Join the discussion on the following article:
Boardman: New York rail tunnels require replacement planning
The existing tunnels handle over 1000 trains per day . Any failure will be a major problem . 600 million was spent on the engineering and permiting for the ARC tunnels which Gov Christy canceled because he said that the cost to New Jersey in the future would be excessive. Those tunnels need to be built. A failure of the existing tunnels will be an economic blow that will not be easy to remedy.
After $600 million on just engineering and permits alone and not a single shovel shoved into the ground? Really? I hope that figure is wrong! Of course they need it for sure but prices like that, make a lot of people wonder.
Phillip, at the political level (where Mr. Boardman is speaking), engineering reports are not a factor, only sound bites and stories matter.
The engineering reports and inspection documents surely exist (just as every bridge is inspected regularly and gets a load rating). Mr Boardman won’t get far (and won’t get billions of dollars) if he starts quoting dry engineering reports at length.
The appropriate audience for those engineering reports will be the Federal Railroad Administration which will actually grant the money. At that time they’ll be part of the documents that will be publicly available.
The only thing which is at all surprising about Mr. Boardman’s comments is that somebody is surprised. Civil structures – like these tunnels – do not last forever. The fact that they (and, I might add, a dismaying amount of the rest of the infrastructure!) have lasted this long is really remarkable, and a testimony to how well they were designed and built in the first place.
Phillip Cracraft, I believe that what Boardman was say was not that the existing tunnels would have to be taken out of service permanently but rather that they would need to be taken out of service for some major maintenance. That is doable once new tunnels are in place, and after maintenance is done on the old tunnels, total capacity would be significantly increased.
Thanks for those thoughtful comments, but I am still confused. 100+ years ago PRR management decided that a project to tunnel under the Hudson and East rivers … building a tremendously grand terminal … along with whatever else was built and associated with it … was economically viable. Little if any public monies were used. Yet today a project to ensure these vital links is apparently not, despite 1000 trains per day passing through them. And yet NYC has no problem with spending gobs of money on the WTC and other ‘tourist’ landmarks. The NY Bridges&Tunnels bring in ridiculous amounts of cash that could possibly be used. I won’t even discuss Christie’s role in this. That guy is a joke.
I say if the stakeholders won’t pay for the new tunnels and/or upgrades then let the tunnels fail. When the people howl loudly enough then something will get done about it.
“I’m being told…” that sounds like a good reason to spend billions on a new tunnel. Now, don’t get me wrong - 100 years has to be at least middle-aged for an underwater tunnel, but perhaps a report from a civil engineer would carry more weight? Another observation … If the Gateway tube is double track, wouldn’t the tri-state rail agencies still come up short with increased traffic after the 2 original single-track tunnels are supposedly defunct?
Sure, something would be better than nothing but the stated needs don’t seem to be very cohesive.
I hope congress doesn’t drop the ball on this one… BUILD THE TUNNELS!!!
You can almost bet that congress won’t even consider funding this worthy investment for mobility. Chris Christie sure didn’t see the value in it. Hopefully, Christie’s goose is cooked.
The even more interesting, and remarkable, fact is that cities such as NY and Chicago suffer from major “depot” capacity shortages. As the Pennsy realized more than a century ago, whole new major expansions are needed.
I think the Chinese could finace and build it much quicker. Later they would charge for using it.
Sooooo…Cris Crispy blocks BOTH tunnels AND Bridges.
Assuming reasonable maintenance/repair, why would the tunnels not last forever? I’m pretty sure there are quite a few around the world older than that still going strong.
Assuming reasonable maintenance/repiar, why would the tunnels not last forever? I’m pretty sure there are quite a few around the world older than that still going strong.
Assuming reasonable maintenance/repiar, why would the tunnels not last forever? I’m pretty sure there are quite a few around the world older than that still going strong.
Assuming reasonable maintenance/repiar, why would the tunnels not last forever? I’m pretty sure there are quite a few around the world older than that still going strong.
I agree with Uncle Joe: the new tunnels must be built. Once done, the old ones can be re-habed. Christie was right, too. The unions had the new tunnels, among other things, “in-their-pocket” and would have bankrupted NJ, even more, under the ARC proposal.
Why should Congress fund a tunnel that primarily benefits New Yorkers and folks along the NEC from money taken from folks in Mississippi, Texas, Wyoming, etc etc most of whom will never use or benefit from said tunnel.
Back when the originals were built, privately, trains could support themselves and there wasn’t the competition from air and motor travel that wehave today. If no private money is forthcoming, the project isn’t worth doing.
Why should Congress fund a tunnel that primarily benefits New Yorkers and folks along the NEC from money taken from folks in Mississippi, Texas, Wyoming, etc etc most of whom will never use or benefit from said tunnel.
Back when the originals were built, privately, trains could support themselves and there wasn’t the competition from air and motor travel that wehave today. If no private money is forthcoming, the project isn’t worth doing.