# Baltimore B&P tunnel replacement study



## afigg (Jun 11, 2014)

There is news on the Baltimore B&P Tunnel replacement study. The $60 million environmental and engineering design study now has a website at http://www.bptunnel.com/. The first public outreach meeting is in Baltimore on June 19.

Amtrak news release: STUDY TO IMPROVE BALTIMORE AND POTOMAC TUNNEL ALONG BUSY NORTHEAST CORRIDOR IN BALTIMORE ENTERS NEW PHASE

Excerpts from the news release which has quotes from multiple politicians and agency heads which I am skipping in the excerpt.



> BALTIMORE, MD (June 11, 2014) – Working to improve rail service, reliability and address a longstanding bottleneck along Amtrak’s busy Northeast Corridor (NEC), the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), Maryland Department of Transportation (MDOT) and Amtrak are advancing an engineering and environmental study to examine various improvements to the 141-year-old Baltimore and Potomac (B&P) Tunnel in Baltimore, Maryland.
> ....
> The study, which will be complete in mid 2017, will include development and evaluation of various alternatives based on the need to enhance rail safety and to improve capacity, reliability and travel time for commuter, freight and intercity passenger rail service on the NEC. Alternatives will include the No Action Alternative, as well as a full array of Build Alternatives such as rehabilitation of the existing tunnel and a new tunnel on new alignment.
> ....
> The study also involves development of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), which examines various alternatives while considering environmental and community impacts. The project also will be subject to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966 and other applicable environmental laws and regulations. FRA is leading development of the EIS in close coordination with MDOT and other stakeholders.


There is not much on the project website at this point. I would expect the early work will replicate the FRA report from several years ago on the Baltimore tunnels and the options for replacing the B&P tunnel and the CSX owned Howard St tunnel. Building a new tunnel and then rebuilding the B&P tunnel is a critical project to keep the NEC operating between WAS and BAL.


----------



## neroden (Jun 11, 2014)

Gah!

I don't mind studies but I really don't understand why we have to redo the same studies more than once.


----------



## Acela150 (Jun 11, 2014)

neroden said:


> Gah!
> 
> I don't mind studies but I really don't understand why we have to redo the same studies more than once.


Because this is America... We do things more then once that involve millions of dollars..


----------



## afigg (Jun 11, 2014)

neroden said:


> Gah!
> 
> I don't mind studies but I really don't understand why we have to redo the same studies more than once.


The FRA report was effectively an alternative analysis study for new passenger and freight routes through Baltimore. But I doubt that it had the funds to do a in-depth geology survey for the proposed great circle route of the new passenger tunnel. It presumably relied on existing maps. The new tunnel in their proposal would not run under a street, but as a circle route fairly deep under existing buildings and infrastructure.

Before they start designing the tunnel, makes some sense to go back and re-examine the alternatives and perform geology, soil, and infrastructure surveys to make sure that boring out the tunnel is not going to run into unexpected water pipes, abandoned deep wells or undermine the foundations of the buildings. It would quite embarrassing while digging the tunnel to encounter unstable rock and have 1/2 a city block sag down into a hole created by the tunnel.

This is a $60 million full up environmental analysis and preliminary engineering study for what will probably be a $1.25 to $1.5 billion tunnel project before it is done. The study is also expanded from the 2011 FRA report by the decision to keep the B&P tunnel operational by closing and rebuilding it after the new tunnel is operations. The study and the engineering have to be thorough. Of course, this is a NEPA study, so there will be components that are of dubious relevance to a tunnel going deep under a city that won't take that much existing land or have an economic impact on the neighborhoods above the new tunnel.

But the NEPA process in the US these days has to spend a considerable amount of effort dotting the i's and crossing the t's on almost every imaginable aspect, and then doing it all over again, so it can pass muster when challenged in court by NIMBYs and those opposed to it.

BTW, for those interested, the Susquehanna Rail Bridge replacement project study opened a website a few (?) months ago. Both of these NEPA and PE studies are slated to be completed in or by 2017. With the NEC Gateway project likely completing a substantial portion of its environmental and engineering study by 2017 or 2018, there is going to be a collision of critical major NEC infrastructure projects that completed their Tier II FEIS competing for federal funds at that time if a new NEC capital program has not been set up by then. Meanwhile the (north) Portal bridge replacement project is not funded.


----------



## afigg (Nov 7, 2014)

The Draft Preliminary Alternatives Screening Report has been posted to the B&P Tunnel project study website in connection to a public open house meeting held on October 29. Direct link to the 5 MB 61 page PDF report.

In summary, they reviewed a wide range of alternative routes and options, most of which could be rejected pretty quickly. There are many maps in the report of the possible routes for a new tunnel that some may be interested in checking out. The screening narrowed the alternatives down to 4 alternatives:

1. No-Build. Has to be included in these kind of studies, but not a viable long term option as the existing tunnel is continuing to deteriorate.

2. Restore/Rehabilitate Existing B&P Tunnel. I figure they are including this so the scoping and cost estimates for rebuilding the B&P tunnel after the new tunnel is built are included in the study outcome.

3. Great Circle Passenger Tunnel. 10,400 foot long tunnel with a 2% grade. This is the route proposed in the FRA study.

11. Robert Street South tunnel. 9,500 foot long tunnel over a straighter route but present challenges crossing under the Howard Street, Jones Fall Expressway, and CSX bridges and would require a significant re-alignment of the Penn station platforms. 

They did include an Rt. 40 route alternative 5 that would go under Rt. 40 through Baltimore, but this would require an entirely new station and pass north of the downtown core.

As an FYI, The engineering criteria for the tunnel alternatives were:



> 1. Tunnel Separation: Minimum separation between existing rail lines and the proposed tunnel is 30 to 40 feet.
> 2. Tunnel Clearance: Ability to accommodate Plate H clearance for either twin single-track tunnels or a single double-track tunnel.
> 3. Horizontal Curvature: Allows for design speed of 40 miles per hour or greater.
> 4. Vertical Grade: Maximum vertical compensated grade not to exceed 2%.
> ...


----------



## jphjaxfl (Nov 7, 2014)

How many studies have been done of the renovation of the B&P tunnels over the past 30 years? I seem to remember at least 2 others. Why not straigten them out and study that. They are ancient. In Europe they would have rebuilt them years ago.


----------



## NS (Nov 7, 2014)

Exactly! It takes way too long to get anything built in the USA anymore because of endless and unnecessary studies. Enough already. Get to work.


----------



## railiner (Nov 7, 2014)

Acela150 said:


> neroden said:
> 
> 
> > Gah!
> ...


Like the carpenter's say...."measure twice, cut once"......


----------



## KVG_DC (Nov 7, 2014)

We should have a study on that.


----------



## afigg (Nov 20, 2014)

NS said:


> Exactly! It takes way too long to get anything built in the USA anymore because of endless and unnecessary studies. Enough already. Get to work.


Following up on this question, because the previous FRA study was only a high level feasibility study. The new study is a more comprehensive engineering and environmental study to advance to a selected route and preliminary design with a valid cost estimate.

The replacement tunnel will not be going under or through empty fields. It will be going under a city and will involve the taking of property, likely some private residences. It can't be designed nor built without looking at its impact and what might in the way.

The Baltimore Sun has an article on the 2 alternative routes for the tunnel and the impact it might have on the struggling neighborhoods at the proposed entrances and above the routes: Options for B&P tunnel replacement narrow as Amtrak considers future. Starting excerpt:



> State and federal officials narrowed the options for replacing an old Baltimore tunnel that bottlenecks East Coast passenger rail to two, one of which could displace residents of a poor west-side neighborhood already plagued by vacant homes.
> 
> The two proposals, both of which would require extensive tunneling, were shortlisted recently as part of an engineering and environmental review aimed at replacing the nearly 150-year-old Baltimore & Potomac Tunnel, which twists under the city, slowing traffic along Amtrak's Northeast Corridor.


What Baltimore needs is a quality and comprehensive rail transit system, but that is another topic.


----------



## neroden (Nov 20, 2014)

Well, if these studies involve actual geological test bores and stuff like that, that's OK then. If it's just more looking-at-pieces-of-paper, it really does seem redundant.


----------



## afigg (Nov 21, 2014)

neroden said:


> Well, if these studies involve actual geological test bores and stuff like that, that's OK then. If it's just more looking-at-pieces-of-paper, it really does seem redundant.


What do you think they are spending the $60 million on? There are many questions on the route, ROW, soil and geology, existing building and underground infrastructure and design issues that have to be answered before the preliminary design can be completed.

The problem is that according to the NEC Commission Five Year Capital Needs Assessment for FY15-FY19 that was published a couple of months ago is that $60 million is not enough. Quote: "The Assessment identified $130 million in capital needs over the next five years to complete preliminary engineering, environmental review, and design, which could enable construction to begin just outside the five-year window." So Amtrak and MD will need to find another $70 million to advance the tunnel replacement process to final design.


----------



## CHamilton (Nov 24, 2014)

New Amtrak tunnel plan could solve flaws of West Baltimore MARC station


> The plan could also spur efforts to rebuild a community of abandoned rowhouses and unused industrial land
> 
> The previously favored “Great Circle” plan to replace Amtrak’s 19th century tunnel in West Baltimore called for maximizing tunneling to minimize surface disruption.
> Now a new plan calls for a shorter tunnel which would cut a swath through the Midtown-Edmondson neighborhood.


----------



## neroden (Nov 24, 2014)

afigg said:


> neroden said:
> 
> 
> > Well, if these studies involve actual geological test bores and stuff like that, that's OK then. If it's just more looking-at-pieces-of-paper, it really does seem redundant.
> ...


In other studies, I've seen that much spent on paperwork and talking to people, with not a single surveyor or digger involved.


----------



## Anderson (Nov 25, 2014)

CHamilton said:


> New Amtrak tunnel plan could solve flaws of West Baltimore MARC station
> 
> 
> > The plan could also spur efforts to rebuild a community of abandoned rowhouses and unused industrial land
> ...


It frankly sounds, from the discussion on the West Baltimore station, like the use/non-use of that station should not have been a significant consideration (and any plans refocused on working around a new station in the general area and/or just having some trains skip it).


----------



## afigg (Nov 25, 2014)

Anderson said:


> It frankly sounds, from the discussion on the West Baltimore station, like the use/non-use of that station should not have been a significant consideration (and any plans refocused on working around a new station in the general area and/or just having some trains skip it).


The MARC West Baltimore station is a key connection to the planned Baltimore Red Line light rail. Amtrak is not going to stop there (for the foreseeable future), but the MARC Penn Line trains will. If the Red Line project is not killed or delayed for 4 years by Gov.-elect Hogan, then in 8 years or so, people can take MARC to/from DC or New Carrolton to West Baltimore, then take the Red Line LRT to/from downtown Baltimore and the Inner Harbor. Will make rail trips between downtown Baltimore and DC easier and faster.
The plan to rebuild and expand the West Baltimore station with high level platforms are tied to the Red Line project, which is why West Baltimore is the only station left with short low level platforms between WAS and Baltimore Penn Station. Since the plan is going to be to keep the B&P tunnel and refurb/rebuild it after the new tunnel opens*, I don't see how the Robert Street South alternative (#11 in the report) is going to straighten out the tracks at West Baltimore. The station will have to be south of the split to the two tunnels.

* Yes, they are "studying" alternatives to refurb/rebuild the B&P tunnel, but since the new tunnel will have 2 tracks, the B&P tunnel is going to be kept to provide additional (slower) tracks and redundancy. I think that decision is already baked in, but they have to study it to dot the i's, cross the t's, and get a record of decision approving rebuilding the B&P.


----------



## afigg (Jun 21, 2015)

The B&P tunnel replacement study had a Public Open House with Display Boards on June 16. The display boards have been posted to the website, but can only be read by clicking on one display board at a time, which is a bit tedious as these boards take time to load. But there is a lot of info in the display boards.

There has been significant advancements in the requirements and design. And in cost. The big change is that the track requirements have been changed to have 4 tracks through west Baltimore with the renderings of the new tunnel alternatives all showing 4 new tracks. And 4 separate tunnel bores for Alternatives 3 & 11.

The Evaluation Matrix (1 of 2) board shows the trip time reductions for the Acela, Regionals, and MARC for each alternative, depth & lengths of the new tunnels, and that all the alternative routes will have a 2% grade. The trip time savings differ between north and southbound and each alternative. Alt 3A. which would be the least disruptive in terms of property taking in Baltimore, would reduce Acela times by 1:44 SB, 2:08 NB (mm:ss not hours & minutes, of course).

The FRA study looked at 2 new tunnels and came up with a $1.25 billion plus ballpark IIRC. With 4 tracks and 4 tunnels, the estimated capital cost estimates has gone up, although it should be noted that the cost estimates are in YOE 2023 dollars, which in turn is probably based on a baseline 2,5% or 3% construction cost inflation rate. The YOE 2023 estimate for the alternatives range from $3.7 billion to $4.2 billion. And Japan is pushing a DC to Baltimore maglev with a sheer fantasy price tag of circa $10 billion and somehow got Gov, Hogan (R-MD) all excited about the idea. Oh well.

Edit: to help those wondering what the Alternatives & the possible tunnel routes are, here is the link to the Alternatives Carried Forward from Preliminary Screening board.


----------



## neroden (Jun 22, 2015)

You know, honestly, I can think of much more effective places to spend 4 billion dollars. How many of the regional high-sped rail corridor programs could we fund with $4 billion? How many commuter lines?


----------



## Anderson (Jun 22, 2015)

Three comments:
(1) The maglev is SHINY! and therefore getting lots of attention, especially since it is being pitched as SHINY! and FREE!...which means that of _course_ the Governor is going to get excited about it.

(2) The replacement tunnels are in the laundry list of major, needed NEC work to both bolster capacity for Amtrak, MARC, etc. and to avoid major failures. Let's not forget that those tunnels are marching towards 150 years old. This project isn't as urgent as the Hudson tunnels, but

(3) With 2 being noted, I do agree that there's a value to spreading the money around. Thinking about it, ideally you'd either match NEC funding with "elsewhere" funding (corridors, HSR, and LD stuff alike) or roughly match all three pots in some manner.


----------



## WoodyinNYC (Jun 22, 2015)

Anderson said:


> Three comments:
> 
> (1) The maglev is SHINY! and therefore getting lots of attention, especially since it is being pitched as SHINY! and FREE!...which means that of _course_ the Governor is going to get excited about it.
> 
> ...


(3) Yes, and this is a problem.

I don't see how anyone can honestly expect Congress to invest $100 Billion or so making the NEC a true HSR route. Those who argue to drop the rest of Amtrak and concentrate everything on the NEC are playing a trick: Without spending spread around across the country, there will be NO passenger rail spending at all, so good-bye to all of Amtrak, NEC included.

But let's focus on a few things here. If the new tunnels will cost roughly $4 Billion, that's not huge money for a country what spends more than $6 Trillion a year local, state, and federal levels.

$4,000,000,000

$6,000,000,000,000

Not even 1/1000 of the yearly total.

So spread the $4 Billion over 3 or 4 years and it's almost painless. LOL.

​But then, $4 Billion for the Baltimore tunnels; another $4 Billion elsewhere on the NEC during the same period; another $4 Billion in the Midwest (South of the Lake could drink up half of that, Phase Two of St Louis-Chicago and a few more BREATE projects can mop up the remainder; $1 Billion for Phase Two Cascades route, $3 Billion for California routes (HSR or regular Amtrak); $1 Billion Long Bridge and D.C.-Richmond; $1 Billion on SEHSR Richmond-Raleigh; $2 Billion for new (and more) equipment to replace the aging coaches etc. 

Spreading the honey around that way gets us to about $20 Billion over 3 or 4 years. 

The crazies would go crazy.


----------



## neroden (Jun 22, 2015)

WoodyinNYC said:


> Let's not forget that those tunnels are marching towards 150 years old.


What the hell is wrong with them? Most tunnels last forever. Were these tunnels just built really, really badly? I doubt it.
The Hudson tunnels were flooded with salt water. Plus, they're iron tubes buried in mud. That's a real problem.

The B&P tunnels are carved out of stone. Most tunnels of this sort are *extremely durable*. And they were relined in the 1980s, with drainage improved.

Sure, they're slow and form a delay point on the NEC, but they're *just fine* and will last another 100 years with standard maintenance. Is anyone really claiming they'll collapse?

So spend 4 billion to increase capacity on the NEC and save a couple of minutes? Nice to have, but not a high priority.

Do something useful with that money: spend it on buying the NY Central and Pennsy mainlines from NS and CSX so we can start making some real progress on NY-Chicago passenger rail.



> I don't see how anyone can honestly expect Congress to invest $100 Billion or so making the NEC a true HSR route. Those who argue to drop the rest of Amtrak and concentrate everything on the NEC are playing a trick: Without spending spread around across the country, there will be NO passenger rail spending at all, so good-bye to all of Amtrak, NEC included.


It is a trick, yes. Heck, I live 230 miles from the NEC and I would not be interested in supporting endless billions for miniscule travel time improvements on the NEC and nothing for the rest of the country. Empire Corridor? Keystone Corridor? Virginia Corridors?


----------



## west point (Jun 22, 2015)

Not arguing about money but:

Stonework 150 years ago -- the mortar used then had too much lime and lime and water don't mix well. Consequently there is a lot of water entering the tunnel fro above. the tunnel floor does not drain well and there has already been several times one track has had to be taken out of service with long delays and cancellations. If a water main in Baltimore should break above the tunnel such as happened in the Howard street tunnel might be long shutdown.


----------



## bmorechris (Jun 22, 2015)

The B&P tunnels are not deep bore solid rock tunnels, the image below is for the Pressman St Alignment, a few blocks removed from the existing tunnels, but largely the same type of profile. A lot of cut and cover, mixed face tunnel, and only about 25% rock tunnel (with only a max of 30 ft of rock overhead mind you), but not exactly deep and stable. The walls are masonry, and they lowered the floor and underpinned the walls in 1916 (not an easy task today, let alone 100 years ago!). The PRR wanted to replace the tunnels in the *1930s* before NEC electrification because of the leaks, but couldn't afford to. Water leaks in, and in the winter freezes further damaging the tunnel structure. There are utilities and other transit tunnels in close proximity to the B&P which doesn't help things, especially leaky piping and sewer lines. If you have ever ridden through the tunnels, you can see how rough looking they are from the inside. I would guess that the chances of a catastrophic failure of the B&P tunnels is a heck of a lot more likely than a catastrophic failure for the North River tubes. Also, since its a single bore, all it takes is a single failure to stop all traffic between Baltimore and DC for a long time, there isn't any quick easy fix. Even if you lose 1 of the North River tubes, you could still maintain service through one of them. Bottom line is that the B&P tunnels need to be replaced


----------



## afigg (Jun 22, 2015)

neroden said:


> Sure, they're slow and form a delay point on the NEC, but they're *just fine* and will last another 100 years with standard maintenance. Is anyone really claiming they'll collapse?
> 
> So spend 4 billion to increase capacity on the NEC and save a couple of minutes? Nice to have, but not a high priority.


To add to the replies, yes, that is what the engineers are saying about the B&P tunnels. You must have forgotten about the emergency repair job on the eroding trackbed last December (or around then) where 1 track was closed at a time leaving the NEC as a 1 track railroad west of BAL. Amtrak minimized the schedule delays to its trains, but MARC took it in the neck.
The 2011 FRA report on the Baltimore Railroad Network stated this in the summary on the existing B&P tunnel:



> Concerning the B&P Tunnel, there is no realistic No-Build Scenario. The physical condition of the tunnel requires that it be rebuilt or replaced within the next 10-20 years. Rebuilding would contradict the fundamentals of engineering economy. The tunnels basic geometry was substandard when it was completed and is irremediable by any reasonable amount of rehabilitation.


The B&P tunnel is one of the highest priority concerns on the NEC along with the Hudson River tunnels and the Portal bridge replacement in that one of them could fail shutting down or crippling the southern NEC for years. Hence the $60 million replacement study.
In the FRA report and in the previous presentations on replacing the B&P tunnel, the concept was a new 2 track tunnel with a possible rebuild of the B&P tunnel to a 1 or 2 track tunnel (after traffic could be moved to the new tunnels). That has changed with 4 new tracks & tunnels for each alternatives. With 4 new tracks, it would make no sense to rebuild the B&P tunnel. I think those conducting the study have internally reached the conclusion that it is not worth it to rebuild the B&P tunnel and keep it in service. The study still has to look at rebuilding the B&P tunnels, but I suspect they are only doing so to document the reasons for shutting the B&P tunnel down and repurposing it (if that is feasible).

In the design boards, all 4 tunnels would be built for plate H clearances. One way to trim costs a bit would be to build 2 tunnels, probably on the northern side to double stack clearances and make the other 2 tunnels smaller with Amtrak/MARC clearances. With the double stack clearances, they are obviously looking to have CSX contribute to the project in return for a route for container trains through Baltimore that would be available to CSX outside of the peak traffic periods. CSX would have to increase clearances from Baltimore to south of Philly, but that would be up to CSX to tackle.


----------



## afigg (Jun 22, 2015)

Double post. please delete..


----------



## west point (Jun 22, 2015)

The 2 North River tunnels, Portal bridge, and B & P tunnels all have an estimated life left of 10 - 20 years. Any bet that one of the 4 will fail sooner ?


----------



## OBS (Jun 22, 2015)

Portal Bridge will be first to go (fail) is my prediction...


----------



## WoodyinNYC (Jun 22, 2015)

OBS said:


> Portal Bridge will be first to go (fail) is my prediction...


It's the cheapest one to fix, only about a Billion, so it should get done first. As soon as Congress thinks it is important.


----------



## jis (Jun 23, 2015)

Actually the Sawtooth Bridge will probably fail,before the Portal Bridge, considering the amount of toothpicks and baling wires that are already used to keep it from falling over.


----------



## WoodyinNYC (Jun 23, 2015)

jis said:


> Actually the Sawtooth Bridge will probably fail,before the Portal Bridge, considering the amount of toothpicks and baling wires that are already used to keep it from falling over.


Is the replacement ready? iiuc For the new Portal Bridge, the Environmental studies are done and the construction plans are ready. All it needs to go is a Billion spread over a couple of years.

But I'm OK with a new Sawtooth Bridge, for less than a Billion, right?

The new Baltimore tunnel, the new Hudson tunnel, and a new Susquehanna bridge are nowhere near ready with environmental studies, construction plans, or the multi Billions needed. But in a sane world (a parallel universe, so to speak), Congress could easily find money to do a bunch of small < Billion projects while preparations continue on the multi-Billion biggies.

It's really discouraging that the fast section in New Jersey is running late and over budget (another thread). Makes it harder to convince Congress to start spending on the NEC's line-up of smaller projects.


----------



## jis (Jun 23, 2015)

AFAICT the current plan for the Sawtooth Bridge is to keep patching it within what can be hidden in the regular maintenance budget until one of two things happens:

1. It just falls down (hopefully not taking a train with it) - and then it can be fixed using whatever emergency funding may become available or not.

2. Money is found for the quadruple tracking between CP Swift and CP Dock, which will include complete redoing of that entire segment anyway.


----------



## afigg (Sep 11, 2015)

There was a local community association meeting presentation on September 1, 2015 with a new lengthy set of viewgraphs (52 pages total) with renderings of the alternative routes and locations for the tunnel entrance and exit complexes. The file links are currently on the front page of the B&P Tunnel study website.

The presentation is split into 2 PDF files, both fairly large at 5 to 6 MB. Here are direct links: Part 1 w Slides 1 to 30 and Part 2 w slides 31 to 52. The renderings of the alternative tunnel entrances with 4 tracks and 4 tunnels show that some of them will require taking of a fair amount of property and land in west Baltimore. One of the alternatives is a complete rebuild in place of the existing B&P tunnel with a cut and cover digout of the B&P tunnel along its entire length to increase vertical clearance by 5'. But that would be extremely disruptive to operations, if not requiring the southern end of the NEC to shut down for extended periods.

So, anyone want to figure out which alternative is going to be selected? which may not be the one you would pick.


----------



## west point (Sep 11, 2015)

This poster's choice would be 3C 1st then 3 A. Reasons.

Those routes seem to allow for the gentlest curves allowing for the fastest train speeds in and out of Baltimore station. It would allow for the fastest speeds also at west Baltimore station. Another good point would be that new crossovers at the west end of the station are constructed for higher speeds.

If the crossovers are able to be placed far enough west then that gives space for the platforms to be lengthened to the 1200 feet listed in the FRA NEC preliminary EIS. East side platform length increases might require another Lincoln tunnel.


----------



## afigg (Oct 21, 2015)

There were a round of public hearings in October to present the results of the Alternative analysis for the tunnel replacement. The Final Alternative Analysis report has been posted to the website here. The 111 page report is broken into 2 files, but it is one report. With a lot of renderings, diagrams, and data on the Alternatives. The public comments section is at the end of the report if you want to read what the public reaction is.

This a significant step because now that they down selected the Alternatives to Alternative 3 Options A, B, and C. Alternative 11 has been dropped. Hopefully they have or can get enough funding to carry this study through the EIS process.


----------



## west point (Oct 21, 2015)

The Amtrak FY 2016 funds requests shows $20.0 M for final design and choice for the B&P tunnels.2 Also some $4.0 million repairs to the present B&P.


----------



## neroden (Oct 22, 2015)

Interesting. So the B&P tunnels were fundamentally defective in design when they were originally built. Yeech. They were "just built really, really badly".

There are a lot of tunnels which are a lot older which are in perfectly good condition. Clearly a bad design.

It's interesting to learn that most of the "tunnels" are not rock tunnels, but cut and cover. The classic way to fix those is, um, to take the cover off and put a new cover on. It's been done. It works. It's not even that expensive.

I suppose it's considered to be too disruptive; since the tunnels are considered to be on a bad route anyway, I guess they figure improve the route while they're at it..

It's a little weird that they were built with such a bad design. There are older hard rock tunnels in good condition; there are older cut-and-cover tunnels in good condition. Deep bore (not cut and cover) earth tunnels were avoided whenever possible until the 1990s, after the trouble with Brunel's tunnel under the Thames -- but even Brunel's tunnel is still functioning just fine. Who built the B&P tunnel? If it's really as bad off as people are saying, the original builders were clearly incompetent.

Maybe they just had better engineers in the UK than in the US in 1873.


----------



## jis (Oct 22, 2015)

To be fair though Brunel's tunnel in East London has been completely rebuilt in the last two decades, eventually making it a part of the London Overground route which runs through it now. One critical difference between it and the B&P Tunnel though is that the East London Tunnel is a shield bored tunnel with brick and mortar lining designed specifically to operate under water - indeed the shield technique was invented for building this tunnel, whereas the B&P tunnel is a cut and cover tunnel basically running under various streets, and ancient leaky water supply and sewage conduits.

OTOH Severn Tunnel stands as testimony to excellence of British engineering. It will finally get some additional TLC as part of the electrification of the route to Wales through it. And even that tunnel has serious leakage issues, but none that threatens the integrity of the tunnel. It does throw an additional challenge to installing catenary in it. More likely the technology used will be shielded beams instead of catenary to keep it protected from seeping water.

I wonder why you say deep bore tunnels were avoided until the 1990s. Are you referring to the inherent higher cost of building deep bore tunnels perhaps? AFAIR almost all of London's tube system, which is deep bore tubes in clay, was built way before 1990. Actually in London, they seemed to prefer going deep bore over cut and cover, once they perfected the technique for building those. And even more oddly, most of the deep bore tubes follow the alignment of major thoroughfares above.


----------



## Andrew (Oct 22, 2015)

Isn't there a plan to have one of the four tubes cross under another tube? If so, why would this be the case?


----------



## jis (Oct 22, 2015)

Andrew said:


> Isn't there a plan to have one of the four tubes cross under another tube? If so, why would this be the case?


In the B&P tunnel replacement? Not that I am aware of. What four tubes?


----------



## A Voice (Oct 22, 2015)

Are there any updated cost estimates for each option buried somewhere in the Alternative Analysis Report (or found elsewhere)? I've skimmed the document, but didn't see any.


----------



## afigg (Oct 22, 2015)

jis said:


> Andrew said:
> 
> 
> > Isn't there a plan to have one of the four tubes cross under another tube? If so, why would this be the case?
> ...


Alternatives 3 and 11 have 4 bored single track tunnels. They dropped the concept of a larger diameter bored tunnel for 2 tracks because of constraints of the proposed route and depth profile. And, yes, the diagrams in the Alternative report show one tunnel ducking under the others in the various options.

Quoting from the executive summary in the report:



> Alternative 3 and Alternative 11 would replace the B&P Tunnel in a new location. Consideration of a double track tunnel was eliminated from both alternatives because of its much larger tunnel diameter (about 50 percent larger compared to a single‐track tunnel), the tight profile constraints posed by the design criteria, portal elevations, and intermediate underground obstructions. The resulting configuration is using four single‐track tunnels for all alignment options for Alternatives 3 and 11. Horizontal excavation (boring) is proposed for these alternatives to minimize surface impacts. Four tracks in four separate bores of equal size would support train capacity requirements, service flexibility for conflict‐free operations, design within physical constraints, and constructability. The tunnel vertical clearances for both Alternative 3 and Alternative 11 would also accommodate double stack container freight.
> 
> Alternative 3 and Alternative 11 each incorporate a subterranean grade‐separated track crossing or “duck under” approach to aligning the four individual tunnel bores to minimize conflicts between turning trains and increase operational efficiency, while correctly aligning tracks with those being planned at Penn Station. Each option includes ventilation plants at permanent portals and at an intermediate location along the tunnel, and emergency egresses. Outside approaches to portals for each would consist of open trench transitioning to cut‐and‐cover to the portal entrance. Each provides universal interlocking to the NEC mainline and avoids the Metro Subway tunnel while servicing the West Baltimore MARC Station. All of these options would relocate a pier of the CSX Baltimore & Ohio Bridge in Jones Falls Valley. All Alternative 3 and Alternative 11 options also consider disposition of the existing tunnel.


The price tag of the B&P tunnel replacement is going up with the decision to expand the scope of the project to 4 new tracks in 4 bored tunnels. The price range for Alternative 3 Options A, B, C is from $3.7 billion to $4.2 billion. Alt 3 Option A has the smallest impact on the taking of property and land and the least expensive at $3.7 billion at the tradeoff of less in travel time savings for the Acela, Regionals, and MARC.


----------



## afigg (Oct 22, 2015)

A Voice said:


> Are there any updated cost estimates for each option buried somewhere in the Alternative Analysis Report (or found elsewhere)? I've skimmed the document, but didn't see any.


Yes, on page 72 in the Evaluation table comparing the Alternatives and Options on pages 71 to 75. The table shows the projected impact on the community in displaced businesses, residences, and amount of land taken on page 74. There are political considerations here, even for West Baltimore, so Alternative 3 Options B taking 48 residential buildings (that is buildings, not # of residences), 10 businesses, 6 community facilities is going to run into a lot of resistance if that is selected. Which is why the Option chosen is likely to be Alternative 3 Option A or C.


----------



## jis (Oct 22, 2015)

Ah, I need to catch up with the latest I guess. If we could somehow get their website to run at anything like reasonable speed for downloading those enormous files that would be nice


----------



## jis (Oct 23, 2015)

So I see that in all new build alternatives they are crossing the west/southbound slow track (track 4) over from the the south middle position (between tracks 1 and 2) to the northmost position (normal track 4 position) via a duck under. That is a very good idea since it eliminates a significant conflict between west/south bound MARC trains and all Amtrak trains.

Basically 1,2,3,4 coming in from Washington gets flipped to 1,4,2,3 at the station, 1 being closest to the station head house.


----------



## neroden (Oct 23, 2015)

jis said:


> I wonder why you say deep bore tunnels were avoided until the 1990s.


I'm strictly referring to deep bores in "bad soil". In London, they were happy to bore through the solid clays and rocks north of the river, but they assiduously avoided the mud south of the river until pressure-balance TBMs were developed.


----------



## neroden (Oct 23, 2015)

Hmm. The diveunder sounds like a good arrangement... seems like all trains going north of Baltimore Penn will have to be on the express tracks south of Baltimore Penn, however.


----------



## west point (Oct 23, 2015)

Express tracks will often be used but close examination of the west end of the station shows puzzle switches installed. Express will speed up trains that do not have to change tracks to / from BAL station. Other trains will have to slow to transverse the interlocking. This appears to mirror the practice of new tracks in Europe that allows MAS as soon as dispatched from station and higher speeds to the station. Don't stand too close to the west end of the BAL platforms while trains moving faster.


----------



## jis (Dec 24, 2015)

The Draft EIS was issued last week (week of 14 Dec 2015).

Relevant diagrams are easily found here (PDF).


----------



## WoodyinNYC (Dec 24, 2015)

jis said:


> The Draft EIS was issued last week (week of 14 Dec 2015).
> 
> Relevant diagrams are easily found here (PDF).


Interesting. Alternatives 3B, at a capital cost of $4 Billion, would gain 2 1/2 minutes of trip time savings, similar to Alternative 3C at $4.2 Billion, while Alternative 3A at $3.7 Billion, would save a shade less than 2 minutes.

But Alt 3B would take 150 on-street parking spaces, while Alt 3A would take none at all, and Alt 3C only 40. That's probably the deciding factor right there. I mean, what's more important, saving 30 seconds for ~6 million riders today and many more in the future, or MY (taxpayer-subsidized free) PARKING PLACE!


----------



## afigg (Apr 7, 2016)

The tunnel replacement study has advanced to settling on a revised Alternative 3B route. 

First, there is new material and updates to the design alternatives that will be presented at April public meetings. Alternative 3C has been eliminated. Both 3A and 3B have undergone revisions with 3B undergoing a lot of changes to reduce the impact on property taking with a shifted route for the tunnels.

Slide comparing 3A and 3B original vs revised with the property impact and projected trip time reductions.

Even before the second April public meeting, the FRA has issued a news release that the project team has decided on revised Alternative B. Which I find somewhat odd as typically the final alternative is not publicly selected until the study process has tediously ground through all the public meetings and getting comments from umpteen rounds of meetings. US DOT/FRA press release: FRA Releases Revised Proposal to Rebuild B&P Tunnel After Receiving Input From Baltimore Community. Excerpt:



> WASHINGTON – The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) today presented a revised proposal to replace the Civil War-era Baltimore and Potomac (B&P) Tunnel based on feedback provided to the FRA by Baltimore residents during three public hearings in February. In December 2015, the FRA presented three options for replacing the tunnel in a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). Based on feedback during three recent meetings in February and 19 public hearings, open houses, project and community association meetings during the last two years, two options have fallen (Alternative 3A and Alternative 3C) from consideration, and FRA will make several significant changes to Alternative 3B in the Final EIS.
> ....
> The FRA will continue to work with the public over the next several months to mitigate the effects of the project. The Final EIS, scheduled to be published later this year, will include this coordination and the resulting mitigation plans and environmental commitments.


Since the FRA is the lead on the EIS, one would venture that the FRA can fast track the official Record Of Decision. So if there is a ROD in early to mid-2017, where does the $4 billion come from the build the new Baltimore tunnels?


----------



## WoodyinNYC (Apr 7, 2016)

Thanks for this news!



afigg said:


> The tunnel replacement study has advanced to settling on a revised Alternative 3B route.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Well, it gives me a titillation of an almost pornographic degree :giggle: to conjecture that the FRA has an answer for you! And they're hurrying the Record of Decision and everything else because they want somehow to make irrevocable spending commitments before January 20, 2017.

Maybe I'd better lie down for a few minutes and collect myself.


----------



## Thirdrail7 (Apr 16, 2016)

4 billion to save roughly 2 minutes. Nice.

Well, at least it is something that really needs to occur. Those tunnels are really on their last legs, for sure.


----------



## west point (Apr 17, 2016)

Save 2 minutes ? And if the old one closed would save 2 hours ?


----------



## edjbox (Apr 19, 2016)

Heard from the Baltimore Sun that the Howard Street Tunnel will be modified in the coming years in order to fit double-stack trains. Cost is expected to be only $425 million, a lot cheaper compared to the previous estimate of $1-3 billion.

So now the B&P Tunnel shouldn't need to be built to handle double stack trains, and hopefully this will lower the cost of that project.


----------



## west point (Apr 19, 2016)

Not build to double stack clearances ? Save me a penny now pay you a dollar later. Howard street tunnel expansion is very problematic. One factor is when the new tunnel bores are built the old tunnel may be useable for MARC train storage. There is already a lack of storage tracks near the BAL station with some station tracks now used for storage. . If MARC does increase service once the 4 MT are built to WASH storage will become unavailable operationally due to planned additional Amtrak service.


----------



## afigg (Apr 19, 2016)

edjbox said:


> Heard from the Baltimore Sun that the Howard Street Tunnel will be modified in the coming years in order to fit double-stack trains. Cost is expected to be only $425 million, a lot cheaper compared to the previous estimate of $1-3 billion.
> 
> So now the B&P Tunnel shouldn't need to be built to handle double stack trains, and hopefully this will lower the cost of that project.


Here is the Baltimore Sun article on the proposal to rebuild the CSX Howard Street tunnel to increase the clearance: Maryland seeks $155 million from feds to clear freight bottleneck beneath Baltimore. Thanks for posting about the article, I was not aware of the CSX initiative. Excerpts:



> The state and the railroad CSX Transportation have agreed to a plan to remove a bottleneck for freight shipping beneath the streets of Baltimore and have requested $155 million in federal funding to help pay for the project they say will boost the Maryland economy.
> 
> State and railroad officials have pledged to contribute $270 million toward expanding the 1.7-mile Howard Street Tunnel. The additional clearance would allow shipping containers from the port of Baltimore, for the first time, to be stacked two-high atop trains, a far more efficient way to move them.
> 
> ...


If CSX gets the FASTLANE grant, or gets the funding assembled via other sources in the next several years, that could affect the planning for the B&P tunnel replacement. Since the proposed alternative is to bore out 4 separate tunnels, one option for future capacity protection would be to bore out just 1 or 2 tunnels for Plate H doublestack clearances and the others for smaller clearances. Or drop any plans for Plate H entirely. How much that would reduce the cost? Not a clue.

However, CSX rebuilding the Howard Street Tunnel locks in the tunnel for continued freight train use for many decades to come. Which means downtown Baltimore remains at risk of a derailment and tunnel fire. And that the tunnel could not be repurposed for use by the light rail line which has been suggested and considered in the past. With Governor Hogan in charge, not going to give any thought to that angle.


----------



## edjbox (Apr 19, 2016)

Right now especially after the new Howard Street Tunnel Double Stack Project coming up it doesn't really make sense for double stack clearance.

First, there's no connection to the existing CSX lines at either end (in particular the northern end due to the elevation).

Second, the lesser known but equally important Union Tunnel to the east of Penn Station may not be double stack compatible anyways. And it looks like that project is a lower priority than either the B&P Tunnel, or any of the bridge replacement or additional track projects in Maryland and frankly on the rest of the NEC as well. Also, while one of the Union Tunnels (single track one) is as old as the B&P Tunnel, the other double track one is a lot newer, having been built in 1934 as part of the PRR electrification project.


----------



## CSXfoamer1997 (Apr 19, 2016)

Wouldn't you think this project is needed so Superliners can fit through the B&P Tunnel?


----------



## edjbox (Apr 19, 2016)

Guys please it's not that simple......it's not just one factor here.....


----------



## WoodyinNYC (Apr 19, 2016)

CSXfoamer1997 said:


> Wouldn't you think this project is needed so Superliners can fit through the B&P Tunnel?


No. Nobody thinks that. Nobody.

To take the Superliners where? As explained about 1,000 times on this site, you can't get a Superliner into NY Penn Station.

To fix that, you could dig out under each track to make it lower. (You can't raise the ceiling over the tracks because you have Madison Square Garden and a large office building atop that.) While redigging Penn Station, and working carefully between support columns for the massive structures above, at least one track and one or two platforms would be out of order. And how many Billions for that project? Nah, single level cars work pretty well across the Eastern system. No need to rebuild tens of Billions of tunnels and bridges and stations to run bi-levels.

But if you remain unconvinced, use the search feature top right, enter "Superliners" "Penn Station" "NYP" and find informative comments by others far more informed than I am.

Meanwhile, plan on re-excavating tunnels in D.C., and in Philly, and of course under the Hudson. Oh, and that concrete box they built to protect the Gateway Tunnels-into-Penn Station, that wasn't built for Superliners either. So rebuild that before it's ever been used? How you gonna rebuild that? It was built specifically because it will soon be topped by high-rise office buildings.

We have many dreams of how to spend the Billions we can't get from Congress, but this notion to rebuild the NEC for Superliners is absolutely the last and the least worthy of them all.

Now, don't try this again or I'll tell you how I really feel about it. :giggle:

btw I'm sure I asked basically the same question years ago, and got an even more abrupt reply. LOL.


----------



## MattW (Apr 19, 2016)

I don't see how reducing the clearance would appreciably affect the cost, which at that point becomes more of a "why not?" kind of decision. In aviation, the most useless things are the altitude above you, the runway behind you, and the fuel you left back at the airport. An analog of one of those in railroading is the clearance you didn't plan for.


----------



## jis (Apr 19, 2016)

That sure is a weird analogy or simile, but whatever


----------



## afigg (Apr 19, 2016)

MattW said:


> I don't see how reducing the clearance would appreciably affect the cost, which at that point becomes more of a "why not?" kind of decision. In aviation, the most useless things are the altitude above you, the runway behind you, and the fuel you left back at the airport. An analog of one of those in railroading is the clearance you didn't plan for.


Um, not sure what the aviation references mean in this case as the width and length of the runway in front of you matter a lot when you land.

As for the clearance and diameter of the tunnel, it obviously affects construction costs. A larger bore tunnel might have to go deeper to avoid obstructions and maintain structural support of the buildings above it. Plate H clearance is 20'2" on the center axis. Digging up the 2011 FRA report on the Baltimore tunnels and the options to replace the B&P tunnel, there is a tunnel size diagram which has a minimum interior diameter of 25.8" needed for a single track Plate H clearance bored tunnel. So guess estimate a 27' diameter bore as a minimum needed for Plate H for room for the concrete lining.

If the tunnel is sized for Plate F with 17' clearance, let's use a 24' diameter for the tunnel bore estimate. Apply some basic math for volume of a cylinder and compute relative volumes. The 27' diameter tunnel has a 26.5% larger volume than the 24' diameter tunnel. That is 26.5% more rock and dirt to dig out & move and proportionally more concrete and rebar for the lining of the tunnel. And a larger air volume in the tunnels for the air plant to handle. So, yea, there will be a cost difference in building tunnels for Plate H clearance versus Plate F. Or plate C at 15'6" which is the current clearance for the B&P tunnels. There will be costs in the height of the access portals to the new tunnels and various clearances of the NEC leading to the new tunnels.

With a $4 billion preliminary cost estimate, there will be pressure to cut costs. Opting for Plate F clearance which would still be sufficient for single level freight traffic would be one way to do that. I don't know is how much it would save. But it would cut the total cost by something measurable.


----------



## Andrew (Apr 23, 2016)

afigg said:


> The tunnel replacement study has advanced to settling on a revised Alternative 3B route.
> 
> First, there is new material and updates to the design alternatives that will be presented at April public meetings. Alternative 3C has been eliminated. Both 3A and 3B have undergone revisions with 3B undergoing a lot of changes to reduce the impact on property taking with a shifted route for the tunnels.
> 
> ...


Good question. The recently approved FAST Act permits New Starts funding to be allocated to transportation projects that benefit not just mass transit

(such as the Second Avenue Subway) but also projects that benefit both Mass Transit and passenger rail (such as Gateway).

I wonder if a 50--50 split will eventually be approved, such as with what recently happened with the Gateway Development Corporation (see http://www.panynj.gov/press-room/press-item.cfm?headLine_id=2388)

Perhaps Amtrak and the USDOT will split the costs 50--50 with MARC and the state of Maryland/ the city of Baltimore. Also, if Congress allows Amtrak to keep their NEC operating profits on the NEC, this should eventually help, as well. (Also, the new funding structure is being worked through in Congress--see: http://www.federalbriefing.com):

FY'17 APPROPRIATIONS
On April 19, the Senate THUD (US DOT) Appropriations Subcommittee voted to approve its version of the FY'17 transportation funding bill. The full Senate Appropriations Committee will consider the bill on Thursday.

Although the text of the bill has not yet been released, some details are known.


Highway ($44B) and Transit ($9.7B) Formula Funds - same as FAST Act authorized levels
FTA Capital Improvement Grants (New Starts/Small Starts/Core Capacity) - $2.3B - vs $2.177B in FY'16
TIGER Grants - $525M - vs $500M in FY'16
FAA Airport Improvement Program (AIP) - $3.35B - same as FY'16
Amtrak Northeast Corridor (NEC) Account - $345M; Amtrak National Network Account - $1.07B - the FAST Act authorized $474M and $1.02B respectively
FAST Act Rail Discretionary programs - $50M for consolidated rail infrastructure grants, $20M for state of good repair grants, $15M for restoration and enhancement grants - none received funding in FY'16


----------



## CraigDK (Sep 29, 2016)

3 new facts sheets are now up on the B & P Tunnel Project website.

I would assume they are being released as a prelude to the the release of the Final Environmental Impact Statement that is supposed to be released sometime soon.


----------



## Thirdrail7 (Sep 30, 2016)

Then, we'll study it some more.


----------



## DSS&A (Oct 1, 2016)

Hi, I read information on the website that the new tunnels would allow train speeds to double over the train speed through the existing tunnels. This statement leads to my question of what is the current speed through the existing tunnels, which I didn't see on the website information?


----------



## CraigDK (Oct 1, 2016)

The speeds of the current tunnel are in there somewhere. Off the top of my I think the curve in the current tunnel restricts train speed to 30 mph (But I am not sure if that limit is for the whole length of the tunnel). If you look at some of the tables or slides where they compare the various alternates before they where eliminated you can see the speed of the current tunnel in Alternatives 1 & 2.


----------



## CraigDK (Oct 1, 2016)

Thirdrail7 said:


> Then, we'll study it some more.


Unless someone really wants to try and justify building something completely different than what is now being proposed or the current plan is allowed to languish with out funding for another decade or so (possible) I doubt you will see another study anytime soon.

I would like to think (but I won't hold my breathe) that once the Record of Decision is published in 2017, funding will appear to at least complete the design work for the project.


----------



## CraigDK (Nov 25, 2016)

The Final EIS has been released on the B&P Tunnel Project website. Community information meetings are scheduled on the 8th and 10th of December, additional information and details on the meetings can be found here. They haven't released any presentation slides for those meetings yet.

Probably of the most interest here are the following sections of the Final EIS:

(Beware the website was not working very fast or smooth when I downloaded and read these)

Chapter 2 Purpose and Need

Chapter 3 Alternatives Development

Chapter 4 Preferred Alternative

Appendix J Plan and Profile Drawings

Several hundred pages and probably more than enough drawings and figures to bore almost anyone reading it. Alternative 3B is the selected alternative and most of the document focuses on it. Current cost estimate (assuming completion in 2025) is $4.52B (found in Chapter 4).

The next step is the Record of Decision, then looking for funding to finish the final design (preliminary design should be complete now) and then start construction.


----------



## Andrew (Nov 26, 2016)

The cost estimate includes cost escalation, etc.

When would construction likely begin? Also, could New Starts Grants and CMAQ funds likely contribute to the funding for the new four Baltimore Tunnels?


----------



## CraigDK (Nov 28, 2016)

Andrew said:


> The cost estimate includes cost escalation, etc.
> 
> When would construction likely begin? Also, could New Starts Grants and CMAQ funds likely contribute to the funding for the new four Baltimore Tunnels?


Yes they include cost escalation, that is typical practice (and they are a significant portion of the estimate).

Construction would start after funding is found and the final engineering work is done. If they are basing the estimate off of a 2025 completion date and the necessity to line up funding first (that can't officially start until the ROD is recorded early next year) and complete final engineering (that is not yet funded) I would guess late 2018 to 2019 at the earliest assuming *everything perfectly* lines up.

As to where the funding _might_ come from, I really don't know. I haven't heard any discussion that gives a clear indication to those plans. Amtrak is the owner of the tunnel so they (and the federal government) will certainly cover a portion by various sources. Since MARC is a significant user of the tunnel (and I believe want to expand service, but are constrained by the tunnel) there is the potential that MARC and the State of Maryland _may_ contribute as well. The use of the tunnels by commuter trains may make the project eligible to apply for funding that otherwise wouldn't be available...


----------



## west point (Nov 28, 2016)

Actually MARC is as well constrained by the tracks BAL - WASH. There are sections of 2 MT, 3MT and some 4 MT. For MARC to increase service there is the need for MARC locals to operate on the outside tracks of a 4 track main. There is a long range plan for the NEC to be 4 mains PHL - WASH. Just get the funding. MARC would be better off getting Amtrak ( if possible ) to fund the B&P replacements and MARC As a user to add multi tracks Perryville - BAL - WASH.


----------



## Thirdrail7 (Nov 28, 2016)

DSS&A said:


> Hi, I read information on the website that the new tunnels would allow train speeds to double over the train speed through the existing tunnels. This statement leads to my question of what is the current speed through the existing tunnels, which I didn't see on the website information?


It is 30mph for the entire length of the B&P tunnel.



west point said:


> Actually MARC is as well constrained by the tracks BAL - WASH. There are sections of 2 MT, 3MT and some 4 MT. For MARC to increase service there is the need for MARC locals to operate on the outside tracks of a 4 track main. There is a long range plan for the NEC to be 4 mains PHL - WASH. Just get the funding. MARC would be better off getting Amtrak ( if possible ) to fund the B&P replacements and MARC As a user to add multi tracks Perryville - BAL - WASH.


The MARC locals generally operate on the outside tracks now. You don't need additional tracks for them. You need the additional tracks (and a reconfiguration of BWI but that is another story) for the express trains to have a good shot through the MARCs. Once the expresses are off the outside tracks, MARC will have additional slots.

The tunnels and Baltimore represent a much bigger bottleneck.


----------



## west point (Nov 30, 2016)

Amtrak often interferes with MARC. Here is an example from today

Train 421 (8:10 am Baltimore departure) is operating 15 minutes late departing due to Amtrak interference


----------



## Thirdrail7 (Nov 30, 2016)

west point said:


> Amtrak often interferes with MARC. Here is an example from today
> 
> Train 421 (8:10 am Baltimore departure) is operating 15 minutes late departing due to Amtrak interference


That was a pretty generic and useless statement. What was the interference? Where was the interference?


----------



## MARC Rider (Dec 1, 2016)

Thirdrail7 said:


> west point said:
> 
> 
> > Amtrak often interferes with MARC. Here is an example from today
> ...


Actually, I've seen a number of cases where they've held MARC 409 (6:13 AM out of Baltimore) because of a slightly late arrival of Northeast Regional #67 (6:10 AM out of Baltimore.)


----------



## Thirdrail7 (Dec 1, 2016)

MARC Rider said:


> Thirdrail7 said:
> 
> 
> > west point said:
> ...



Um..ok...so they held a local that would typically have to cross the entire plant (perhaps at 15mph depending on what track it is coming from) for 3 minutes in Baltimore to follow a train that will make less stops. That statement seems to bolster my previous post:



Thirdrail7 said:


> *The tunnels and Baltimore represent a much bigger bottleneck.*


----------



## west point (Dec 2, 2016)

Here is another delay today for two MARC trains due to no 4 track mains.





MARC Service Alert <[email protected]>

To

MTA Maryland Alerts Subscriber

Today at 2:00 PM

Train 422 is approaching Bowie with a 25 to 30 minute delay. Train 433 is expected to depart Baltimore with a 25 minute delay , following 2 Amtrak trains.


----------



## Thirdrail7 (Dec 3, 2016)

west point said:


> Here is another delay today for two MARC trains due to no 4 track mains.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



And how do you know these delays were caused by not having 4 mains? What was the cause of the delay? All you've done now is blather about tweets without mentioning root cause. What is the root cause of the delays and how do you know track configuration plays a part? As for 433 departing Baltimore, once again it proves what I said a few times now....Baltimore is a bigger bottleneck.


----------



## Karl1459 (Mar 31, 2017)

Apparently the FRA has chosen a preferred alternative (3B). http://www.baltimoresun.com/bs-md-ci-bp-tunnel-study-20170331-story.html, http://www.bptunnel.com/, http://www.bptunnel.com/index.php/environmental-studies/record-of-decision-rod


----------



## CraigDK (Mar 31, 2017)

No surprise they went with 3B, I figured it would be another month though before they released the ROD though...

They must have put this out in the last couple of hours, I didn't see it when I checked earlier today (its one I have been following fairly close). Now time to read through the ROD...


----------



## Ziv (Mar 31, 2017)

Sorry if this is basic info, but I was trying to find out how much the trip times would be helped by the new tunnel(s). I saw this:

Route Segment - Max Speed Passenger Service - Max Speed Freight Service

Union Tunnels, north of Baltimore Penn Station - 45 mph - 30 mph

Existing B&P Tunnel, south of Baltimore Penn Station - 30 mph - 20 mph

South of existing B&P Tunnel to Baltimore Washington International (BWI) Rail Station - 110 mph - 50 mph or less

And then I saw that the MARC trains actually take less time to cover most of the segments than the Acelas.

Trip Direction - MARC Commuter1 - Amtrak Regional/Intercity2 - Acela3

Southbound - 5 min, 48 sec - 6 min, 20 sec - 5 min, 52 sec
Northbound (No stop at BWI) - N/A - 6 min, 5 sec - 5 min, 56 sec
Northbound (Stop at BWI) - 6 min, 18 sec - 7 min, 16 sec - 7 min, 1 sec

I believe that time saved directly will be just one of the benefits, but just how much time will be saved? A minute or two?
Will the freight traffic be sped up too? Will that yield real world time savings for Amtrak?


----------



## CraigDK (Mar 31, 2017)

Chapter 3 of the FEIS (p.29) has a chart showing the travel time reductions for the new tunnels, under Alt 3B (refined). Page 32 has travel times between Baltimore Penn and the Gwynns Falls bridge. Over that segment the current travel times are nearly identical, and the alternative provides time savings for Amtrak and MARC trains, though more for Amtrak. I am assuming that does not account for a stop in West Baltimore. Freight travel times, I don't recall seeing them. However I suppose they will be slightly reduced. Overall I would assume the time savings listed would be fairly close to what is given.


----------



## WoodyinNYC (Apr 1, 2017)

CraigDK said:


> Chapter 3 of the FEIS (p.29) has a chart showing the travel time reductions for the new tunnels, under Alt 3B (refined). Page 32 has travel times between Baltimore Penn and the Gwynns Falls bridge. ...


Executive summary, for those playing at home:

Alternate Plan 3 B (refined) [that means, improved since first offered as one of the choices]

Time Savings

Acela 2:31 [two minutes, 31 seconds]

Regional 2:32

MARC 1:49

Estimated cost: $4 Billion

+++++++++++++++++++++

So 2 1/2 minutes it will be, if they stick to the Record of Decision.

(At first, Alt 3 B required losing 150 on-street (free) parking spaces in the affected neighborhood. I thought that number would kill the plan. While in the make-over, the number of spaces being taken drops to 85, that will remain a problem with car-owning members of the public.  )


----------



## CraigDK (Apr 1, 2017)

WoodyinNYC said:


> (At first, Alt 3 B required losing 150 on-street (free) parking spaces in the affected neighborhood. I thought that number would kill the plan. While in the make-over, the number of spaces being taken drops to 85, that will remain a problem with car-owning members of the public.  )


Its really not that many, and I would suspect most of the cars parked in that area parked would be owned by those residents that will be displaced anyway.


----------



## CraigDK (Apr 1, 2017)

WoodyinNYC said:


> Executive summary, for those playing at home:
> 
> Alternate Plan 3 B (refined) [that means, improved since first offered as one of the choices]
> 
> ...


Now that the Record of Decision has been made, the only way I see anything else being built involves doing nothing for at least a decade or two first, at that point it would make sense to see if another plan is better suited at that time.

Alt 3B has similar advantages to 3C in travel time and improvements to the West Baltimore Station without impacting as many of the historical buildings. Alt 3A avoided those impacts but would have additional impacts on local business (with less benefits to the corridor).

Now the for the real trick, advancing the project beyond this point. Final engineering and property acquisitions could _potential_ be covered in the next couple of years without looking for dedicated funding. That is just speculation on my part, but it would continue to advance the project while looking for a way to pay for the rest of it.


----------



## Ziv (Apr 1, 2017)

Saving over 2 minutes isn't chump change. Considering the age of the existing tunnel, I hope they get this funded and the work started soon. I rode through the tunnel just once on a Regional, years ago, and it seemed like we were crawling along.


----------



## CraigDK (Apr 1, 2017)

Ziv said:


> Saving over 2 minutes isn't chump change. Considering the age of the existing tunnel, I hope they get this funded and the work started soon. I rode through the tunnel just once on a Regional, years ago, and it seemed like we were crawling along.


While the time savings is the benefit that the public will most likely notice (it is a slow crawl through there), I would suggest that the important benefits are in the resilience and capacity improvements.


----------



## Ryan (Apr 1, 2017)

More important than the trip times, is the the fact that you're trading a 2 track tunnel that requires constant maintenance to a modern 4 track structure.


----------



## Karl1459 (Apr 1, 2017)

What has not been discussed that I have seen is the actual dollars historically and estimated in the future to keep the existing tunnels functional (except the buzzwords... expensive... increasing... etc). At some point in time there should be a return on investment which should vacillate various entities to fund the project. Remember Amtrak now has the above the rail profit on the NEC to spend on infrastructure... this could allow revenue bonds. MARC and NS should also be players especially if NS were to desire to move freight traffic on that route and if MARC were to want to increase frequency of trains.


----------



## CraigDK (Apr 1, 2017)

Karl1459 said:


> What has not been discussed that I have seen is the actual dollars historically and estimated in the future to keep the existing tunnels functional (except the buzzwords... expensive... increasing... etc). At some point in time there should be a return on investment which should vacillate various entities to fund the project. Remember Amtrak now has the above the rail profit on the NEC to spend on infrastructure... this could allow revenue bonds. MARC and NS should also be players especially if NS were to desire to move freight traffic on that route and if MARC were to want to increase frequency of trains.


I am sure that existing maintenance cost are known as well as a reasonably estimate of them going forward. I am not sure the ROI calculation will be what gets this project done, I am just hoping it is not a failure of the current tunnel. As far as using the above the rail profit, a project like this would probably eat that for a considerable length of time....

NS has no motivation to pay, at this point in time they are satisfied running there single out and back day (night?) local through the existing tunnel. MARC on the other hand does.


----------



## west point (Apr 1, 2017)

MARC has hinted that they expect to park several (?) train sets in the old tunnels. That seems highly unlikely in the long run.


----------



## WoodyinNYC (Apr 1, 2017)

CraigDK said:


> Ziv said:
> 
> 
> > Saving over 2 minutes isn't chump change.
> ...


Could we (could I?, no, feeling ultra lazy LOL) get a document with the goals, whatever it is, say 2:15 run time for Avelia service NYC-D.C., and the estimated Billions needed to reach that time goal.

The current schedule has a 2:46 run on a couple of Acela departures, but most claim 2:53 end to end.

Take the current time, 2 hrs 53 min, subtract the goal, say 2 hrs 15 min, gives us the savings needed to make that goal, or 38 minutes.

I can't remember the last estimate for this segment, but I'm too lazy tonight to search for it. So, I'll estimate $38 Billion in upgrades needed, for a cost of a Billion per minute.

Now where we gonna get 38 minutes of time saved?

The new Portal Bridge between Newark and NYC is ready to go, needing about a $1.5 Billion investment for 1 minute of time saved. Then adding tracks thru the marshes between Newark and the Hudson Tunnel entrance, another $1 Billion and another 1 minute. Optimists say the new Gateway Tunnels could save 2 minutes, with a preliminary estimate of $24 Billion. A new Susquehanna Bridge could save 1 minute and cost $2 Billion. Constant tension catenary, signaling, undercutting the tracks etc will cost more Billions.

Should this list include the new Avelia equipment or only fixed infrastructure? I'm stumbling a bit here without more work to get better figures, and I can't get a good number for cost per minute saved. But by the seat of my pants, the estimated $4 Billion for 2 min 30 sec from the new Baltimore tunnel does not seem out of line for helping to reach 38 minutes saved to meet a 2 hr 15 min running time goal.

That's before giving value to replacing the 100-year-old tunnel before it collapses, and the added capacity allowing many more Amtrak and MARC trains in the future. A project giving good value for the $4 Billion.


----------



## CraigDK (Apr 2, 2017)

WoodyinNYC said:


> CraigDK said:
> 
> 
> > Ziv said:
> ...


I believe the specs (for the Acela II) trainsets have a certain schedule they need to be able to meet on the current route. Certainly one could figure out the overall cost per minutes saved (from the various projects mentioned) but I will offer two thoughts. First, it would probably be better to discuss it in another thread (there may already be one on the subject buried around here) so as to keep this thread on-topic. Second (and more importantly) any time savings from replacing the current tunnel should really be consider as a fringe benefit of the project, otherwise someone will claim that since it cost ~$2B to save a minute its not worth doing.


----------



## Andrew (Apr 2, 2017)

I wonder when construction will actually begin.


----------



## west point (Apr 2, 2017)

Taking some of these projects as minute saving projects is definitely the wrong approach. From NYP south the following projects are all needed to prevent a complete or partial shutdown of the NEC.

1. Gateway tunnels - One North river tunnel down 75% traffic reduction with probably every other weekend no traffic.

2. Portal bridge -- Old bridge fails complete shutdown south of NYP. Saw tooth bridge same

3. Susquehanna bridge --- Complete disruption PHL <> BAL.

4. Other 2 bridges ------- Same as 3

6. B&P tunnel collapse --- Shut down route from BAL to BWI

North of NYP

7. Walk bridge ------ Shut down some where New Haven <> New Rochelle

8. Other bridges Same Bridges east of new haven -- Any fails then shutdown.

Now there are many NEC projects that will reduce enroute times but they all seem to be much less expensive than these essential projects to protect the NEC. Any failure of listed above would probably INCREASE enroute time by at least 1 - 3 hours


----------



## jis (Apr 3, 2017)

Shutting down one Hudson Tunnel reduces throughput by 66% not 75%.

There is no Sawmill Bridge. It is Sawtooth Bridge, and while replacing it is a good idea, it is unlikely to just collapse one day. Its maintenance cost just keeps going up.


----------



## west point (Apr 3, 2017)

jis said:


> Shutting down one Hudson Tunnel reduces throughput by 66% not 75%.
> 
> /quote]
> 
> Amtrak claims 75%.


----------



## jis (Apr 4, 2017)

west point said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> > Shutting down one Hudson Tunnel reduces throughput by 66% not 75%.
> ...


If Amtrak thinks 8 slots instead of 24 per hour is 75% then that might explain why their accounting is so screwed up too.  
Or they may just be providing more dramatic slightly alternate facts for better effect.


----------



## brianpmcdonnell17 (Apr 4, 2017)

jis said:


> west point said:
> 
> 
> > jis said:
> ...


In single track operation, the tunnels only have a capacity of 6 per hour compared to 24 per hour when both are open. That is reduction of 75%. Where did you read that single-tracking capacity is 8 per hour?
http://www.nj.com/traffic/index.ssf/2015/06/the_nightmare_that_awaits_nj_if_a_hudson_rail_tunnel_is_forced_to_close.html


----------



## jis (Apr 4, 2017)

They operate upto 8 per hour in each direction today. Roughly 20 mins in each direction and 10 mins to switch direction.

This has been mentioned several times during the Gateway RCLC meetings that I have been present at. Of course if they wish to give themselves more elbow room by artificially stating a lower capacity that is fine by me too.


----------



## A Voice (Apr 4, 2017)

jis said:


> They operate upto 8 per hour in each direction today. Roughly 20 mins in each direction and 10 mins to switch direction.
> 
> This has been mentioned several times during the Gateway RCLC meetings that I have been present at. Of course if they wish to give themselves more elbow room by artificially stating a lower capacity that is fine by me too.


So, in a very serious emergency - such as one of the tunnels out of service for an extended period - they could get a higher total capacity by not switching directions as often, right? By reversing only once per hour you (if I'm not mistaken) get approximately twenty trains in each direction every two hours (as opposed to sixteen), which is a significant difference in such a capacity constrained environment. That would be a major inconvenience for Amtrak, requiring a near complete redo of schedules, but probably workable if you absolutely had to (but if a train misses its 'window'...). The effect on commuter operations would be horrendous, but in the event of a shutdown, that would happen anyway.


----------



## CraigDK (Apr 4, 2017)

Just to bring this back to the B & P tunnel.

http://www.bizjournals.com/baltimore/news/2017/04/03/preferred-option-for-b-p-tunnel-4-52-billion-of.html

The last paragraph, in a nutshell. Amtrak will spend at least some of its general capital budget in an effort to continue to move the project forward while everyone tries to figure out a way to fully fund it.


----------



## WoodyinNYC (Apr 4, 2017)

CraigDK said:


> ... Amtrak will spend at least some of its general capital budget in an effort to continue to move the project forward while everyone tries to figure out a way to fully fund it.


That's the fit and proper thing to do. Of course there's a thousand other places to invest the puny capital budget. But the risk of a tunnels catastrophe is too great to ignore.

And then the capacity additions and the time savings will be sweet. I'm not seeing another State of Good Repair project that offers a one-shot bonus 2 1/2 time-saving minutes for the cost. That's 2 1/2 minutes out of all the _Avelias' and Regionals'_ timetables. And it's 2 1/2 minutes out of the _Silver Meteor, Silver Star, Palmetto, Crescent, Cardinal, and Carolinian_ as well as the Amtrak Virginia trains _Lynchburger, Roanoker, Norfolk, Newport News, and Richmond_.


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Apr 5, 2017)

Actually, I would guess the solution would be the elimination of reverse peak trains, and 8 trains an hour off peak.


----------



## WoodyinNYC (Apr 5, 2017)

Green Maned Lion said:


> Actually, I would guess the solution would be the elimination of reverse peak trains, and 8 trains an hour off peak.


Yet another cannibalistic 'solution' -- cutting service til there isn't any left. LOL.

I assume you're kidding.


----------



## Thirdrail7 (Nov 14, 2017)

Well, it looks like Hunter Harrison strikes again!



edjbox said:


> Heard from the Baltimore Sun that the Howard Street Tunnel will be modified in the coming years in order to fit double-stack trains. Cost is expected to be only $425 million, a lot cheaper compared to the previous estimate of $1-3 billion.
> 
> *So now the B&P Tunnel shouldn't need to be built to handle double stack trains, and hopefully this will lower the cost of that project.*





afigg said:


> If CSX gets the FASTLANE grant, or gets the funding assembled via other sources in the next several years, that could affect the planning for the B&P tunnel replacement. Since the proposed alternative is to bore out 4 separate tunnels, one option for future capacity protection would be to bore out just 1 or 2 tunnels for Plate H doublestack clearances and the others for smaller clearances. Or drop any plans for Plate H entirely. How much that would reduce the cost? Not a clue.
> 
> However, CSX rebuilding the Howard Street Tunnel locks in the tunnel for continued freight train use for many decades to come. Which means downtown Baltimore remains at risk of a derailment and tunnel fire. And that the tunnel could not be repurposed for use by the light rail line which has been suggested and considered in the past. With Governor Hogan in charge, not going to give any thought to that angle.



For now, he has pulled the plug on the Howard Street tunnel project. Please allow a brief

CSX Pulls Support for Baltimore Tunnel Renovation
Port Dealt Blow in Efforts to Win Neopanamax Business



> *Federal and state lawmakers from Maryland expressed frustration at a decision from CSX Corp. to withdraw its support to fund the renovation of the Howard Street Tunnel near the Port of Baltimore, dealing another blow to the long-awaited project that would allow double-stack trains.*
> 
> *The 122-year-old tunnel is too short in certain spots to handle the intermodal trains unless they’re single stacked, particularly in the westbound direction.*
> 
> *The total cost of about $425 million would’ve been split between CSX, the Maryland Department of Transportation and the U.S. Department of Transportation. Upon the news, Maryland withdrew its request for a $155 million federal grant to fund the project.*



Additionally:



> *With his arrival, Harrison brought his Precision Scheduled Railroad concept, significantly revamping the intermodal network by eliminating certain underutilized lanes and emphasizing other high-demand corridors. In his cost-conscious efforts, the Howard Street Tunnel project became expendable.*
> 
> *“Given the operating changes that CSX’s new leadership team has made over the last several months, and upon an updated evaluation, we determined that the Howard Street Tunnel project proposal no longer justifies the level of investment required from CSX and our public partners at this time,” CSX spokesman Christopher Smith said. “Intermodal is an important part of CSX’s business and we are committed to supporting the freight rail needs of our customers and the Port of Baltimore through frequent, reliable, on-dock service.”*
> 
> *Maryland’s congressional delegation, however, sent a letter to the railroad expressing disappointment with the decision.**“We seek to understand how a project that has been a top priority for CSX, multiple local, state and federal representatives and the business community for many years — to the exclusion of other local needs and projects — is suddenly no longer of importance to CSX,” the delegation stated in the Nov. 1 letter.*



I'm not sure if this is a ploy to extract more money from the federal government and the state of Maryland, but we'll have to take this seriously for now.

1) How will this effect the proposed B&P tunnel? While very little freight moves through it currently, there may be a need to accommodate future service by another operator.

2) Upon hearing that CSX withdrew support, Maryland withdrew its funding request. Can they still request the funding and use it to assist the Amtrak tunnel projects?

If anyone ever doubts the uncooperative nature of CSX, they need to look no further than this plan (which was split three ways) that may sabotage their OWN future for years to come.


----------

