62 years in the making: NYC's newest water tunnel nears the finish line

Pop culture and public imagination

• Multiple commenters connect the tunnel to its depiction in “Die Hard 3,” using it as a symbol of long-running mega-projects.
• Jokes riff on future action/post‑apocalyptic movies featuring unfinished California HSR as the new “big infrastructure backdrop.”
• Several people express excitement that this is the same tunnel they recall from the film.

Tours and public interest in megaprojects

• Commenters hope for public tours before the final section is flooded and sealed for decades.
• People reference other civil‑engineering tours, especially Tokyo’s Metropolitan Area Outer Underground Discharge Channel, and ask for similar lists for infrastructure tourism.

Why so deep? Engineering and geology

• Users ask why parts of the tunnel are ~800 feet down and how depth affects drilling energy and rock pressure.
• Responses:
  • Main reasons cited are: needing gravity flow over 60 miles; staying in solid bedrock to avoid unstable soils; and avoiding conflicts with dense surface/near-surface infrastructure.
  • Some clarify the average depth is closer to ~400 feet and that local geology (bedrock vs clay/silt in Brooklyn/Queens) likely drove design.
  • Several note that drilling difficulty depends far more on rock type and water ingress than on absolute depth; “depth vs effort” has no simple formula and is highly site-specific.
  • Tunnel boring here is more “hammering” than classic drilling; depth per se doesn’t slow the machines much.

Purpose, lifespan, and redundancy

• Beyond capacity, a key purpose is redundancy: Tunnel 3 enables shutting older tunnels for inspection and major repairs.
• Commenters note targets of ~200–300 years of service life, comparing to Roman aqueducts and ancient tunnels that still function in some form.
• Speculation about how long an unmaintained tunnel would last is raised but remains unclear.

Desalination vs gravity‑fed supply

• One thread asks when desalination plus cheap clean energy might beat a 60‑mile gravity tunnel.
• Most replies are skeptical:
  • Tunnel: very high upfront capital but extremely low operating cost (gravity-fed, minimal energy, rare major maintenance).
  • Desalination: ongoing high operating and maintenance costs; economically more plausible where fresh water is scarce.
• Some argue desalination is more relevant for the US West Coast; the East has abundant freshwater, though there’s mention of mismanagement and legacy water rights in California.

Timelines, cost, and corruption debates

• Several participants see the ~62‑year timeline as evidence of political friction, funding pauses, and possibly broader US infrastructure dysfunction rather than technical limits.
• Others question whether the duration is actually abnormal for such a massive urban project, pointing out:
  • Construction was intermittently funded and phased.
  • The tunnel must be extraordinarily reliable and long-lived; “patching after release” is difficult.
• Debate over NYC corruption:
  • One side claims NYC infrastructure is uniquely expensive and graft‑ridden, citing investigative reporting on massively inflated labor and construction costs in transit projects.
  • Others counter that:
    • Corruption metrics aren’t clearly worse than in comparable US metros.
    • Federal prosecution data show a long‑term decline in corruption cases in Manhattan specifically.
  • There is no consensus on whether Tunnel 3’s schedule specifically reflects corruption vs. complex logistics and politics.

Comparisons to other projects and regions

• Users compare the tunnel’s timeline and cost to:
  • European megaprojects: Alpine rail tunnels, London’s Elizabeth Line, and the Thames Tideway Tunnel, which had shorter build times once formally approved.
  • Some argue that drilling under a dense city is fundamentally harder than through mountains.
  • Others highlight a broader “Anglosphere cost disease,” with the US, UK, and Canada all paying more than countries like Spain or Japan.

Technology vs coordination problems

• Several comments contrast rapid progress in software/AI with the difficulty of delivering physical infrastructure.
• View expressed that:
  • Political, legal, and coordination barriers are harder than the engineering itself.
  • It’s often easier to get high-tech projects (e.g., self-driving cars) moving than to secure consensus and permits for trains, tunnels, or subways.
• Some suggest AI could help with data integration, planning, and design, but others warn current AI is prone to producing convincing but incorrect outputs.

Transit, cities, and social preferences

• A tangent emerges about public transit vs cars:
  • One view: Americans broadly dislike trains and sharing space with strangers; outside the densest city, subways are “almost useless.”
  • Counterview: When high-quality transit exists (e.g., NYC subway), it is heavily used and seen as a major urban asset; sharing space is part of the appeal of dense city life.
  • Arguments reference population trends, migration, and differing cultural expectations, but no agreement is reached.