Train Tunnels to NYC -- Thank You Gov Christie for NOT Doing Your Job

Check out this editorial from the NY Post:

http://nypost.com/2015/07/18/new-york-new-jersey-on-the-brink-of-tunnel-mageddon/

It states that in the not too distant future each of the two tunnels into Penn Station will have to shut down for repairs for as long as a year. A year! Let's assume each tunnel's repairs are on time. That means TWO years of vastly reduced train service to Penn Station.

Christie would rather give tax breaks to casino guys and mall developers, for which we need no more of either, than to invest in the region with the ARC tunnel project.

How does his strategy help anyone but a few rich guys who probably then donate to his dumb-ass campaign?

How are our property values helped at all by this?

Christie is either the most short sited political administrator or else he just hates the state where he was elected to office, because thrashing the tunnel plan was idiotic. It was clear form the start, we just didn't know when it would all actually hit the fan. Seems like we're in for it soon.

Typical of the right's desire to erase history, the Post would like us to forget they were one of the most vocal cheerleaders for cancelling the tunnel. The editorial still ignores the fact Christie's cost overrun panic was manufactured as a cover to steal $3 billion for road projects. Knowing that Sandy would damage the existing tunnels would have invalidated Christie's excuses for cancellation?

http://nypost.com/2010/10/28/a-tunnel-too-far/

The ridiculous assortment of potential delays demonstrates either ignorance of the needs for building a new tunnel to Penn Station or a need to attack their favorite bogeymen. Their opposition to environmental review is predictable, but if ARC was under construction, that wouldn't be an issue. Such reviews are critical to doing the project right, and identied a number of expensive issues with original ARC plans that allowed a constructible project to evolve.

I have no clue what NIMBY opposition they refer to. As for "a total re-do of Penn Station", the reason ARC terminated in a new deep station adjoining Penn was both the tremendous cost of tunnelling directly to Penn and the fact Penn currently operates beyond capacity. It must be expanded as part of any new access, or there will be no place to put the trains. This might be the NIMBY issue, as Amtrak must aquire at least a square block to build Penn Station South. Cha-ching!

So does The Post support Sen.Menendez's proposal to hike the Federal gas tax for this? How about finally increasing ours, as we'll need to come with at $3 billion for Gateway? Currently we have nothing thanks to the bankrupt Transportation Trust Find. I won't hold my breath.

http://www.nj.com/traffic/index.ssf/2015/07/menendez_plan_for_hudson_rail_tunnels_could_include_federal_gas_tax_hike.html

http://www.njspotlight.com/stories/14/10/22/analysis-new-jersey-facing-hefty-price-tag-for-new-rail-tunnels/

Sorry for the hostility, but you might detect I despise the Post for it's unmatched record of distortion, hypocrisy and racism.

Our impending economic apocalypse and the fact Christie's ARC cancellation stands as the worst decision ever made by a NJ Governor has also been discussed recently....

https://maplewood.worldwebs.com/forums/discussion/id/118778-NYT-article-on-the-need-for-new-tunnels#comment-3044990

And the $5 billion Christie's lavished on his business pals to no discernible benefit beyond their wallets is a different pot of money. And money desperately needed for transit is being forced into an uneeded $2-4 billion Newark Airport PATH extension. This appears to be a gift for United Airlines for their past actions.

http://www.njspotlight.com/stories/14/06/24/the-list-top-ten-nj-subsidies-meant-to-spur-economic-growth/

http://secondavenuesagas.com/2014/10/05/is-the-path-extension-to-newark-airport-another-port-authority-boondoggle/

Yes we need a new tunnel, but the ARC project was misguided from the start and continued going further off the rails to the point where an entire new train station would have had to have been built, more than 100 feet below street level and not contiguous with the current Penn Station. It also could not have used the currently under construction Moynihan station in the old post office between 8th and 9th. Christie was right to cancel that project. Where he was wrong was not replacing it with one that made more sense financially and logistically. We don't need a new station in Macy's basement. We do need a new tunnel that terminates at Penn/Moynihan station. That should not take 10 years or cost 10 Billion Dollars. Most importantly for NJ taxpayers, the funding formula needs to be more of a bi-state/federal partnership than it was for the ARC, which would have stuck NJ with most of the cost.

So ... Christie should have been championing adjustments to the plan rather than sabotaging the whole thing in order to steal the funds to prop up his budget for one year.

dk50b for Governor!!

>>the fact Peen currently operates beyond capacity.

Hey, speak for your own Peen

Rob_Sandow said:
Yes we need a new tunnel, but the ARC project was misguided from the start and continued going further off the rails to the point where an entire new train station would have had to have been built, more than 100 feet below street level and not contiguous with the current Penn Station. It also could not have used the currently under construction Moynihan station in the old post office between 8th and 9th. Christie was right to cancel that project. Where he was wrong was not replacing it with one that made more sense financially and logistically. We don't need a new station in Macy's basement. We do need a new tunnel that terminates at Penn/Moynihan station. That should not take 10 years or cost 10 Billion Dollars. Most importantly for NJ taxpayers, the funding formula needs to be more of a bi-state/federal partnership than it was for the ARC, which would have stuck NJ with most of the cost.

The Flushing line stations in NYC, such as Times Square, 5th Ave, Grand Central are 80 feet underground. They are some of the heaviest used stations in the subway system. The Flushing line trains are crammed completely full with trains running every three minutes during rush hours. The passenger volume is humongous with no one is complaining about the depth. The proposed depth of the ARC tunnel stations is not an impediment.

Yes, you can have the new tunnel terminate at Penn station. On reason for the new tunnel is to allow more trains and passengers, not to be a temporary replacement while the "old" tunnels are repaired. Penn can't really handle a large increase in train and passenger volume. You could rebuild the station but I don't think passengers will appreciate the mess and reduction in service over the multi year rebuild.

So, let us keep on saying no. We can't do it for this reason, we can't do it for that reason and when those reasons are dealt with some will come up with new no reasons. We'll end with nothing.

Rob, the only choice to get ARC built with the money available was the new station. I explained briefly above. The deep station was due to the need to avoid piercing the Hudson River Bulkead. This issue was uncovered during the Federal environmental review.

http://nytimes.com/2008/05/25/nyregion/25hudson.html?referrer=

Contrary to common belief, it would have provided direct access to existing Penn. It would have also adjoined both the 6th and 8th Ave Subways. Saying Christie was right validates his theft. The tireless efforts of folks like Sen. Lautenberg got NJ the biggest Federal transit grant ever, which we returned. Moynihan Station uses the same platforms as Penn. Can't use it for new service without new platforms elsewhere.

New York has $16 billion in transit construction underway, and needs $14 billion to finish the 2nd Ave Subway. The notion NY State will directly kick in more for Gateway, who's enormous benefits accrue almost entirely to NJ, is unrealistic. The PA's $1.8 billion kick in for ARC was in part NY's money.

Acsessing Penn is a hugely complex and expensive proposition. That's why ARC's plan was literally the only possibility. The seemingly profligate costs for Gateway are, if anything, likely to go higher as new construction issues and building Penn Station South continue to bring in heftier price tags.

It's been said before, but ARC was under construction, fully funded and within budget when Christie saw $3 billion to prop up the TTF and forestall a critically needed gas tax hike. There's nothing more to it.

http://nytimes.com/2012/04/10/nyregion/report-disputes-christies-reason-for-halting-tunnel-project-in-2010.html?referrer=

MOL_Rat said:
dk50b for Governor!!

>>the fact Peen currently operates beyond capacity.
Hey, speak for your own Peen

Thanks for your support! As you can see I never said "Peen". We are at war with Eastasia! We have always been at war with Eastasia! On that note, here's a tangent. The impossible to erase record the internet provides would make the Ministry of Truth's work impossible, though my bias finds a torrent of attempts by the right to contradict easily found history.

Found the ARC station plan. Two connections to Penn, 6th and 8th Ave Subways.

http://secondavenuesagas.com/2010/10/29/arc-fallout-finger-pointing-and-jockeying-for-dollars/

And the PA was giving $3 billion, not $1.8. Transportation Secretary LaHood came up with $720 more to cover overruns during the two week pre-cancellation negotiations. Christie never mentioned the station's Iocation, so that introduces a justification after the fact. Only fictional overruns and the unfairnes of NJ being on the hook. Of course, all Federal grantees must cover overruns, the reason NY's mega projects have dragged on. But they have no similarly to ARC as it started fully funded and designed to avoid construction issues as best as possible.

http://www.wnyc.org/story/284159-why-has-lahood-decided-to-argue-his-case-after-the-arc-tunnel-verdict-was-rendered

Christie has chosen to keep his head in the sand regarding NJ transportation infrastructure and the plight of the NJ commuter. The next guy can fix it.

I think the most Christie has offered up to NJT commuters is famouslytelling someone to "hang in there" on Twitter.

Opponents keep talking about Macy's basement as though it were several miles west of Topeka.

Please remember, it is about as central to Manhattan as you can get.

I think I'd kinda like to get out of the train into Macy's, actually.

dk50b said:
Rob, the only choice to get ARC built with the money available was the new station. I explained briefly above. The deep station was due to the need to avoid piercing the Hudson River Bulkead. This issue was uncovered during the Federal environmental review.
http://nytimes.com/2008/05/25/nyregion/25hudson.html?referrer=
Contrary to common belief, it would have provided direct access to existing Penn. It would have also adjoined both the 6th and 8th Ave Subways. Saying Christie was right validates his theft. The tireless efforts of folks like Sen. Lautenberg got NJ the biggest Federal transit grant ever, which we returned. Moynihan Station uses the same platforms as Penn. Can't use it for new service without new platforms elsewhere.
New York has $16 billion in transit construction underway, and needs $14 billion to finish the 2nd Ave Subway. The notion NY State will directly kick in more for Gateway, who's enormous benefits accrue almost entirely to NJ, is unrealistic. The PA's $1.8 billion kick in for ARC was in part NY's money.

Acsessing Penn is a hugely complex and expensive proposition. That's why ARC's plan was literally the only possibility. The seemingly profligate costs for Gateway are, if anything, likely to go higher as new construction issues and building Penn Station South continue to bring in heftier price tags.
It's been said before, but ARC was under construction, fully funded and within budget when Christie saw $3 billion to prop up the TTF and forestall a critically needed gas tax hike. There's nothing more to it.


http://nytimes.com/2012/04/10/nyregion/report-disputes-christies-reason-for-halting-tunnel-project-in-2010.html?referrer=

Agreed, agreed, agreed and agreed dk50b. Christie's opposition was pure fiction for the reasons you so eloquently stated. In addition, his misguided opposition was part of his plan to cement his then very unwarranted reputation as a tough guy willing to make tough decisions on government spending, part of the build up to his now doomed republican party presidential ambitions. And we are not even addressing the massive stimulus implications that the project represented at a time of high unemployment and very cheap money. Finally, Christie's disrespectful treatment of Senator Lautenberg at the time that he junked the project was a thing to behold, and absolutely incredible considering the work that Lautenberg put into this project. Lautenberg understood that the New Jersey is a commuter state and our bridges and tunnels a national gateway to the northeast. Christie has no clue. It is not a little ironic that his presidential ambitions imploded over his misconduct involving a bridge.

Irony is too good for him.

and it's not just NJ. those tunnels are the choke point between Boston and DC.

ml1 said:
and it's not just NJ. those tunnels are the choke point between Boston and DC.

That's why federal money should be in the mix.

Isn't New Haven another choke point, though smaller?

Rob_Sandow said:
Yes we need a new tunnel, but the ARC project was misguided from the start and continued going further off the rails to the point where an entire new train station would have had to have been built, more than 100 feet below street level and not contiguous with the current Penn Station. It also could not have used the currently under construction Moynihan station in the old post office between 8th and 9th. Christie was right to cancel that project. Where he was wrong was not replacing it with one that made more sense financially and logistically. We don't need a new station in Macy's basement. We do need a new tunnel that terminates at Penn/Moynihan station. That should not take 10 years or cost 10 Billion Dollars. Most importantly for NJ taxpayers, the funding formula needs to be more of a bi-state/federal partnership than it was for the ARC, which would have stuck NJ with most of the cost.

You are absolutely correct. Contractor and union interests saw in ARC a chance for an Ultimate Score and took what should have been a "simple" third tunnel and turned it into a colossal boondoggle. It reminds me of Boston's "Big Dig" or even the perversion following 9-11 when the probably spent 5 times as much as needed to rebuild, 80% of the total spending diverted (such as BofA's "downtown" tower at Bryant Park). It's a special regional corruption we the taxpayers are supposed to put up with and this time we didn't.

Coneheads said:

Rob_Sandow said: Contractor and union interests saw in ARC a chance for an Ultimate Score and took what should have been a "simple" third tunnel and turned it into a colossal boondoggle.

If it was never built, how did it get turned into a boondoggle?

The tunnel could have been amortized over a long time by issuing bonds to cover our costs, so our annual cost could have been small. But the loss in property values to NJ and the increase in transit time is a cost many will have to bear. The lack of the new tunnel will ultimately lead to stagnant property values for us. The rise in property values for NJ would have made the cost more than bearable especially of the costs could be handled via long-term debt for a capital project.

Yes, if the tunnel was a boondoggle in terms of cost overrides etc that could be dealt with; not building the tunnel is not a great solution. In fact it was a colossally stupid decision by the governor.

Yet the same governor wants to hand out tax breaks for his pals building yet another mall, this time in the Meadowlands. The population of NJ is not growing; a lot of shopping has shifted to on-line. Many strip malls are vacant. Many malls have vacancies. So any new mall simply makes all malls less financially viable. How is this good? And we have to support a mall with our taxes when that mall is not needed and does not address a public good in any way? But a new tunnel is needed and helps our property values whether or not we commute to NYC? And that is bad????

If the argument that jobs were created, then jobs can be created by improving our infrastructure, not building stores that will be vacant in a year or so. Jobs creation is not an argument for why something should be built. It is a secondary item -- does the thing itself make sense to build? Tunnel - yes; another mall - no.

Jude said:
The tunnel could have been amortized over a long time by issuing bonds to cover our costs, so our annual cost could have been small. But the loss in property values to NJ and the increase in transit time is a cost many will have to bear. The lack of the new tunnel will ultimately lead to stagnant property values for us. The rise in property values for NJ would have made the cost more than bearable especially of the costs could be handled via long-term debt for a capital project.
Yes, if the tunnel was a boondoggle in terms of cost overrides etc that could be dealt with; not building the tunnel is not a great solution. In fact it was a colossally stupid decision by the governor.
Yet the same governor wants to hand out tax breaks for his pals building yet another mall, this time in the Meadowlands. The population of NJ is not growing; a lot of shopping has shifted to on-line. Many strip malls are vacant. Many malls have vacancies. So any new mall simply makes all malls less financially viable. How is this good? And we have to support a mall with our taxes when that mall is not needed and does not address a public good in any way? But a new tunnel is needed and helps our property values whether or not we commute to NYC? And that is bad????
If the argument that jobs were created, then jobs can be created by improving our infrastructure, not building stores that will be vacant in a year or so. Jobs creation is not an argument for why something should be built. It is a secondary item -- does the thing itself make sense to build? Tunnel - yes; another mall - no.

Jude said:
The tunnel could have been amortized over a long time by issuing bonds to cover our costs, so our annual cost could have been small. But the loss in property values to NJ and the increase in transit time is a cost many will have to bear. The lack of the new tunnel will ultimately lead to stagnant property values for us. The rise in property values for NJ would have made the cost more than bearable especially of the costs could be handled via long-term debt for a capital project.
Yes, if the tunnel was a boondoggle in terms of cost overrides etc that could be dealt with; not building the tunnel is not a great solution. In fact it was a colossally stupid decision by the governor.
Yet the same governor wants to hand out tax breaks for his pals building yet another mall, this time in the Meadowlands. The population of NJ is not growing; a lot of shopping has shifted to on-line. Many strip malls are vacant. Many malls have vacancies. So any new mall simply makes all malls less financially viable. How is this good? And we have to support a mall with our taxes when that mall is not needed and does not address a public good in any way? But a new tunnel is needed and helps our property values whether or not we commute to NYC? And that is bad????
If the argument that jobs were created, then jobs can be created by improving our infrastructure, not building stores that will be vacant in a year or so. Jobs creation is not an argument for why something should be built. It is a secondary item -- does the thing itself make sense to build? Tunnel - yes; another mall - no.

Exactly!

(And on a smaller scale, someone should have adjusted the S Curves project on South Orange Avenue which is another colossal boondoggle albeit nowhere near the scale of ARC. I keep thinking how much needed infrastructure work could have been done in addition to what was needed for that road, if it had been planned appropriately.)

There are some projects that demand that we look to the future. Of course this project was expensive. It would have gone over budget. It would also have delivered benefits to the region for over 100 years, as the last tunnels have done. Our children and their children are being screwed by our short sighted me first attitudes when it comes to infrastructure. There are times when it is right for things to be expensive if we want them to endure.

Coneheads said:

Rob_Sandow said:
Yes we need a new tunnel, but the ARC project was misguided from the start and continued going further off the rails to the point where an entire new train station would have had to have been built, more than 100 feet below street level and not contiguous with the current Penn Station. It also could not have used the currently under construction Moynihan station in the old post office between 8th and 9th. Christie was right to cancel that project. Where he was wrong was not replacing it with one that made more sense financially and logistically. We don't need a new station in Macy's basement. We do need a new tunnel that terminates at Penn/Moynihan station. That should not take 10 years or cost 10 Billion Dollars. Most importantly for NJ taxpayers, the funding formula needs to be more of a bi-state/federal partnership than it was for the ARC, which would have stuck NJ with most of the cost.

You are absolutely correct. Contractor and union interests saw in ARC a chance for an Ultimate Score and took what should have been a "simple" third tunnel and turned it into a colossal boondoggle. It reminds me of Boston's "Big Dig" or even the perversion following 9-11 when the probably spent 5 times as much as needed to rebuild, 80% of the total spending diverted (such as BofA's "downtown" tower at Bryant Park). It's a special regional corruption we the taxpayers are supposed to put up with and this time we didn't.

Coneheads, please provide documented evidence that how "Union and contractor interests....took what should have been a "simple" third tunnel and turned it into a colossal boondoggle." First, explain what a "simple" tunnel is. And which are the preceding two? Lastly, what was added to ARC's cope that in any way added to its cost? Since the original alternatives for ARC included both direct access to Penn Station and an extension to Grand Central, in what possible way was the chosen project a costly boondoggle? I'll agree both of those are far better from a connectivity standpoint. But getting to Penn will cost $20 billion due to the infinitely more complex construction of the tunnels and the need to expand Penn Station. If those folks wanted to balloon the project, why weren't those chosen?

The reason I ask is I was directly involved in the planning for ARC almost from the outset. Unless it was kept extremely secret, there was never involvement of anyone but those managing the project at NJ Transit, the consultant teams preparing the reviews and plans, the government agencies that had to approve those plans, and the general public in required information sessions. At most, letters of support from the construction industry and unions were included in those documents. Never once were they part of the planning or contracting process until the contract was put out bid.

My apologies if my explanation as to how the chosen alternative was the least costly by half, which I've repeated so any times in the last five years I've lost count, wasn't clear. I've attached a succinct fact sheet from the Regional Plan Association, who's record of impartially advocating the most critical improvements for our area precedes it, explaining what I've stated.

http://www.rpa.org/pdf/20101026_ARC_Fact_Sheet_Fed_Offer.pdf

Comparison to the Big Dig are completely irrelevant and show a lack of understanding in the humungous difference in scale of the two projects. I can only say knowing the contracting and construction management teams at NJT, the legendary incompetence and disorganization that doomed the Big Dig were not possible. The Big Dig was merely the largest urban construction undertaking in our Nation's history.

http://www.massdot.state.ma.us/highway/TheBigDig/FactsFigures.aspx#first

Thanks to the decision to locate the station below street level, the utility, subway and countless other subterranean obstacles that plagued the Big Dig's construction would have been avoided. Shield tunneling under the Hudson River has a successful 105 year history, and underwater tunneling utilizing that method dates back to 1825.

The likelihood of ARC costing more than $11 billion at absolute worst was slim. Even for that money, NJ got it's own tunnel and station with capacity for 25 trains an hour. At bare minimum, we'll have to kick in $3 billion for the Gateway Project, which has room for 13 an hour and will be run by Amtrak.

http://www.njspotlight.com/stories/14/10/22/analysis-new-jersey-facing-hefty-price-tag-for-new-rail-tunnels/

http://www.njspotlight.com/stories/12/0410/2334/

FilmCarp said:
There are some projects that demand that we look to the future. Of course this project was expensive. It would have gone over budget. It would also have delivered benefits to the region for over 100 years, as the last tunnels have done. Our children and their children are being screwed by our short sighted me first attitudes when it comes to infrastructure. There are times when it is right for things to be expensive if we want them to endure.

A hundred years is probably fifty more than we'll need. According to an analysis led by James Hansen, we're looking at a ten foot rise in sea level over the next fifty years. http://goo.gl/85e3TH . If correct, the only person who will need to commute to Manhattan will be Aquaman. Maybe Christie got global warming right after all ...

Jude said:
The tunnel could have been amortized over a long time by issuing bonds to cover our costs, so our annual cost could have been small....

Are you suggesting that there was a plan to pay New Jersey's financial contribution to the project out of the State's current revenue stream over the course of construction of the project?

I had presumed that our State's contribution would be from bond revenue.

Thanks for any help in better understanding your post.

TomR

Coneheads said:

It reminds me of Boston's "Big Dig"

Pretty unlikely they're going to find unmapped 100 year old active utilities under the river.

If indeed the two existing tunnels are in such sad shape due to Sandy when all Lower Hudson and all East River tunnels were flooded, then Gov Christie has placed this region at high risk by not moving forward on ARC. He didn't move forward because he wanted to run for President and somehow this scheme to improve the value of the entire state (OMG, some taxes for a public improvement) would kill his chances with yahoos in Iowa or wherever the Republicans hold early debates/straw polls/caucuses/ primaries. Christie was going to campaign on his "blunt talk" approach. Well, so far he has been out-blunted by Mr. Trump. Has anyone even heard Christie's name in news shows about the Republican race recently?? Unless Trump erupts into flames, Christie is now really out of the picture.

* He can't be the blunt guy when Trump out-blunts him at every turn.

* He is not perceived as an issues guy no matter how hard he tries on that front -- many other Republicans claim that honor.

* On the money front, he will not grab funds away from Bush. And Trump is self funded for now.

There is a chance Christie won't be on the podium for the first debate. If he's not, then he is done. And then we will have to put up with a ticked off loudmouth who does not care at all about anyone but himself and his rich friends. Maybe the legislature could develop a backbone and do something about possibly resurrecting the tunnel!

Some posters worry about cost-overruns. This is a 50 to 100 year long lifetime project. If it cost local taxpayers $2 billion, as a made up number, that is amortized over a very long time. That's $4 million a year for 50 years. Use what numbers you want -- it can be handled by our contribution being handled by long-term debt for a capital construction project. That is the first and primary reason for which states are supposed to issue long-term debt. Other reasons crop up to straighten out financial issues like NYC did in the 1970s when its short-term debt was rolled over into long-term debt by the-then Municipal Assistance Corporation.

Christie, as governors of both parties before him, refused to look at long-term issues of the state and focused on (a) their re-election; (b) bogus promises of not raising taxes; and (c) getting out of office before things fell apart. We have enough anti-taxers so when Florio tried to get things moving in the right direction, out he went. Our debt rating has dropped as our politicians do stupid things that seem to make everything think they are fiscally prudent and then, presto, the financial world is not impressed and our bond ratings drop. Is that due to you and me or to the political leaders? I and my wife pay a lot of taxes, so it ain't us.

I've come up with a possible solution. We recapture El Chapo and hold him in a detention center in Midtown Manhattan. I'm guessing that we'll have a new tunnel within the year.

Everyone, make yourself feel better and write Christie and tell him how much you hate him.

http://www.nj.gov/governor/contact/