NY - NJ Hudson River Tunnel Bites the Dust

[ecoli]

The summary by Paul North of union/wage requirements for government contracts seems accurate to me.

Here's the assertion by alphas which I originally questioned:

"If you had been following the news concerning the road stimulus projects, you must have read where Obama has ruled the contractors must be union.    They no longer can be non-union and pay the Davis-Bacon required "prevailing wage" when working on government funded projects--which has been the norm for years in many parts of the USA."

So far I have seen nothing to support this assertion. ("I've seen lots of contracts requiring unionization" doesn't count; the assertion was that every stimulus contract would require unionization.)

I am aware that the stimulus bill applied Davis-Bacon to certain classes of project which have traditionally been exempt (but Davis-Bacon doesn't require unionization, just "prevailing wages".) I am aware of executive order 13502, which encourages (but does not require) project labor agreements (here's a reference that says "It is important to clarify that the new rules do not require contractors and subcontractors to enter into a PLA on every large-scale government-funded construction project awarded": laborrelationstoday.com)

I'm sorry to dwell on this point, since I wonder whether it even relates to the Hudson tunnel whose planning predated both the stimulus bill and 13502. But inaccurate assertions detract from the level of public discourse, so I think it's important to correct them.

[blue streak 1]

Now we hear that the tunnel is not actually over budget yet.A report gotten byy a legislator says the project is on schedule and on budget. Now how is Cristie going to wiggle out of his statement that the project is over budget? Know that I expect it to go over in the future. LaHood will love this revelation.

[henry6]

This evening's Star Ledger and Daily Record web pages report that Christie has basically not interpreted facts as they are but has basically put his spin on things.  He has included the Portal Bridge project as part of the ARC project thus inflating the costs and the estimated cost overruns.  LaHood and others have pointed that  out to him but he says he remains firm that the project must come to a stop.  LaHood is supposed to meet with him again tomorrow (Fri. 10/22).  Now, my question is, if he is not going to allow the ARC project to continue based on his misguidence that the Portal Bridge is part of the project, does that mean the Portal Bridge project is done too?   How far back in time does this guy want to go?  If he would even talk raising the NJ gas tax he would have half a leg to stand on with many, but he wants to blow on his thumb until he turns blue.  Or the whole state does.

[henry6]

Friday morning, 10/22, and the word is that Christie is putting off decision at least thorugh the weekend.  The stories this morning, like last night, hit on the fact that Christie was using contrived facts to bolster his position.   One NY TV station says there is no meeting with Lahood today but maybe early next week. 

While I can understand Christies point about money there are several facts to be considered.  The improvements have to be made sooner or later, and the sooner the less expensive.  Also our governments from the Federal down have worked on the Hamiltonian concept of credit financing of public projects, wars, etc., an institution that Christie seems to be fighting single handedly; so can he really win?  Would NJ really win if he holds the line?  I am not trying to be political here but rather asking the questions that have to be addressed by the people of both NJ and the USA and the respective governments.  More than name calling and finger pointing has to be done to address the problems.

[Paul_D_North_Jr]

blue streak 1

  Now we hear that the tunnel is not actually over budget yet.A report gotten byy a legislator says the project is on schedule and on budget. Now how is Cristie going to wiggle out of his statement that the project is over budget? Know that I expect it to go over in the future. LaHood will love this revelation. 

henry6

  This evening's Star Ledger and Daily Record web pages report that Christie has basically not interpreted facts as they are but has basically put his spin on things.  He has included the Portal Bridge project as part of the ARC project thus inflating the costs and the estimated cost overruns.  LaHood and others have pointed that  out to him but he says he remains firm that the project must come to a stop.  LaHood is supposed to meet with him again tomorrow (Fri. 10/22).  Now, my question is, if he is not going to allow the ARC project to continue based on his misguidence that the Portal Bridge is part of the project, does that mean the Portal Bridge project is done too?   How far back in time does this guy want to go?  [snip]  

Well, per the wisdom of Homer Simpson - with credit to the member here who has these lines or similar in his 'signature' (from http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/quotes/homer.htm ):

"Facts are meaningless. You could use facts to prove anything that's even remotely true!"

"Phfft! Facts. You can use them to prove anything." 

Which seems to be the case here. 

- Paul North.

[Paul of Covington]

  I like this one that a sargeant I used to work for used:

  My mind's made up.   Don't confuse me with the facts.

[BaltACD]

This has never been more than political posturing on Christie's part....so in the future he can be able to say 'I tried to stop it...so don't blame me'.  Nothing more and nothing less, as he knew going in that the project would proceed.

Paul_D_North_Jr

blue streak 1:

  Now we hear that the tunnel is not actually over budget yet.A report gotten byy a legislator says the project is on schedule and on budget. Now how is Cristie going to wiggle out of his statement that the project is over budget? Know that I expect it to go over in the future. LaHood will love this revelation. 

henry6:

  This evening's Star Ledger and Daily Record web pages report that Christie has basically not interpreted facts as they are but has basically put his spin on things.  He has included the Portal Bridge project as part of the ARC project thus inflating the costs and the estimated cost overruns.  LaHood and others have pointed that  out to him but he says he remains firm that the project must come to a stop.  LaHood is supposed to meet with him again tomorrow (Fri. 10/22).  Now, my question is, if he is not going to allow the ARC project to continue based on his misguidence that the Portal Bridge is part of the project, does that mean the Portal Bridge project is done too?   How far back in time does this guy want to go?  [snip]  

Well, per the wisdom of Homer Simpson - with credit to the member here who has these lines or similar in his 'signature' (from http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/quotes/homer.htm ):

"Facts are meaningless. You could use facts to prove anything that's even remotely true!"

"Phfft! Facts. You can use them to prove anything." 

Which seems to be the case here. 

- Paul North.

[henry6]

Sat. 10-23 Star Ledger web report indicates Christie holding firm to his position that there is no money to do anything and therefore nothing in the rail sector should be done.  He is also clinging to the misinformed or misguiding information lumping the Portal Bridge project with the ARC project.  If the Portal Bridge project is not done there will be absolutely no rail service of any kind into Manhatten, of course which would clog the already overused roads and fill up the already overpolluted air; i.e., commerce and industry, life as we know it, will come to a standstill.  Even if he took all the money in the world and repaved his highways, the number of lanes shut down would only add to the jams created by no rail route into NY.  It appears if he keeps these two projects fiscally lumped together...without telling people that's really how he is looking at things...he is holding the people of NJ, NY, and the entire eastcoast hostage while he posturizes for a run for the US Presidency!  Then what?

[schlimm]

He fits right in with most other political candidates of both parties: all posturing, not much on ideas, facts or substance.

[henry6]

Its a beautiful Monday Morning in NYC:  A Dover, NJ bound MidTown Direct does a slow speed derailment just out of the platform sending 300 riders walking back and blocking tracks so that Amtrak can't do Albany service, NJT and Amtrak, even LIRR, contemplates and deals with delays of up to one hour and MidTown Direct redirected to and from Hoboken  Meanwhile in Trenton, Gov. Christie continues to mull over the financial situation seeking another day before announcing his decision. 

Another figure to note is that the PA and the Federal government are dishing up $3B each and NJ $2.7B means that NJ is actually paying less than one third of the cost.   How much better deal is responsible to ask for Gov.?

[henry6]

Tues. eve 10/26 and the reports on line from NJ news media is that Christie is not going to back off tomorrow.  Despite Federal reconfigureation of the financing limiting NJ to the $2.7B committment, Christie wants to dump the tunnel.  He will not raise NJ gas taxes to pay for roads.  This guy is not very smart or is very, very smart and knows more than any highway and transportation planner, civil engineer, conservationist, or any one of the thousands who are in favor of the tunnel.  His posturing is going to backfire on him.  And I take back what I said about  blowing on this thumb until NJ turns blue; it is until NJ turns red and goes against Christie's Republican rant.

[ns3010]

It's all over.

http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2010/10/gov_christie_cancels_arc_tunne.html

[henry6]

So what happens now?  The only solice there is is that the people of NJ voted this man into office and have to live or stumble with his decsions.  In a sense, the people have spoken;  I am just not sure what they said.

[Paul_D_North_Jr]

In the current issue - Oct. 2010, Vol. 106, No. 10 - of Railway Track & Structures magazine, in the INDUSTRY TODAY section, on pages 6 and 8 is an article "East River Tunnels, Penn Station Mark Centennial", which appears to be largely written from a Long Island Railroad press release.  In col. 3 at the middle of page 6, it says that:

"The cost for what was officially called "The New York Tunnel Extension of the Pennsylvania Railroad" was approximately $114-million.  This included Pennsylvania Station, the [4] East River and [2] North River (Hudson) Tunnels and the Sunnyside Yard.  The cost in 2010 dollars would be approximately $2.5 to $3 billion."  [insertions and emphasis added - PDN]  On page 8, it goes on to say that the tunneling took 6 years. 

Anybody else struck by the huge disparity in the scope, cost, and time required for that monumental work, as compared to the just-cancelled mere 2 tunnels under the Hudson River only ?  We can perhaps quibble with the stated dollar escalation factor, but it appears to be about 25 - i.e., what cost 4 cents then - like the proverbial 'nickel cigar' - would cost $1.00 today, so that's not terribly far out of line.  In any event, these tunnels would still have cost from 3 to 4 times as much, for a much reduced scope of work at that - and even with all the modern technological advances in that type of construction, such as tunnel boring machines, etc. 

Perhaps we need to either resurrect those old-timers to show us how it's done - or rethink our methods of engineering, contracting, funding, and politicking, else we won't be able to afford ourselves . . .  

- Paul North.  

[oltmannd]

Paul_D_North_Jr

 Perhaps we need to either resurrect those old-timers to show us how it's done - or rethink our methods of engineering, contracting, funding, and politicking, else we won't be able to afford ourselves . . .  

- Paul North.  

I think you are on to something....

Back then, the PRR pretty much decided to do it...and then did it.  Now, we have to wade through layers and layers of talking about it, arguing about it, meetings, planning sessions, reviews, applications for funding,  contracts, contract administration, coordination of a multitude of bureaucracies, contractors and agencies,etc, etc, all of which is bound up in lots and lots of pretty red tape.  We get stuck paying outrageous amounts for not very much.

I've been thinking about commuter rail startups.  The new lines all come with some pretty nice facilities.  Concrete platforms with nice looking shelters, paved parking lots with nice landscaping, fenced in runoff retention ponds, etc.  Why?  Why not just some timber and asphalt platforms and gravel parking lots?  ADA platform can be a pressure treated deck ala SEPTA.  At least to start. And, how about some second hand and/or rebuilt equipment?  Nothing fancy.  Manual doors and traps, No need for electronic signs or intercoms.  Let the trainmen take care of it.  Just seats, heat and AC.  Run it on time and nobody will care about the lack of the fancy stuff.

The price for the tunnel was outrageous to begin with and there was no assurance it wouldn't have overruns.  I can understand why it got killed.  

Now, what's plan B?

[Paul_D_North_Jr]

oltmannd

  [snip]   Why not just some timber and asphalt platforms and gravel parking lots?  ADA platform can be a pressure treated deck ala SEPTA.  At least to start.  [snip]

Don, I appreciate the similarly sad concurrence of someone else who's pretty well-informed and level-headed, IMHO.  I know we now live in an age where corporations and agencies have to be more accountable than they were 100 years ago - but if you go back and read the history, the PRR had to work with NYC politicians and boards too in order to get its project done.

And I share your skepticism about the commuter / light rail start-ups.  The portion I quoted above sounds very much like what John G. Kneiling proposed for the then "County" station on the PRR in the Brunswick area of NJ.  This part does, too:

oltmannd

  And, how about some second hand and/or rebuilt equipment?  Nothing fancy.  Manual doors and traps, No need for electronic signs or intercoms.  Let the trainmen take care of it.  Just seats, heat and AC.  Run it on time and nobody will care about the lack of the fancy stuff. 

 

- Paul North. 

 

[Anonymous]

I think the point of canceling the tunnel funding is that once large public sector projects start to cost-overrun, there is no way to predict the final cost.  And the more that gets sunk into them, the more leverage the contractors and boosters have to add cost because nobody wants to lose what has already been spent.  So the larger the project, the greater the prospect of the cost spinning out of control with no end in sight as everyone feeds on the project. 

 

If society could look at a collective need, determine the cost, decide it is worth it, and get it for that price, there would be no problem.  Unfortunately, with public sector projects that is not possible.  The only way to reasonably control the tendency for overrun meltdown is to limit the size of projects that are undertaken.  There is a point where project size reaches a critical mass, and the commitment to fund it is doomed to failure.

 

If you spent ten-billion dollars, one dollar at a time, you might get no cost overrun.  If you spent it all at once, the overrun may be endless.  I call it feeding the seagulls.       

[henry6]

A couple of things to remember about Christie's assessments.  One, he lumped the dollars for the Portal Bridge with the ARC project  Thus, second, his over run figures are off because of this.  Third, he feels Amtrak should share the costs as should NY...Amtrak, no, they've got their own projects and monies seperate and apart from NJT, but NY, well, there could be an arguement that NYC would not have to put up with the cars, the space taken by cars, and the air pollution..,so they may be very weak arguements...in the end it is those who live in NJ and have to work in NYC who benefit, not NY'ers, but NJ'ians.  Fourth, he wants to take the money to repave roads that are already inadequate would only maintain the status quo, and to build new goes against planners, et al.,  who say there is no room and it would be harmful to the air.  Fifth, he won't raise gasoline taxes so that road users would pay for road use.  And sixth, he really has not come up with a true alternative plan just saying "no tunnel" out of hand. 

And as might be expected, Sen. Lautenberg has called for an offcial investigation of Christie and his decision! 

[ecoli]

oltmannd

 

I've been thinking about commuter rail startups.  The new lines all come with some pretty nice facilities.  Concrete platforms with nice looking shelters, paved parking lots with nice landscaping, fenced in runoff retention ponds, etc.  Why?  Why not just some timber and asphalt platforms and gravel parking lots?

While it might be a good idea to economize on stations, that's not the answer to the question of how our predecessors were able to build so much for so little money. Do the shelters, parking lots, and landscaping you describe seem excessively luxurious compared with the pre-1960s Penn Station, or Grand Central? 

And although I'd rather have an asphalt platform and a gravel parking lot than no rail service at all, I find it sad that we can afford to make a grand architectural statement when we build an airport or an urban freeway interchange (come to Las Vegas or Phoenix--the overpasses are decorated with public art) but we can't afford even a "nice looking" shelter at a train station. I rode Caltrain regularly about 15 years ago, and the contrast between the surviving SP-era stations (Palo Alto, San Carlos, Burlingame) and the rest was dispiriting. SP had put up substantial buildings with doors, windows, and roofs; the Joint Powers Board was in the process of replacing crumbling asphalt platforms with structures which were glorified (or not so glorified) bus shelters, open to the wind and rain, as if intended to remind you how much more comfortable it would have been to drive your car. To an extent this merely reflects societal changes: a real building with comfortable seating might attract vagrants, it's more expensive to clean and maintain, station agents have been replaced by ticket vending machines, and most travelers time their arrival (by car) to avoid any appreciable wait for the train.

Since US society is willing to spare no expense when it comes to retail development, the most successful strategy for a station nowadays is to piggyback atop a shopping destination. For example, the Redwood City Caltrain station of 15 years ago was fundamentally a gussied-up bus shelter, but it was designed to match an adjacent shopping center comprising a supermarket, Starbucks, restaurants, etc. I'm sure that many passengers who wouldn't have been willing to leave their cars in a gravel lot and stand on a crumbling asphalt platform surrounded by weeds were quite comfortable parking in a lot shared with Safeway, grabbing a bagel, and killing time with a latte while waiting for the train.

[henry6]

Christie is saying what all thought he was after: this morning's NJ papers report his address yesterday calling for putting transportation money into roads, that the infrastructure is falling apart.  There is no "transportation rationalizing" by this guy, how best to make use of the money to move the most people the best way.  This stopping of ARC will not solve the problem of getting in and out of NYC, it will not increase the capacity of anything only maintain a status quo.  No, I take that back,  It will only decrease the effectiveness of the status quo causing increased clogging of roads, actually a waste of money in that there is no progress, no solving of transportation problems.  Sen. Lautenberg has called for an investigation; I hope its not too little too late.  I understand the financial crunch, but when planners at all levels of government plus politicians at all levesl and locations all favor a program and one man kills it, there is something wrong somewhere.  One man against hundreds, one man knows more than hundreds of others, one man knows better than the professionals, one man can set back time by almost a hundred years by this act.  It is unbelievable that he has done this, but he has.

[Anonymous]

henry6

I understand the financial crunch, but when planners at all levels of government plus politicians at all levesl and locations all favor a program and one man kills it, there is something wrong somewhere.  One man against hundreds, one man knows more than hundreds of others, one man knows better than the professionals, one man can set back time by almost a hundred years by this act.  It is unbelievable that he has done this, but he has.

It is possible that one man can have the courage to stand up to hundreds who have a self-interest in wasteful spending of public money. 

[Paul_D_North_Jr]

Bucyrus

  I think the point of canceling the tunnel funding is that once large public sector projects start to cost-overrun, there is no way to predict the final cost.  And the more that gets sunk into them, the more leverage the contractors and boosters have to add cost because nobody wants to lose what has already been spent.  So the larger the project, the greater the prospect of the cost spinning out of control with no end in sight as everyone feeds on the project. 

 

If society could look at a collective need, determine the cost, decide it is worth it, and get it for that price, there would be no problem.  Unfortunately, with public sector projects that is not possible.  The only way to reasonably control the tendency for overrun meltdown is to limit the size of projects that are undertaken.  There is a point where project size reaches a critical mass, and the commitment to fund it is doomed to failure.

 

If you spent ten-billion dollars, one dollar at a time, you might get no cost overrun.  If you spent it all at once, the overrun may be endless.  I call it feeding the seagulls.       

Mr. B., what you posted above has much merit, and may well be the dynamic that's driving much of this soap opera, on both sides.  Certainly the recent history of such projects provides scant comfort.

But that still leaves me with a question I asked a couple weeks ago:  How is it that the Swiss can complete their larger and longer tunnel projects without these kinds of shenanigans ?

- Paul North. 

[Anonymous]

Paul_D_North_Jr

Bucyrus:

  I think the point of canceling the tunnel funding is that once large public sector projects start to cost-overrun, there is no way to predict the final cost.  And the more that gets sunk into them, the more leverage the contractors and boosters have to add cost because nobody wants to lose what has already been spent.  So the larger the project, the greater the prospect of the cost spinning out of control with no end in sight as everyone feeds on the project. 

 

If society could look at a collective need, determine the cost, decide it is worth it, and get it for that price, there would be no problem.  Unfortunately, with public sector projects that is not possible.  The only way to reasonably control the tendency for overrun meltdown is to limit the size of projects that are undertaken.  There is a point where project size reaches a critical mass, and the commitment to fund it is doomed to failure.

 

If you spent ten-billion dollars, one dollar at a time, you might get no cost overrun.  If you spent it all at once, the overrun may be endless.  I call it feeding the seagulls.       

Mr. B., what you posted above has much merit, and may well be the dynamic that's driving much of this soap opera, on both sides.  Certainly the recent history of such projects provides scant comfort.

But that still leaves me with a question I asked a couple weeks ago:  How is it that the Swiss can complete their larger and longer tunnel projects without these kinds of shenanigans ?

- Paul North. 

I don’t know.  Maybe they have a citizenry who are perceptive enough to see through the ploys that naturally develop in service of the fundamental tendency for governments to expand their size and power.  We had mostly that kind of watchful and informed citizenry once.

[Paul_D_North_Jr]

Not to get sidetracked on a political 'rant' here, but - I believe by law or custom there, Swiss men are required to keep in their homes and bear arms for the defense of their country.  Not just hunting rifles or shotguns, either - the real deal, military-style assault rifles.  Right effective, too - they haven't been invaded - let alone successfully - in quite a few centuries, either, despite the history of that kind of thing over there . . .

- Paul North. 

[henry6]

Bucyrus

It is possible that one man can have the courage to stand up to hundreds who have a self-interest in wasteful spending of public money. 

But is he?  Courageous in the face of.....what?  If all experts say that two rail tracks into NYC will be cheaper, cleaner, more efficient, and cost effective in the long run, how can he say they are wrong and he is right.  He also, remember, is not using correct data in that he joins the Portal Bridge project and the ARC together to add up the over run costs rather than the over run costs for justs ARC.  Or do you consider environmentalists and planners to be nothing more than those with self interest rather than honest in their endeavors?  Eliminate all planners and planning?  Eliminate all scientists and science?  Ignore anyone who has a knowledge, skill, or talent because you don't want to spend a buck even if that buck will give long term value and return?  No, no.  This man appears to be either closed minded or single minded with an agenda for himself or his cronies supporters.  Wasting public money here is repaving a 100 year old highway that isn't big enough to carry today's traffic much less any growth.  Wasting public money is putting it toward a project that cannot be built because there is no more room for the highway nor room in the air to absorb pollutants.  Wasting public money is building a highway to a place where there is no room to accept the traffic, the vehicles.  Wasting public money is not doing something with it that will get people to and from jobs where the jobs are. 

[Paul_D_North_Jr]

Well, as the 'Demotivator' poster for ''Mistakes'' - see

http://www.despair.com/viewall.html - says: 

''It could be that the purpose of his tenure as Governor is . . .

only to serve as a warning to others.''

- Paul North. 

[henry6]

Run for your lives, its the end of the world!  Do give up the ship!  The sun won't rise in the East tomorrow!  Only God knows and he's not talking!  Give up, its probably useless.  If at first you don't succeed, screw it!  When Grandpa started out he use a horse, why can't we?

[Anonymous]

henry6

Bucyrus:

It is possible that one man can have the courage to stand up to hundreds who have a self-interest in wasteful spending of public money. 

 

But is he?  Courageous in the face of.....what?  If all experts say that two rail tracks into NYC will be cheaper, cleaner, more efficient, and cost effective in the long run, how can he say they are wrong and he is right.  

 Or do you consider environmentalists and planners to be nothing more than those with self interest rather than honest in their endeavors?  Eliminate all planners and planning?  Eliminate all scientists and science?  Ignore anyone who has a knowledge, skill, or talent because you don't want to spend a buck even if that buck will give long term value and return?  No, no.  

  Wasting public money here is repaving a 100 year old highway that isn't big enough to carry today's traffic much less any growth.  Wasting public money is putting it toward a project that cannot be built because there is no more room for the highway nor room in the air to absorb pollutants.  Wasting public money is building a highway to a place where there is no room to accept the traffic, the vehicles.  Wasting public money is not doing something with it that will get people to and from jobs where the jobs are. 

Why is cost overrun so rampant with publicly funded projects compared to privately funded projects?  With a public project, the pot of money is fundamentally unlimited, whereas with a private project, it is limited.  Sure, the professional participants in a public project are necessary, and they are qualified.  But collectively, they all pull in the direction of driving up the cost.  There is no reason not to, and they benefit from it.  Because it is public money, and perceived to be unlimited, there is nobody with an incentive to spend it efficiently.

 

It may very well be that the tunnel is needed, and even a good idea compared to road improvements.  But my point has nothing to do with evaluating the need.  It is simply about the fundamental dynamic of public sector cost runaway sinking a project once the project reaches a certain size.  And by the way, I believe that the $15-billion committed to HSR is considerably beyond that project size threshold.  It is likely to result in the whole plan being scrapped after maybe half the money is spent with no HSR actually getting built.  

[schlimm]

Whether or not it is wasted is one matter, although in concept, it sounds like a needed and worthwhile project.  Overlooked is the fact that this public money is largely going to private corporations.  Perhaps a different system for cost control is needed.  I agree that in a purely private concern, there are more incentives to cut costs on the infrastructure side, although the outcome isn't necessarily always good (BP?)  I have no numbers, but I do have the impression that engineered civil infrastructure costs seem higher than in other comparable countries.

[henry6]

Big business does have cost over runs, they just don't talk about it.

And I don't understand about private people doing public works...that has always been that way.  Public oversight and supervision with 99% of the job contracted out to design and construction.  Too many governments, etc. are involved in something to have any one of them be the contractor, so it has to be sent out to private industry to do the work.