Those that can’t comprehend the obvious deserve being devoured by it.
Fascinating. I could follow your reasoning if this was a brand new project being suggested. But it’s not. It’s Boardman saying what we all know: The tunnels are 100+ years old. They will need serious work to last longer or maybe it’s not possible to make them last “forever”.
I replaced the roof on my house a while back. It was old, original to the house. Well over 25 years old. There was no need to figure alternatives or do lots of studies to see if maybe the shingles could last another x years. The fact that the roof was old and starting to leak was enough. So I bit the bullet and replaced the roof.
I have no idea if Cassatt, the man behind the tunnels, himself expected the tunnels to last for 100 years. Most things need serious rebuilding when they reach 100 years of continuous use, or actually lo
I just report the facts as I see them, I am not Fox News. I am not a fan of Christie but his reversal on this project has been a positive. I don’t bash him because he has done so much to himself he doesn’t need it. I am from NJ originally so I know the politics and the BS. on both sides of the political spectrum and business cards. I enjoy traveling through there and visiting but know full well it is a great place to be from.
Some adverse points have merit.
-
The engineering studies that predicated the limit should be posted for review. Granted the studies may not be detailed, They may be random point tests ?
-
Storm times & surges need to be figured for probably each 6" of storm surges. Another Sandy ?
-
Contingent plans need completed especially for one or two tunnels being closed for a very long period.
I think what stands out most in Blue Streak’s three points above is that there is no contingency plan and no contingency route through NYC if something should happen to these tunnels. And if there is a major catastrophe both the vehicle tunnels, the Lincoln and Holland tunnel could be endangered, too. The Poughkeepsie Bridge, seventy something miles north of the city, is no longer available making Castelton about 130 miles out the next crossing available for rail. So two tracks in two separate tunnels is all there is to play with, gamble with. The plan Christie shut down did not include Amtrak but was a two track stub end station which would barely be usable for commuter services with no storage or loop. It looked for for diggers but not a real feasible operating plan. But because Christie said no to the plan is not reason to not do anything. Urban planners and other strategic planners have harped for years on the needs of replacing the tunnels as well as Portal Bridge out in the NJ Meadows (which has a replacement program finally underway…but think what a waste that would be if it only got trains to Secaucus!) Boardman’s statement of 20 more years isn’t strong enough, it should go further saying that because there is maybe 20 more years left for the tunnels planning has to start now, no more debating and waiting. We have had several natural disasters which if they reoccur could wipe the tunnels out before then. If a plan isn’t in place soon, Amtrak will not be the one which suffers, but all of New York City, New Jersey, and southern New England will be dealing with major transportation and economic problems. But why does he have to say that when it is so apparent on its own merits?
would like to expand on these comments.
4. Once business realizes how much the lack of good transportation thru this area will cause their business to suffer then the business will support this project.
5. Business support should realize that there will be consequences throughout the USA. Maybe not very much but the business will suffer. How? if I have to fly to NYC for business the traffic jams caused by the tunnels closure will waste valuable time ?
Really? Have to explain how several million people will be able to get to and from work if only the G.W. Bridge is open to auto traffic (worst case scenario of all tunnels, the 4 PATH and the two highway systems in addition to the two heavy rail tunnels.) And NY Waterways doesn’t have enough boats. There would be total chaos because there is no plan in place. If business should realize and support preparing for such an occurrence, then it better start realizing and shouting support to those in the state houses and in D.C tomorrow morning. The former mayor of NYC put forth the idea of no auto traffic south of I think 14th Street under regular daily conditions but was ignored. And if there is such chaos, who would want to fly to NYC for business anyway?
You live in a climate where you have that luxury.
Here in Texas very few builder roofs last 25 years with the hail storms we get, most last only 1/2 that much or less. So when it came time to replacing mine I opted for a more expensive hail proof roof so that I would not have leaks again in the future and would not have to again file an insurance claim to get the roof replaced. It will be my last roof replacement unless the house is destroyed by another means.
So you see, even with your analogy there is a difference in approach with how to spend money wisely. [:D]
Difference in approach, yes. But neither you nor I spent time trying to decide IF it was really necessary to replace the old roof. Perhaps there are other alternatives that would obviate the need for a roof… Perhaps putting on a new roof makes no business sense… A new roof was put on, period. BTW, glad to hear you went for quality over cheap.
Of course no homeowner in his right ming is going to make that call… He’s going to replace the roof. Just like it is in all of our interest to see the tunnels under the Hudson be replaced/rebuilt/whatever to keep them functional for many, many years to come. Maybe that means re-lining them. Maybe it means total replacement. I think we will find that out before too long.
I agree that this is happening, but I don’t know about the “unquestioned”-ness of this project. The skepticism is worrisome to me. Politicians have been under-funding infrastructure for a long time, and some are cynical of mega-projects. Their constituents are inclined to accept what they say since it saves taxes. Unfortunately, then the upgrades won’t be made until there is a catastrophic failure.
After our experience with the Big Dig, if this project is to be done I’d suggest a couple of safeguards:
First, the financial contribution of the federal government be a substantial portion of the total, but that it be an absolutely fixed amount, not to be raised under any circumstances. Let New Jersey and New York pick up the cost overruns.
Next, before the project begins, we pre-jail some number of contractors, union officials and politicians “pour encourager les autres”. [;)]
Pre-Jail??? Are you suggesting that we ignore the Fifth Amendment in order to eliminate corruption?[tdn]
Once upon a time, there was one reason to build new tunnels - capacity. Back when Amtrak was floundering around in the dark, NJT wanted it bad enough to go it alone and came up with the lousy ARC tunnel plan. Was there a cost/benefit on this? I don’t know, but it must have showed well enough to be in the running for federal funding. You don’t get rail/transit funding through the normal channels without cost/benefit AND analaysis of alternatives. (You CAN get highway money, though. The state DOT just has to pony up the state’s share for any boon-doggle they want)
Now, we have a second reason. The expected relatively near term end-of-life of the existing tunnels. I would guess that information is not the result of some detailed, highly technical instrumented analysis but rather the educated opinion of engineers most familiar with the overall condition of the tunnel. I would also be willing to bet that those same engineers have some opinions on what might make sense to extend the tunnel’s life and have a reasonable idea what it might take. It likely precludes running traffic…
With NJT backing out of ARC and now joining with Amtrak on proposals for new set of tunnels. Amtrak has drawn some lines on a map and, only recently gotten money to study designs.
Until you have a design fleshed out, you cannot have a cost/benefit or analysis of alternatives, but the construction money spigot won’t get turned on without it.
Getting the money lined up so that the spigot is not dry when turned on is the current task at hand for Boardman. Expecting him to have a full set of detailed info available before he starts on the political task of lining up the money is…uh…either stupid or naive (or both!)
If it turns out that a bridge, or ferry, or shuttle buses, or do nothing is a more cost effective solution, I am sure that is what we’ll get instead of a tunnel. However, I think it’s as
Also, the 6th Amendment (fair and speedy trial by jury). Actually, this is a case in which a sarcasm font would have been useful.
I think your winking smilie conveyed the message.
Engineering rendering of the Gateway tunnels.
Removed link due to not verifiable
???
Edited to say, “Ah, I see.”
There is more aging Amtrak infrastructure than just the Hudson River Tunnels
[quote]
Editorial: Amtrak’s vulnerability
The Baltimore Sun (Online) May 12, 2014
No doubt there were some lumps in throats at Amtrak headquarters last month when they heard the words “collapse” and “rail line” in Baltimore. As it happens, it was a CSX freight line that was affected by the loss of a 120-year-old retaining wall in Charles Village that sent tons of dirt, pavement and cars spilling onto the tracks below.
But it might have been the Baltimore and Potomac Tunnel, Amtrak’s only passage through West Baltimore. It’s 140 years old and can’t accommodate more than two tracks, double-stacked trains or speeds above 30 miles per hour. The renovation of B&P, as it’s commonly known, is overdue, a $1.5 billion project that’s on the drawing board but not yet funded.
And that’s not even the biggest headache along Amtrak’s vital Northeast Corridor. Last week, Amtrak’s CEO reminded an audience in New York that the century-old rail tunnels beneath the Hudson River have less than 20 years of service left. That’s particularly worrisome, considering it would take “seven to nine years” to build new ones, Amtrak’s Joseph Boardman said, “if we all decided today that we could do it.”
Amtrak actually had a plan in place to replace and Hudson tunnels and expand rail service in and out of New York, but the $12.4 billion project was derailed, so to speak, by New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie in 2010 as too costly. Amtrak has a new proposal with a 2030 completion date but currently doesn’t have the financing to move forward with it.
Congress and the Northeastern states can’t continue to ignore the region’s aging rail infrastructure, particularly tunnels and bridges that date back a century or more. In a 2012 report, Amtrak estimated that its Gateway project to fix
BaltACD: You and the article are so right. We are neglecting now and may pay a severe price in not many more years. There has to be a better, new way.
Part of the solution of course is for the Northeast to pay the same price that Texas does for an Amtrak enhancement project with the same Federal to Local ratio of funds in the project funding. I think that is fair and would reduce a good percentage of the political opposition against. We are not seeing that here though. We are seeing primarily an outright Federal Grant with a little contributed by NJ and NY and both states are balking at their small percentage contribution.
In contrast Texas gets a scant $8 million to improve a line it bought for $60-70 million and improved on it’s own and at it’s own expense…to run Amtrak trains on it between Dallas and Ft. Worth. Nice of Texas to agree to do this for Amtrak but is the paltry $8 million an appropriate contribution given all the money spent so far? I would say probably not. Then Amtrak turns around and insists that Texas fully fund the acquisition and rebuilding of all the equipment used on the Ft. Worth to Oklahoma City service…where in the Northeast do we see equal treatment with the states there? Heck, they are given the equipment for free and it’s paid for out of the Federal General Revenue Fund.