Tunnel Construction

[jis]

An EIS is required by law before any federal funding can be allocated to a project.

So no, NJT is not flushing anything down anywhere. They are just the lead agency for carrying out something that must be done to move the project forward.

 

[SubwayNut]

And state laws as well, both New York State, New York City, and New Jersey have their own sub-versions of NEPA that require environmental reviews.

 

[west point]

Have heard talk from some pols about speeding EISs. Anyone with more info? If one present bore fails would that enable emergency work such as happened to the I-35 bridge replacement ?

 

[PVD]

There is a difference in the treatment of an in place replacement that does not expand the boundaries of an in place structure or project and almost anything new or newly added to a previous project bouindary. You can renovate a station as long as you comply with regulations like ADA and mitigation of hazardous materials, but to build a new one -ugh. The current EIS process is too long and cumbersome, but there has to be some type of review before projects are built, otherwise we would see projects built that cause enormous harm, and it would be too late to do anything because they would already be built. If you completely trust decelopers and the government to do what is right without any oversight, I have a bridge in Brooklyn (built before EIS requirements) I'd like to sell you.

 

[afigg]

NJT is simply flushing time and money down the toilet by running another one of these senseless and wasteful studies. If we "outlawed" tjhese studies and got right into building the projects, we'd be a lot better off.

Besides the environmental studies, they have to do engineering studies, soil and geotechnical studies, and preliminary design. Can't start construction until you have a design and many, many engineering drawings & blueprints, and construction plans. That said, this thread has been about the concrete casing / tunnel that is being built to preserve access to NYP. For posts on the larger Gateway project and all the studies and PE work that is needed to advance it (along with lining up the 10s of billions of dollars), we have the Gateway Project Notes/NYP Capacity Improvement thread that has been moved to the Rail Advocacy forum.

 

[jis]

Perhaps changing the title of this thread to something like "Tunnel box construction" would make the difference mentioned between the two threads clearer. At present it is not quite obvious that this thread has the limited scope mentioned, which I do agree with BTW.

 

[WoodyinNYC]

... If we "outlawed" these studies and got right into building the projects, we'd be a lot better off.

... this thread has been about the concrete casing / tunnel that is being built to preserve access to NYP. For posts on the larger Gateway project and all the studies and PE work that is needed to advance it (along with lining up the 10s of billions of dollars), we have the Gateway Project Notes/NYP Capacity Improvement thread that has been moved to the Rail Advocacy forum.

Don't threads go to the Rail Advocacy Forum to die?

Does anyone regularly participate in the Rail Advocacy Forum?

How many readers there compared with how many here?

Myself, I look for updates here on the main Forum, but never go looking elsewhere and rarely post elsewhere.

When I do post on a thread and next time I look for it I find it moved to the Rail Advocacy Forum, I feel like at best I've wasted my efforts, and at worst like I've been censored and silenced. Am I missing something?

 

[jis]

I actually don't specifically participate in any Forum. I just view all new Content, scan through them participate in any thread that catches my fancy. I often do not even bother to look what forum it is in, since I couldn't care less. Worrying about forums and fiddling around with them is mostly something that (a) a poster of an original message starting a thread and (b) a Moderator, have to deal with.

 

[Andrew]

Design has started for the concrete casing extension west of 11th Avenue.

 

[John Bobinyec]

Is the tunnel box itself supposed to be able to support whatever buildings are built over the top of it, or are the structures being built over it supposed to support themselves, and not rest upon it?

jb

 

[jis]

Is the tunnel box itself supposed to be able to support whatever buildings are built over the top of it, or are the structures being built over it supposed to support themselves, and not rest upon it?

jb

AFAIK the latter. The box is to protect the space. It is not meant to become a structural component of the structures above. They are supposed to have their independent weight bearing structures.

 

[PRR 60]

Is the tunnel box itself supposed to be able to support whatever buildings are built over the top of it, or are the structures being built over it supposed to support themselves, and not rest upon it?

jb

AFAIK the latter. The box is to protect the space. It is not meant to become a structural component of the structures above. They are supposed to have their independent weight bearing structures.

Correct. Large buildings are typically supported by drilled concrete caissons or concrete-filled pipe piles supported by rock. The building substructure will bridge the tunnel box. Depending on the soil properties, the box itself may be supported by piles.