversion was simple because the ex-NH system is electrically very similar to most modern autotransformer-based systems.

He endorsed a different anti-machine candidate, simple as that. Mejia winning was a notable upset and almost completely unexpected; Malinowski was the more obvious choice to defeat the former Lt. Governor earlier in the cycle, and more notably someone Kim has worked with in Congress and knows well.

Yeah, my sole opinion on the status of Puerto Rico is that it should be self-determined in a legal manner. In this case, there is a legal way to get referendum terms that should be more amenable to everyone. A Status Assembly might be worth it but this is a novel legal context for one.

Figured as much.
Side note, but thank you for actually engaging my questions in good faith here.

My question here is whether that was a legislatively-referred or voter-referred ballot measure, because it seems that one of the primary objections to prior status referenda was the legislatively-referred language.

This can be done by having the PR legislature referring a measure to legalize voter-referred referenda outside the normal cycle, voters passing that, and then having voters refer a status referendum. Alternatively, Congress pass can a law to authorize one, but Republicans keep killing this.

Herein lies the dilemma. The legal mechanism at present is to have the PR legislature refer a ballot measure on status, which judging by your opinions on the subject you already find objectionable. To get an "international-style" referendum you need constitutional change through a different measure.

There's no legal obligation to schedule status referenda in a special election; this is customary but largely a result of agreements determining that they will be held as such and them being more common in civil law systems. e.g. Switzerland often has voter-referred referenda several times yearly.

The only legal problems I can see with them is that they're not actually binding and the potential voter fraud issue. PR's Constitution (like many common law/hybrid systems) doesn't have a mechanism for non-legislative ballot measures, unless I'm reading it wrong. Feel free to correct me if I am.

Unfortunately there was no legal recourse for this. The Nouméa Accord had no provision to deal with this kind of situation when the parties were bound to hold the referenda, so while the last referendum was morally wrong it was fully compliant with international law precedent on decolinization.

Interestingly enough, France and New Caledonia have taken the results to indicate that more autonomy is wanted anyways, so a few years New Caledonia will have a similar relationship to France as the Cook Islands and Niue do to New Zealand now; associated soverign countries, but sharing nationality.

New Caledonia held three binding referenda on independence. The FLNKS considers them all to be shams despite them using a special voter roll (that they demanded!) intentionally designed to significantly increase the voting power of indigenous Kanaks over French residents, because independence lost.

Funnily enough, usage of French is actually on the rise again in Louisiana among the younger generations. It turns out that not forcing language policy makes usage of a non-English language "cool" and something to be proud of instead of an obligation.

free dril

It's mostly for the better. The money that was originally intended for electric bus infrastructure was instead diverted to fund an entire new bus garage back in 2024 when Coach USA bailed on several bus contracts, which has led to a significant improvement in bus service in southern Hudson County.

Many free bus advocates handwave those studies because "they only listen to people who already ride the bus". This is horribly tone-deaf. I'm pretty sure that the needs of people who actually use the bus are far more important than those who never use them at all to begin with.

Buses work best for riders if frequency is increased; the positive feedback loop from paid ridership growth means that further frequency improvements cost less per trip added. Some bus routes in NJ have seen ridership growth of up to 78% YoY just with schedule improvements, no free fares required.

Yes. The problem is that, based on previous pilots of fare-free service, that the demand induced is almost entirely very short trips that would otherwise be walked and not new riders or mode shift from cars. Without even higher subsidies than a 1:1 replacement for fares this kills service quality.

Zone boundaries (if applicable) are in the bus schedules, which are available online; using the trip planner on the website also provides them. You can pay cash (exact change only on local buses, drivers do not make change) or use a credit card or farecard; app use is completely optional.

The last (only?) time a vote on status was held, the result was largely to remain a territory. This however was back in 1993 and turnout was below the threshold to be considered binding. Note that the "statehood" option was called "integration with the US", which is legally the same thing.

American Samoa is weird. Many Samoans don't want the constitution to fully apply there because the equal protections requirements in it would override their traditional communal land ownership system, where a minimum of 50% Samoan ancestry is required to own any land.