An alert reader let the Antiplanner know about a transit tunnel New Jersey is starting to build under the Hudson River. It was supposed to cost around $2.5 billion. Now that construction is about to begin, the projected cost has more than tripled to $8.7 billion. Who knows what the final price will be.
Portals to the existing, century-old tunnel under the Hudson.
Of course, they want the feds to pay a big chunk of it — at least $3 billion. All because the existing transit tunnel to Penn Station is “nearing maximum capacity.” Hey, I thought a rail line could carry almost infinite numbers of people.
The tunnel plan sounds like it was designed by Salvador Dali. It will not connect with either Penn Station or Grand Central. Its exit into Manhattan will be 18 stories below ground. That will make a pretty long escalator (although there are a couple of longer ones in Russia).
In addition, only the rhubarb can’t maximize tadalafil 10mg uk the effect. The dose may vary from a patient to purchase cheap levitra in stock another one. The condition evolves around male sexual health sildenafil 50mg tablets along with sexual health. It’s suggested that erectile cialis cost 20mg dysfunction is a primary reason for one in five relationships to break up over. Artist’s conception of the Manhattan station for the new trans-Hudson tunnel.
It took the Pennsylvania Railroad two years to plan and seven years to construct the existing tunnels a century ago. Planning has been underway for the new tunnels for fifteen years, and construction is expected to take eight years. That’s progress!
You have to wonder: if New Jersey Transit had to live off its own revenues, rather than rely on tax subsidies, would it have found a less-expensive solution? Perhaps they could raise fares during peak hours (congestion pricing).
Perhaps they could figure out a way of getting more trains (or more people per train) through their existing tunnels. After all, the existing tunnel has two tracks and is “nearing capacity” at 23 trains an hour. The new tunnel will have two tracks and is supposed to be able to handle 48 trains an hour. Why not just upgrade the existing tunnel so it, too, could handle 48 trains an hour? I am sure they have reasons, but I am not sure they are good ones.
The Antiplanner is getting annoyed by the New York urban area. Here you have some of the richest people in the world, but they are always begging for federal help (ditto California). Here you have some of the smartest people in the world, yet they casually agree to build ridiculously expensive transit projects.
New York is the nation’s, if not the world’s financial capital, but they are always conniving, borrowing, and stealing to keep themselves going. Supposedly, the agglomerative economies gained from the city’s high densities make it more efficient, but they can’t seem to keep their transit system running without giant subsidies. If the city didn’t have the rest of the country to bail them out, it would have to decentralize just like everywhere else.
Possibly, just possibly, that much density doesn’t make sense after all.
Sounds ambitious, but short on creativity, in the generic name, and WAY too damn expensive!! Will the ceiling fall, like in Boston?
Why don’t riders pay for this? Or at least just NYC & northeast NJ. Will vehicles get similar upgrades in roads? In NYC, transit use & drivers are about even, as measured by mode of commute.
For $8 billion, two 1-mile long cable bridges could be built. Or a 10-lane ring road around the island, with fill, in the water. Not real prudent, but for illustration.
Why should “all†taxpayers, via the Feds, pay? Why aren’t municipalities & states more responsible? When it’s others’ money that you have, then go all out.
What the hell is this lobster appetite, when there’s only a pasta income?
By 2011, the national debt will be 100% of GDP. That is not sustainable.
Other govs have debt too. For all states, it’s about $700 million.
Here’s a factoid: Since 2000, if all states had increased their spending only by an amount equal to population growth & inflation, then there would a surplus. But no, states kept increasing spending way beyond what’s needed. Why?: wasteful do-little projects (bad cost-benefit), unions, Davis-Bacon, redistribution, increasing medical (15% of GDP, 1/3 of all by gov), and the continual growth in administrative (ie schools cost over double per student, in real terms, than 40 years ago)
Back to the Massterantsanal
Was it still only 2 tracks? In the it looked that.
How about improving the current tunnel?
Stack it, a double tunnel. Depends on ships and ability to reinforce & such, but would be cheaper.
Why not build a bridge? It’s cheaper than boring, and safer. It could handle 4 tracks plus roadways.
“Making†jobs is such a fallacy. Let the government hire many sculptors to make statures. Yeah. Who pays? What is the productivity?
Why are jobs going to Manhattan still? The entrepreneurs are leaving due to the highly progressive tax. The City’s budget is 40% paid by taxing the rich (top 5% ? not sure).
This country is doomed anyway. BO is making a disaster, which was started by the Dems forcing bankers to give mortgages to people who cannot afford them. Bernanke didn’t help either, making rates very low, then raising them too much in 2006, being scared of inflation. Housing prices almost doubled nationally (on average). Urban areas with limits on supply increased more. Inflation already occurred, big-time. Oh, the CPI doesn’t include house prices or energy. WTF kind of basket is that?
It sounds like the area is too populated & should stop growing.
Should there just be an added entrance fee, regardless of mode, to pay for more infrastructure & welfare? Before Juliani did some fixing, a million New Yorkers were on welfare.
Why aren’t the jobs being made in NJ? Manhattan workers prefer to live in NJ. Sounds crazy. When there’s 18 million in the UA, they go all over, regardless of transit & regardless of density.
I’m sure some of you leftists like any kind of pork, especially for transit or for people who don’t want to be educated. The gov can do no wrong & is always right in spending your money on others.
Can that be fixed?
Then this comment erased?
I guess I need /a
Libertarian political bullshit aside.
With the “Big Dig” in Boston, the big problem was not building a link between North & South Stations for MBTA & Amtrak trains.
The major flaw with this project is that it can only be used by NJT and not Amtrak or even LIRR.
This is like extending BART to San Jose, instead of electrifying Cal Train.
Hey, New Jersey’s political leadership has arranged for drivers on the New Jersey Turnpike and Garden State Parkway to help to fund this. See this for details.
“Hey, I thought a rail line could carry almost infinite numbers of people.”
Reducitio ad absurdum!
ROT:“Possibly, just possibly, that much density doesn’t make sense after all.”
ws:There’s plenty of other cities that are denser, so maybe it does make sense.
“The Antiplanner is getting annoyed by the New York urban area. Here you have some of the richest people in the world, but they are always begging for federal help (ditto California).”
New York and California pay *far* more in Federal taxes than they receive in federal aid. They rank 42nd and 43rd respectively. For every dollar that New York sends to Washington it receives 82 cents back.
You want to point fingers? Point them at Mississippi which receives $2.02 for every dollar in Federal taxes. New Mexico is a close 2nd – $2.00 received for every dollar collected.
http://www.nemw.org/fundsrank.htm
Antiplanner wrote: “Hey, I thought a rail line could carry almost infinite numbers of people.”
The old practice in the UK was for an entire factory to take their workers on a summer vacation, by train. Swindon Works was no exception. They sent their workers to the sea-side at Weymouth, on the south coast. The trains arrived and departed every 60 seconds. If they cannot do better than one train every 3 minutes, they need to try a little bit harder.
Antiplanner wrote:
“The new tunnel will have two tracks and is supposed to be able to handle 48 trains an hour. Why not just upgrade the existing tunnel so it, too, could handle 48 trains an hour? I am sure they have reasons, but I am not sure they are good ones.”
My eyes are not as good as they once were, but the conceptual scheme in your posting shows four tracks, not two. Hence 2*23 =46, close to the theoretical 48 trains per hour. The tracks are arranged with two tracks on the top deck, then a foyer, then two tracks at the bottom.
Antiplanner wrote: “You have to wonder: if New Jersey Transit had to live off its own revenues, rather than rely on tax subsidies, would it have found a less-expensive solution?”
Yes.
Lex: Your figure for New Mexico looks correct, but my understanding is that they are well entitled to it because of what we’ve actually done there with federal dollars: storing vast amounts of toxic waste, testing nuclear weapons, developing other military infrastructure, and so forth. Other states aren’t exactly ever going to be lining up to volunteer their assets toward those projects. The federal government is, if memory serves, New Mexico’s largest employer.
No arguments with you about Mississippi. No doubt the Magnolia State is a jewel in the 50-state crown, but we need to be getting better value on our dollar from there and similar states.
Lex:“New York and California pay *far* more in Federal taxes than they receive in federal aid. They rank 42nd and 43rd respectively. For every dollar that New York sends to Washington it receives 82 cents back.
You want to point fingers? Point them at Mississippi which receives $2.02 for every dollar in Federal taxes. New Mexico is a close 2nd – $2.00 received for every dollar collected.”
ws: Here is a way more visual map of what you’re referring to. I hate it when those nice “fiscally responsible” states complain about the over spending of other states when they themselves are highly subsidized:
http://www.taxfoundation.org/UserFiles/Image/Blog/ftsbs-large.jpg
Almost the entire Midwest gets plenty in federal money, but get tons of praise for keeping taxes low and employment high. Maybe they wouldn’t keep their taxes so low if they actually paid for their goodies.
Highman, You say “libertarian BS aside.†That has no meaning. What supposed BS are you referring to? When you speak of something, using “aside”, then it’s rather obvious that you are ignoring facts & valid arguments.
Highman, You make irrelevant comparisons with this project. Why would people from Long Island use this tunnel? Whatever Amtrak uses, they already have lines & they are mainly for between regions. The BART extension beyond Fremont is lengthening a route, electrifying Caltrain is changing the energy source. This tunnel is increasing capacity. Those are 3 very different purposes. What do those Bay Area pork projects have to with the NY pork?
ws, You say that there are many denser cities. Where? Not in the US. Live in another country if you like to be more crowded. There are not many dense cities in the US. Cities above 10,000persons/sq.mi. have 18 million people; only 6 of those are core cities. NYC is by far the densest at 26,000. SF is a distant 2nd at 16,000. There is a big gap again to 3rd place at 12,000, at which Chicago & Boston are.
Most people in the US do not want to live in dense cities like most of the rest of the world. The US has the money, resources, land & much more, to enjoy more personal, space, privacy, mobility & such. Transit use in the US is <4%. It’s much higher in other nations. So what? They can do that & the US can have more freedom.
http://www.census.gov/statab/ccdb/cit1040r.txt
http://www.census.gov/population/www/censusdata/2000places.html
http://www.census.gov/population/www/censusdata/density.html
Scott:“You say that there are many denser cities. Where?”
ws:Hong Kong is way denser. ROT made a stupid comment about density. Density is a natural outgrowth (and process) seen by many civilizations. It’s normal.
Scott:“The US has the money, resources, land & much more, to enjoy more personal, space, privacy, mobility & such.”
ws: There’s plenty of water and plenty of oil? It’s pretty staggering that the US has not been official more than 250 years and to see the level of environmental degradation (land consumption) that has occurred in just that short time span. 250 years is nothing compared to many cities.
Sorry, but some people would like to have close access (and preservation) to natural open space – and not just the (non-native) grass and ornamental shrubs in their backyard. Suburban sprawl is a vast environmental catastrophe.
Scott:“Most people in the US do not want to live in dense cities like most of the rest of the world.”
ws:Sure, if I could have my large McMansion in the woods where I was 15 minutes away from the city driving on the highway in my car – I wouldn’t argue that that is not more preferable for me than a hyper-dense city where my living space is quite small. However, I understand that this Le Corbusier utopia is not feasible when you have a metropolitan city of millions of people (in a working economy) running around in a maze. Is that rational self-interest? I don’t think so.
I also under that it consumes land, it consumes energy, and it is generally wasteful. Welcome to the 21st century, it’s not just you on this planet. You are 1 of 6.7 billion people.
Now if you want your land in the country where you grow your own food and generally live off the land – that is a completely different typology and lifestyle. I have no issue with that.
PS: Thanks for the link to the US Census – I had no idea that there was an agency that gathered data about demographics! I’ll have to bookmark that under my “favorites” on my internets browser. Sorry for the sarcasm, but your posts are just so inane.
ws: I also under that it consumes land, it consumes energy, and it is generally wasteful. Welcome to the 21st century, it’s not just you on this planet. You are 1 of 6.7 billion people.
Mike: But if I am the “1” who owns that particular piece of private property, then my “1” opinion will decide what density that property will be. 🙂 Ultimately, any attempt to plan “over” the personal mandate of the property owner, is force.
Scott said: Why would people from Long Island use this tunnel? Whatever Amtrak uses, they already have lines & they are mainly for between regions. The BART extension beyond Fremont is lengthening a route, electrifying Caltrain is changing the energy source. This tunnel is increasing capacity.
THWM: Well you want to get the most bang for a buck.
Mike: But if I am the “1″ who owns that particular piece of private property, then my “1″ opinion will decide what density that property will be. Ultimately, any attempt to plan “over†the personal mandate of the property owner, is force.
THWM: I agree, although the main thing is to be “reasonable”, if you built a swimming pool in your back yard, but then you decided to fill it with pig manure, then your neighbors might make a big stink about you.
Highman, Re: using LIRR using the tunnel. Long Island is on the opposite side of the tunnel. I almost explained that originally, but thought that you cannot be that geographically illiterate. Amtrak has routes/rail already. Why change? BTW, LIRR does use Penn station, but that is irrelevant for the tunnel.
HIGhman, What’s with these ridiculous examples, and bringing farming into residential areas. Nobody would put shit in their pool. If so then Health & Human Services need to help. Some zoning has a solid validity in protecting others from noise & odor.
Biden used his great brain again. He said that this tunnel will allow for cars too. http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/us_hudson_tunnel_biden/2009/06/09/223199.html
Scott: What’s with these ridiculous examples, and bringing farming into residential areas. Nobody would put shit in their pool. If so then Health & Human Services need to help. Some zoning has a solid validity in protecting others from noise & odor.
Mike: But if I am the “1″ who owns that particular piece of private property, then my “1″ opinion will decide what that property will be like. Ultimately, any attempt to plan “over†the personal mandate of the property owner, is force.
If the gov protects people from being hit, mugged, cheated, slandered, etc, that is force.
That is good gov force to protect people from being violated.
Hman, please put things in perspective.
Thanks, I already know that.
Highman It’s nice to admit that that you agree, even when it contradicts your previous assertions.
Do you understand that the main purpose of gov is to prevent harm?
Of course the gov has gone way overboard.
You seem to be of the immoral leftist ideology that gov should get into all aspects of personal behavior & wealth distribution.
It’s hard to tell. You are rarely coherent.
Scott said: You seem to be of the immoral leftist ideology that gov should get into all aspects of personal behavior & wealth distribution.
THWM: Hey, it’s not easy being a Conservative fighting you dirty Liberals.
Scott said: Do you understand that the main purpose of gov is to prevent harm?
THWM: Prevent harm to whom?
The government hasn’t really prevented harm to rail lines for almost the past 100 years. We do have 100,000 miles of rail line missing in the USA.
Though the government protects roads.
high-man, Your question “Prevent harm to whom?†has the answer: humans. The “harm to rail†is not a valid point. Do you mean, why government is not going to maintain [rail] supply, even though demand is down? Rail used to be privately-owned, making money. After customers continually left, in favor of the car, the gov took over. Ridership declined for a century, until about a year ago, with about a 1% increase (insignificant)
Should the government support kerosene lamps, wagons & typewriters, because demand has gone down?
Most rail lines were privately built & are privately owned. What do you mean by 100,000 miles of rail missing? Some rail lines have been torn up because they were not used; the fig you give seems awfully high. Regardless, they are not wanted & freeway lane-miles carry more passengers than most rail-miles. For example, I recently looked at figures for LA’s Metrolink; for its length, it carries fewer passenger-miles than a 2-lane highway.
himan, How does “government protect roads”?
There is rarely a potential for roadways to be removed. Do you think that people demand fewer roads, yet gov support maintains them? Please stop your ridiculous rants. You cannot seriously be this delusional & nonsensical.
The gov has been pushing rail over freeways for over a decade, despite the cost-benefit analysis not supporting rail. Some regions have a strategy to let congestion increase in hope that people will switch to transit.
Scott said: high-man, Your question “Prevent harm to whom?†has the answer: humans. The “harm to rail†is not a valid point. Do you mean, why government is not going to maintain [rail] supply, even though demand is down? Rail used to be privately-owned, making money. After customers continually left, in favor of the car, the gov took over. Ridership declined for a century, until about a year ago, with about a 1% increase (insignificant)
THWM: So you think socialism with roads is fine, but for rail infrastructure it isn’t.
Scott: Should the government support kerosene lamps, wagons & typewriters, because demand has gone down?
THWM: These things aren’t infrastructure.
Scott: Most rail lines were privately built & are privately owned. What do you mean by 100,000 miles of rail missing? Some rail lines have been torn up because they were not used; the fig you give seems awfully high. Regardless, they are not wanted & freeway lane-miles carry more passengers than most rail-miles. For example, I recently looked at figures for LA’s Metrolink; for its length, it carries fewer passenger-miles than a 2-lane highway.
THWM: That’s after a some absence of PERY & LARY.
himan, How does “government protect roads�
There is rarely a potential for roadways to be removed. Do you think that people demand fewer roads, yet gov support maintains them? Please stop your ridiculous rants. You cannot seriously be this delusional & nonsensical.
THWM: It just goes to show double standards of transport policy.
The gov has been pushing rail over freeways for over a decade, despite the cost-benefit analysis not supporting rail. Some regions have a strategy to let congestion increase in hope that people will switch to transit.
THWM: There are some aspects that are starting to turn around, though there is still a long to go till we have a fair & open market.
THWM, Why do you think it’s socialism? Please study. Socialism is redistribution. Highway funding is not. Transit is redistribution, because it takes from the many & gives to the few. Don’t get mixed up w/public vs private ownership. I could elaborate on how you are wrong, but it would take so much space due to your limited knowledge of the area & misconceptions.
THWM, Your claim was for gov to support things that are hardly wanted (ie railroads). There is no stipulation for infrastructure & you miss the point about wagons & kerosene. Those things are obsolete & technology has improvements. That’s similar to transit, but it’s not completely obsolete. For transit, buses & rail cars are not infrastructure; you could call them capital goods. Roads & steel rails & electricity lines are infrastructure.
What’s the guiding principle for gov to support infrastructure?
Why should more costly infrastructure be promoted, when few use it?
Should the gov support of the transportation network be more fair & equitable for each mode?
Then highways would get more than 5 times more money [than now] if it was supported at the same per passenger-mile rate as transit.
There is not a double standard.
Few people want rail.
Most people want highways & cars.
How can you not realize that?
If there was a fair & open market for transit, there would be even considerably less, because it’s about 2/3 subsidized now & ticket prices would have to increase & low ridership routes would be eliminated. Highways could easily be 100% user-supported (vs. about 80% now), with either tolls or a ~$0.40/gallon more gas tax.
What government does for one it should do for all;
What government does not do for all it should do for none.
That’s a fair & just stance.
You go by that & there should be no taxpayer outlay for <4% of the population.
I’m glad that you finally agree.