7j43k 15) I am not sure why you think that a "civilian" may not question the decisions of a "professional". Ed
15) I am not sure why you think that a "civilian" may not question the decisions of a "professional".
Ed
This comes up frequently here on the forum.
Murphy Siding So you're saying a "civillian" can't question your math? Me questioning your math makes as much sense as you suggesting that you know more than the "professionals".
So you're saying a "civillian" can't question your math? Me questioning your math makes as much sense as you suggesting that you know more than the "professionals".
Gosh, no. I'm not saying that. In fact, if you read what I said, you will see nothing there that SAID you can't question my math.
THAT would have looked different. Something like: "Who do you think you are to question my math?" You will notice I said nothing at all like that.
I think it's great that you question my math. You have every right. And I ran the numbers again. And got the same result that I got 3 times before. And then I did it again.
Your math is simply incorrect. Your answer is wrong. And mine is right.
7j43k Murphy Siding 7j43k Six full time employees billed out at $50 per hour is $576,000 per year. If you divide 1.3 BILLION dollars by that number, you could hire the guys for 2257 years. Assuming no overtime. Ed Math check: $1.3 billion divided by $576,00 is 22.57 years, not 2257 years. There's a reason they hire professionals. It really is 2257 years. Ed
Murphy Siding 7j43k Six full time employees billed out at $50 per hour is $576,000 per year. If you divide 1.3 BILLION dollars by that number, you could hire the guys for 2257 years. Assuming no overtime. Ed Math check: $1.3 billion divided by $576,00 is 22.57 years, not 2257 years. There's a reason they hire professionals.
7j43k Six full time employees billed out at $50 per hour is $576,000 per year. If you divide 1.3 BILLION dollars by that number, you could hire the guys for 2257 years. Assuming no overtime. Ed
Six full time employees billed out at $50 per hour is $576,000 per year. If you divide 1.3 BILLION dollars by that number, you could hire the guys for 2257 years. Assuming no overtime.
Math check: $1.3 billion divided by $576,00 is 22.57 years, not 2257 years. There's a reason they hire professionals.
It really is 2257 years.
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
7j43k I would suggest you study my words more carefully instead of leaping to conclusions based on what you wish to think I am saying. Ed
I would suggest you study my words more carefully instead of leaping to conclusions based on what you wish to think I am saying.
Murphy,
You have a 15 element list and say that the "statements come off this way"
They perhaps come off that way to you.
It appears that most or all are misinterpretations of my statements.
I will look at three:
1) I never said they don't need a new bridge. I certainly expressed doubt. You will notice that my first post on the subject was in seeking more information on the subject. I have gotten some. And I appreciate and thank those who contributed it. If you can find me asserting "they don't need a new bridge", I would appreciate it if you would point that out.
11) A "certain" amount? I s'pose. But you will note that I lauded my coworkers. Who were government employees. I was a government employee. I do not disdain myself. But I have, indeed, "been around". And I assure you there are government workers worthy of my disdain.
As to professional engineers, I haven't met many. The most recent was in the last several years, and I found him to be excellent. Smart. Helpful. A credit to his profession. So, no disdain there.
15) I am not sure why you think that a "civilian" may not question the decisions of a "professional". I am an electrical contractor, and civilians question my decisions frequently. And I do my best to defend them. I will note that I have education in the engineering field, including civil.
I don't intend to keep going with the list.
7j43k Murphy Siding 7j43k blue streak 1 MC: Yep 2 additional tracks across the Hackensack river cannot be denied. So arguments about not building the new bridge are moot. The bridge CAN be denied. Becaus they lied. And so I dance the poot. And hope someone brings a suit to investigate the galoot who stands to rake in the loot. Ed Which part are you so fired up about? The part where a lot of people a lot smarter than you and me say the bridge is worn out and needs to be replaced? Or the sticker shock of what things cost these days? I suppose, we could just ignore the bridge until it fell in the river, but that doesn't seem like the smartest move. Cool. Quoting is restored. All hail the internet god(s). Mr. Siding. If I may. You are correct that I am a bit fired up. But I don't see where you have the right to define my choices about why that might be so. But I do see that you are expressing concern. In your quote of a previous gentleman, you will note that there is stated that various tracks across the Hackensack "cannot be denied". Actually, they can. I live far far away. And it is partly MY money that will apparently be spent for these extra tracks. If it were only you and the other gentleman, I would have absolutely no objection to YOU spending YOUR money on this project. I can and will suggest that you send a check to support this project, so that I can keep my money for my own projects. And then, going further with your own quote, that same gentleman says "arguments...are moot". Apparently because he wants/needs more bridges across the Hackensack River. So, it appears that his view is that he wants more bridges and therefore arguments are moot. Mr. Siding. Do you think that is truly a rational argument? Attending to your very own comments, you express concern about the bridge falling into the river. I, for one, am against that. And so we agree. That is not the smartest move. And you also reference "people a lot smarter than you and me". I know it appears arrogant. And it may indeed be true. But I do not concede that those people are smarter than me. And so I do not concede that they are correct. I will also note that people who are NOT smarter than me have been "righter" than I am. Frank: That's Life. But, if you insist, I will agree that they are smarter than you. (Sorry, dude. You walked into that one.) Ed
Murphy Siding 7j43k blue streak 1 MC: Yep 2 additional tracks across the Hackensack river cannot be denied. So arguments about not building the new bridge are moot. The bridge CAN be denied. Becaus they lied. And so I dance the poot. And hope someone brings a suit to investigate the galoot who stands to rake in the loot. Ed Which part are you so fired up about? The part where a lot of people a lot smarter than you and me say the bridge is worn out and needs to be replaced? Or the sticker shock of what things cost these days? I suppose, we could just ignore the bridge until it fell in the river, but that doesn't seem like the smartest move.
7j43k blue streak 1 MC: Yep 2 additional tracks across the Hackensack river cannot be denied. So arguments about not building the new bridge are moot. The bridge CAN be denied. Becaus they lied. And so I dance the poot. And hope someone brings a suit to investigate the galoot who stands to rake in the loot. Ed
blue streak 1 MC: Yep 2 additional tracks across the Hackensack river cannot be denied. So arguments about not building the new bridge are moot.
MC: Yep
2 additional tracks across the Hackensack river cannot be denied. So arguments about not building the new bridge are moot.
The bridge CAN be denied.
Becaus they lied.
And so I dance the poot.
And hope someone brings a suit
to investigate the galoot
who stands to rake in the loot.
Which part are you so fired up about? The part where a lot of people a lot smarter than you and me say the bridge is worn out and needs to be replaced? Or the sticker shock of what things cost these days? I suppose, we could just ignore the bridge until it fell in the river, but that doesn't seem like the smartest move.
Cool. Quoting is restored. All hail the internet god(s).
Mr. Siding. If I may. You are correct that I am a bit fired up. But I don't see where you have the right to define my choices about why that might be so.
But I do see that you are expressing concern.
In your quote of a previous gentleman, you will note that there is stated that various tracks across the Hackensack "cannot be denied". Actually, they can. I live far far away. And it is partly MY money that will apparently be spent for these extra tracks. If it were only you and the other gentleman, I would have absolutely no objection to YOU spending YOUR money on this project. I can and will suggest that you send a check to support this project, so that I can keep my money for my own projects.
And then, going further with your own quote, that same gentleman says "arguments...are moot". Apparently because he wants/needs more bridges across the Hackensack River.
So, it appears that his view is that he wants more bridges and therefore arguments are moot.
Mr. Siding. Do you think that is truly a rational argument?
Attending to your very own comments, you express concern about the bridge falling into the river. I, for one, am against that. And so we agree. That is not the smartest move.
And you also reference "people a lot smarter than you and me". I know it appears arrogant. And it may indeed be true. But I do not concede that those people are smarter than me. And so I do not concede that they are correct. I will also note that people who are NOT smarter than me have been "righter" than I am. Frank: That's Life.
But, if you insist, I will agree that they are smarter than you. (Sorry, dude. You walked into that one.)
Swing spans are considered draw bridges. Lifting spans are either bascule or true lift.
7j43kAnd neither do I see what it has to do with the waterway "being there first".
I offered that in response to your "or don't go there at all" comment...meaning that reply isn't an option. I suspect that they made the existing span moveable as an accomodation to the needs of waterway traffic, so a more restrictive arrangement seems unlikely.
As Wizlist stated earlier: "Law is that any maritime traffic that wants the bridge open has the right of way (navigation came before the railroads). "
Someone needs to refresh us with a few facts. Amtrak decided to route the Empire service to NYP from GCT. To accomplish that refurbishment of the Spuyten Duyvil swing bridge had to be done.
The bridge was lifted off its pivot, placed on a barge, and sent to a facility for refurbishment. Was it found that there was undetected damage to the pivot and its receiver and other points ? As well replacement of the cogs ? Do remember some extra steel work was required. Did it turn out that it took longer to complete the refurbishment ? How long ? A repeat may worry Amtrak since there can be undiscovered damage / problems due to past PC neglect.
Would certainly place out of service the present Portal bridge if the pivot failed and bridge had to be lifted off pivot.
Convicted One 7j43k If ya can't fit, don't go there. Or, better yet: THEY pay US so THEY can go where THEY want. I'm not sure how that fits with the concept of the waterway "being there first".
7j43k If ya can't fit, don't go there. Or, better yet: THEY pay US so THEY can go where THEY want.
I'm not sure how that fits with the concept of the waterway "being there first".
As far as I can tell, the only reason that a replacement bridge would have to provide more clearance is because the Coast Guard says so. It is of no benefit to the railroad. It IS a benefit for boats that would currently be obstructed. So, should the new bridge be built, they would get a windfall profit.
Thus I proposed that those benefiting from the increased clearance pay for that.
That said, I generally have no problem with people "profiting" peripherally from a government project. Up to a point. So, if increased clearance is possible at minimal (???) cost, I'm for it. If it's more than that ill defined minimum, perhaps the beneficiaries should contribute to the expenses.
People DO charge for toll roads--improvement over previous roadways. One thinks.
And neither do I see what it has to do with the waterway "being there first".
blue streak 1 7j43k But elsewhere it was stated it takes about a week to load the barge. Which would then be 17 loads out and 17 empties in. Thus 34, instead of 70. But you forgot that the tug dead heads to and from the sludge plant so that doubles the number of openings. That is in the report.
7j43k But elsewhere it was stated it takes about a week to load the barge. Which would then be 17 loads out and 17 empties in. Thus 34, instead of 70.
But elsewhere it was stated it takes about a week to load the barge. Which would then be 17 loads out and 17 empties in. Thus 34, instead of 70.
But you forgot that the tug dead heads to and from the sludge plant so that doubles the number of openings. That is in the report.
Well, "forgot" is perhaps too kind a word. But thanks for the correction. So, 70 it is. Per 4 months.
Being able to vote money out of your pocket and into mine under the guise of "the greater common good" is a fundemental foundation stone of this democracy. Where WOULD we be without it?
Consider this:
It is stated that 450 trains a day cross "the bridge". Approximately.
Amtrak schedules 38-45 (?) trains a day. Approximately.
So, one might think that the Feds would pay 10%, and the locals would pay 90%.
Or maybe even nothing for the Feds. Because I doubt the two track bridge has a problem with 45 trains a day.
BUT.
The bridge is owned by Amtrak. And if the bridge is old and falling down and a barge can't get under it, why then AMTRAK should repair their stupid old bridge.
And pay a lot more than 10% of the cost.
Right?
Firelock761.3 BILLION for a bridge? Maybe I'm naiive, but can anyone tell me just where that 1.3 billion is going to?
GADOT is going to replace the interchange between two freeways - GA400 and I-285 - at a cost of $1.0B. So, maybe $1.3B isn't too ridiculous.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
Boys, as taxpayers we do have a right to know just where our money's going to. The cost for the new bridge is estimated at $1.3 billion. OK. For $1.8 billion you can get an "Arleigh Burke" destroyer, a warship that has to "shoot, move, and communicate" and do it at high speed. Consider everything that has to go into a warship versus a bridge that just has to sit still and carry trains.
Oh, and forget any kind of new industrial development going in on the Hackensack River north of the bridge. Not going to happen. Those days are gone.
One last thing: When I hear the phrase "people smarter than me" I raise an eyebrow, just a bit. I'm old enough to remember "people smarter than me" giving us the Viet Nam war, Penn Central and various other big business failures, big city meltdowns, and government gridlock.
Smarter than me? Sometimes I think it's a case of those in charge being educated beyond their level of common sense.
7j43k3. I'm not sure why we should foot the bill for "potential future river traffic". If ya can't fit, don't go there. Or, better yet: THEY pay US so THEY can go where THEY want. In the future.
That's why they are beating the "old and obsolete" drums. More people are willing to identify with that as a problem.
But, suppose you are a politician spending the public's money. You just built a bridge on the cheap that prevent's a major manufacturing concern from building a new plant up stream that might have employed thousands. Guess who the torches and pitchforks are for?
Convicted One It would seem that there are 3 primary areas of displeasure with the current bridge. 1. it is a traffic bottleneck for Amtrak2. The bridge operating mechanism is unreliable. 3. The height of the bridge is a restriction for current as well as potential future river traffic. Replacing the entire bridge is the only solution that addresses all three concerns. And, since the people who want to spend the money are not the ones footing the bill, might as well error into the realm of overkill and avoid future possible regrets of not getting all the bells and whistles while the getting is good? While the variable height wheelhouse tug appears to be a workable solution to the current bridge height problem, it does not address possible future requirements where the lading itself might be of excess height. No does it address Amtrak's desire for additional lanes through the area. And, if you're going to go to the trouble to build new spans, you might as well build spans that will neither be restricting, nor require excessive maintenance. But, at a $Billion, I hope that all alternatives are being considered.
It would seem that there are 3 primary areas of displeasure with the current bridge.
1. it is a traffic bottleneck for Amtrak2. The bridge operating mechanism is unreliable.
3. The height of the bridge is a restriction for current as well as potential future river traffic.
Replacing the entire bridge is the only solution that addresses all three concerns. And, since the people who want to spend the money are not the ones footing the bill, might as well error into the realm of overkill and avoid future possible regrets of not getting all the bells and whistles while the getting is good?
While the variable height wheelhouse tug appears to be a workable solution to the current bridge height problem, it does not address possible future requirements where the lading itself might be of excess height. No does it address Amtrak's desire for additional lanes through the area.
And, if you're going to go to the trouble to build new spans, you might as well build spans that will neither be restricting, nor require excessive maintenance.
But, at a $Billion, I hope that all alternatives are being considered.
Working backwards:
3. I'm not sure why we should foot the bill for "potential future river traffic". If ya can't fit, don't go there. Or, better yet: THEY pay US so THEY can go where THEY want. In the future.
2. I still have to read through that report I mentioned. So far, that would be the only source of info on what might or might not be wrong with the bridge and what could be done. I am not sure I want to believe simple declarations from "on high" when they appear to be justifying the very project that they have decided they want.
1. I haven't studied the traffic patterns. I do know, as we all do, that that area is a very busy spot. And bottlenecks are, well, bottlenecks.
Everything I've heard and read from "the media" emphasizes the decrepitude of the bridge. And not the possible improvements to railroad traffic flow. The latter would appear to me the more logically defensable: "We got this two-track bottleneck, and it really is an irritating problem." But instead we're shown a rusty bridge and told a sludge barge can't fit. Well, yeah, the is bridge rusty. And the barge sorta slightly maybe can't fit.
Planning for the future and spending a lot (maybe too much) for it is apparently not felt to be as attention getting as an old bridge.
But it makes me feel like I'm being manipulated. So they got my attention.
greyhounds The way I see this is that it's all government and there's no creative thought or cost-benefit analysis going on. The Coast Guard has a one size fits all universal regulation that requires a 53 foot clearance under any new bridge. But there is minimal river traffic under this bridge and requiring a 53 foot clearance drives up the cost of bridge replacement. So why is a 53 foot clearance required here? "I don't know, but that's the regulation" is not a thoughtful answer. There is a solution: http://waterwaysjournal.net/Magazine/ThisWeeksTopNews/NewBoatFeaturesRetractablePilothouse,ZDrives.aspx It seems such a towboat will get under the present bridge without the bridge being opened. Rail and river traffic could flow unimpeded. The current bridge clears 26 feet in the closed position. The towboat is only 17 feet high with the lowered pilot house. The immediate problem can be solved with a different towboat design for a lot less than $2 billion. The need to open and close the bridge for river traffic will be gone. In addition, the cost of replacement bridges will be reduced if they do not have to clear 53 feet for what is minimal river tonnage. But nobody seems to be thinking beyond a thoughtless regulation that makes no sense in this particular situation.
The way I see this is that it's all government and there's no creative thought or cost-benefit analysis going on.
The Coast Guard has a one size fits all universal regulation that requires a 53 foot clearance under any new bridge. But there is minimal river traffic under this bridge and requiring a 53 foot clearance drives up the cost of bridge replacement. So why is a 53 foot clearance required here?
"I don't know, but that's the regulation" is not a thoughtful answer.
There is a solution:
http://waterwaysjournal.net/Magazine/ThisWeeksTopNews/NewBoatFeaturesRetractablePilothouse,ZDrives.aspx
It seems such a towboat will get under the present bridge without the bridge being opened. Rail and river traffic could flow unimpeded. The current bridge clears 26 feet in the closed position. The towboat is only 17 feet high with the lowered pilot house. The immediate problem can be solved with a different towboat design for a lot less than $2 billion. The need to open and close the bridge for river traffic will be gone.
In addition, the cost of replacement bridges will be reduced if they do not have to clear 53 feet for what is minimal river tonnage.
But nobody seems to be thinking beyond a thoughtless regulation that makes no sense in this particular situation.
I've worked for the guvmint. And I was lucky to have worked with some thoughtful and hardworking folks. BUT. I'm afraid their kind can get kinda rare in certain areas.
I'll be remindful and mention that there is other river traffic than the every 1.7 day/3.5 day (depending on whose numbers are correct) opening for the sludge barge. There is also the every 8 day opening for "other". I would hope dealing with that would not be beyond Amtrak's abilities.
7j43k, I never hear any real info about what's wrong with it.
While the variable height wheelhouse tug appears to be a workable solution to the current bridge height problem, it does not address possible future requirements where the lading itself might be of excess height. Nor does it address Amtrak's desire for additional lanes through the area.
Thanks, Wanswheel.
That's a very informative and interesting article--much more in-depth (and well written) than the one I read in a well known big city paper.
I will note that in one place it is said that there were 70 openings for the sludge barge in four months (in the other article, either I misread or they miswrote one year). But elsewhere it was stated it takes about a week to load the barge. Which would then be 17 loads out and 17 empties in. Thus 34, instead of 70.
So I will not take everything there as gospel. But it is of use in understanding what's going on there.
So, I thought I'd go have a look at the geography of the area. And, RAILFANS, what did I spy? A freight yard 1000 yards from the sludge loader. Physically, anyway, it appears the sludge could be hauled by rail.
Interesting.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
wanswheelThe measurement that matters, of course, is height. The pilothouse of the Turecamo Girls sits five stories above the water. That’s too tall to fit under the Portal Bridge, which is 26 feet above the river’s high water mark, said Craig Schulz, a spokesman for Amtrak, which owns and maintains the bridge. So every time the sludge barge comes, the bridge must swing open. The Portal Bridge opened 90 times during the past four months of 2014, according to Amtrak. Of those movements, 75 were for the shipments of sludge. Amtrak’s records do not show how often the bridge gets stuck, but Switay said failures happen so often he’s lost count.
The reason for 4 tracks across the Hackensack. Gateway tunnel bores will add 2 additional tracks. Granted then the North river tunnels will be taken out of service hopefully only one at a time but when all is finished then there will be 4 tunnel bores from NYP to New Jersey. Those 4 tracks will need 4 tracks across the Portal firstly just 3.
The Bergen Record, Feb. 21, 2015
When Bergen County sludge meets rusty Amtrak bridge, both sides lose
By Christopher Maag
Pushing a million gallons of human sludge down the Hackensack River is tricky. The job requires finesse, a rusty barge, a puttering little tugboat, high tide, low winds and an ability to withstand the horrible smell.
It also requires the Portal Bridge to swing open so ships can pass, and that’s where the problems start.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.