4 ms·

What indication do you have that the construction time for tunnel 3 is due to corruption or even that it's taking longer than necessary? It seems like a very la

by mmooss 10mo ago

What indication do you have that the construction time for tunnel 3 is due to corruption or even that it's taking longer than necessary? It seems like a very large engineering project; sometimes those take time.

bee_rider 10mo ago
Yeah, I have no idea how long a tunnel of this size is supposed to take, and I’m surprised if many people here do. It’s a big project, and it is tricky to patch it after release. The thing is supposed to last 300 years, and usually we use infrastructure well past it’s intended lifespan…
- mmooss 10mo ago
  I wonder how long, unmaintained, it would take to collapse. Would some future civilization find a tunnel?
  - MangoToupe 10mo ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tunnel_of_Eupalinos https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tunnel_of_Eupalinos That one is ~2600 years old
- euroderf 10mo ago
  > I have no idea how long a tunnel of this size is supposed to take, and I’m surprised if many people here do. Ask Europeans ? They're bangin'em out.
  - earthnail 10mo ago
    Few things in Europe compare to the size of NYC. A potentially comparable project would be the Elizabeth line in London. Took from 1948 to 2008 to agree on a plan and then 15 years to execute it.
    - roadbuster 10mo ago
      The bill in favour of the Elizabeth Line was only put to parliament in 2005, receiving royal assent in 2008. Construction work began in 2009, faced some delays during COVID, but was completed in 2022 (total construction time: 13 years) Construction on New York's Tunnel #3 began in 1970. It was 28 years before any part of it was operational. A second section came online 15 years later (2013). The final stage isn't expected to be completed until 2032, a full 62 years after construction began. I'm unaware of any comparable tunnel project which has progressed at this slow of a pace.
    - euroderf 10mo ago
      Sorry. I was incompetently referring to the various rail tunneling projects under the Alps (and elsewhere I think). Several very long tunnels.
      - Thlom 10mo ago
        Drilling a tunnel through a mountain is easy compared to drilling a tunnel under a city.
        euroderf 10mo ago
        For NYC that's kind of a last mile issue innit ?
    - roryirvine 10mo ago
      The Thames Tideway Tunnel might be a better comparator. It's similar in scope to this recently-completed second phase of NYC Tunnel #3, albeit carrying sewage rather than fresh water: 25 km long, 7.2 m in diameter in London vs 29 km long, 4.9 m diameter in NYC. Flow volumes are likely similar (a sewage tunnel will rarely run full). Planning started in 2001, with construction beginning in 2016. It opened in May 2025, at a cost of around £5bn: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thames_Tideway_Tunnel https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thames_Tideway_Tunnel
    - rangestransform 10mo ago
      Anglosphere construction costs are through the roof in general, same problem is happening in the UK and Canada that isn't happening to places like Spain or Japan, comparing a project to Anglosphere norms is like comparing your cooking to English food
zdragnar 10mo ago
Google claims the original build was supposed to take 50 years, and it will take 62 due to delays from a funding crisis before de blasio. However, this is only the second phase of the plan, with two more phases broken out into separate projects. I've no idea if those were supposed to be a part of the original 50 year timeline or not.
deaux 10mo ago
> What indication do you have that the construction time for tunnel 3 is due to corruption or even that it's taking longer than necessary? These two questions are casually put next to each other in the same sentence but they're incredibly different. Personally, I don't think that corruption is a significant factor in how long it took. The second question is way too leading/framed - "necessary" doesn't exist past the physical limits. For example, would the same project have taken the same time in China? No. Does that mean it should've taken as long as it would've in China, as clearly it took longer "than necessary"? Not by definition.

by mmooss 10mo ago

bee_rider 10mo ago

Yeah, I have no idea how long a tunnel of this size is supposed to take, and I’m surprised if many people here do. It’s a big project, and it is tricky to patch it after release. The thing is supposed to last 300 years, and usually we use infrastructure well past it’s intended lifespan…

mmooss 10mo ago
I wonder how long, unmaintained, it would take to collapse. Would some future civilization find a tunnel?
- MangoToupe 10mo ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tunnel_of_Eupalinos https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tunnel_of_Eupalinos That one is ~2600 years old
euroderf 10mo ago
> I have no idea how long a tunnel of this size is supposed to take, and I’m surprised if many people here do. Ask Europeans ? They're bangin'em out.
- earthnail 10mo ago
  Few things in Europe compare to the size of NYC. A potentially comparable project would be the Elizabeth line in London. Took from 1948 to 2008 to agree on a plan and then 15 years to execute it.
  - roadbuster 10mo ago
    The bill in favour of the Elizabeth Line was only put to parliament in 2005, receiving royal assent in 2008. Construction work began in 2009, faced some delays during COVID, but was completed in 2022 (total construction time: 13 years) Construction on New York's Tunnel #3 began in 1970. It was 28 years before any part of it was operational. A second section came online 15 years later (2013). The final stage isn't expected to be completed until 2032, a full 62 years after construction began. I'm unaware of any comparable tunnel project which has progressed at this slow of a pace.
  - euroderf 10mo ago
    Sorry. I was incompetently referring to the various rail tunneling projects under the Alps (and elsewhere I think). Several very long tunnels.
    - Thlom 10mo ago
      Drilling a tunnel through a mountain is easy compared to drilling a tunnel under a city.
      - euroderf 10mo ago
        For NYC that's kind of a last mile issue innit ?
  - roryirvine 10mo ago
    The Thames Tideway Tunnel might be a better comparator. It's similar in scope to this recently-completed second phase of NYC Tunnel #3, albeit carrying sewage rather than fresh water: 25 km long, 7.2 m in diameter in London vs 29 km long, 4.9 m diameter in NYC. Flow volumes are likely similar (a sewage tunnel will rarely run full). Planning started in 2001, with construction beginning in 2016. It opened in May 2025, at a cost of around £5bn: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thames_Tideway_Tunnel https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thames_Tideway_Tunnel
  - rangestransform 10mo ago
    Anglosphere construction costs are through the roof in general, same problem is happening in the UK and Canada that isn't happening to places like Spain or Japan, comparing a project to Anglosphere norms is like comparing your cooking to English food

zdragnar 10mo ago

Google claims the original build was supposed to take 50 years, and it will take 62 due to delays from a funding crisis before de blasio. However, this is only the second phase of the plan, with two more phases broken out into separate projects. I've no idea if those were supposed to be a part of the original 50 year timeline or not.

deaux 10mo ago

> What indication do you have that the construction time for tunnel 3 is due to corruption or even that it's taking longer than necessary? These two questions are casually put next to each other in the same sentence but they're incredibly different. Personally, I don't think that corruption is a significant factor in how long it took. The second question is way too leading/framed - "necessary" doesn't exist past the physical limits. For example, would the same project have taken the same time in China? No. Does that mean it should've taken as long as it would've in China, as clearly it took longer "than necessary"? Not by definition.