AirTrain JFK Light Rail System
Abstract
This paper describes the AirTrain JFK Light Rail System that was nominated as one of five finalists for the American Society of Civil Engineers’ Outstanding Civil Engineering Award.
The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey (PANYNJ) constructed an elevated, 8.3 mile (13.4 km), fully automated Light Rail System at a cost of $ 1.9 billion to provide safe, fast, comfortable and convenient means of traveling to and from John F. Kennedy International Airport (JFKIA) and between terminals at the airport.
AirTrain uses light rapid transit technology. It draws power from a third rail. A linear induction motor pushes magnetically against an aluminum strip in the track center.
More than 5,500 150 ton and 200 ton capacity piles were driven to support the 8.3-mile (13.4 km) long guide way structure. The piles support 515 poured in place concrete columns, which support precast-segmental girder guide way on which AirTrain runs. . 6.3 miles (10.1 km) of single-track box girders and 3.2 miles (5.1 km) of double track box girders were constructed incorporating more than 5,000 segments. Seismic isolation was required if the system was to remain readily operable following the design earthquake event. A portion of the light rail system was constructed using cut-and-cover techniques under the airport’s taxiways. Eighty percent of the tunnel is below the water table.
To maintain pace with anticipated growth at JFKIA, the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey (PANYNJ) decided to fast track the project. This has been described as the largest scope of work utilizing precast segmental box beams and the Design Build Operate and Maintain (DBOM) project delivery method ever contracted in New York City.
Monday, March 07, 2005
Thursday, November 11, 2004
November 11 - Veterans’ Day
November 11 - Veterans’ Day by Henry W. Hessing
World War I was called, “the war to end all wars.” Joining the Allies whose soldiers suffered trench warfare, bombardment, starvation and poison gas, the United States entered the war in Europe in the autumn of 1918. Thereafter, Germany’s defeat was a matter of time. November 11, the date we remember the Armistice is called Veterans’ Day.
America witnessed the horror of war on our native soil three years ago when 3,000 innocents died. Death came at the hands of the primitive savagery of militant Islam. We have seen Osama bin Laden and his barbarians squatting in caves, invoking their “prophet” from the literal Dark Ages. As with all dictators and tyrants, their inculcation of hatred against America is a necessary tool of tribal rulers who need scapegoats to blame for the misery of their own subjects. They believe that this world is evil, that man must surrender his mind, and that true life begins after the grave. The enemies of man’s life renounce reason in favor of mysticism and death worship. They reject thought and demand blind obedience. Our enemies are anti-mind which means anti-life.
In a lecture given in October 2001, Dr. Harry Binswanger made, parenthesis mine, this analysis: “Compare that (primitive barbarism) to the moral meaning of the World Trade Center as a symbol of what capitalism is: individual freedom, the freedom to use one’s mind to produce prosperity, a rising standard of living and individual happiness. Freedom, wealth, happiness and life are our values and the reason America is under attack…. The enemy is also defined by an idea – the idea that man is depraved, that the mind is to be jettisoned, that life is a waste.” Has hatred of life reached so low a level to demand to return to living as a primitive in a cave?
In September of this year, Andrew C. McCarthy wrote in National Review about the mentality, parenthesis mine, that: “espouses and supports an interpretation of Islam that calls for violent jihad against the United States and our allies. It would supplant our Constitution, our rule of law, (with barbarism.) It is dedicated to our destruction and must be eliminated…we are at war with militant Islam because we stand for life against the apostates of death… The war on militant Islam is about eradicating a mortal, global threat to the United States. Our enemies have demonstrated that they will not be rehabilitated. We must permanently neutralize them because if we don’t, they will kill us. Those who help militant Islam function as a lethal force that abets killing Americans and our allies in the most brutal fashion imaginable.”
A free country has a great responsibility: the right to use force as an instrument of a free nation’s self-defense, which means: the defense of a man’s individual rights. It is individualism that lies at America’s freedom. Militant Islam would have us renounce individualism and bow to theocratic dictates.
Antiwar activists say it is okay to go to war if the UN sanctions war but not if we go to war to defend our sovereignty. They want the individual to subordinate his freedom to their collective will and the government of a free people to subordinate the liberty of its citizens to the collective known as the United Nations. Their rational is the same as militant Islam as they want the same type of capitulation.
To prevail, we must resolutely act on our moral right to defend ourselves, regardless of the wishes of any other nation. Our purpose in this war is to preserve American national security. We must be willing and able to go to those places where militant Islam derives support whether at home or abroad. But we are not obliged to stay in a war zone until nirvana has arrived. We need to stay until we eradicate the enemy and his ideas based on the premise of death. We must annihilate the anti-life, anti-mind forces responsible for barbarism, beheadings, and bombings.
The United States of America is the greatest, noblest and in its original founding principles, the only moral country in the history of the world. Our soldiers preserve qualities of character typical at the time of America’s birth - earnestness, dedication and a sense of honor made visible in action. They defend our country because they personally are unwilling to live as slaves. This is an enormous virtue. The choice is clear: freedom, justice, progress and man’s happiness or primordial morality, slavery, brute force, terror and death. Ours is the morality of life. Theirs is the morality of death.
World War I was called, “the war to end all wars.” Joining the Allies whose soldiers suffered trench warfare, bombardment, starvation and poison gas, the United States entered the war in Europe in the autumn of 1918. Thereafter, Germany’s defeat was a matter of time. November 11, the date we remember the Armistice is called Veterans’ Day.
America witnessed the horror of war on our native soil three years ago when 3,000 innocents died. Death came at the hands of the primitive savagery of militant Islam. We have seen Osama bin Laden and his barbarians squatting in caves, invoking their “prophet” from the literal Dark Ages. As with all dictators and tyrants, their inculcation of hatred against America is a necessary tool of tribal rulers who need scapegoats to blame for the misery of their own subjects. They believe that this world is evil, that man must surrender his mind, and that true life begins after the grave. The enemies of man’s life renounce reason in favor of mysticism and death worship. They reject thought and demand blind obedience. Our enemies are anti-mind which means anti-life.
In a lecture given in October 2001, Dr. Harry Binswanger made, parenthesis mine, this analysis: “Compare that (primitive barbarism) to the moral meaning of the World Trade Center as a symbol of what capitalism is: individual freedom, the freedom to use one’s mind to produce prosperity, a rising standard of living and individual happiness. Freedom, wealth, happiness and life are our values and the reason America is under attack…. The enemy is also defined by an idea – the idea that man is depraved, that the mind is to be jettisoned, that life is a waste.” Has hatred of life reached so low a level to demand to return to living as a primitive in a cave?
In September of this year, Andrew C. McCarthy wrote in National Review about the mentality, parenthesis mine, that: “espouses and supports an interpretation of Islam that calls for violent jihad against the United States and our allies. It would supplant our Constitution, our rule of law, (with barbarism.) It is dedicated to our destruction and must be eliminated…we are at war with militant Islam because we stand for life against the apostates of death… The war on militant Islam is about eradicating a mortal, global threat to the United States. Our enemies have demonstrated that they will not be rehabilitated. We must permanently neutralize them because if we don’t, they will kill us. Those who help militant Islam function as a lethal force that abets killing Americans and our allies in the most brutal fashion imaginable.”
A free country has a great responsibility: the right to use force as an instrument of a free nation’s self-defense, which means: the defense of a man’s individual rights. It is individualism that lies at America’s freedom. Militant Islam would have us renounce individualism and bow to theocratic dictates.
Antiwar activists say it is okay to go to war if the UN sanctions war but not if we go to war to defend our sovereignty. They want the individual to subordinate his freedom to their collective will and the government of a free people to subordinate the liberty of its citizens to the collective known as the United Nations. Their rational is the same as militant Islam as they want the same type of capitulation.
To prevail, we must resolutely act on our moral right to defend ourselves, regardless of the wishes of any other nation. Our purpose in this war is to preserve American national security. We must be willing and able to go to those places where militant Islam derives support whether at home or abroad. But we are not obliged to stay in a war zone until nirvana has arrived. We need to stay until we eradicate the enemy and his ideas based on the premise of death. We must annihilate the anti-life, anti-mind forces responsible for barbarism, beheadings, and bombings.
The United States of America is the greatest, noblest and in its original founding principles, the only moral country in the history of the world. Our soldiers preserve qualities of character typical at the time of America’s birth - earnestness, dedication and a sense of honor made visible in action. They defend our country because they personally are unwilling to live as slaves. This is an enormous virtue. The choice is clear: freedom, justice, progress and man’s happiness or primordial morality, slavery, brute force, terror and death. Ours is the morality of life. Theirs is the morality of death.
Tuesday, October 19, 2004
Vandalism
Vandalism
Babylon Village is blessed with the natural scenery of Argyle Park, our canals and waterways, and the efforts of so many who make our places of public assembly and houses of worship visibly enticing to neighbors, friends and visitors. Homeowners take pride in reconstructing their residences. Holiday decorations enhance our village every year, all year long. Our merchants prepare bright and cheery displays highlighted with flowers and plantings in both storefronts and the alleyways to parking. The Village Beautification Society has made so many things happen, with the installation of lampposts, brick sidewalks, and plantings all around to enhance the appeal of the Village and create a wonderful atmosphere to raise our children. Our unsung heroes are the Village work crews who, every morning, tend the flowers hung on lampposts and keep Argyle Park a place where brides want to have pictures taken, and young families bring their children to play. All use creative minds to enhance the place where we live and work.
But here, as in many places around the country, are those whose goal is not to improve our Village but to disrupt and destroy. They are called vandals. They are a small gang who "express themselves" by forcibly imposing themselves on others.They’re actions of wanton destruction and/or desecration are not benevolent manifestations of the freedom to express ideas.
Freedom of speech is the right to communicate ideas, information and values. It includes, in the words of the First Amendment, the right to "petition the government for a redress of grievances" and to assemble "peaceably" for that purpose. Freedom of speech protects debate and dispute. It does not protect coercion, nor does one person's freedom of speech authorize him to force others to listen. No one has the right to violate rights.
Yet that is precisely what vandalism does. The vandal smashes car windows, destroys trees planted in schoolyards, tosses trashcans into Argyle Lake, and throws Christmas trees into waterways and canals. What is the cost of vandalism? Is it only physical damage, police overtime, lost wages and productivity for the besieged?
The goal of vandals is to impose their emotional tirades on a public that does not agree with them, and to do so by forcibly disrupting the lives of village residents, merchants and those who labor to make the Village a garden sanctuary. They spread their message not through persuasion, but by smashing property. Their goal is not peace and brotherhood.
The issue is not merely that vandals resort to violence and destruction. There is a fundamental difference between rational persuasion and destroying other people’s property. Their crime is that there is a crucial distinction between ideas and actions, between holding obnoxious views and forcibly imposing them on others. If the vandal has a rational mind, he should exert his effort in an expression of peaceful protest. His expression of dissatisfaction must not consist of a refusal to respect the rights of others. The vandal views freedom of speech not as a right to debate, but a right to violent disruption.
Robert Garmung wrote an essay in March 2003. Paraphrasing his thoughts: “For them, "democracy" becomes what it meant in its origins in Ancient Greece: the absolute right of the screaming masses to dispose of the individual's life, liberty and property.
The fundamental basis for freedom of speech is a respect for the rational mind, which requires the freedom to weigh the evidence, to dispute and debate, without fear of coercive interference. By their reliance on violence and brute force of mob gatherings, the vandal shows contempt for the mind. It is confession of intellectual and moral bankruptcy, a confession that, for them, rational argumentation does not matter: all that matters is that their opponents are cowed into submission.
The banner of free speech is reserved for those who respect the rights of others and offer arguments addressed to our minds. It does not protect the mindless rabble that clog the streets of our Village proclaiming by their unlawful acts, a fraudulent "right" to destroy the peace and harmony created by rational minds.”
Has respect for other people’s property and their rights been lost or is it simply not fostered? Is the attitude, “so what, whatever is damaged can be replaced (by the owner not the vandal,) based on a lack of guidance in the home? If these actions are tolerated, when does the vandal take responsibility for his actions? When does he learn to respect the rights of others and the peace and harmony created by rational minds?
Babylon Village is blessed with the natural scenery of Argyle Park, our canals and waterways, and the efforts of so many who make our places of public assembly and houses of worship visibly enticing to neighbors, friends and visitors. Homeowners take pride in reconstructing their residences. Holiday decorations enhance our village every year, all year long. Our merchants prepare bright and cheery displays highlighted with flowers and plantings in both storefronts and the alleyways to parking. The Village Beautification Society has made so many things happen, with the installation of lampposts, brick sidewalks, and plantings all around to enhance the appeal of the Village and create a wonderful atmosphere to raise our children. Our unsung heroes are the Village work crews who, every morning, tend the flowers hung on lampposts and keep Argyle Park a place where brides want to have pictures taken, and young families bring their children to play. All use creative minds to enhance the place where we live and work.
But here, as in many places around the country, are those whose goal is not to improve our Village but to disrupt and destroy. They are called vandals. They are a small gang who "express themselves" by forcibly imposing themselves on others.They’re actions of wanton destruction and/or desecration are not benevolent manifestations of the freedom to express ideas.
Freedom of speech is the right to communicate ideas, information and values. It includes, in the words of the First Amendment, the right to "petition the government for a redress of grievances" and to assemble "peaceably" for that purpose. Freedom of speech protects debate and dispute. It does not protect coercion, nor does one person's freedom of speech authorize him to force others to listen. No one has the right to violate rights.
Yet that is precisely what vandalism does. The vandal smashes car windows, destroys trees planted in schoolyards, tosses trashcans into Argyle Lake, and throws Christmas trees into waterways and canals. What is the cost of vandalism? Is it only physical damage, police overtime, lost wages and productivity for the besieged?
The goal of vandals is to impose their emotional tirades on a public that does not agree with them, and to do so by forcibly disrupting the lives of village residents, merchants and those who labor to make the Village a garden sanctuary. They spread their message not through persuasion, but by smashing property. Their goal is not peace and brotherhood.
The issue is not merely that vandals resort to violence and destruction. There is a fundamental difference between rational persuasion and destroying other people’s property. Their crime is that there is a crucial distinction between ideas and actions, between holding obnoxious views and forcibly imposing them on others. If the vandal has a rational mind, he should exert his effort in an expression of peaceful protest. His expression of dissatisfaction must not consist of a refusal to respect the rights of others. The vandal views freedom of speech not as a right to debate, but a right to violent disruption.
Robert Garmung wrote an essay in March 2003. Paraphrasing his thoughts: “For them, "democracy" becomes what it meant in its origins in Ancient Greece: the absolute right of the screaming masses to dispose of the individual's life, liberty and property.
The fundamental basis for freedom of speech is a respect for the rational mind, which requires the freedom to weigh the evidence, to dispute and debate, without fear of coercive interference. By their reliance on violence and brute force of mob gatherings, the vandal shows contempt for the mind. It is confession of intellectual and moral bankruptcy, a confession that, for them, rational argumentation does not matter: all that matters is that their opponents are cowed into submission.
The banner of free speech is reserved for those who respect the rights of others and offer arguments addressed to our minds. It does not protect the mindless rabble that clog the streets of our Village proclaiming by their unlawful acts, a fraudulent "right" to destroy the peace and harmony created by rational minds.”
Has respect for other people’s property and their rights been lost or is it simply not fostered? Is the attitude, “so what, whatever is damaged can be replaced (by the owner not the vandal,) based on a lack of guidance in the home? If these actions are tolerated, when does the vandal take responsibility for his actions? When does he learn to respect the rights of others and the peace and harmony created by rational minds?
Wednesday, September 01, 2004
Initiative - Labor Day 2004
Initiative
On Labor Day we celebrate in Ayn Rand’s words, “Productive achievement as man’s noblest activity.” In August, 2000, the objectivist writer, Edwin A. Locke, wrote that, “each man gets what he earns and has no moral claim on the property of others…man at his best is a man who is free, independent, responsible for his own life, proud of his achievements and unwilling to be sacrificial fodder for those who would enslave him.”
Our friend is a single parent who has raised three children. Her youngest, a daughter, did well academically in high school. Upon graduation, she told her mother she doesn’t want to go to work or go to college. She arises at 3 PM and hangs around the house. She doesn’t go anywhere or do anything in particular. Has the parent made life so easy that the child knows she does not have to make it on her own? Will mom continue to struggle and work two or three jobs to support her daughter and the house in which they reside?
The dictionary definition of the word initiative, a noun, is 1) the power or ability to begin or to follow energetically with a plan or task: enterprise and determination. 2) A beginning or introductory step; an opening move; took the initiative in trying to solve the problem. Where is the daughter’s initiative?
In mythology, Prometheus stole fire from Zeus and gave it to mortals in their dark caves. The gift of divine fire unleashed a flood of inventiveness and productivity. The name Prometheus means “Forethought.” Where are the young girl’s fire, inventiveness and productivity?
Another Prometheus is the protagonist in Ayn Rand’s Anthem. Prometheus comprehends that to exist is to possess identity. He discards the collective “we” and uses the word “I.” He realizes he is responsible for his own education. Our friend’s daughter has not learned about Prometheus in either mythology or philosophy. She is oblivious to her mother’s struggle for their survival. A comparison can be drawn to Emma in Jane Austen’s Emma wherein the fictional character’s schemes and perceptions prove false.
Our friend faces a moral crisis. She has been conditioned by years of sacrifice for her children yet her daughter’s stated aim in life is to do nothing. Are parenting and initiative mutually exclusive or mutually dependent? If the parent solves all problems, provides for her daughters every need, does that reduce initiative in the offspring? Is it counterproductive to independence or does it foster a desire to retain the quality of life to which one has become accustomed?
The mother queries, “What happens if I am not here?” That is a false argument. The mother isn’t facing reality. She hasn’t taught her daughter a whit about productive achievement. The daughter demands that her mother produce while she, herself, produces nothing. The daughter exhibits a cardinal sin – greed. What criteria motivate the offspring for a better life? Why has the desire to achieve been diminished? Is this an isolated situation? Are there few achievers? Is it that producers are just a quirk?
One is reminded of John Galt’s speech in Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged. Paraphrasing, “We are bombarded with dictates - that you are to serve the welfare state but not to serve your life or your pleasure. You have been taught that any moral code must be designed against you, not for you, not to further your life but to drain it. The unceasing creed of unearned rewards and unrewarded duties created this moral crisis. This moral duplicity is based on the claim that the good is self-sacrifice for the sake of the incompetents. A code of values accepted by choice is a code of morality. Man’s life is the standard of morality, but your own life is its purpose. Your life belongs to you. The good is to live it.” The mother should have taught her daughter to hold her life as a value; she must learn to sustain it by initiative and choice. This Labor Day, know that if one believes that “productive achievement is man’s noblest activity” then one must live life for oneself, not others and not the welfare state.
On Labor Day we celebrate in Ayn Rand’s words, “Productive achievement as man’s noblest activity.” In August, 2000, the objectivist writer, Edwin A. Locke, wrote that, “each man gets what he earns and has no moral claim on the property of others…man at his best is a man who is free, independent, responsible for his own life, proud of his achievements and unwilling to be sacrificial fodder for those who would enslave him.”
Our friend is a single parent who has raised three children. Her youngest, a daughter, did well academically in high school. Upon graduation, she told her mother she doesn’t want to go to work or go to college. She arises at 3 PM and hangs around the house. She doesn’t go anywhere or do anything in particular. Has the parent made life so easy that the child knows she does not have to make it on her own? Will mom continue to struggle and work two or three jobs to support her daughter and the house in which they reside?
The dictionary definition of the word initiative, a noun, is 1) the power or ability to begin or to follow energetically with a plan or task: enterprise and determination. 2) A beginning or introductory step; an opening move; took the initiative in trying to solve the problem. Where is the daughter’s initiative?
In mythology, Prometheus stole fire from Zeus and gave it to mortals in their dark caves. The gift of divine fire unleashed a flood of inventiveness and productivity. The name Prometheus means “Forethought.” Where are the young girl’s fire, inventiveness and productivity?
Another Prometheus is the protagonist in Ayn Rand’s Anthem. Prometheus comprehends that to exist is to possess identity. He discards the collective “we” and uses the word “I.” He realizes he is responsible for his own education. Our friend’s daughter has not learned about Prometheus in either mythology or philosophy. She is oblivious to her mother’s struggle for their survival. A comparison can be drawn to Emma in Jane Austen’s Emma wherein the fictional character’s schemes and perceptions prove false.
Our friend faces a moral crisis. She has been conditioned by years of sacrifice for her children yet her daughter’s stated aim in life is to do nothing. Are parenting and initiative mutually exclusive or mutually dependent? If the parent solves all problems, provides for her daughters every need, does that reduce initiative in the offspring? Is it counterproductive to independence or does it foster a desire to retain the quality of life to which one has become accustomed?
The mother queries, “What happens if I am not here?” That is a false argument. The mother isn’t facing reality. She hasn’t taught her daughter a whit about productive achievement. The daughter demands that her mother produce while she, herself, produces nothing. The daughter exhibits a cardinal sin – greed. What criteria motivate the offspring for a better life? Why has the desire to achieve been diminished? Is this an isolated situation? Are there few achievers? Is it that producers are just a quirk?
One is reminded of John Galt’s speech in Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged. Paraphrasing, “We are bombarded with dictates - that you are to serve the welfare state but not to serve your life or your pleasure. You have been taught that any moral code must be designed against you, not for you, not to further your life but to drain it. The unceasing creed of unearned rewards and unrewarded duties created this moral crisis. This moral duplicity is based on the claim that the good is self-sacrifice for the sake of the incompetents. A code of values accepted by choice is a code of morality. Man’s life is the standard of morality, but your own life is its purpose. Your life belongs to you. The good is to live it.” The mother should have taught her daughter to hold her life as a value; she must learn to sustain it by initiative and choice. This Labor Day, know that if one believes that “productive achievement is man’s noblest activity” then one must live life for oneself, not others and not the welfare state.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)