New York Underground • Hacker News Board

Re: New York Underground

#41

Post by kibwen » Fri, Aug 10, 2012, 4:29 PM UTC

thematt wrote: post #14

potatolicious wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Woah. The water mains are 800 feet down? How does that work? How did they even get there?

I'm guessing they probably got there before everything on top was built, but how do they get down there now for repairs and such?

From Wikipedia:

"[New York City Water Tunnel No. 3] was authorized in 1954. A third tunnel was needed so tunnel one and tunnel two could be closed for repairs. Stage One was begun in 1970 and completed in 1993 and put into service in 1998."[1]

This seems to imply that the later stages of the old two tunnels have never seen repairs.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_City_Water_Tunnel_No....

Re: New York Underground

#42

Post by kine » Fri, Aug 10, 2012, 4:31 PM UTC

I love how this is both informative, very cool and a complete Internet relic. I can't remember the last time I saw a message where I had to choose whether I had Shockwave or not to continue. Nice find!

Re: New York Underground

#43

Post by RickHull » Fri, Aug 10, 2012, 4:32 PM UTC

tsunamifury wrote: post #39

hkmurakami wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To me, $6 billion seems really cheap for a project that seems pretty vital to the city's long term health, safety and security. Compare this to the ~$10 billion for the California High Speed Rail project, which doesn't seem nearly as important as this NYC project.

The importance of a project has little correlation with how expensive it is to execute.

> The importance of a project has little correlation with how expensive it is to execute.

Right, but it should be the primary factor on whether to undertake it or not.

Re: New York Underground

#44

Post by nine_k » Fri, Aug 10, 2012, 4:42 PM UTC

DanBC wrote: post #30

Tunnelling under cities has a number of odd problems. ( http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/1527202/How-top-secret-tunne... ) I read an article, some years ago, about the problems of getting subterranean tunnels at a depth greater than 100 foot approved. As part of the process the plans get submitted to the security services, who then say "yes" or "no"; and you only get three attempts. I can't find the article (or anythi…

Now taking photographs in Moscow subway ('metro') is allowed, and groups of tourists with cameras could be seen on most picturesque stations when I last visited it in 2011.

Next to all the granite and marble, large bulkhead doors can be seen in many passages there. Currently all are open and not very visible, but certainly intended to insulate stations in a case of emergency, such as a nuclear attack.

Re: New York Underground

#45

Post by rayiner » Fri, Aug 10, 2012, 4:59 PM UTC

hkmurakami wrote: post #37

msutherl wrote: post #31

So, there are two of those deep underground water tunnels, one which runs down from the Bronx through Manhattan and another that runs from the Bronx through Queens and Brooklyn. These tunnels were completed in 1917 and 1935 respectively. How they managed to do this then is beyond me. Currently a third tunnel is being built and apparently it's "the largest construction project in New York history". The project was beg…

To me, $6 billion seems really cheap for a project that seems pretty vital to the city's long term health, safety and security. Compare this to the ~$10 billion for the California High Speed Rail project, which doesn't seem nearly as important as this NYC project.

Economically linking the SF Bay and LA metropolises could have tremendous importance over the next 100 years (which is the time scale a project like this should be evaluate on).

Re: New York Underground

#46

Post by ChuckMcM » Fri, Aug 10, 2012, 5:21 PM UTC

Its a fascinating picture. I'd love to see one of the Bay Area, one of the cable technicians installing yet another fiber down the road outside our office joked that if you put big rockets at PAIX and MAE-WEST and launched, they would lift 'silicon valley' [1] into space on a net of fiber optic cables.

Of course no mention of "Beauty and the Beast" [2] which took place in a pretty fanciful world under New York city.

Given the expense these days of tunneling I wonder if we've reached a peak of complexity underground for now.

[1] Actually only the parts between San Jose and Palo Alto but it was the imagery not the accuracy they were going for.

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beauty_and_the_Beast_%281987_T...

Re: New York Underground

#47

Post by jamesaguilar » Fri, Aug 10, 2012, 5:34 PM UTC

tsunamifury wrote: post #39

hkmurakami wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To me, $6 billion seems really cheap for a project that seems pretty vital to the city's long term health, safety and security. Compare this to the ~$10 billion for the California High Speed Rail project, which doesn't seem nearly as important as this NYC project.

The importance of a project has little correlation with how expensive it is to execute.

This is not really true since cheap, highly important projects tend to get done pretty early on. That means the marginal project we are now embarking on does tend to have a relatively high cost-importance correlation.

Re: New York Underground

#48

Post by joering2 » Fri, Aug 10, 2012, 5:49 PM UTC

msutherl wrote: post #31

So, there are two of those deep underground water tunnels, one which runs down from the Bronx through Manhattan and another that runs from the Bronx through Queens and Brooklyn. These tunnels were completed in 1917 and 1935 respectively. How they managed to do this then is beyond me. Currently a third tunnel is being built and apparently it's "the largest construction project in New York history". The project was beg…

What are those tunnels and whats the purpose behind them? Also -- why so deep -- 800ft? I think (and may be wrong) digging them shallower would be cheaper. 6B vs f.e. 4B -- that's a lot of cheddar.

Also, someone mentioned "garbage" being underground citizen. I think that's wrong. While we have water, electricity and sewage running underground, the fact that garbage is not a part of this rail is really dissapointing. If you live upper west side, try to walk some broadway on a very hot day, before Thursday's garbage pickup. Your eyes will run wet from all the stink from garbage mountains packed everywhere. Literally there are streets where kids are forbidden to be outside because of all the smell and I assume airborne crap. Note, of course you won't see it downtown (the tourist area) where trash is picked up every day. Why there is no major garbage shute system across the city, no idea...

Re: New York Underground

#49

Post by brianpan » Fri, Aug 10, 2012, 6:02 PM UTC

maxerickson wrote: post #36

maratd wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is even more amazing is that this mimics nature. Most trees have a root structure that is a rough mirror image of what's above ground!

The roots are generally much closer to the surface than the canopy is to the ground. Like within a meter versus dozens of meters.

Whoa, TIL http://www.sustland.umn.edu/implement/planting.html

Re: New York Underground

#50

Post by Tashtego » Fri, Aug 10, 2012, 6:04 PM UTC

If you like this, you'll love Kate Ascher's The Works: Anatomy of a City (http://www.amazon.com/The-Works-Anatomy-Kate-Ascher/dp/01431...). It's slightly out of date (but much more up to date than the OP!).

And if you like that, you'll REALLY love Brian Hayes' Infrastructure: A Field Guide to the Industrial Landscape (http://www.amazon.com/Infrastructure-Field-Guide-Industrial-...). It's porn for people who like to try to figure out what the random towers in a chemical plant do, or how the electrical station you just passed on the interstate works.