Storm-Proofing Manhattan — Heaps of Dirt vs. Engineering Know-How.

FDR Drive at East 53rd St. Manhattan, flooded during Hurricane Sandy
FDR Drive at East 53rd St. Manhattan (looking south), flooded during Hurricane Sandy, October 29, 2012. Image: from YouTube by PaulY.

When Hurricane Sandy struck New York City on October 29, 2012, the accompanying 3 meter (10 ft) storm surge flooded about 51 square miles — 17% of the city’s land mass — and caused an estimated $19 billion in physical and economic damage across its five boroughs. Lower Manhattan, with its concentration of high value real estate and underground infrastructure, was particularly hard hit financially. The following map shows the extent of flooding along Lower Manhattan’s shore line.

Map of Lower Manhattan showing areas flooded during Oct 12, 2012 during hurricane Sandy
Areas of Lower Manhattan flooded by hurricane Sandy’s 3 meter storm surge. Image credit: ArcGIS

Despite the multitude of meetings held and reports written on ways to defend Lower Manhattan against future storm surges, nothing has yet been done. A plan, nicknamed ‘The BIG U’, developed by the Bjarke Ingels Group and others, formed the basis for much of the discussions. The plan concerns the low lying areas along Manhattan’s shoreline from West 57th St. down to The Battery, and up to East 42nd St. Discussions focused mainly on where best to build land-based berms and sea walls while, at the same time, preserving shoreline parks and recreational amenities. But earlier this year, Mayor Bill de Blasio announced a plan that departs radically from the BIG U concept. The following excerpt is from a piece by Mayor de Blasio in New York Magazine of March 19 titled My New Plan to Climate-Proof Manhattan:

“South Street Seaport and the Financial District, along the eastern edge of Lower Manhattan, sit so close to sea level — just eight feet above the waterline — and are so crowded with utilities, sewers, and subway lines that we can’t build flood protection on the land. So we’ll have to build more land itself. Over the coming years, we will push out the Lower Manhattan coastline as much as 500 feet, or up to two city blocks, into the East River, from the Brooklyn Bridge to the Battery. The new land will be higher than the current coast, protecting the neighborhoods from future storms and the higher tides that will threaten its survival in the decades to come.”

The following map of Manhattan’s southern tip illustrates the Mayor’s plan, which he says could cost $10 billion. The red line shows the extension of land by 500 ft. from the existing coast.

Map of Lower Manhattan
Mayor Bill de Blasio’s $10 billion plan to extend the Financial District into the East River by up to 500 ft (red line). Red arrow indicates where FDR Dr. becomes an elevated highway heading south. Image: Google Maps

Here’s the mystery:

Why, after five years of discussions about implementing the BIG U, has the Mayor suddenly decided that the only way to save the Financial District is to spend billions dumping dirt offshore? His justification — that the district’s edge is “so crowded with utilities, sewers, and subway lines that we can’t build flood protection on the land” — invites disagreement. First, the city’s tangle of underground infrastructure makes new construction expensive, not impossible. Second, the FDR Drive provides a ready made flood protection line of defense for much of Manhattan’s east side; it’s available to be built on (or under) today — no new land required.

Map of Manhattan - FDR Drive highlighted

The 0.56 mile section of FDR Drive from Old Slip St. in the Financial District  north to the Brooklyn Bridge, and a further 0.7 miles to Mongomery St. in the Lower East Side, consists of elevated roadway that is built above what is now the shore line. North of Mongomery St. the FDR Dr. runs at grade for about 7 miles to East 120th Street. South of Old Slip St. the FDR Dr. becomes the 0.7 mile Battery Park Underpass, which emerges to connect with the south end of West St.

South St. and elevated section of FDR Dr. NYC Financial District.
South St (at Wall St) showing elevated section of FDR Drive in the Financial District (looking North). Parts of East River and Brooklyn Bridge visible at far right. Image: Google

The mayor’s $10 billion land creation scheme would likely take at least 5 years to complete, assuming funds can be raised. The obvious alternative is to fortify the space under the FDR Dr (from Old Slip St. to the Brooklyn Bridge) with a concrete and steel surge barrier (+18 ft high if the vertical space is used to its maximum). Not pretty, but effective. As for Battery Park, there is no technical reason why a berm or sea wall cannot be built on that space from Old Slip St. to the Hudson River side of Manhattan. The cost to protect the Financial District using the combination of land based barriers described above: about $1 billion is my guess. That’s a tenth the cost of the Mayor’s plan. What’s more, the job could be done in a year, if placed on a war footing.

Another departure from the BIG U concept is the city’s new plan for East River Park, the 57 acre, 1.2 mile long strip of land between FDR Dr. and the East River. The original $770 million plan, developed in collaboration with community residents, called for flood walls and berms built alongside the FDR Dr. It was understood that the park itself could flood during a hurricane. The new $1.45 billion plan calls for raising the level of the entire park by 10 feet (requiring about 900,000 cu. yds of fill). The existing park amenities will of course be obliterated in the process. Lorraine Grillo, the city’s Commissioner of Design and Construction, is quoted in the press as saying that the new plan will avoid interfering with traffic on the FDR Drive. Apart from that comment, which puts the interests of motorists ahead of the interests of local residents, there is no apparent justification for the new approach.

Aerial photo of East River Park and Lower Manhattan
Aerial view of East River Park, FDR Driveway, and Lower Manhattan, looking SW. Image: Wikipedia

A previously considered idea was to cover the FDR Drive by enclosing it in a tunnel (much in the manner used by subterranean termites to protect their above-ground roadways). This would reduce noise and pollution from car traffic, and provide additional green space on the tunnel’s flat roof. The tunnel, fortified on its east side, would act as the surge barrier. It’s time for the city to reconsider the idea before it squanders money on unnecessarily destroying the existing East River Park.

It isn’t easy to plan for potential storm surges. Considering the lack of international action against global warming, the prudent course is to assume that storms will become stronger and that the rate of sea level will continue to speed up. Another superstorm, one even more destructive than Hurricane Sandy, could strike next year. The threat is existential. Therefore, the city’s available flood protection funds should be spent first on structures of concrete and steel such as walls, barriers, bulkheads, that can be built and installed quickly in tight places, and that provide immediate and positive flood protection. In these climate fraught times, the survival of dense maritime cities will depend increasingly on engineering innovation and the technologies involved in building and living on soggy ground, not on piling up ever higher heaps of dirt.

Photo of termite tunnel
Termite tunnel. Image credit: Orkin Co.

The disruptive entities blocking the new Hudson River rail tunnel

Aerial photo of trail leaving west portal of Amtrak’s Hudson River ail Tunnel at North Bergen, NJ
Amtrak’s Hudson River rail tunnel, west portal, North Bergen, NJ. Image: Bloomberg

The Hudson River tunnel project (map below) is part of the Gateway Program, the planned expansion and renovation of the Northeast Corridor rail line between Newark, NJ and New York City. The existing twin-tube tunnel was flooded with salt water during hurricane Sandy in 2012 and is in desperate need of repair (see post of Oct. 23, 2018, ‘Help! The Hudson River Rail Tunnel is Falling to bits’). The tubes need to be gutted so that they can be relined and refitted with hardware, including: tracks, bench walls, conduits, utilities, ventilation, signals, and the catenary systems to feed electricity to the locomotives. But because the tunnel is being used to capacity — up to 450 trains every week day — the needed repairs can’t be done until a new tunnel is built and ready to take over the traffic.

Map of proposed alignment of new Hudson River Rail Tunnel
Proposed alignment for new Hudson River Rail Tunnel. Image from draft environmental impact statement, June 30, 2017, Federal Railroad Administration ( FRA) and NJ Transit

The Hudson rail yards (image below) on Manhattan’s west side, a 28 acre area bounded by 10th and 12th Avenues and 30th and 33rd Streets, is the site of a $25 billion real estate development. The area is also where Amtrak’s existing Hudson River rail tunnel as well as the proposed second tunnel are anchored at their east ends. When construction for the Hudson Yards project began in 2013, the question was how to preserve the new tunnel’s right-of-way. The answer: build an underground concrete casing large enough and long enough to accommodate about 1200 feet of double track rail tunnel.

Aerial view of Hudson Rail Yards, NYC c2010
Hudson Rail Yards (looking east) before redevelopment began in 2013. Approximate location of underground right-of-way for new tunnel indicated in yellow. Penn Station can be seen at upper right (blue). Portion of Hudson River at bottom left. Image from AP photo.

According to Amtrak, construction of the first 900 feet of tunnel casing from 10th Ave. to beyond 11th Ave. was  completed in 2016. The next step will, in coordination with the westward development of Hudson Yards, extend the casing to 30th Street near 12th Avenue. The completed tunnel casing will be sealed at both ends and remain hidden and empty until a new Hudson River tunnel can make use of it.

Photo of right-of-way tunnel casing under Hudson Yards
Part of right-of-way tunnel casing under Hudson Yards. Image: John Cichowski/NorthJersey.com

The need to build an additional rail tunnel has been known since the 1990’s. In 2012 the need became urgent. Yet the project continues to  languish for lack of funds. Why? The latest projected cost for a new tunnel plus repair of the existing tunnel is 11.3 billion (Gateway Program, Aug. 23, 2019). That’s half the cost of the Hudson Yards real estate project. Yet, while the privately funded Hudson Yards development is proceeding at full speed (image below), the publicly funded tunnel project is barely alive.

Aerial photo of Hudson Yards real estate development, phase one, opened March 2019
Hudson Yards real estate development, phase one, opened March 15, 2019. Image: Related Companies

So who or what is to blame for the delay in funding and building the new Hudson River Rail Tunnel? Here are some clues:

November 2015 the Obama administration agreed to a Gateway project funding arrangement whereby the feds would cover 50% of the costs while New York and New Jersey would share the cost of the remaining 50%. The agreement was worked out with Dept. of Transport (DOT) officials in conjunction with Sen. Cory Booker (D-NJ), Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY), and Amtrak. But on Dec. 28, 2017, the Trump administration denied the existence of the 50-50 funding deal. The letter from the Dept. Of Transport (responding to a letter from NY State) contains the following passage:

“Your letter also references a nonexistent ’50-50′ agreement between USDOT, New York and New Jersey. There is no such agreement. We consider it unhelpful to reference a nonexistent ‘agreement’ rather than directly address the responsibility for funding a local project where nine out of 10 passengers are local transit riders”

June 30, 2017 – On the same day The Federal Railroad Administration and NJ Transit released a draft Environmental Impact Statement on the proposed Hudson River tunnel, DOT sent a letter to the Gateway Development Corporation permanently withdrawing DOT Secretary Elaine Chao from its board of trustees. 
Sept. 7, 2017, 
after a bipartisan meeting in the White House to discuss infrastructure, President Trump (according to Politico) offered Sen. Schumer a deal: Schumer could have his Gateway tunnel if Trump got his border wall with Mexico. Schumer said he couldn’t make that trade. 
March 6, 2018, d
uring a hearing in the House on transportation, Transport Secretary Chao was asked if President Trump was pressuring the House Speaker to kill the Gateway project. She said,“Yes. The President is concerned about the viability of the project and the fact that New York and New Jersey have no skin in the game. They need to step up and pay their fair share. They are two of the richest states in the country.” 
March 8, 2018, 
President Trump threatened to veto legislation funding the government through September if any money for the Gateway tunnel was included in the $1.3 trillion spending bill.

Clearly, President Donald Trump and DOT Secretary Elaine Chao are to blame for blocking the Hudson River tunnel project. But these two individuals do not function in a vacuum, they are members of the Republican Party and, as such, reflect the attitudes of that group. The Republican Party apposes federal funding for public transit of all kinds including passenger rail. Here are some excerpts from the 2016 Republican Platform (gopconvention2016.com Committee website):

Website cover

♦ “We propose to remove from the Highway Trust Fund programs that should not be the business of the federal government. More than a quarter of the Fund’s spending is diverted from its original purpose [highways]. One fifth of its funds are spent on mass transit, an inherently local affair that serves only a small portion of the population, concentrated in six big cities.” 
♦ “We propose to phase out the federal transit program and reform provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act which can delay and drive up costs for [highway] transportation projects.” 

♦ “Amtrak is an extremely expensive railroad for the American taxpayers, who must subsidize every ticket. The federal government should allow private ventures to provide passenger service in the northeast corridor.”

♦ Democrats want to “coerce people out of their cars.” 

The Republican Party’s far-right wing has been particularly hostile to public transit. Here’s a 2008 quote from Michele Bachmann, former Minnesota Rep. and Tea Party darling: “They [Democrats] want Americans to take transit and move to the inner cities. They want Americans to move to the urban core, live in tenements, take light rail to their government jobs. That’s their vision for America.”

Plainly, the Republican Party, the Republican administration, and Republicans in Congress are all to blame for blocking the Hudson River tunnel project. Even if President Trump and Secretary Chao were removed from office today, funding for the tunnel project would continue to be apposed  by Republicans in office.

However, Republican office holders reflect the interests of the industries that finance their election campaigns, that tell them how to think and vote once they are in office, and that provide them with lucrative positions once they leave office. By far the most powerful of these industries is the Oil & Gas Industry. The Oil & Gas Industry is hostile to any initiative, large or small, public or private, that promises to reduce the country’s dependence on fossil fuels. A new or improved public transit system is just one such initiative.

The Oil & Gas Industry has spent billions over the past several decades promoting the benefits of fossil fuels (despite knowing about the dire effects of burning the stuff) and its lobbying efforts, focused almost exclusively on Republican politicians, has been intense. So here’s the thing: even if Republicans were swept from office today, lobbying pressure from the Oil & Gas Industry will not disappear; it will simply be refocused on the new office holders until such time as ‘right thinking’ Republicans are re-elected.

So, while the President and his Transport Secretary are immediately to blame for blocking the construction of a new Hudson River tunnel, and whereas Republicans collectively are actually to blame, it’s the Oil & Gas Industry that is ultimately to blame. Smashing the power of that industry will not be easy, but, for the good of the country and its politics, it must be done.

From ‘The [Oil] Cycle Interrupted’. Image: Warhammer Games

Corruption is also a product of the Oil & Gas Industry

Cartoon about manipulation of science by special interests
Image from UCS Blog – Union of Concerned Scientists

“[T]he norms and expectations that once ensured that our government was guided primarily by the public interest rather than by individual or partisan interest have significantly weakened. There are now far fewer constraints to deter abuse by executive branch actors.”

The above understatements of the year are from a report released October 3, 2019 by The National Task Force on Rule of Law and Democracy, a group formed under the Brennan Center for Justice at the NYU School of Law to figure out how to restore trust in government. The report focuses on the politicization of government science and research. It lists over a hundred specific occurrences of political manipulation of scientific findings. Examples from the list follow (numbers refer to the report’s itemization system):

#453 – The Dept of the Interior’s top climate change scientist was reassigned to an accounting role, despite no training in accounting, after he highlighted the dangers climate change poses for Alaska’s Native communities. Washington Post July 19, 2017

#448 – After Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) researchers produced a study showing economic benefits to protecting wetlands from pollution, aides to the agency’s administrator told them to produce a new study showing no such benefits. NYTimes August 11, 2017

#482 – Chairman of the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC) questioned studies that connect serious human health problems to air pollution and accepted research funding from the American Petroleum Institute, an oil industry lobbying group that reviewed his findings before publication. ScienceMag (American Association for the Advancement of Science) December 10, 2018

#493 – The news that the EPA stoped updating its climate change websites in April 2017 is confirmed. The agency removed its climate change subdomains from public access, and removed links to its searchable web archive for any past information on the subject. Newsweek November 2, 2018

#485 – Chairman of the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC) wrote a letter to the EPA administrator criticizing the agency’s use of science to set air pollution standards and questioned the long-established scientific view that fine particulate airborne matter is linked to early deaths. Scientific American March 29, 2019. 

#502 – The Dept. of Agriculture withheld a news release and sought to prevent dissemination of the findings by the department’s research partners concerning a groundbreaking discovery that rice loses vitamins in a carbon-rich environment — a potentially serious health concern for the 600 million people worldwide whose diet consists mostly of rice. Politico June 23, 2019

#441 – High-level Department of the Interior officials altered an environmental assessment for seismic surveying prepared by career scientists in order to underplay the potential impact of oil and gas development on Alaska’s coastal plain. Politico July 26/19

The ill effects of a corrupt executive branch go much deeper than the subversion of scientific findings. President Trump has packed his administration with fossil-fuel friendly officials willing to put Big Oil interests ahead of the public interest. The decisions made by these unelected officials, anxious to do the bidding of their bosses in and out of government, are helping to destroy the environment and cripple the country’s economic prospects. For example, here’s how this top-down rot is working to hobble the country’s nascent offshore wind energy industry:

Vineyard Wind, a $2.8 billion, 800-Megawatt offshore wind power project planned for waters south of Martha’s Vineyard, Massachusetts, has been put on hold by the Trump administration. Vineyard had submitted its Construction and Operations Plan (COP) to the Department of the Interior (DOI) in December 2017 and had expected to receive the go-ahead last month. The map below shows the proposed wind turbine layout submitted to DOI by the company.

Map to show location of Vineyard Wind offshore project

So what is the government’s  excuse for delaying the project? In an August news release, the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) — the agency under DOI responsible for managing development of the U.S. Outer Continental Shelf — provides two excuses:

(1) “Comments received from stakeholders and cooperating agencies [have] requested a more robust cumulative analysis.” 
(2) “Because . . . 
a greater build out of offshore wind capacity is more reasonably foreseeable than was analyzed in the initial draft EIS [Environmental Impact Statement], BOEM has decided to supplement the Draft EIS and solicit comments on its revised cumulative impacts analysis.”

Excuse (1) is the Trump administration’s way of saying that the delay is open ended and that it doesn’t have defensible reasons to justify it.

Excuse (2) refers to the fact that the wind energy industry has shown great interest in building wind farms off the East Coast (an estimated $70-billion in wind industry investments over the next decade). The claim that that interest was not “reasonably foreseeable” by DOI, is nonsense. The following is from TheHill June 4, 2013:

“Interior announced on [June 3, 2013]  that it would hold an auction on July 31, 2013 for 164,750 acres off the coast of Massachusetts and Rhode Island, which has the potential to generate 3,400 megawatts of electricity — enough to power 1 million homes. Interior Secretary Sally Jewell called the pending lease sale — which has drawn interest from nine firms — “history in the making.” 

If former Interior Secretary Sally Jewell was able to foresee, in 2013, the potential for “a greater build out of offshore wind capacity”, then you can bet current Interior Secretary David Bernhardt was able to foresee it too. It’s just that Mr. Bernhardt, a former lobbyist for the oil industry, doesn’t like the view. David Halperin, writing in Desmogblog March 26, 2019, says: “Bernhardt is . . . more skilled [than his predecessor Ryan Zinke] in the ways of law and government. But in terms of the ways that money corrupts politics and policy, his record is even more concerning. David Bernhardt is the ultimate swamp creature.”

U.S. Rep. Joseph Kennedy III (D-MA) is quoted by WBUR Boston, Aug 9, 2019: “When it comes to the nation’s first major offshore wind project — which has gone through years of extensive study, public comment and mitigation plans for impacted communities — they are trying to delay it to death. . . . Worse still, they are threatening the future of large-scale renewable energy development at a moment when the price of our oil and gas dependency becomes more obvious — and more terrifying — by the day.”

Six hundred thousand (600,000) U.S. wind energy jobs by 2050: that was the prediction made in a March 2015 report from the Department of Energy’s Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. According to the Environment & Energy Study Institute, the wind industry now (July 2019) supports 111,000 direct jobs. To Oil & Gas Industry executives, those figures are the stuff of nightmares. The shift to renewable energy is an existential threat to their industry. They need people like David Bernhardt to help slow it down.

Aerial photo of Wind Farm, North Sea UK
Offshore wind farm, North Sea UK

 

U.S. Senate Committee pushes oil industry’s antisocial LNG scheme.

Oil & Gas field, Midland, Texas. Photo credit: EcoFlight

How long can the fracking spending spree last?
— Houston Chronicle
headlineSept 14, 2018.

The answer to the Chronicle’s question is: for as long as investors have money to burn. Justin Mikulka, writing Dec 18, 2018, for Desmogblog, puts it this way: “Fracking in 2018 was another year pretending to make money. . . . Whether fracking companies are profitable or not doesn’t really matter to Wall Street executives who are getting rich making the loans that the fracking industry struggles to repay.”

Yet the industry is currently pumping more fracked gas than ever before. The market is swamped and prices are at or below break even (see “Natural Gas Prices Fall Below Zero In Texas” – Oilprice.com, Nov 28, 2018). And now there’s a push to liquify as much of the stuff as possible for shipment overseas to anyone who’ll buy it.

Speaking at a July 11, 2019 hearing of the U.S.  Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources on “The Important Role of LNG in Evolving Global Markets”, Nikos Tsafos, Senior Fellow, Energy and National Security Program Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), said:

There is an oversupply of LNG on the market, leading to historically low prices in Europe and Asia . . .  Despite [these] historically low prices today, companies are betting billions to enable the next wave of LNG supply—and this wave will be far bigger, more diverse, and perhaps more politically complicated than earlier waves. . . . [There are an] unprecedented number of proposed LNG supply projects that might reasonably start construction over the next two year.

Since the U.S. Senate is controlled by Republicans, only people supportive of the oil and gas industry and its LNG subset were invited to give evidence at the Senate Energy Committee hearing. The talk was all about how best to promote the industry and take advantage of an imagined “window of opportunity” to strengthen its global competitiveness. There was no mention of global warming or the need to restrain the production of fossil fuels. This is how Steven E. Winberg, Assistant Secretary for Fossil Energy U.S. Department of Energy, summarized his testimony:

“Natural Gas has transformed our Nation and the world for the better. The increased use and production of natural gas has grown our economy, created countless American jobs, and made our air cleaner. Further, increasing exports of domestically produced natural gas to 36 countries around the world has given our allies a stable, reliable and secure source of clean energy.”

Here’s what’s wrong with that picture: Hydraulic fracking is a filthy business, it poisons the water table, adds greenhouse gasses to the atmosphere, and far from making the world better, it makes it bad (see below for specifics on just how bad); The people employed in the industry would be far more constructively employed in building the nation’s renewable energy economy; Natural Gas is not a stable, reliable, or secure source of energy, let alone a clean one — gas deposits are bound to become stranded due to the superior economics of renewables. And considering the political and social pressures surrounding climate change, “our allies” would be well advised not to get hooked on it.

Renewables are displacing fossil fuels. During this transition, the U.S. has more than enough natural gas to satisfy its current domestic needs. That’s what energy security means. The push to export LNG is not about energy security, or even about making money, it’s about building expensive infrastructure (pipelines, liquefaction plants, terminal facilities, etc) to keep the Oil & Gas Industry in business. Pitching the benefits of investing in this LNG boondoggle is Charlie Riedl, Executive Director of the Center for Liquefied Natural Gas. Here’s part of his testimony before the above mentioned Senate hearing on LNG markets.

“The U.S. is now home to four LNG export terminals in operation, six projects under construction, and seven projects that are permitted and awaiting Final Investment Decisions. There are another fourteen projects in the [Federal Energy Regulatory Commission] FERC queue. Each of these projects individually represents billions of dollars of investment in America’s energy future. . . . Technological breakthroughs in the oil and natural gas industry have unleashed an energy renaissance, establishing the United States as the world’s largest natural gas producer – and domestic production continues to grow. We have enough natural gas to supply affordable energy domestically for at least 100 years with current technology, as well as to significantly increase U.S. participation in the global market for LNG.” (my underlines)

Mr. Riedl paints a picture of a world living indefinitely on fossil fuels, a world much to the liking of the Oil & Gas Industry. He does not mention the impact of global warming or the Paris Climate Accord which calls for a sharp reduction in the total use of fossil fuels. The International Energy Agency’s ‘Sustainable Development’ estimate of World Energy Demand to 2040, shows no increase in natural gas consumption beyond 2020 (see post of July 6, 2019, titled Oil & Gas Industry aims to make global warming even warmer).

Witnesses to the Senate hearing, including Mr. Riedl, refer to natural gas as a clean fuel. It isn’t. Here’s how it compares to other fuels in terms of CO2 emissions:

Lbs of CO2 emitted per million BTU of energy: 
Coal (anthracite) – 229 Lbs
Gasoline – 157 Lbs
Natural Gas – 117 Lbs
Solar (wind or PV’s) – zero emissions

During its production cycle, natural gas also releases methane, a greenhouse gas 80 times as potent as CO2. Last month, the Trump Administration announced plans to weaken existing rules designed to curb the release of methane. That’s not all. Natural gas is routinely flared (burned off) or vented when emitted from wells drilled primarily for oil. The following table from Bloomberg News June 12, 2019, shows the amount of gas flared by certain companies operating in the Permian Basin oil field of Texas:

Table showing gas flared (as a percentage of gas produced) by oil companies operating in Texas
Gas flared (as a percentage of gas produced) by oil companies operating in the Permian Basin of Texas. Original source: Rystad Energy

An article in Bloomberg Businessweek Sept. 10, 2019, by Ryan Collins and Rachel Adams-Heard, contains the following passage: “Gas flaring globally emits more than 350 million tons of carbon dioxide equivalent in a year, according to the World Bank. . . . In the U.S., flaring accounts for an estimated 9% of the greenhouse gas emissions of the oil and gas industry. In addition, the practice spews particulate matter, soot and toxins into the air that have been shown to be hazardous to humans.”

Fracking natural gas is bad for the climate, bad for the country, bad for the world. The current scramble to increase — at any cost — LNG production and shipping, is nothing more than a hostile and antisocial scheme by the Oil & Gas Industry to prolong its own life by delaying an orderly transition to renewable energy. It’s an industry scheme that’s being eagerly supported by the Oil & Gas-dependent Republicans in Congress and their like-minded buddies in the Trump Administration.

Gas flaring. Image: Dallas Morning News

Mayor de Blasio resurrects project to bring hydro power from Quebec to NYC

Photo of Indian Pt. nuclear power plant as seen from west side of Hudson River
Indian Point nuclear power plant, Peekskill, NY, as seen from Hwy 202 on the west side of the Hudson River. Image: Google

The Indian Point nuclear power plant sits on the east bank of the Hudson River near Peekskill NY, 42 miles upstream from Lower Manhattan and the center of the NY Metropolitan Region. The plant’s proximity to the city has been viewed as a potential catastrophe and an ongoing health threat ever since it first started generating electricity in 1962. New Yorkers will breath easier when the plant shuts down for good in 2021. However, the shut down will leave a 2,000 MW hole in the state’s electricity supply which will have to be filled by a renewable source of energy. If NYC Mayor Bill de Blasio has his way, power from hydro-rich Quebec will help fill the gap.

Mayor de Blasio announced his ‘Green New Deal’ for New York City on April 22, three months after Andrew Cuomo, Governor of New York, announced his ‘Green New Deal’ for the state (see previous post). While de Blasio’s plan ‘commits’ the city to carbon neutrality + 100% clean electricity by 2050, Cuomo’s plan commits the state (including NYC) to 100% clean electricity by 2040. Two Green New Deals for New York? Well, two are better than none. The Mayor, a Democrat, has entered the race to become U.S. President and is showing his environmental credentials.

The Mayor can aspire to carbon neutrality for the city. He can work towards it. But he doesn’t have the authority to mandate it. That’s Cuomo’s job — a moot point since the Governor hasn’t promised carbon neutrality. In any case, neither Cuomo nor de Blasio have defined what carbon neutrality means. Mayor de Blasio’s justification for making the 100% clean energy commitment is a plan to bring electric power from Quebec directly to New York City. The rationale is that when the electricity is added to the state grid, it will be enough to power all city-owned buildings in NYC. The more obvious effect will be simply to offset half the power that will be lost when the Indian Point nuclear plant shuts down.

First proposed in 2008, the Champlain Hudson Power Express (CHPE) is a 369 mile high voltage, direct current (HVDC) buried transmission line designed to carry 1,000 megawatts of clean power from Quebec to New York City. The buried transmission line would originate at Hydro Quebec’s Hertel substation in La Prairie, south of Montreal. On the map below, the red dot just south of Montreal is the approximate location of Hydro Quebec’s Hertel substation. The red dot immediately north of New York City is the approximate location of the Indian Point nuclear power station.

Map of North-east USA and Canadian boarder region

The CHPE transmission line will cross the international boarder at Rouses Point NY, then head south by way of Lake Champlain and the Hudson River Valley, terminating in the NYC borough of Queens. The line will follow existing rights of way as well as water ways. The promoter of the U.S. section of the project is Transmission Developers Inc of Albany NY. A 2014 news release by the company put the cost  of the “merchant transmission project” at US$2.2-billion. During his NYC Green New Deal announcement on April 22, the Mayor said he wanted to start talks with Quebec immediately on finalizing a deal to get the CHPE project moving.

The Mayor’s Green New Deal contains initiatives that he does have the authority to mandate. They include: reducing greenhouse gas emissions from large buildings; banning new inefficient glass-walled buildings; replacing the city’s fossil fuel powered fleet with electric vehicles; ending the purchase by the city of single use plastics; divesting investment of $5-billion in city pension funds from the fossil fuel industry — all good ideas that he could have promoted years ago.

Photo of NYC Mayor Bill de Blasio announcing his Green New Deal
NYC Mayor Bill De Blasio announces Green New Deal April 22, 2019. Image: from NYGov video

NY Governor Cuomo goes for clean power technology in a big way

 

Aerial photo of Con Edison East River power plant
14th St. East River Con Edison power plant, Manhattan, NYC (looking NW), Midtown in background. Image: Wikipedia

About 57% of New York state’s electricity is generated by power stations that burn fossil fuels. Nineteen of them — ranging in capacity from 22 to 2336 MW — are located in New York City, four in Manhattan. Emissions include carbon dioxide (CO2), sulphur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide, carbon monoxide, plus a multitude of other hazardous pollutants that damage human health. Many New Yorkers live next door to these plants. For example, the photo above shows the proximity of Stuyvesant Town to Con Edison’s 736-MW East River power plant.

NY Governor Andrew Cuomo, spurred by the need to take action on the health and climate effects of burning fossil fuels, announced on January 20 his ‘Green New Deal’ for the state. The goal of the plan is 100% clean electric power by 2040, the commitment to become state law. The plan will focus on building more land-based wind and solar plants, and on targeting the states offshore wind potential.

The following bar chart shows NY State energy consumption for 2016 (latest available). Natural gas is the primary fossil fuel used to produce the state’s electricity.

Bar chart showing NY State energy consumption

To get an idea of the magnitude of the task set by Governor Cuomo, the table below shows the clean power capacity in megawatts needed to replace all the fossil fuel amounts shown in the bar chart (Btu to MWh to MW x 0.9%):

Natural Gas + Coal  . . . . . . . . . . . . 42,000 MW
Motor Gasoline . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19,000 MW
All other fossil fuels . . . . . . . . . . . .18,000 MW

The 42,000 MW of electricity from natural gas is the focus of Cuomo’s green plan. In fossil fuel terms, to provide that much power from scratch would require building 50 to 60 power plants of the size shown in the photo above. Instead, the task will require building wind and solar farms. For example, if offshore wind was the only source of clean power, at least 3,500 wind turbines rated at 12 MW each would be needed to generate the 42,000 MW of electricity. By comparison, the capacity of European offshore wind farms (operational and under construction) now stands at about 21,000 MW, with another 20,000 MW on the drawing board. The map below shows where New York’s offshore wind farms will be sited. Statoil (now called Aquinor) is considering a 2,000 MW wind farm for its leased area, the grey-shaded part of Hudson North.

Map showing offshore wind lease areas off New York
New York Bight offshore wind lease areas. Image: BOEM

Governor Cuomo’s plan does not specifically mention motor gasoline. As the transition is made from gasoline to electric cars, at least 19,000 MW in additional clean electrical generation capacity will eventually be required. My guess is that a significant chunk of that capacity will be met by home or community based solar panels. The other fossil products such as distillates (e.g. diesel fuel) and jet fuel are not even mentioned in the plan.

It’s sometimes suggested that carbon neutrality can be achieved while continuing to burn fossil fuels. We (all animals) exhale CO2 with every breath. That CO2 is captured by growing plants during photosynthesis. To stay alive, we eat the plants (and the flesh of animals that also live on plants) and so regain the carbon lost to the atmosphere while breathing. That is our basic carbon-neutral economy. When we began to release CO2 by burning fossil fuels, that basic economy was thrown out of kilter. Result: the greenhouse effect and global warming. The only way to re-create a carbon neutral economy is to stop burning fossil fuels. Governor Cuomo is on the right track. He summarizes his plan in the following YouTube video (1 min 42 sec).

 

 

The Colorado River — not enough water; too many straws

The U.S. Reclamation Act of 1902 is a federal law that works to fund and manage water projects in the arid regions of the American west. Much of the work is focused on the Colorado River. By the end of the 20th century, the engineers of the Bureau of Reclamation had built the system of dams, reservoirs, and aqueducts that control the river and distribute its waters to the surrounding seven states. About 4 million acres of agricultural land and 40 million people consume the river’s entire flow. By the time the river reaches its estuary at the north end of the Gulf of California in Mexico, its flow is reduced to a trickle. The following map shows the extent and main water features of the Colorado River Basin.

Map of the Colorado River Basin
The Colorado River Basin. Image: Bureau of Reclamation

Today, the viability of the Colorado River project is threatened by two powerful forces: drought and global warming. The regional drought, now in its nineteenth year, has reduced river flow volumes to the point where the basin states, for the first time ever, are talking about cuts to water consumption.

The Hoover Dam is located about 35 road miles SE of Las Vegas. The effect of drought plus global warming is measured by the level of water in Lake Mead, the reservoir for the Hoover Dam. When full, the elevation of the lake surface above sea level is 1,221 ft. — the  lip of the dam. The lowest possible elevation of the lake surface is 895 ft. — the bottom water outlet in the dam. The lake at its lowest water level is known as ‘dead pool’. That’s when the Colorado River downstream from the Hoover dam would run dry. Before that happens, a drop to 1,025 ft. will trigger an emergency and the Bureau of Reclamation will take control and enforce water consumption cuts on all the basin states.

The current water level in Lake Mead (April 8) is 1,090 ft., which is 131 ft below full pool. The level fluctuates by 10 to 12 ft every year due to the spring release of the annual allotment of water to farmers, mainly in California  (see chart below). Since 1983 — the last time the lake was full — the water level has dropped around 4 feet per year on average. If the drought continues unabated and no drastic cuts are made to water consumption, a rough calculation suggests that panic time will arrive in about 12 years.

Chart showing water level in Lake Mead, AZ
Water level in Lake Mead during 2017, 2018, & 2019 (to 8 April). Image from LakeLevels.info

The Parker Dam is located 160 miles downstream from the Hoover Dam. The water backed up by the Parker Dam Is called Havasu Lake. The lake stores water for pumping into two aqueducts, namely the Colorado River Aqueduct that feeds water to Southern California, and the Central Arizona Project (CAP) that delivers water to Phoenix and Tucson in Arizona (see map above). While the Hoover Dam is the Bureau of Reclamation’s greatest engineering achievement, the CAP project may prove to be the Bureau’s last major construction job — and the Colorado River’s last straw.

To reach the Parker Dam after visiting the Hoover Dam, take US-93 to Kingman, then west on I-40, then south on AZ-95 to the dam, a total of 160 miles of desert driving. The source of the CAP aqueduct, and the pumping station that draws its water from Lake Havasu, is located to the left of the highway a few miles short of the dam. The only way to see it is to park by the side of the highway (there are wide gravel verges) and walk to the bridge overlooking the station.

Photo of CAP pumping station on Lake Havasu
CAP pumping station on Lake Havasu

The water for the aqueduct is pumped at the rate of 3,000 cubic feet per second through a 7 mile long tunnel driven upward through the mountain behind the pumping station. The discharge end of the tunnel is 824 ft higher in elevation than its intake end. The aqueduct itself is basically a concrete-lined canal, open to the elements. The aqueduct snakes across the desert to Phoenix and Tucson for a total length of 336 miles. Over its length, there are 12 tunnels and 4 pumping stations. The total rise in elevation from Lave Havasu to Phoenix is 1,247 ft.

Aerial photo of CAP aqueduct
Central Arizona Project (CAP) aqueduct. Image: USBR.gov

To reach Phoenix from the Parker Dam, drive south on AZ-95, then east on Interstate-10. It requires another 170+ miles of desert driving. The CAP aqueduct took 20 years to construct. Completed in 1993, it cost about $3.5 billion to bring water from the Colorado River to the desert city of Phoenix. Will the CAP aqueduct contain water 20 years from today? My guess is, no, not a drop.

Photo of CAP aqueduct, Phoenix AZ
CAP aqueduct looking west from Black Canyon Hwy., Phoenix

Arizona Governor Doug Ducey, is fully aware of the water shortage problems threatening the south-west states. The Governor, however, does not like to talk about global warming or climate change. He prefers the phrase: “transitioning to a dryer future.” Accurate but not accurate enough. If the Governor wants us to face the future squarely, he needs to add the word ‘hotter’ to his phrase. The following graph shows average annual temperature for Phoenix since 1900. It shows that it is indeed getting hotter in that city.

Graph showing average annual temperature in Phoenix AZ since 1900
From U.S. National Weather Service

NJ Transit – Railroading in the age of Sea Level Rise

Satellite image of New York Metro region at night
Satellite view of New York metropolitan region at night

The New York Metropolitan region is cut in half by the Hudson River which runs north-south through the region’s center (see satellite view above). Of the region’s +20 million residents, 1.6 million commute into Manhattan, the region’s core, from surrounding districts. Of those, about 400,000 must cross the Hudson every week day from New Jersey, the west side of the river, by rail, road, or ferry. When Hurricane Sandy blew in from the Atlantic October 2012, the cross-Hudson mass transit pathways were knocked completely out of commission for more than a week. Repairs to flood damaged tunnels continue to this day.

New York’s subway system (MTA), and the PATH rail system that carries about 60% of New Jersey’s Manhattan-bound commuters, were back in business within 2 to 3 weeks. By comparison, the New Jersey transit system struggled for 3 months to get back on its wheels. Why? According to a post-Sandy investigation by WNYC (NY Public Radio), the NJ Transit officials had no plan to deal with the storm surge caused by Sandy because they failed to appreciate the effect global warming is having on storm size. In the days leading up to Sandy, the National Weather Service repeatedly warned of storm tides of up to 15 feet. Yet NJ Transit officials paid no attention.

Believing they knew from past experience how to keep their equipment dry, the NJ Transit officials decided to park much of their rolling stock in two rail yards that forecasters had predicted would flood: the Meadowlands maintenance yard and the Hoboken yard (see map below). The storm surge flooded both yards, seriously damaging about 70 locomotives and 260 rail cars, roughly a third of the corporation’s fleet. Compare that to New York’s MTA which  lost only about 20 of its 8,000 rail cars during the same storm, even though all of its Lower Manhattan subway tunnels south of 34th Street were flooded.

Map showing areas of NYC and NJ flooded by Sandy
Areas flooded by Sandy. NJT train yard locations marked in red. Image: nichiusa.org

The Meadowlands yard is a 78-acre site in Kearny surrounded by wetlands where the Passaic River joins the Hackensack River — a natural flood plain. The yard contains the corporation’s maintenance facilities, indoor equipment storage buildings, training center, and the transit system’s operations center. The storm surge flooded the yard to a depth of 8 feet, damaging everything it touched.

Photo of NJ Transit Meadowlands Rail yard
NJ Transit Meadowlands rail yard looking east. Manhattan skyline in the distance. Image: Google

Asked to explain NJ Transit’s storm preparations at a State Assembly committee hearing some months later, Jim Weinstein, the corporation’s executive director at the time, said: “I can tell you decisions on where to keep our locomotives were sound, based on all the information we had at the time . . . The facts are the weather models we evaluated at the time had an 80 to 90 percent chance the rail yards would stay dry. Our decisions were informed by the fact that neither of those rail yards had ever flooded. It is entirely wrong to characterize them as flood-prone.”

An article published by the Union of Concerned Scientists titled ‘Protecting New Jersey from Sea Level Rise: the future of the Meadowlands’ has this to say: “If emissions continue to rise through the end of the century, sea level is projected to rise more than 6 feet by 2100. In this scenario, the same areas of northern New Jersey and New York City that we’re flooded by Hurricane Sandy’s storm surge would be inundated more than 26 times per year, or every other week on average.” And that statement has nothing to say about what future storms coupled with rising sea level will do in the interim.

Northern New Jersey is a heavily urbanized/industrialized region dependent on a fantastically complex network of roads and railways. The number of elevated sections, bridges, underpasses and overpasses are too many to count. Three of the state’s largest city’s, Newark, Jersey City, and Elizabeth, as well as Newark International Airport, are all located on or surrounded by low-lying, flood prone real estate. And then there’s the Meadowlands, now only a remnant of its previous size. The Meadowlands, a stretch of wetlands, shows just how low-lying the region really is, and how difficult, perhaps impossible, it’s going to be to protect it from the encroaching sea.

Satellite view of New Jersey metro region
Satellite view of New Jersey Metro region. Image: Google

The following snapshot shows a portion of the Meadowlands as seen from the I-95 Highway which bisects the feature from north to south. The NJ Transit rail line from Hoboken to Lyndhurst is on the right. The tall structure to the left of the transmission tower is part of the draw bridge which allows trains to cross the Hackensack River. The Manhattan skyline can be seen in the distance on the left. The water directly to the right of the rails, and only a few feet lower than the rail bed, is part of the Hackensack River. The storm surge from Hurricane Sandy flooded the Meadowlands including all the rail lines crossing it.

Photo of NJ Meadowlands where I-95 crosses NJ Transit Rail line
View of Meadowlands where I-95 crosses NJ Transit rail line from Hoboken to Lyndhurst

Another view of the New Jersey Meadowlands looking east across marsh water and beyond it, the Hackensack River (center).

Photo of New Jersey Meadowlands seen from
New Jersey Meadowlands looking east from I-95 Highway. Manhattan skyline in distance

 

New York City six years after Sandy. Is it ready for the next one?

More than six years have past since superstorm Sandy swamped New York City on October 22, 2012. If a storm of similar strength hit the city today, the streets that Sandy flooded would once again flood to the same depth. While there’s been lots of talk (and some planning), little actual construction work has been done to protect the city from another serious storm surge. However, parts of the city, lower Manhattan in particular, have been ‘hardened’ in a multitude of  ways that are generally invisible to the casual observer.

The city’s subway system suffered an estimated $4.8 billion worth of damage due to the flooding of tunnels with salt water. NY Governor Andrew Cuomo announced (May 16, 2013) plans to ‘flood-proof’ the subway and protect its critical elements against “similar storms that we expect to arrive in the future.” No easy task. The system is old and wasn’t designed with super storms and sea level rise in mind. Individual openings through which water can enter the system from the surface in flood prone areas are many — more than 3,500 according to an estimate made at the time — all of them requiring closure. The list of subway elements in need of flood proofing, included:

Station entrances, ventilator gratings, vents, elevator shafts and openings, access hatches, emergency exits, manholes, utility entrances, escalators, machine rooms, pump rooms, sewer lines, conduit ducts, utility services, lighting, HVAC systems, building entrances and other right of way equipment.

The smell and feel of fetid subway air puffing up through sidewalk gratings are sensations experienced daily by New Yorker’s. How to stop flood waters pouring down through those same gratings, was just one of the challenges faced by the Transportation Authority. One solution: metal hatches fitted under the gratings and ready to slide across the openings when needed. The following photo from 2017 shows MTA Chairman Joe Lhota, explaining the new system to the press.

Photo of MTA Chaireman and press examining subway grating flood prevention devices
MTA chairman Joe Lhota and members of the press examine subway grating flood prevention devices. Image: MTA

Because the openings are so large, flood proofing subway entrance stairways is critically important. The photo below shows an MTA employee deploying a stairwell Flex-Gate (ILC Dover Co) from its housing.

Photo of MTA employee deploying subway entrance flood prevention device
MTA employee deploying subway entrance flood prevention device. MTA Image

New York’s private sector business’s also suffered heavy damage from superstorm Sandy. Before Sandy, equipment such as electrical gear and emergency generators were typically installed in the basements of the city’s high rise buildings. That equipment was destroyed when basements flooded. Repairs took weeks, in some cases, months. Some older inhabitants of residential towers, unable to navigate dark stairwells, were trapped in their apartments for days. Architects and builders have learned from the reports. The American Copper Building provides a good example (photo below). This copper clad, residential duel-tower, built at 626 First Ave., incorporates several post-Sandy design features:

Photo of American Copper Bldg., New York City
American Copper Building.

(1) The building has no penthouse. Instead, the top floors are given over to emergency equipment designed to provide essential services to the whole building for at least a week in the event a serious storm shuts the City down. According to real estate sources, the owners, JDS Development Group (Architects: SHoP) are happy to provide the feature because, in this new age of climate change, they see it as a sales asset That compensates for the loss of penthouse revenue.
(2) Stone rather than wood is used as decorative material in the building’s lobby areas. The rational for its use is that stone will suffer less damage from being submerged in flood waters, and should therefore take less time to repair.
(3) Installing electrical gear on the second floor of new high-rise buildings rather than in their basements, guarantees that the equipment will remain safe from flood waters. This flood-proofing technique has been incorpoated into the design of the American Copper Building, as the building’s blank second-floor windows indicate (see photo below).

Photo of American Copper Building from E 36th Street
Americans Copper Building from E 36th Street. Google image

The storm that hit New York in 2012, was a category 2 hurricane. Is the city prepared for a category 3 or 4 hurricane? New Yorker’s do not want to find out.

New Bridge across the Tappan Zee

“In the bosom of one of those spacious coves which indent the eastern shore of the Hudson, at that broad expansion of the river denominated by the ancient Dutch navigators the Tappan Zee, and where they always prudently shortened sail and implored the protection of St. Nicholas when they crossed, there lies a small market town or rural port, which by some is called Greensburgh, but which is more generally and properly known by the name of Tarry Town.”
— From: The Legend Of Sleepy Hollow by Washington Irving (1820)

Image of new Tappan Zee Bridge over the Hudson River
The Tappan Zee/Governor Mario M. Cuomo Bridge. Image produced by American Bridge Co.

The new Tappan Zee Bridge — officially named the Governor Mario M. Cuomo Bridge — crosses the Hudson River at Tarrytown, Westchester Co., New York, about 24 miles north of Midtown, Manhattan. The twin cable-stayed bridge replaces the original Tappan Zee Bridge, which was built during the Korean War. Opened in 1955, the old bridge was designed to carry 100,000 vehicles a day and last fifty years. By the year 2000, it was carrying 140,000 vehicles a day and had started to fall apart. The collapse of the I-35W bridge in Minneapolis in November 2008, injected a sense of urgency into the planning process for a replacement. The replacement project was added to New York’s list of projects eligible for federal funds in 2012 and “fast tracked” for approval by the Obama Administration (a concept foreign to the present Trump administration).

The design/build contract was awarded to a consortium comprised of Fluor Corp., American Bridge Co., Granite Construction, and Traylor Bros Inc. The bridge features a superstructure containing eight general traffic lanes, plus four emergency lanes (four + two, west bound; four + two, east bound). It also features a shared-use path for bikes and pedestrians.

Diagram of new Tappan Zee Bridge showing dimensions
Diagram of new Tappan Zee Bridge with dimensions. Image from American Bridge Co. website

The new bridge was built parallel to the old Tappan Zee bridge. The last of the old bridge’s structure was brought down by explosives on January 15th. The photo below, taken the following day, shows NY Governor Andrew Cuomo surveying the new bridge and the remains of the old bridge. Parts of the old bridge can be seen lying in the river immediately to the left of the new bridge.

NY Governor Andrew Cuomo surveying the new Tappan Zee Bridge from the air
Governor Andrew Cuomo surveying the new and old Tappan Zee Bridges. Photo credit: Melissa DeRosa via Twitter, Jan 16

The new bridge is operated by the NY State Thruway Authority. The Authority plans to introduce electronic (cashless) tolling later this year. This will enable tolling at highway speeds. Overhead surveillance equipment will read license plates and identify types of vehicles as they pass, then automatically send bills to the registered owners. The alternative for drivers who cross the bridge frequently will be to pay in advance by purchasing some sort of electronically readable sticker.

It’s impossible to see a bridge by driving across it. To see the new Tappan Zee Bridge, exit the I-87 via Broadway and head north into Tarrytown. Make your way to Pierson Park on the water front. You’ll find a scenic river walk there. Parking is available off W Main Street, beside the Tarrytown Recreation Community Center and close to Pierson Park (circled in yellow on the satellite image below).

Satellite image of Tappan Zee Bridge , New York
Satellite image of Tappan Zee Bridge. Pierson Park river view path area circled in yellow. Google Maps.

Trump mulls funding for new Hudson River Rail Tunnel, but continues to balk

Photo showing scene inside Penn Station, NYC
Inside Pennsylvania Station, New York City

Every weekday, about 450 trains pass through the Hudson River Rail Tunnel carrying New Jersey commuters to and from NYC’s Penn Station, as well as Amtrak passengers traveling the Northeast Corridor between Boston, New York, and Washington. The tunnel is over one hundred years old and seriously decayed, and it can’t be renovated until a new tunnel is built. The estimated cost for a new tunnel: $13 billion.

Chuck Schumer, Democratic Senator from New York and Senate Minority Leader, speaking to transportation planners in December 2016 (Bloomberg News report) said: “We don’t build this, and these tunnels fail, the whole economy will collapse. There will be a deep recession in the New York metropolitan area and a recession probably in the whole country.”

A year earlier, in 2015, the federal government reached an agreement with New York and New Jersey to split the cost of a new tunnel three ways, with the feds (who own the tunnel) paying fifty percent. But when Donald Trump assumed the presidency, what had once been considered a done deal, became undone. No federal funding is guaranteed these days. There are no done deals. Deals are fluid things, subject to cancellation on a whim.

The current president is like the ogre featured in fairy tails, the one pictured lurking under a bridge, blocking traffic and the way forward. What does the ogre want? He wants wins, personal wins, and federal funds are a means of getting them. Need federal funds? Give him a win. No win, no funding. And don’t forget, he’s armed with a bag of derogatory names and a veto-tipped cudgel. If you don’t give this ogre what he wants he’ll clobber you.

Last October, New York Governor Andrew Cuomo starred in a video in which he’s seen inside the Hudson Tunnel pulling loose chunks of concrete from its wall (see: Help! The Hudson River Rail Tunnel is falling to bits). The New York Times called it a stunt designed solely to win over an audience of one, the one in the Oval Office. Apparently the stunt worked because a month later, the President invited Governor Cuomo to a meeting in Washington to discuss the need for funding.

At a press briefing November 28, the governor described the meeting as “productive.” Did he a get a funding commitment? No. Will he get one? That depends on what’s in it for the President. Some sort of quid pro quo? Support for his boarder wall in exchange for a funding commitment perhaps? Governor Cuomo says no, not from him. What then? The tunnel project, even if it started today, will not be completed for 8 to 10 years. If there’s a win in that situation for Mr. Trump, I don’t see it. Will he support the project simply because it’s the right thing to do? What do you think?
The following YouTube video shows the Press Briefing held by Governor Cuomo following his meeting with President Trump. It’s worth watching in its entirety.