Those that can't comprehend the obvious deserve being devoured by it.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
CMStPnP I think our society is moving away from "unquestioned" large infrastructure projects. If you can make a business case for a project and assemble a constituency it will get funding. Look at the CREATE program in Chicago. As unsexy as it is, it got funding and it is producing results. … The issue I have with the tunnels project is he hasn't put a project timeline together, has not listed pros and cons, has not looked at alternatives, hasn't done a whole lot, IMO. He just blurts out that these tunnels need to be replaced and we need to do it ASAP. Where is the business case on paper supporting his comments? There isn't one. No brainer or not, I think the public deserves better than that if they are going to pay close to $7-8 Billion for this project. Thats a lot of money to spend for just two underwater tunnels and it raises suspicions there could very well be a less costly alternative..
I think our society is moving away from "unquestioned" large infrastructure projects. If you can make a business case for a project and assemble a constituency it will get funding. Look at the CREATE program in Chicago. As unsexy as it is, it got funding and it is producing results.
…
The issue I have with the tunnels project is he hasn't put a project timeline together, has not listed pros and cons, has not looked at alternatives, hasn't done a whole lot, IMO. He just blurts out that these tunnels need to be replaced and we need to do it ASAP. Where is the business case on paper supporting his comments? There isn't one. No brainer or not, I think the public deserves better than that if they are going to pay close to $7-8 Billion for this project. Thats a lot of money to spend for just two underwater tunnels and it raises suspicions there could very well be a less costly alternative..
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 long before. Rebuilding our interstates seems to happen at a much more frequent rate, for instance.
Yea, I'd like to see the plan for how to make them fit for another 100 years. I think that will come. Plans like that aren't developed in a vacuum or overnight. The key is that whatever is being planned for additional tunnels is a separate need and will do nothing much to help with the existing, aging tunnels.
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.
RIDEWITHMEHENRY is the name for our almost monthly day of riding trains and transit in either the NYCity or Philadelphia areas including all commuter lines, Amtrak, subways, light rail and trolleys, bus and ferries when warranted. No fees, just let us know you want to join the ride and pay your fares. Ask to be on our email list or find us on FB as RIDEWITHMEHENRY (all caps) to get descriptions of each outing.
Some adverse points have merit.
1. 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 ?
2. Storm times & surges need to be figured for probably each 6" of storm surges. Another Sandy ?
3. 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?
henry6 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?
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?
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?
CJtrainguy 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.
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.
CMStPnP CJtrainguy 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. 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.
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.
CMStPnP I think our society is moving away from "unquestioned" large infrastructure projects... ...
I think our society is moving away from "unquestioned" large infrastructure projects...
...
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".
Dakguy201 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?
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 likely that we'll see flying monkeys as the preferred alternative as any other alternative to a tunnel.
A new tunnel ought to be a slam-dunk.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
CSSHEGEWISCH Dakguy201 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?
Also, the 6th Amendment (fair and speedy trial by jury). Actually, this is a case in which a sarcasm font would have been useful.
Dakguy201 CSSHEGEWISCH Dakguy201 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? Also, the 6th Amendment (fair and speedy trial by jury). Actually, this is a case in which a sarcasm font would have been useful.
Engineering rendering of the Gateway tunnels.
Removed link due to not verifiable
blue streak 1 Engineering rendering of the Gateway tunnels.
???
Edited to say, "Ah, I see."
_____________
"A stranger's just a friend you ain't met yet." --- Dave Gardner
There is more aging Amtrak infrastructure than just the Hudson River Tunnels
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 and improve passenger rail service in the Northeast would require an investment of $151 billion between now and 2040. Yet last week, House Republicans unveiled a budget for next year that would cut Amtrak's capital construction allowance below this year's amount. As current spending levels have already contributed to long-term neglect, it's easy to see the proverbial track ahead - more landslide-like events and other catastrophes involving rail lines followed by finger-pointing and "you should have warned us" pronouncements. Of course, Congress can always allow Amtrak to gradually shrivel up and die (indeed, conservatives have already called for it to be zero funded), but as the Northeast from Richmond, Va. to Boston, Mass. remains the nation's economic powerhouse, that strategy could prove costly. Home to 50 million people and a $2.6 trillion economy, the Northeast is this country's most densely populated region and the most dependent on rail service to keep going. It's not just Amtrak passengers who ride Amtrak rails, there's a plethora of commuter rail lines from Maryland's MARC to Massachusett's MBTA that use it or feed off it, too. Amtrak ridership is growing by about 5 percent annually, and there's been similar growth in commuter rail traffic. The region's highways are ill-equipped to handle the overflow - the I-95 Corridor Coalition has its own wish list to overcome chronic (and potentially economically-debilitating) traffic congestion along the highway that would cost $25 billion per year. The bottom line is that there's really not much choice. Amtrak's Northeast Corridor must be sustained if only because the region lacks alternatives. And the sooner Washington replaces rail infrastructure that dates back a century or more, the sooner commuters can rest easy that a landslide isn't waiting around the next bend. It's also remarkable that for all the tax dollars the federal government has willingly poured into airport security since 2001, there's been so little interest in preserving rail lines as an alternative to air travel. After 9/11, it was those same rails that brought home many of those left stranded when the Federal Aviation Administration was forced to shut down the skies after the terrorist attacks. We certainly don't expect the B&P Tunnel to come crashing down any time soon, and perhaps the Hudson River tunnels have many years left - as might the aging bridges over the Susquehanna, Bush and Gunpower rivers in Maryland that are also slated for repairs. But it just seems foolish to risk so much by continuing a strategy of neglect along the Northeast Corridor, financing small projects like new signals here or catenary there, when so many major challenges are ignored at the public's eventual peril.
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 and improve passenger rail service in the Northeast would require an investment of $151 billion between now and 2040.
Yet last week, House Republicans unveiled a budget for next year that would cut Amtrak's capital construction allowance below this year's amount. As current spending levels have already contributed to long-term neglect, it's easy to see the proverbial track ahead - more landslide-like events and other catastrophes involving rail lines followed by finger-pointing and "you should have warned us" pronouncements.
Of course, Congress can always allow Amtrak to gradually shrivel up and die (indeed, conservatives have already called for it to be zero funded), but as the Northeast from Richmond, Va. to Boston, Mass. remains the nation's economic powerhouse, that strategy could prove costly. Home to 50 million people and a $2.6 trillion economy, the Northeast is this country's most densely populated region and the most dependent on rail service to keep going.
It's not just Amtrak passengers who ride Amtrak rails, there's a plethora of commuter rail lines from Maryland's MARC to Massachusett's MBTA that use it or feed off it, too. Amtrak ridership is growing by about 5 percent annually, and there's been similar growth in commuter rail traffic. The region's highways are ill-equipped to handle the overflow - the I-95 Corridor Coalition has its own wish list to overcome chronic (and potentially economically-debilitating) traffic congestion along the highway that would cost $25 billion per year.
The bottom line is that there's really not much choice. Amtrak's Northeast Corridor must be sustained if only because the region lacks alternatives. And the sooner Washington replaces rail infrastructure that dates back a century or more, the sooner commuters can rest easy that a landslide isn't waiting around the next bend.
It's also remarkable that for all the tax dollars the federal government has willingly poured into airport security since 2001, there's been so little interest in preserving rail lines as an alternative to air travel. After 9/11, it was those same rails that brought home many of those left stranded when the Federal Aviation Administration was forced to shut down the skies after the terrorist attacks.
We certainly don't expect the B&P Tunnel to come crashing down any time soon, and perhaps the Hudson River tunnels have many years left - as might the aging bridges over the Susquehanna, Bush and Gunpower rivers in Maryland that are also slated for repairs. But it just seems foolish to risk so much by continuing a strategy of neglect along the Northeast Corridor, financing small projects like new signals here or catenary there, when so many major challenges are ignored at the public's eventual peril.
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.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
schlimm 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.
henry6Our replacing, repairing, conserving, maintaining anything in this country is tied to first our tax codes and depreciation, second the return on investment, and third how long can we get away without spending any more money until the thing falls apart. Of course once the danged thing starts falling apart it costs more than if first they replaced it after fully depreciated or second when the got their return on investment plus 100% say because the third choice is when it is too late to be money smart.
Henry
Only private enterprise needs to think about the tax code and return on investment.
The tunnels are a US Govt asset, so the notion of not spending money until they start to fall apart fits perfectly with Congress' inability to see beyond the next election.
Where are your all wise all knowing social planners who in this one case might actually do some good?
Mac
PNWRMNMWhere are your all wise all knowing social planners who in this one case might actually do some good?
Not for lack of planning. And not all of Congress. Just a certain group withing a certain party that refuses to invest in the US.
Good morning,
Please tone down the political commentary and stick to the topic.
Thanks,
Angela
Angela Pusztai-Pasternak, Production Editor, Trains Magazine
Angela Pusztai-Pasternak Good morning, Please tone down the political commentary and stick to the topic. Thanks, Angela
Railroads and politics have been entwined since the first railroad, the B&O was proposed in Baltimore in 1827 and its first 25 years were defined more by the Maryland, Virginia and Pennsylvania legislatures than any of the geographical obstacles the line faced.
My original post was intended to limit the thread to the mechanical problems of the tunnels. Another thread would more closely cover the politics. Angela should we start thread just to the reasons the tunnel is limited in time ?
BaltACD is completely right. How can one discuss tunnels which must rely on various government units to urgently rebuild, replace, augment without discussing the issues of political maneuvers? They are not going to be built by private corporations.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.