oltmannd Wanna keep cars out of the Holland and Lincoln tunnels and off the GW Bridge? Raise the tolls (and subsidized the alternatives) - if that turns out to be cheaper, all-in.
Wanna keep cars out of the Holland and Lincoln tunnels and off the GW Bridge? Raise the tolls (and subsidized the alternatives) - if that turns out to be cheaper, all-in.
oltmannd JPS1 Wanna improve the infrastructure of the NEC? Hang it on the users in the form of higher fares! Wanna keep cars out of the Holland and Lincoln tunnels and off the GW Bridge? Raise the tolls (and subsidized the alternatives) - if that turns out to be cheaper, all-in.
oltmanndWanna keep cars out of the Holland and Lincoln tunnels and off the GW Bridge? Raise the tolls (and subsidize the alternatives) - if that turns out to be cheaper, all-in.
Hope you don't anticipate a groundswell of single-issue rage among voters in the tristate area!
Probably better to mask your social engineering with some sort of dedicated earmark -- for example, a $2 (or $5, or $10) surcharge on access to the crossings at particular hours, with the revenue dedicated to the construction of Gateway or the remediation of the North River Tunnels.
That has the nominal advantage of shifting voluntary road use more to times where there is surplus capacity (or lower problem with congestion) and implementing a fair 'tax' on convenience, while not restricting absolute access to Manhattan and connected New York areas absolutely. It becomes more and more practical to implement true yield pricing, as well as preferred discounting, as toll systems like E-Z-Pass that feature default billing rather than just "decrementing paid-in balances" become pervasive options.
I also favor massive socking of increases to trucks and other long-following-distance vehicles during nominal rush hours. Especially with e-logs and better traffic-management monitoring systems, there is little excuse for 18-wheelers trying to cross to Manhattan in the period, say, from 6:00 to 9:00am. (I also begin to wonder whether we should be implementing mandatory E-Z-Pass tolling of trucks and some other classes of vehicles in the reverse direction, too, during peak traffic periods -- this was the norm for years after the GWB lower deck was completed.)
The key is to ensure that any increase doesn't go to 'the general fund' or be disbursable at the option of the Port Authority. We all remember what that did for Robert Moses! However, if it goes into a variant of a sinking fund for Gateway, we could easily start construction at a number of points without having to wait for the Whole Schmear to be Financed By The Feds.
And it does have the somewhat delicious character of taxing the beneficiaries of a Gateway or Tunnel-improvement project almost directly, if done right ...
JPS1Wanna improve the infrastructure of the NEC? Hang it on the users in the form of higher fares!
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
Speaking of bridges in Albany: it appears (on RyPN) that the Port of Albany has bought the tract where the old NYC electrics are located, and is going to rebuild the bridge over Normans Kill which had collapsed in 2016 as part of the prospective improvement.
This may augur well for finally getting the equipment out to where it might be preserved (or at least taken to stabilized storage).
The bridge is also made of "pre-Titanic" steel, which often has brittle spots due to carbon and other inclusions. The tendency at that time in bridge design was to make tension members like the bottom chord of the bridge truss out of larger section steel than required just to spread any shock.
The piers are also masonry and sunk to bedrock. The weak part of the bridge, the swing span, is also on a masonry pier. It looks like the ship channel (where the swing span is located) was also chosen in a way that it was not in the main current of the river.
cx500 NKP guy Imagine: A 1901 bridge in daily use in 2019! Actually, that is not too unusual for steel railroad bridges, and you can find quite a few even older, especially on lesser lines. An advantage to steel bridges is that it is usually possible to repair any problems that arise, and strengthen critical components if desired. That is considerably cheaper than a completely new span. Cascading a span that has become obsolete on a heavy main line to a branch line is also a practice that has happened surprisingly often. And when a line is abandoned, a steel span that still has life will often be stockpiled for use in emergency repair. That happens less today since the trails folks may want to buy it in place.
NKP guy Imagine: A 1901 bridge in daily use in 2019!
Actually, that is not too unusual for steel railroad bridges, and you can find quite a few even older, especially on lesser lines. An advantage to steel bridges is that it is usually possible to repair any problems that arise, and strengthen critical components if desired. That is considerably cheaper than a completely new span.
Cascading a span that has become obsolete on a heavy main line to a branch line is also a practice that has happened surprisingly often. And when a line is abandoned, a steel span that still has life will often be stockpiled for use in emergency repair. That happens less today since the trails folks may want to buy it in place.
Don't forget in the 1900 era - Structural Engineers didn't know the strength of their building materials to the tolerance of an ant's fart like engineers of today that are making their designs to the dollar sign, not to last nearly forever no matter what additional loads get place on it. Then if calculations indicated a 1 inch thickness would 'work' the practice was to make it 2 inches just to be sure. Yes structures cost more then, but they are still here today. Many things constructed after WW II are rapidly deteriorating and in many cases being scrapped today rather then being 'fixed' and upgraded. Railroads understood the pounding nature of steam engines on bridges and the like and designed to MAKE SURE their structures could withstand ANY pounding that they might experience.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
NKP guyImagine: A 1901 bridge in daily use in 2019!
NKP guy Ah, but that would require tax increases, a well-known third rail for politicians who dare to lead.
No, most infrastructure improvements would not require tax increases. But they would require an increase in user fees.
Wanna improve the nation's electric grid, although in many respects it is one of the best in the world. Increase the rates for using it. It is called pricing the commodity.
Wanna improve the nations water and sewer systems? Increase the rates for water and sewerage use.
Wanna improve the infrastructure of the NEC? Hang it on the users in the form of higher fares!
One of the problems of using taxes for infrastructure improvements is no one knows how to follow the money. The advantage of using user fees to pay for the improvements is that the users have at least the potential to see the cost at the price points.
Many thanks for all of these posts; I learned something from each.
Those two (unattractive) towers on the bridge: Are they there soley to hold wires up, and not because they have a structural purpose?
Imagine: A 1901 bridge in daily use in 2019! Like the tunnels some 140 miles south, let's hope the infrastructure our great and great-great grandparents paid for and bequeathed to us keeps working until the day dawns in the USA when we see the wisdom of replacing our antique, if not ancient, bridges, tunnels, sewers, waterpipes, etc. with new things, made by our own people in our own factories.
Ah, but that would require tax increases, a well-known third rail for politicians who dare to lead.
The Livingston Ave Bridge is owned by CSX, leased and maintained by Amtrak. It's has a deck span and three two-track steel spans on the Rennsalaer side of the river with a swing span in the channel (The Hudson still has a fir amount of barge traffic) and a through truss span on the Albany side. The way the ice jammed all of the boats went under the second span, not the swing span.
The bridge was built in 1901 with enough forethought that NYC had no restrictions on steam power size. Today's traffic includes Amtrak trains to points north and west of Albany, Amtrak turning moves for trains from New York terminating at Albany/Rennsalaer, and CSX freights for the Hudson Line and the Troy branch, which makes up the north leg of Amtrak's wye.
https://bridgehunter.com/ny/rensselaer/livingston-avenue/
I've only seen one video so far - it appeared what hit the bridge span on one of the boats/barges was ony a tin "rag top," which sustained damage, but probably didn't do much to the bridge.
I was in the general area that day, but crossed on the Castleton-on-Hudson Bridge downriver, which would not have caused any problems except to a very tall ship.
The rail bridge in question (Livingston Ave) isn't far from the Renssalear train station.
Larry Resident Microferroequinologist (at least at my house) Everyone goes home; Safety begins with you My Opinion. Standard Disclaimers Apply. No Expiration Date Come ride the rails with me! There's one thing about humility - the moment you think you've got it, you've lost it...
Amtrak's bridge per other reports. (10 mph slow order for 36 hours until steel bridge inspectors did their thing.) The cruise boat only only was lodged against the pier and not in the steel deck?
The story on Yahoo News about eight barges coming unmoored on the Hudson River and striking the mid-river abutment doesn't say which bridge is involved. Is it the Amtrak bridge or another?
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.