# PANYNJ holding public hearings for freight tunnel



## jerichowhiskey (Jan 21, 2015)

Tri-State Transportation Campaign



> Come Out to Support Cross Hudson Rail Freight
> 
> by Vincent Pellecchia
> This Friday, January 23, the Port Authority of New York & New Jersey will be hosting the first of seven public hearings to solicit public feedback on ten alternatives to move freight across the New York Harbor.
> ...


I will see if I am able to attend the meeting on 1/29. Should be interesting, hopefully.


----------



## jis (Jan 21, 2015)

Isn't this the Nadler Tunnel that no known freight railroad wants to use?


----------



## jerichowhiskey (Jan 21, 2015)

I don't know what the stance are from the freight railroads so I won't comment about it other than that I would assume they want to shift truck shipments onto their railroad into NYC.

It is intriguing to read this idea has been around since the 1890's and has been bobbing in and out of the water since then. Reading the editorial arguments from ten years ago against the tunnel, it is ironic to read that its success ie. bringing in 32 trains per day is actually a reason against it as they believe trucking will just spur on from Queens/Brooklyn. Though nowadays the NY & Atlantic Railway looks like they are getting more and more carloads especially with the Brookhaven Rail Terminal built a few years ago.


----------



## jis (Jan 21, 2015)

Actually your assumption would be wrong. There isn't a winning business model, specially if you to pay premium access charge to use the tunnel, for that. Actually they want to get the transhipment point away from New York area congestion and let trucks handle the rest. This has been the case for quite a time, and is further accelerated by the advent of inter-modal containerized transport.


----------



## railiner (Jan 22, 2015)

Before they commit to spending that fortune to build that tunnel, I think they should first build an intermodal trans-shipment facility in some location in eastern Nassau County.

Then they could run TOFC or COFC trains from Selkirk down the Hudson line at night, then over the Hell Gate Bridge to reach Long Island. At the terminal, trucks would haul the containers all over the entirety of Long Island, from NYC to Suffolk.

If this plan is successful, then they could think about building that grandiose tunnel project to handle double-stack trains

Thanks for posting the info....I am thinking of attending the one at Queens, also....I have never attended one of these hearings.

Should be 'an education', not just for the subject matter, but to see how it's conducted, and to see and hear what people have to say about it...


----------



## jerichowhiskey (Jan 22, 2015)

jis said:


> Actually your assumption would be wrong. There isn't a winning business model, specially if you to pay premium access charge to use the tunnel, for that. Actually they want to get the transhipment point away from New York area congestion and let trucks handle the rest. This has been the case for quite a time, and is further accelerated by the advent of inter-modal containerized transport.


Well, it certainly would not be much different to the charge trucks have to pay at the toll. I would imagine the railroads would just do the same when charging their customers. I am not sure what your issue is. The whole point is to change where trucks are used which is to radiate from the city itself rather than congesting the tunnels and bridges in and out of NYC.


----------



## jis (Jan 22, 2015)

jerichowhiskey said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> > Actually your assumption would be wrong. There isn't a winning business model, specially if you to pay premium access charge to use the tunnel, for that. Actually they want to get the transhipment point away from New York area congestion and let trucks handle the rest. This has been the case for quite a time, and is further accelerated by the advent of inter-modal containerized transport.
> ...


It is not my issue. It is what both CSX and NS via their jointly owned Conrail Shared Asset has been saying for a while. Just assuming is not particularly useful.

As I said I would love to see the tunnel built, but it is not going to be built assuming that the freight railroads will use it if it is built. They will unfortunately sit around until they get the inevitable eventual tax payer funded incetive to use it, if they do so at all. That is my speculation given the attitude that I have seen coming from them.


----------



## jerichowhiskey (Jan 22, 2015)

Unfortunately for you, I cannot seem to find any sources stating such sentiment.


----------



## jis (Jan 22, 2015)

Actually, I don't much care either way, so it is neither unfortunate nor fortunate for me.


----------



## jerichowhiskey (Jan 22, 2015)

railiner said:


> Before they commit to spending that fortune to build that tunnel, I think they should first build an intermodal trans-shipment facility in some location in eastern Nassau County.
> 
> Then they could run TOFC or COFC trains from Selkirk down the Hudson line at night, then over the Hell Gate Bridge to reach Long Island. At the terminal, trucks would haul the containers all over the entirety of Long Island, from NYC to Suffolk.
> 
> ...


Well, there is already the Brookhaven Rail Terminal built recently in Suffolk county that handles transloading. However, the main reason for the lack of rail use in the first place is that detour they would have to make in upstate NY. So we'd just mire ourselves in a chicken or the egg situation that may well be irrelevant. Currently, anyone who choose to use rail is to save cost at the expense of time their goods take to get in/out of NYC.


----------



## Bob Dylan (Jan 22, 2015)

jis said:


> Actually, I don't much care either way, so it is neither unfortunate nor fortunate for me.


Said as you enjoy the Sunshine and Warmth in Low Tax Florida!


----------



## jis (Jan 22, 2015)

jimhudson said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> > Actually, I don't much care either way, so it is neither unfortunate nor fortunate for me.
> ...


Something like that :unsure:


----------



## railiner (Jan 23, 2015)

jerichowhiskey said:


> railiner said:
> 
> 
> > Before they commit to spending that fortune to build that tunnel, I think they should first build an intermodal trans-shipment facility in some location in eastern Nassau County.
> ...


I am not familiar with that Brookhaven terminal....how many trains/cars move there daily?

Even though going from the New Jersey ports and terminal's to Long Island via Selkirk would be a lengthy detour, I would think that they could put together at Selkirk at least one full nightly train consisting of traffic from 'the west' to make it viable. Surely there are scads of trucks making that trip, currently....


----------



## Anderson (Jan 23, 2015)

Ok, a serious question for someone not entirely familiar with the track situation around the area: If this were built, would it be feasible to re-route some commuter services around that belt line, creating an emergency bypass for NJT to connect to the New York City subway network? The belt line this would connect to also runs right by a major station on the Atlantic Ave. line for the LIRR. This line was suggested for an around-Manhattan subway line from Hunts Point down into Brooklyn and Queens, but if this tunnel were built you've got some interesting commuter rail options that open up (and those options _don't_ require specialized equipment and separation from freight ops, which the subways would).


----------



## Skunky (Jan 23, 2015)

The tracks at 65th street are the LIRR bay ridge branch. It runs across Brooklyn to the lirr main line at Jamaica station. It runs parallel to one subway line in bay ridge and crosses a bunch of others.


----------



## Anderson (Jan 23, 2015)

I'd forgotten that the LIRR owned those branches and that the freight operator was just leasing...which really does make the option of something at least vaguely plausible on paper (especially since it would cross about a dozen subways with even more lines). You wouldn't want to re-route Amtrak in there, but I do wonder how much demand there would be for such a "bypass" route (i.e. how many folks are traveling into NYP to travel onwards who would be inclined to route around the city center).


----------



## afigg (Jan 23, 2015)

I wondered what the rail tunnel might cost and found this in the EIS executive summary: "The projected capital costs of the Build Alternatives, including yard improvements and expansion, trackwork, equipment, and infrastructure, range from $100 to $600 million for the Waterborne Alternatives and $7 to $11 billion for the Rail Tunnel Alternatives."

Since this is the Port Authority, start with $11 billion for the cross-harbor rail tunnel and add cost overruns. Even for the relatively deep pockets* of Port Authority of NYNJ, that is a hefty price tag. Going to be difficult to begin to justify the cost if the rail tunnel is only for freight trains. Even if some TBD arrangement of LIRR and NJT commuter trains use the tunnel to justify the staggering price tag, this gigaproject would take funds away from other regional projects.

edit: fixed wording


----------



## jis (Jan 23, 2015)

afigg said:


> I wondered what the rail tunnel might cost and found this in the EIS executive summary: "The projected capital costs of the Build Alternatives, including yard improvements and expansion, trackwork, equipment, and infrastructure, range from $100 to $600 million for the Waterborne Alternatives and $7 to $11 billion for the Rail Tunnel Alternatives."
> 
> Since this is the Port Authority, start with $11 billion for the cross-harbor rail tunnel and add cost overruns. Even for the relatively deep pockets* of Port Authority of NYNJ, that is a hefty price tag. Got to be difficult to begin to justify the cost if the rail tunnel is only for freight trains. Even for some TBD arrangement of LIRR and NJT commuter trains using the tunnel, this gigaproject would take funds away from other regional projects.


Considering that the same pot of money in the deep pockets of PANYNJ, NY and NJ State and the Federal coffers, is also supposed to fund Gateway and other NEC improvements, and the fact that this project will never qualify for FRA or FTA new start grants since it will not meet the utility threshold, which even Gateway barely manages to meet, this project actually moving forward would be a bit of a disaster for things like Gateway and NEC, which is much more desirable, in my most humble opinion.

If there were unlimited money available I would love to see this built. However, given the financial realities I think the waterborne option is the way to go on this one.


----------



## jerichowhiskey (Jan 25, 2015)

I never heard PANYNJ included in funding talks for Gateway so that's news to me. Regardless, this is the agency that spent billions of dollars for WTC and are willing to spend more for their PATH Newark extension. I think funding is the last concern they have.


----------



## jis (Jan 25, 2015)

jerichowhiskey said:


> I never heard PANYNJ included in funding talks for Gateway so that's news to me. Regardless, this is the agency that spent billions of dollars for WTC and are willing to spend more for their PATH Newark extension. I think funding is the last concern they have.


We don't know for sure, but typically for large projects involving the Hudson River within the territory of PANYNJ the two Governors try to tap their personal piggy-bank at PANYNJ rather than inconvenience the taxpayers. New York even tried to expand the PANYNJ area so that they could get part of Tappan Zee funded from PANYNJ, but that did not pan out since the NJ side objected. On the whole using PANYNJ monies, specially those collected in the form of exorbitant tolls on the Hudson crossings, is supposed to be part of their charter, so nothing unusual about that.


----------



## railiner (Jan 25, 2015)

jis said:


> jerichowhiskey said:
> 
> 
> > I never heard PANYNJ included in funding talks for Gateway so that's news to me. Regardless, this is the agency that spent billions of dollars for WTC and are willing to spend more for their PATH Newark extension. I think funding is the last concern they have.
> ...


Indeed....using the funds for something like those rail tunnels (passenger or freight) across the Hudson, makes a lot more sense than funding irrelevant projects like the World Trade Center, but that's a whole 'nother (sore) subject.....


----------



## afigg (Jan 25, 2015)

jerichowhiskey said:


> I never heard PANYNJ included in funding talks for Gateway so that's news to me. Regardless, this is the agency that spent billions of dollars for WTC and are willing to spend more for their PATH Newark extension. I think funding is the last concern they have.


The PANYNJ was going to provide about $3 billion for ARC, so it is reasonable to expect that it will contribute funds to the NEC Gateway project. I think it is expected that PANYNJ will be contributing to the NEC Gateway, how much is subject to negotiation and lots of politics.
The $3 billion that PANYNJ was going to contribute to ARC was, of course, a large part of the reason that Christie killed ARC so he could raid the funds for NJ road projects without having to raise NJ taxes which in turn would hamper his greater political ambitions.


----------



## railiner (Jan 26, 2015)

I don't believe the PA funds should be diverted for NJ road projects any more than they should be spent on the Tappan Zee Bridge. They should be strictly limited to bridges and tunnels that cross the NJ-NY state line....and that includes PATH and any other rail tunnels. Let each state spend their own money on roads and bridges wholly within their respective states...

And I would like the PA to lose their contracts to operate the area airports as well, next time they are up for renewal.

The PA is too large an entity, as it is, and too powerful, with little oversight by the states that 'own' it...


----------



## jis (Jan 26, 2015)

railiner said:


> The PA is too large an entity, as it is, and too powerful, with little oversight by the states that 'own' it...


Oh there is lots of oversight, but unfortunately of the wrong kind. After all the entire top management is appointed by the two Governors. How much more oversight do you want? The question is who is going to oversight the less than respectable Governors?


----------

