# Gateway Project/NYP capacity Improvement



## jis

Following are my notes jotted down in a hurry during the session on the Gateway project at TransAction 2013 in Atlantic City. The main event was the presentation by Drew Galloway of Amtrak, which is what my notes focus on.

Notes from the Session on the Gateway Project from TransAction 2013

This session was chaired by Marty Robins, and the presenters were

Drew Galloway, Amtrak

Janet Chernetz, TSTC

Marty Robins introduced Drew as one of the people who helped plan the original ARC concept. Afterall Drew did work at NJT once upon a time

Notes from Drew's presentation:

1. The NEC Region would be the 6th largest nation in the world if it were a separate country.

2. It has 17% of the US population and 20% of the US GDP

3. NEC spine has about 2000 commuter trains per day, 140 Amtrak trains and 60 freight trains (including 18KTon Coal trains between Perryville and Bayview) per day.

4. Amtrak carries about half the net passenger miles on the NEC on its 140 trains.

5. Net train miles doubles since 1976, Intercity by 45%, Commuter by 282%

6. Penn Station passenger trips went from 200K to 640K

7. The most intense mainline operation in the US is on the High Line and North River Tunnels carrying 225 train miles/ track mile per day.

8. Two of three Amtrak NEC trips have one leg in NYP.

9. Single tracking through North Rivers tunnels on parts of weekends will stay indefinitely.

10. Drew showed the track layout for the New York to Newark segment. It shows four tracks all the way. The 4 track layout between Swift and Newark looks suspiciously similar to one I had submitted in one of the RCLC feedbacks and discussed at length with Tom Schulze's staff.

11. NYPS (New York Penn South also sometimes referred to as Block 780) is presented as a two phase affair. The first phase has 8 track station with 4 tracks capable of being connected out to the east. The second phases has 6 tracks at a lower level capable of all being extended east to connect to Sunnyside or elsewhere. Connectivity from west to the lower level is through a pair of TBM bored tunnels under 31st St. The lower level station cavern is also to be TBM bored and then expanded under the upper level. No conflicts eastward at the planned depth. I got the sense that this would primarily be of use for future high speed use.

12. Train movement capacity is expected to be between 1800 to 2000 per day depending on how much of Gateway is built out. Compare this with about 1200 today, and about 600 in 1976.

13. Portal design work is complete. Just need to find $900 million to build it.

14 Moynihan Phase I at $250 million is funded, phase II at $600 million is currently unfunded.

15. The Hudson Yard real estate proposal is going to add more office space in that area than there is in the entire downtown area of

Minneapolis and St. paul.

16. Funding is in place and design is in place for tunnel box to be built under Hudson Yard to protect approach from Hudson Tunnels to the upper level of Penn Station.

17. The new tunnels will have access to the existing Penn Station (via U and I Ladder) and to both upper and lower levels of NYPS directly. The existing tunnels will only have access to the existing Penn Station and the upper level of NYPS.

18. As for where the tunnels go beyond Penn Station to the east, no decisions at present and the decision will be guided by the NEC Future PEIS.

19. Slot allocation will be determined by the NEC Commission and not exclusively by Amtrak or LIRR.

20. The new tunnels have exactly the same clearance as the existing tunnels, so no Superliners (in answer to a question from the audience).

21. Subway line 7 to Secaucus was mentioned by both Drew and Marty, Drew as a means for potentially taking some pressure off of Penn Station, Marty as a good idea to offload pressure from PABT. The latter actually surprised me pleasantly. I was not expecting it. Actually it was Marty that broached the subject of 7 to Secaucus.


----------



## cpamtfan

Interesting stuff right there. I wonder why the tunnels won't be any bigger at all, even marginally, to allow more side and head clearance..


----------



## jis

Trying to get additional head clearance apparently costs hundreds of millions of extra dollars since the tunnel has then to go deeper under the river requiring it to be longer to stay within the vertical gradient profile etc. Basically it is unnecessary since there is never going to be clearance to bring anything larger than what runs into Penn Station today without spending another many hundreds of millions of dollars of money that realistically should be spent on more worthwhile causes than increasing tunnel size.

As it stands what will come into Penn Station through the new tunnels is already set in stone with the design of the Tunnel Box under Hudson Yard having been finalized. This will be constructed as part of the Hudson Yard real estate development basically preserving the tunnel space to enter Penn Station from the new Hudson Tunnels. Their height and position is already cast in design and will soon be in concrete within the next couple of years.


----------



## afigg

jis said:


> Following are my notes jotted down in a hurry during the session on the Gateway project at TransAction 2013 in Atlantic City. The main event was the presentation by Drew Galloway of Amtrak, which is what my notes focus on.
> Notes from the Session on the Gateway Project from TransAction 2013


Thanks for posting your notes. There is little specific information available on-line that I am aware about the current concepts for the Gateway project.



jis said:


> 6. Penn Station passenger trips went from 200K to 640K


The growth in total passenger volume at NYP since the 1970s has been remarkable. Add to that the considerable increase in NYC subway daily passenger numbers over the last 15 years. Project the growth out 10 years and NYP could get overwhelmed on a daily basis. NYC subway system as well. The problem is the sluggish response of the national and regional political systems to do something about it.



jis said:


> 11. NYPS (New York Penn South also sometimes referred to as Block 780) is presented as a two phase affair. The first phase has 8 track station with 4 tracks capable of being connected out to the east. The second phases has 6 tracks at a lower level capable of all being extended east to connect to Sunnyside or elsewhere. Connectivity from west to the lower level is through a pair of TBM bored tunnels under 31st St. The lower level station cavern is also to be TBM bored and then expanded under the upper level. No conflicts eastward at the planned depth. I got the sense that this would primarily be of use for future high speed use.


Seriously expensive expansion plans. If they build the 2 Hudson River tunnels to the current track level, sounds like they would have to build stub tunnels at the same time for connections to a future lower level. To get pass or under the subway lines, existing utility pipes, and current building supports,I would expect the lower level would have to be pretty deep - as the ARC "Macy's basement" station was to be. New large bank of high speed elevators at NYP to the "crypt" level?



jis said:


> 15. The Hudson Yard real estate proposal is going to add more office space in that area than there is in the entire downtown area ofMinneapolis and St. Paul.


So Minneapolis and St. Paul are now a unit of office space? 



jis said:


> 16. Funding is in place and design is in place for tunnel box to be built under Hudson Yard to protect approach from Hudson Tunnels to the upper level of Penn Station.


There is at least some good funding news in this.



jis said:


> 20. The new tunnels have exactly the same clearance as the existing tunnels, so no Superliners (in answer to a question from the audience).


That is going to stir up some controversy in the railfan forums who want Superliner or tall bi-levels on the NEC someday. I understand the engineering, tunnel and cost constraints though.


----------



## Anderson

With the NY subway system and NYP, I think part of the problem is that the subsidy pools available aren't infinite. Granted, I do agree that additional platform space and passenger space are needed (even NYP's Club Acela probably needs to be eventually expanded somehow), but...well, even if the system is never expected to turn a profit, you _do_ have to fund expansions out of a pool of money without slamming the tax base too hard (lest people start having to move back out of NYC).


----------



## Guest

Can tracks be built at the current depth of Penn Station's other tracks without razing the city block?


----------



## jis

Guest said:


> Can tracks be built at the current depth of Penn Station's other tracks without razing the city block?


No


----------



## Andrew

1. Realistically speaking, how soon can Amtrak begin work on tunneling under the Hudson River?

2. How deep are they looking at for the lower level?


----------



## jis

Andrew said:


> 1. Realistically speaking, how soon can Amtrak begin work on tunneling under the Hudson River?


Whenever funding becomes available. Apparently they will keep working bits of it with minimal funding for the next year or two. Real construction is not likely to start before the latter half of this decade.


> 2. How deep are they looking at for the lower level?


Deep enough to allow the use of TBM tunneling without disturbing anything above. So at least a hundred feet or so from the surface I'd imagine. And yet not too deep so as to run into the water tunnels. The xact nature of the lower level will be determined in a separate EIS when the time comes. For now it is only about creating bell mouths in the Hudson Tunnes allowing for its later incorporation.


----------



## PRR 60

jis said:


> Trying to get additional head clearance apparently costs hundreds of millions of extra dollars since the tunnel has then to go deeper under the river requiring it to be longer to stay within the vertical gradient profile etc. Basically it is unnecessary since there is never going to be clearance to bring anything larger than what runs into Penn Station today without spending another many hundreds of millions of dollars of money that realistically should be spent on more worthwhile causes than increasing tunnel size.
> As it stands what will come into Penn Station through the new tunnels is already set in stone with the design of the Tunnel Box under Hudson Yard having been finalized. This will be constructed as part of the Hudson Yard real estate development basically preserving the tunnel space to enter Penn Station from the new Hudson Tunnels. Their height and position is already cast in design and will soon be in concrete within the next couple of years.


One of the issues with clearance in the existing North River tubes is the upper side clearance created by the inner wall of the circular-shaped tube. That is what requires the chamfer at the roofline of the NJT multi-levels and the Genesis locomotives. As far as I know, the North River tubes are the only facilities along the NEC that cause that specific geometric constraint.

I doubt the box section being constructed under Hudson Yard will have a circular shape, so while the vertical clearance may be set, the overall shape may not be. Within reason, the diameter of a tunnel bored by a TBM can be varied without a huge cost increment. Although bringing Superliners into NYP is just plain silly, I would hope that a the cross-section of a future tunnel would large enough to eliminate the need for the roofline chamfer. That would open the new portion of NYP to a wider variety of off-the-shelf equipment that presently cannot be considered.


----------



## Andrew

1. Is it true that New York City is planning to pass a bond act for the upcoming November 2013 mayoral elections? If this is so, than it would be nice for some of the bond money to go to boring trans-hudson tunnels--in the same way that the 2005 bond act funded construction of East Side Access.

2. To speed up the engineering phase of the Gateway Project, what engineering documents from the ARC project can be used for Amtrak's Gateway Project?


----------



## jis

PRR 60 said:


> One of the issues with clearance in the existing North River tubes is the upper side clearance created by the inner wall of the circular-shaped tube. That is what requires the chamfer at the roofline of the NJT multi-levels and the Genesis locomotives. As far as I know, the North River tubes are the only facilities along the NEC that cause that specific geometric constraint.


The only constraint that causes the NJT MLVs to need the beveled roof line is at the NYP end of the tunnels, and that too only if the train enters or exits the tunnel via a divrging track at the mouth of the tunnel. Otherwise the tunnel hasr clear 14'6" clearance. The locomotives could also have used the beveled roof line as in MLVs, but since they did not really require a straight roofline otherzise, it was easier to build them with the sloping roofline.



> I doubt the box section being constructed under Hudson Yard will have a circular shape, so while the vertical clearance may be set, the overall shape may not be. Within reason, the diameter of a tunnel bored by a TBM can be varied without a huge cost increment. Although bringing Superliners into NYP is just plain silly, I would hope that a the cross-section of a future tunnel would large enough to eliminate the need for the roofline chamfer. That would open the new portion of NYP to a wider variety of off-the-shelf equipment that presently cannot be considered.


What is being constructed is a shell within which the future tunnel will be built. At present it is just protecting the underground RoW, and no tunnel is being built. All that is within the cut and cover zone of tunnel, not TBM.

The issue with tunnel diameter is that if the diameter is large then the base of the tunnel under the river has to be lower to make room for the higher head room. That together with the gradient limitation of 2.05% would then require the tunnel to be longer and more curved thus adding to the cost. At least that is how the guy who is managing the project and made the presentation explained it to me.

Actually if they could find some spare money, they'd as soon go in and widen the NYP end mouths of the two existing tunnels to remove that single constraint point for clear 14'6" straight roofline clearance. But it won;t be cheap, since they will have to dismantle about 30 feet of bored tunnel lines with steel and concrete and rebuild it with a bigger diameter while making sure that nothing voerhead caves in.



Andrew said:


> 1. Is it true that New York City is planning to pass a bond act for the upcoming November 2013 mayoral elections? If this is so, than it would be nice for some of the bond money to go to boring trans-hudson tunnels--in the same way that the 2005 bond act funded construction of East Side Access.


They still have to complete funding of the ESA. They are not quite out of the wood on that one yet, and not to mention SAS.


> 2. To speed up the engineering phase of the Gateway Project, what engineering documents from the ARC project can be used for Amtrak's Gateway Project?


Not much. The tunnel is a more or less completely different alignment. They can reuse some of the work at the NJ surface end of things.
The recently presented #7 to Secaucus actually substantially uses the original ARC alignment. Gateway does not, because it is in general a tunnel with much shallower end at the New York end. The PB folks who produced the #7 to Secaucus report worked closely with Amtrak to make sure that there are no conflicts of RoW underground.


----------



## Andrew

Well, I still think that the Gateway Project should be a top candidate for New Starts funding and the RRIF program.

I believe that an expanded Penn Station should include a deep-level station, about 100 feet below street level. Than, a mezzanine can be built 25 feet above it, or 75 feet below street level. This still leaves enough space to minimize disruption to current train service as well as nearby buildings.

Where would the deep-bored tunnels connect with the box tunnels that are scheduled to begin construction this summer?


----------



## jis

Andrew said:


> Where would the deep-bored tunnels connect with the box tunnels that are scheduled to begin construction this summer?


tt will not connect with the portion that is being protected through the Gateway Real Estate area. That is north of 31st St. The bell mouth for the deep tube will be around 12th Ave aligned with 31st St, perhaps in the are where they will put up a coffer dam for an access shaft down by the river. The box is being constructed between 11th and 10th Ave between what would be 31st and 32nd St if there were streets there. It is all under what is West Side yard at present.
The lower level station is way in the future if ever. It appears that their goal is to first build the shallow level stuff.


----------



## PRR 60

jis said:


> PRR 60 said:
> 
> 
> 
> One of the issues with clearance in the existing North River tubes is the upper side clearance created by the inner wall of the circular-shaped tube. That is what requires the chamfer at the roofline of the NJT multi-levels and the Genesis locomotives. As far as I know, the North River tubes are the only facilities along the NEC that cause that specific geometric constraint.
> 
> 
> 
> The only constraint that causes the NJT MLVs to need the beveled roof line is at the NYP end of the tunnels, and that too only if the train enters or exits the tunnel via a divrging track at the mouth of the tunnel. Otherwise the tunnel hasr clear 14'6" clearance. The locomotives could also have used the beveled roof line as in MLVs, but since they did not really require a straight roofline otherzise, it was easier to build them with the sloping roofline.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I doubt the box section being constructed under Hudson Yard will have a circular shape, so while the vertical clearance may be set, the overall shape may not be. Within reason, the diameter of a tunnel bored by a TBM can be varied without a huge cost increment. Although bringing Superliners into NYP is just plain silly, I would hope that a the cross-section of a future tunnel would large enough to eliminate the need for the roofline chamfer. That would open the new portion of NYP to a wider variety of off-the-shelf equipment that presently cannot be considered.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What is being constructed is a shell within which the future tunnel will be built. At present it is just protecting the underground RoW, and no tunnel is being built. All that is within the cut and cover zone of tunnel, not TBM.
> 
> The issue with tunnel diameter is that if the diameter is large then the base of the tunnel under the river has to be lower to make room for the higher head room. That together with the gradient limitation of 2.05% would then require the tunnel to be longer and more curved thus adding to the cost. At least that is how the guy who is managing the project and made the presentation explained it to me.
> 
> Actually if they could find some spare money, they'd as soon go in and widen the NYP end mouths of the two existing tunnels to remove that single constraint point for clear 14'6" straight roofline clearance. But it won;t be cheap, since they will have to dismantle about 30 feet of bored tunnel lines with steel and concrete and rebuild it with a bigger diameter while making sure that nothing voerhead caves in.
Click to expand...

The North River tunnels are not "bored tunnels", but otherwise I'll just assume you have much closer contact with Amtrak engineering than I have and leave it at that.


----------



## jis

PRR 60 said:


> The North River tunnels are not "bored tunnels", but otherwise I'll just assume you have much closer contact with Amtrak engineering than I have and leave it at that.


Yeah my bad use of terminology. I am sure the mistake is mine and Drew explained it much better to me than I did to you guys. I don't claim any expertise at all in Civil Engineering.
I suppose the correct terminology is that they are shield driven tunnels under the river, and I suppose dynamited tunnels through the rocks. Coming to think of it, I don't really know for sure to what distance from the bath tub the tunnels were cut and cover, and where exactly the shiled driven or blasted tunnels begin. But whatever the method of digging, the tunnels that come out into the bathtub is iron and concrete lined.

The point I was making is that they will have to first dismantle the iron and concrete rings before they can install new bigger diameter ones. And they have to do that while not disturbing stuff above the tunnel.


----------



## Andrew

Could the current Penn Station handle a few more trans-hudson slots once the tunnels get completed WITHOUT additional platforms and tracks?


----------



## AlanB

Andrew said:


> Could the current Penn Station handle a few more trans-hudson slots once the tunnels get completed WITHOUT additional platforms and tracks?


Yes. Right now the big issue isn't the tunnels, but rather A Interlocking which is the ladder tracks on the west side of Penn Station. Those ladder tracks & switches cannot handle more trains, so things would back up in the tunnel coming into NYP if they tried to run more trains. A redesigned A Interlocking would allow for a few more trains even right now with the existing tunnels.

Adding still more tunnels, with a properly redesigned A Interlocking would allow for a few more trains most likely. But those new tunnels would never be able to reach their full capacity without more platforms & tracks.


----------



## Andrew

1. What is the depth of Amtrak's current North River Tunnels (or Hudson Tunnels)?

2. The link I posted above says that Gateway's "System Design Study" is ongoing in 2013. How does this relate to preliminary engineering?


----------



## jis

Andrew said:


> 1. What is the depth of Amtrak's current North River Tunnels (or Hudson Tunnels)?


At the lowest point I believe it is about 100' below MSL or thereabouts.


> 2. The link I posted above says that Gateway's "System Design Study" is ongoing in 2013. How does this relate to preliminary engineering?


AFAIK tt's all system design studies now. There is an EIS and engineering ready to construct for the RoW protect box under the Gateway Real Estate footprint. Other than that I suspecy there will not be any EIS work done before the PEIS for NEC is completed in 2015. Until then it is just studies of alternatives and possibilities and preliminary design and conceptualization, occasionally leading to protection of potential use RoW from other developments.


----------



## Andrew

1. How long would it take to construct Penn Station South assuming that buildings would have to be teared down on Block 780?

2. Here is another link about the urgently needed Gateway Project: http://www.hhgraphics.net/hsr/html/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=93&Itemid=91


----------



## afigg

jis said:


> AFAIK tt's all system design studies now. There is an EIS and engineering ready to construct for the RoW protect box under the Gateway Real Estate footprint. Other than that I suspecy there will not be any EIS work done before the PEIS for NEC is completed in 2015. Until then it is just studies of alternatives and possibilities and preliminary design and conceptualization, occasionally leading to protection of potential use RoW from other developments.


The time to 2015 will have to be spent anyway building the political consensus, coalition, and public support for the Gateway project - or at least the first core components: both Portal bridge replacement, the new Hudson tunnels, future option for South extension. I expect Amtrak, NJT, NY will still be working on building the political and longer term funding support while launching the formal EIS phase - if Amtrak can get funding for a full up Gateway EIS stage. Putting together the coalition and funding for the Gateway project will be a daunting task.

For more background for those who have not sat through an Amtrak Gateway presentation, the viewgraphs from a March, 2013 presentation on the NEC & Gateway to the Raritan Valley Rail Coalition (building that political support) can be found here. The presentation provided me a better understanding of the current concept for the two level NYP South concourse. That it would be a combined concourse with direct access under the street from the current NYP lower concourse corridors is a big improvement over the 1 block away ARC "Macy's basement" extension plan.


----------



## Andrew

Did the presentation by any chance mention how long it would take to build the actual Penn Station South Expansion? I am trying to get a firm grasp of how long it would take to essentially built a new major section to a large terminal.


----------



## afigg

Andrew said:


> Did the presentation by any chance mention how long it would take to build the actual Penn Station South Expansion? I am trying to get a firm grasp of how long it would take to essentially built a new major section to a large terminal.


The presentation is a modest sized PDF file. Not difficult to read. However, with respect to your question, I doubt if it can be answered beyond a hand waving guess of N years. The project is only in the conceptual and feasibility study phase. There is a long way to go before a Preliminary Engineering and design stage that might estimate how long the property acquisition and construction phase might take. That, of course, ignores what is likely to be a very long process to get the funding for the earlier phases of the Gateway project.


----------



## jis

The biggest challenge will be real estate acquisition, something that could break the bank. Afterall it was real estate acquisition that finally broke the bank for good for ARC. Acquiring a whole block in Manhattan is not going to be cheap, and they will have to get a whole lot of Manhattan politicians and real estate wheelers and dealers on board to pull the Block 780 acquisition off.

Currently it is not a foregone conclusion that NYP South will ever be built. Many proverbial fat ladies have to sing first before that happens.


----------



## Andrew

Well, it appears that at least a small segment of the future Gateway Tunnels will begin construction this summer. I still believe that the ARC's New Jersey segments can mostly be incorporated into Amtrak's Gateway Program. The real engineering that is left is trans-hudson tunnel boring and Penn Station South.


----------



## jis

Andrew said:


> Well, it appears that at least a small segment of the future Gateway Tunnels will begin construction this summer. I still believe that the ARC's New Jersey segments can mostly be incorporated into Amtrak's Gateway Program. The real engineering that is left is trans-hudson tunnel boring and Penn Station South.


What is bweing constructed is a box structure to protect the RoW of the future tunnel. The actual tunnel through it will be built later.
Of course there has always been the possibility that the ARC alignment could be used for Gateway, but that is not the case in reality. At this point the ARC alignment is not the one that Amtrak plans to use for Gateway. They had all along had a different alignment they were working on, and even during the ARC exercise they ahd worked hard to preserve that alignment from encroachment by ARC alignment(s). Amtrak continues to advance Gateway using that other alignment. This I learned from two different folks from PB who are involved with the studies for the NY Mayor's Office and Amtrak respectively, so I tend to believe them. There is the minor matter of doing a EIS before any engineering or boring can happen.

BTW, one fundamental difference between the ARC and the Gateway alignments is that the Gateway alignment is a (horizontally) straighter alignment because it uses a higher ruling gradient than the ARC alignment. The ARC alignment bowed out to the south to get a longer tunnel to allow for the lower ruling gradient they had chosen.


----------



## Andrew

Are you essentially saying that ARC's engineering studies--which were expensive--are now basically considered a taxpayer's waste since the ARC Project is no longer viable?

Is PB the current company working on engineering for new trans-hudson tunnels and Penn Station South?


----------



## jis

Andrew said:


> Are you essentially saying that ARC's engineering studies--which were expensive--are now basically considered a taxpayer's waste since the ARC Project is no longer viable?


Parts of it on the NJ Meadowlands end is allegedly going to be used by Amtrak. Parts of the rest may be used by #7 to Secaucus if built. Otherwise it will be an asset that can potentially be monetized by someone that may want to use parts of it in the future. That asset is owned by NJDOT/NJTransit. Amtrak may eventually purchase relevant parts for its use. The sunk cost is mostly PANYNJ and NJ Taxpayer money, since NJDOT had to return much of the money it got from the Feds.


> Is PB the current company working on engineering for new trans-hudson tunnels and Penn Station South?


There is no Engineering contract out at present for either the Gateway Tunnels or Penn Station South, and there is no funding for such in place. There will not be until an EIS is done first. I believe some preliminary study work funded by Amtrak is being done by a some joint venture outfit involving PB as a partner.
I get the impression that you appear to think that this tunnel and NYPS is about to be built. Rest assured that any real significant construction other than the RoW protect box is at least 5 to 7 years away. There is currently no funding and no plan or imminent proposal on how exactly any of this will be funded. That includes funding for the EIS which must happen first.


----------



## Andrew

What is more realistically likely to occur in the future:

Amtrak's Gateway Project or the Seven Extension to Secaucus?


----------



## afigg

Andrew said:


> What is more realistically likely to occur in the future:
> Amtrak's Gateway Project or the Seven Extension to Secaucus?


Depends on what you mean by the Gateway Project which can be and is likely to be broken into phases. And by when. What I would consider the "core" project, the North and South Portal Bridges, 2 new tracks and Hudson tunnels leading to NYP, is likely to happen before a #7 extension to NJ. The Gateway project is much further along in the study process and in building support for it.
I think both some form of the Gateway Project and a #7 extension to NJ are likely to happen in the next 15-30 years. Mayor Bloomberg is pushing to rezone Midtown to allow a wave of new taller office buildings to be built there. That with growth in the overall NYC business sector, city population, and increase in the number of daily commuters from the suburbs & intercity rail traffic will have to be met with additional capacity across the Hudson River.

Which might be best addressed by the Gateway project to NYP for intercity and commuter travelers going to NYC in general and a #7 extension for the NJ commuters who work in Midtown. A #7 extension to NJ would be in a sense, a mirror project, to the East Side Access project. ESA will bring LIRR commuters directly to Grand Central and Midtown. #7 to NJ would do the same for NJ commuters.


----------



## Andrew

Amtrak should partner with Related Companies, which is developing Hudson Yards in Midtown, and the Bloomberg Administration to lobby for federal funding to get new trans-hudson tunnels completed. The Gateway Project needs to get completed to meet tomorrow's travel demands--and it should have been completed yesterday. Is there any way that West Midtown gets all those new skyscrapers without additional trans-hudson capacity?


----------



## jis

Andrew said:


> Amtrak should partner with Related Companies, which is developing Hudson Yards in Midtown, and the Bloomberg Administration to lobby for federal funding to get new trans-hudson tunnels completed. The Gateway Project needs to get completed to meet tomorrow's travel demands--and it should have been completed yesterday. Is there any way that West Midtown gets all those new skyscrapers without additional trans-hudson capacity?


Actually the Bloomberg Administration and from what I have heard, the Gateway Reality group would probably like the #7 to Secaucus, possibly via Hoboken even more, since it (specially with CBTC) will inevitably have way more capacity and frequency than anything Amtrak and NJT can only dream of even with the additional tunnels. And it will drop off right at the doorsteps at 34th St and 11th, not 3 avenue blocks away. If it is run via Hoboken, it will connect up the NJ Gold Coast with the Hudson yards area which would be a huge boon for both. This is something that is unachievable via the Gateway Tunnels.
Unfortunately even with the additional Hudson Tubes, there will not be enough capacity to do as large a transfer of bus traffic to offload PABT either. Something that we railheads don;t realize is that the buses carry a far larger proportion of the trans Hudson traffic at present than rail does, and PABT is in way worse shape than Penn Station, not to mention the mess that Lincoln Tunnel is.

Presently there is not much connection between Hudson Tunnels work and Gateway Reality except for the tunnel box to preserve the RoW for the Gateway Tunnels under the Gateway Reality constructions.


----------



## Andrew

But the Seven Line to Secaucus would not increase ridership from other high-demand areas of New Jersey--such as Princeton and Metropark. Although the Gateway Project might be more expensive at first, it is a better investment to meet future travel demands. If trans-hudson tunnels are not completed, the Northeast will have more trouble competing against places such as China, London, and Brazil. Regardless of the current state of the economy, these infrastructure projects are common sense investments!


----------



## jis

Andrew said:


> But the Seven Line to Secaucus would not increase ridership from other high-demand areas of New Jersey--such as Princeton and Metropark. Although the Gateway Project might be more expensive at first, it is a better investment to meet future travel demands. If trans-hudson tunnels are not completed, the Northeast will have more trouble competing against places such as China, London, and Brazil. Regardless of the current state of the economy, these infrastructure projects are common sense investments!


Actually you are wrong about that IMHO. Because it will make it easier for people tog et to the East Side it will move more people out of their cars into trains. Notwithstanding that, the real high demand of NJ that is very poorly served by rail and will continue to be poorly served even after Gateway is Bergen County. What is needed is high capacity transportation from the west side of Hudson to the GCT area, and #7 gets us there the fastest. Pricneton and Metropark are relatively well served already and except for the two rush hours there is no dearth of capacity for those for many years to come.
As afigg has mentioned above Gate and #7 to SEC are complementary projects. People who want tog et from Princeton to the GCT area are not served any better by Gateway than they are now, whereas #7 to SEC gives them an emptyt rain to board at its origin to gos traight to GCT area instead of trying to get onto crowded trains at Penn Station.

The bottom line trans Hudson problme is getting people off the roads and buses on the west side of Hudson and getting them onto rail. That is done better by a subway line than by NJT/Amtrak. The Regional solution required both pair of tunnels IMHO.

As for the rest of the motherhood and apple pie stuff about competing against China, London and Brazil, you are preaching to the choir. Nobody is arguing that these projects are not important. All that at least I am doing is inject a bit of reality into the timeline.


----------



## Andrew

Where does the Christie Administration fit into this?


----------



## jis

Christie administration in the form of NJT boss Weinstein and DOT boss Simpson were informed of the #7 to Secaucus report before it was published by PB, and they both apparently were supportive of the effort. They are also on record being supportive of Gateway. But of course no one has offered any money for anything.

Meanwhile Christie has spent most of the money not spent on ARC from the NJT share on road projects. Chrisitie is a highway man and we have very low expectations of him doing anything for things running on rails. One of my ardent Republican friends jokingly quips that the only thing on rails that Christie reallyc ars about is the Seaside Heights Roller Coaster.


----------



## Andrew

Does that make the Gateway Project less likely to occur in the future?


----------



## afigg

Someone on rr.net found that the FRA Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) and Environmental Assessment documents for the Concrete Casing tunnel box to be built under the Hudson Yards are available at the FRA eLibrary website. The documents provide technical information on the project that some might find interesting. At least, I do!

FRA FONSI Approval (8 pages) posted May 16, 2013

Hudson Yard Concrete Casing Construction Enviromental Assessments posted March 29, 2013. Link shows all the Environmental Reviews posted in March. The EA and Appendix A are the good stuff.

Basics for those who are not going to read the documents: the concrete box will extend from 10th to under 11th Avenue, will be approximately 800 feet long, 50 feet wide, 35 feet tall. From a skim read of the EA document, it looks as if it will be built basically using a cut and cover approach through part of the LIRR West Side yard, requiring demolition of part of the MOE building and temporary removal of shop tracks to the MOE building. The project will excavate approx 83,000 cubic yards of soil and bedrock.

There is a profile drawing on page 53 of Appendix A, the Final Report from Tutor Perini Corporation and Parsons Brinckerhoff: Looks like the tunnel box will drop about 20' from 10th Avenue to the western end. The top of the box will be about 45' below 11th Avenue and 30' below ground level as it goes under 11th Avenue. The profile shows the tunnel box will pass well above the No. 7 Line tunnels, which are rather deep under 11th Avenue at that point at around 110 feet.


----------



## Andrew

Where will these tunnels connect to the trans-hudson tunnels? Also, could Amtrak bore new tunnels into Penn Station, and build an underground cavern station--at the same depth as the current tracks--without razing all of the city buildings on Block 780?


----------



## Andrew

How much money could Amtrak get selling the air rights of Block 780 after Penn South gets built?


----------



## TVRM610

Why was guest Andrews locked thread not merged with this thread? Thankfully he dug it up and asked his question again. Would be nice if we encouraged posters and not just locked threads without explanation.


----------



## jis

It is not even clear that the Block 780 NYPS South will ever be built. It all depends on the complexities of NY Real Estate barons lining up in a particular direction or not. The whole Madison Square Garden Kabuki Dance is but a precursor to the much bogger act to follow.

NYPSS upper level cannot be built without tearing down the existing structures in Block 780 first. Which will mean acquisition of those properties at current market value even if done via eminent domain. Which in itself is going to be expensive, how much no one knows for sure.


----------



## AlanB

TVRM610 said:


> Why was guest Andrews locked thread not merged with this thread? Thankfully he dug it up and asked his question again. Would be nice if we encouraged posters and not just locked threads without explanation.


He didn't dig up this thread, Afigg linked him too this thread even as Afigg asked him why he didn't just keep his subsequent questions in this thread in the first place instead of starting a new thread. And I would have hoped that Afigg's post made it rather obvious why it was locked; it was suggested/requested to keep things together.


----------



## Andrew

But if Block 780 is not be able to be acquired, what are alternative ways of increasing capacity into Penn Station from New Jersey (without forgetting the tunnel box)?


----------



## jis

The tunnel box can provide additional capacity into the current Penn Station with or without Block 780.

The lower level of NYPSS can be built without deconstructing Block 780 provided they can get access to tunneling rights under the existing properties. Other than that there are no other possibilities at present.

Of coruse there is always the possibility of diverting sufficient amount of traffic to elsewhere like by building #7 to Secaucus which could alleviate the need for as much capacity enhancement at NYP as is currently envisaged too. Additionally the L line can be extended to NJ to create further relief.


----------



## Andrew

1. Which station option (Penn South or deep-level station) would be cheaper?

2. I believe that extending the L train into New Jersey would further increase crowding on the already very crowded line.


----------



## AlanB

Andrew said:


> 2. I believe that extending the L train into New Jersey would further increase crowding on the already very crowded line.


Well in theory the same could be said for the #7 line, one of the most crowded lines in the system. It's the only train that runs with 11 cars, all others max out at 10 or fewer car.

However, both trains are nearly empty by the time they get to the westside of Manhattan; even though they were packed to the rafters 3 stops prior on the eastside of the city.


----------



## Andrew

That is true. But with that being said, the Seven Extension would make more sense than the L Train Extension, since the Seven is being extended to the Javits Center.

Apparently, "Mr. Schumer vowed to “scour” the federal government for all available dollars, including bonds and loan programs, to help pay for the Gateway project." http://www.crainsnewyork.com/article/20130530/TRANSPORTATION/130539987

But even though the Gateway Project is urgently needed, what is a realistic amount Amtrak can receive from Washington for this project?


----------



## Andrew

Is the Gateway engineering segment supposed to end at 30th street? (I understand that they said 12th avenue).

What is the status of engineering contracts for the remainder of the Gateway Project?


----------



## vkristof

Andrew said:


> That is true. But with that being said, the Seven Extension would make more sense than the L Train Extension, since the Seven is being extended to the Javits Center.
> Apparently, "Mr. Schumer vowed to “scour” the federal government for all available dollars, including bonds and loan programs, to help pay for the Gateway project." http://www.crainsnewyork.com/article/20130530/TRANSPORTATION/130539987
> 
> But even though the Gateway Project is urgently needed, what is a realistic amount Amtrak can receive from Washington for this project?


Sen. Schumer is good for bringing home the bacon.& I'm happy to see the Hudson Yards tunnel box staring actual construction/demolition now.

Since you posted in June we've had a little bit of public back and forth on federal funding in general between Gov Christie and Se. Paul.

IMHO "a realistic amount Amtrak can receive from Washington" is in a totally unrealastic political situation nowadays...


----------



## Andrew

"Since you posted in June, we have had a little bit of public back and forth on federal funding in general between Gov. Christie and Se. Paul."

What does this refer to?


----------



## afigg

Andrew said:


> "Since you posted in June, we have had a little bit of public back and forth on federal funding in general between Gov. Christie and Se. Paul."
> What does this refer to?


The recent tiff between Gov. Christie (NJ) and Senator Rand Paul (KY) which started with Sen Paul taking a swipe at NJ over the Hurricane Sandy relief funds. Christie pretty much smacked down Sen. Paul. All part of the early jostling (really early) for the 2016 Republican nomination. While entertaining from the bleacher seats, has nothing to do with the Gateway project or the tunnel box construction.


----------



## Andrew

Even though you think that Amtrak does not appear to be quite the most important topic in Washington, can Amtrak receive Gateway Funding from the next reauthorization bill?


----------



## jphjaxfl

The poster seems to want to turn this into a political discussion rather than an Amtrak discussion.


----------



## jis

Andrew said:


> Even though you think that Amtrak does not appear to be quite the most important topic in Washington, can Amtrak receive Gateway Funding from the next reauthorization bill?


No. Re-authorization bill can authorize all sorts of stuff, but an authorization bill cannot be used to appropriate in general. Without appropriation all the authorization in the world is not worth a hill of beans, and does not result in receiving any funding. Congress traditionally has never appropriated all the money that it authorized for Amtrak.
Also it is more than likely that a significant part of the funding that goes to Gateway won't even go to it through Amtrak and FRA. It is quite likely that a significant portion would come via FTA and State DOTs, which actually makes sense since the predominant user of the new facility will be state commuter railroads and not Amtrak.

Due to a historical accident, Amtrak happens to be stuck being the custodian of the infrastructure. That is why there is serious consideration being given to separate the infrastructure into a separate government funded neutral entity which will sell slots of various quality to various train operating companies including Amtrak, with pricing based on the quality of the slot. Amtrak can then go back to be being a train operating company, which was its original mission. And other train operating companies whether state funded or private funded or jointly funded could enter the open market of operating trains on routes of their choice. All of Europe has moved to this model, no reason that the US could not. My prediction is that there will be tectonic shifts in how passenger rail infrastructure and operations funded in the next five years, before any significant funding becomes available for Gateway. That is why it is even more unpredictable because it is not going to be business as usual, making it harder to even meaningfully speculate.

But no matter what, asking the same question in multiple threads is not going to magically produce a different answer. The bottom line is that it is too early to tell beyond idle and baseless speculation on things like the total amount and when and how it will become available. It is highly unlikely that there will be any significant funding action on Gateway until the NEC Commission works out some cost sharing deal among the states involved, as I have state in another thread where similar questions were asked by the same poster.


----------



## the_traveler

jphjaxfl said:


> The poster seems to want to turn this into a political discussion rather than an Amtrak discussion.


As both an AU member and as a moderator, I request that this discussion be confined to matters relating to Amtrak and/or trains or NYP only. I request that politics remain out of the conversation.


----------



## Andrew

Is the TEIR 1 PEIS also looking at or reviewing cost-sharing?


----------



## jis

I posted the link to the entire Tier 1 PEIS. I'd urge you to please go read the entire set of materials available thoroughly first. You will learn exactly what the goals and objectives are of the PEIS, and amazingly will be able to answer the question you ask above all by yourself!


----------



## Andrew

How many trains would the Gateway Tunnels handle without new platforms in Penn Station South?


----------



## Andrew

Thoughts on this?!

http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/extend-7-train-secaucus-article-1.1504464


----------



## afigg

Andrew said:


> Thoughts on this?!
> 
> http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/extend-7-train-secaucus-article-1.1504464


Extending the No. 7 train to Secaucus NJ is a valid concept, but will take a decade or two of studies, debate, politics, and figuring who pays for it before anything substantial happens. The MTA has a full plate with a huge backlog of system modernization & flood mitigation projects and the Second Avenue Subway follow-on phases. The paragraph in the article that caught my eye:



> Having the two systems share a tunnel is not a new solution. The 63rd St. subway tunnel for the F train was built with two levels, one above the other. The Long Island Railroad extension to Grand Central Station will utilize the currently unused level of that tunnel.
> 
> By building one tunnel that can serve both the 7 train and Gateway, both projects will be able to advance when the first one proceeds, laying the foundation for future regional mobility and growth.


Really? Seriously?

Anyway, this article and the proposed No. 7 extension to NJ have little to do with Amtrak and the proposed Gateway project except at a regional transit planning level. We don't discuss the Second Avenue Subway project or the DC Metro Silver Line extension in the Amtrak forum. There is a transit forum for those subjects.

PS. I see Andrews was deleted by the moderators, so ignore the above.


----------



## jis

The article in the Daily News by Jerry Gottesman and Steven Spinola raises some issues worthy of discussion. The article in question can be found at:

http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/extend-7-train-secaucus-article-1.1504464

It has been stated by some that there would be a funding conflict between any further extension of #7 with all that is already on the plate of MTA. From a funding angle this is not necessarily so. In all likelihood any extension of #7 to Secaucus will not involve any funding from MTA. The funding will come from somewhere else just like the funding for the current #7 extension. It was not from the MTA budget but from the city budget. MTA had basically said it can't be done until Bloomberg gave them a pile of cash and said - go do it, if you want to keep that money. So in principle there is little conflict as far as source of money goes between SAS and ESA etc. and whatever happens at the Hudson end of #7. In all likelihood funding for such a venture would involve the PANYNJ since it is their bailiwick - indeed one of their missions - to provide trans-Hudson transportation links.

But that discussion involving only #7 extension belongs in a different thread.

However, the primary thing that is proposed in that article actually places it squarely within the scope of this thread. The thing proposed is a combined tunnel with four segments, two of which are used for Amtrak/NJT and two for #7, similar to how the 63rd Street tunnel is set up. However there are technical issues with that. EPA and Army Corp of Engineers have summarily rejected the tunneling method that was used for the 63rd St. tunnel for use in case of Hudson because of the amount of buried environmentally hazardous stuff that sits in the river bed that no one wants to stir up. So using the cut, drop tunnel segments and cover method is out.

Given that it has to be a bored tunnel, the difficulty of boring a huge diameter tunnel large enough to encompass four tracks in 2x2 configuration presents its own challenges and cost elements which probably surpasses what it would cost to just bore four separate tunnels. The one with civil engineering in their professional expertise list here, is PRR60. maybe he can give us his perspective on this.

Anyway the implicit danger in what is proposed is that it will inevitably lead to possibly another 6 additional years of studies before anything can happen. At present the #7 proposal pretty much reuses the ARC EIS in toto for most of the Hudson tunnel alignment. The Gateway alignment is relatively well understood though still requires an EIS. And the two can proceed independent of each other on different time lines. This proposal mixes both up and puts a completely new and additional thing that must be studied starting from scratch.

It is almost like if I was trying to delay everything by many years while appearing to be well intentioned, I'd do something like this.


----------



## Andrew

jis said:


> The artcile in the Daily News by Jerry Gottesman and Steven Spinola raises some issues worthy of discussion. The article in question can be found at:
> 
> http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/extend-7-train-secaucus-article-1.1504464
> 
> It has been stated by some that there would be a funding conflict between any further extension of #7 with all that is already on the plate of MTA. From a funding angle this is not necessarily so. In all likelihood any extension of #7 to Secaucus will not involve any funding from MTA. The funding will come from somewhere else just like the funding for the current #7 extension. It was not from the MTA budget but from the city budget. MTA had basically said it can't be done until Bloomberg gave them a pile of cash and said - go do it, if you want to keep that money. So in principle there is little conflict as far as source of money goes between SAS and ESA etc. and whatever happens at the Hudson end of #7. In all likelihood funding for such a venture would involve the PANYNJ since it is their bailiwick - indeed one of their missions - to provide trans-Hudson transportation links.
> 
> But that discussion involving only #7 extension belongs in a different thread.
> 
> However, the primary thing that is proposed in that article actually places it squarely within the scope of this thread. The thing proposed is a combined tunnel with four segments, two of which are used for Amtrak/NJT and two for #7, similar to how the 63rd Street tunnel is set up. However there are technical issues with that. EPA and Army Corp of Engineers have summarily rejected the tunneling method that was used for the 63rd St. tunnel for use in case of Hudson because of the amount of buried environmentally hazardous stuff that sits in the river bed that no one wants to stir up. So using the cut, drop tunnel segments and cover method is out.
> 
> Given that it has to be a bored tunnel, the difficulty of boring a huge diameter tunnel large enough to encompass four tracks in 2x2 configuration presents its own challenges and cost elements which probably surpasses what it would cost to just bore four separate tunnels. The one with civil engineering in their professional expertise list here, is PRR60. maybe he can give us his perspective on this.
> 
> Anyway the implicit danger in what is proposed is that it will inevitably lead to possibly another 6 additional years of studies before anything can happen. At present the #7 proposal pretty much reuses the ARC EIS in toto for most of the Hudson tunnel alignment. The Gateway alignment is relatively well understood though still requires an EIS. And the two can proceed independent of each other on different time lines. This proposal mixes both up and puts a completely new and additional thing that must be studied starting from scratch.
> 
> It is almost like if I was trying to delay everything by many years while appearing to be well intentioned, I'd do something like this.



1. Thus, both proposals can not be done at the same time?

2. With the expected results of tomorrow's election, is Christie (in his second term) likely to focus more on PATH Extension to Newark Airport or new train tunnels into Manhattan?


----------



## Nathanael

jis said:


> 15. The Hudson Yard real estate proposal is going to add more office space in that area than there is in the entire downtown area of
> 
> Minneapolis and St. paul.


NYC is actually suffering a severe glut of office space. And a shortage of residential space. I'm surprised we're not hearing about "office to condo" conversion plans.


----------



## Nathanael

jis said:


> The point I was making is that they will have to first dismantle the iron and concrete rings before they can install new bigger diameter ones. And they have to do that while not disturbing stuff above the tunnel.


This was done for one of the Underground lines in London nearly 100 years ago. I'm having trouble remembering which one... ah yes, the City and South London (now the City branch of the Northern line) in the 1920s. And talk about having stuff above the tunnel... they had a *lot* of stuff on top of that tube.

So this is certainly possible.


----------



## Anderson

(1) I really, really wish that the ACE could just get cut out of transportation policy wholesale. The fact that we have an odd piece of the DOD handling this stuff is at best a historical leftover from the pre-Civil War era that sort of lurched into a bunch of authority that the DOD really has no need to be involved in. Let's face it, we're not likely to be moving troops by riverboat anytime soon.

(2) NYC has, IIRC, had a glut of office space for a long time. It's one reason that the World Trade Center replacement project was scaled back in terms of usable space: There were already vacancy issues pre-9/11, and two recessions plus the cost of doing business in Manhattan haven't helped things. In all sincerity, it's something of a wonder more businesses aren't moving to Jersey City, Stamford, etc. given those conditions. Heck, with the Acela (and longer-term planned improvements to its speed), Philly and Wilmington start becoming viable locations as well.


----------



## Nathanael

Anderson said:


> In all sincerity, it's something of a wonder more businesses aren't moving to Jersey City, Stamford, etc. given those conditions.


Why move when there's such a lot of office space? High demand == lower rents.
What surprises me is that the buildings which are getting relatively poor rents as offices haven't been converted to residential, where they could command astronomical rents.


----------



## Anderson

Nathanael said:


> Anderson said:
> 
> 
> 
> In all sincerity, it's something of a wonder more businesses aren't moving to Jersey City, Stamford, etc. given those conditions.
> 
> 
> 
> Why move when there's such a lot of office space? High demand == lower rents.
> What surprises me is that the buildings which are getting relatively poor rents as offices haven't been converted to residential, where they could command astronomical rents.
Click to expand...

The answer to that is that there are more costs associated with being someplace than "just" rent. Long-standing comments about movie ticket prices aside, a lot of things at least seem to be more expensive in New York than elsewhere, though I cannot speak from any meaningful experience how far this extends from Manhattan.


----------



## jis

I am sure that all this office space and condo and rents in New York discussion has something to do with Gateway Project 

What really needs to happen now is quick progress on the EIS for the Gateway alignment. Gateway does not use the ARC alignment. This I have been told by a guy from PB which is part of a consortium that is helping with the preparatory paperwork for both the Gateway and the #7 to Secaucus proposals. This is as I understand partly because the Gateway proposal uses a higher gradient than the ARC proposal and hence a slightly shorter tunnel under the river.


----------



## Andrew

jis said:


> I am sure that all this office space and condo and rents in New York discussion has something to do with Gateway Project
> 
> What really needs to happen now is quick progress on the EIS for the Gateway alignment. Gateway does not use the ARC alignment. This I have been told by a guy from PB which is part of a consortium that is helping with the preparatory paperwork for both the Gateway and the #7 to Secaucus proposals. This is as I understand partly because the Gateway proposal uses a higher gradient than the ARC proposal and hence a slightly shorter tunnel under the river.


Gateway maps I have seen show the Alignment using ARC's path until Palisades Avenue... Has this been changed?

What does "preparatory paperwork" refer to?


----------



## jis

There are no Gateway maps that are detailed enough out in public domain for you to be able to reach any conclusion about what parts of ARC is being used and what is not. So no nothing has changed. They never used it in the first place. That is what the guys who draw the detailed plans and diagrams at the PB related Consortium said upon specific questioning during the review of the 7 to Sec proposal. They specifically said that 7 to Sec uses the ARC tunnel alignment in that plan and that does not conflict with Gateway. And as I said they are involved in both.

Paperwork refers to EIS, an activity that is not currently funded.


----------



## Andrew

jis said:


> There are no Gateway maps that are detailed enough out in public domain for you to be able to reach any conclusion about what parts of ARC is being used and what is not. So no nothing has changed. They never used it in the first place. That is what the guys who draw the detailed plans and diagrams at the PB related Consortium said upon specific questioning during the review of the 7 to Sec proposal. They specifically said that 7 to Sec uses the ARC tunnel alignment in that plan and that does not conflict with Gateway. And as I said they are involved in both.
> 
> Paperwork refers to EIS, an activity that is not currently funded.



1. Who is PB partnering with for the Consortium?

2. How long is a typical PE--Final Design process for a project such as Gateway or Seven to Secaucus?


----------



## Nathanael

Andrew said:


> 2. How long is a typical PE--Final Design process for a project such as Gateway or Seven to Secaucus?


50 years. OK, probably not really, but a lot of these have taken waaaay too long.


----------



## Andrew

Andrew said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are no Gateway maps that are detailed enough out in public domain for you to be able to reach any conclusion about what parts of ARC is being used and what is not. So no nothing has changed. They never used it in the first place. That is what the guys who draw the detailed plans and diagrams at the PB related Consortium said upon specific questioning during the review of the 7 to Sec proposal. They specifically said that 7 to Sec uses the ARC tunnel alignment in that plan and that does not conflict with Gateway. And as I said they are involved in both.
> 
> Paperwork refers to EIS, an activity that is not currently funded.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Who is PB partnering with for the Consortium?
> 
> 2. How long is a typical PE--Final Design process for a project such as Gateway or Seven to Secaucus?
Click to expand...

1. If PB is involved with both, what do they think is the most beneficial for New Jersey citizens?

2. How long has PB been working with Gateway?


----------



## WoodyinNYC

Andrew said:


> With the expected results of tomorrow's election, is Christie (in his second term) likely to focus more on PATH Extension to Newark Airport or new train tunnels into Manhattan?


Christie will focus on more highways. And more highways. You expect him to change?


----------



## Andrew

Andrew said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are no Gateway maps that are detailed enough out in public domain for you to be able to reach any conclusion about what parts of ARC is being used and what is not. So no nothing has changed. They never used it in the first place. That is what the guys who draw the detailed plans and diagrams at the PB related Consortium said upon specific questioning during the review of the 7 to Sec proposal. They specifically said that 7 to Sec uses the ARC tunnel alignment in that plan and that does not conflict with Gateway. And as I said they are involved in both.
> 
> Paperwork refers to EIS, an activity that is not currently funded.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Who is PB partnering with for the Consortium?
> 
> 2. How long is a typical PE--Final Design process for a project such as Gateway or Seven to Secaucus?
Click to expand...


If PB is involved with both, than what are they currently doing regarding the Seven to Secaucus and the Gateway Project?


----------



## Andrew

What will be the major reasons why one type of Block 780 Station gets chosen over the other option?


----------



## Andrew

Would potential expensive property acquisitions encourage engineers to seek the "Deep-Level" Option for Penn South?


----------



## Andrew

jis said:


> The article in the Daily News by Jerry Gottesman and Steven Spinola raises some issues worthy of discussion. The article in question can be found at:
> 
> http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/extend-7-train-secaucus-article-1.1504464
> 
> It has been stated by some that there would be a funding conflict between any further extension of #7 with all that is already on the plate of MTA. From a funding angle this is not necessarily so. In all likelihood any extension of #7 to Secaucus will not involve any funding from MTA. The funding will come from somewhere else just like the funding for the current #7 extension. It was not from the MTA budget but from the city budget. MTA had basically said it can't be done until Bloomberg gave them a pile of cash and said - go do it, if you want to keep that money. So in principle there is little conflict as far as source of money goes between SAS and ESA etc. and whatever happens at the Hudson end of #7. In all likelihood funding for such a venture would involve the PANYNJ since it is their bailiwick - indeed one of their missions - to provide trans-Hudson transportation links.
> 
> But that discussion involving only #7 extension belongs in a different thread.
> 
> However, the primary thing that is proposed in that article actually places it squarely within the scope of this thread. The thing proposed is a combined tunnel with four segments, two of which are used for Amtrak/NJT and two for #7, similar to how the 63rd Street tunnel is set up. However there are technical issues with that. EPA and Army Corp of Engineers have summarily rejected the tunneling method that was used for the 63rd St. tunnel for use in case of Hudson because of the amount of buried environmentally hazardous stuff that sits in the river bed that no one wants to stir up. So using the cut, drop tunnel segments and cover method is out.
> 
> Given that it has to be a bored tunnel, the difficulty of boring a huge diameter tunnel large enough to encompass four tracks in 2x2 configuration presents its own challenges and cost elements which probably surpasses what it would cost to just bore four separate tunnels. The one with civil engineering in their professional expertise list here, is PRR60. maybe he can give us his perspective on this.
> 
> Anyway the implicit danger in what is proposed is that it will inevitably lead to possibly another 6 additional years of studies before anything can happen. At present the #7 proposal pretty much reuses the ARC EIS in toto for most of the Hudson tunnel alignment. The Gateway alignment is relatively well understood though still requires an EIS. And the two can proceed independent of each other on different time lines. This proposal mixes both up and puts a completely new and additional thing that must be studied starting from scratch.
> 
> It is almost like if I was trying to delay everything by many years while appearing to be well intentioned, I'd do something like this.


Jis stated that, "The Gateway Alignment is well understand though still requires an EIS."

1. Is Gateway's Proposed Alignment still expected to enter Manhattan around 30th street (and 12th avenue)?

2. Thus, would Gateway still have to go through a typical 3 or 4 year Engineering Study?


----------



## CHamilton

Will the Gateway tunnel ever happen? Amtrak has bet $300 million that it will

Chairman Anthony Coscia said the project's next step, an environmental review, could begin this fall.




> Stop us if you've heard this one:
> 
> A new train tunnel linking New York and New Jersey, seen by experts as crucial to relieving the bottleneck under the Hudson River, is on the verge of getting underway.
> 
> "We're doing it," Amtrak Chairman Anthony Coscia told the Crain's editorial board Wednesday.
> 
> Mr. Coscia said Amtrak could begin the environmental review process this fall, and has already spent about $300 million on preparatory work and land acquisition, even though the estimated $15 billion needed for the larger Gateway project, which includes the tunnel, has not been lined up.


----------



## afigg

Another news item on the need for getting going on the NEC Gateway project. Capital New York: Transportation secretary calls Hudson tunnel inaction ‘almost criminal’. Excerpts:



> President Obama's transportation secretary said Tuesday that the region's apparent inability to do anything about the decrepit rail tunnels connecting midtown Manhattan to New Jersey is "almost criminal."
> 
> "It’s perhaps one of the—if not the—most important project in the country right now that’s not happening," federal transportation secretary Anthony Foxx said, during a panel discussion hosted by the New York Times.
> 
> Foxx paused for knowing laughter.
> 
> "It’s really emblematic of where we are right now as a country," he said. "This is tunnels that run between New York and New Jersey. They carry hundreds of thousands, if not millions of people on a weekly basis."





> Amtrak has come up with a successor plan called Gateway, but no one in either the New Jersey nor New York government has taken a lead on the project. Nor does it have the necessary funding.
> 
> “This is a leadership issue in the region,” Foxx said. “And I can only do what the region’s willing to do.”
> 
> This isn't the first time a federal official has vented about the region's apparent disregard for what is arguably its most pressing infrastructure need.


Governor Christie and Cuomo, the ball in is your court. How about some leadership? Neither of you are going to be President (nor be selected for either ticket as the Vice-President candidate), so how about working on the infrastructure problems facing your states?


----------



## west point

There is not enough voter pressure to do these projects. POLs would rather kick the can down to future years. When the ultimate failure comes it will be the current POLS that will get the sword. Politics is nasty and it is every one for themselves now not later and what current POLS perceive as in their best interests..


----------



## MARC Rider

west point said:


> There is not enough voter pressure to do these projects. POLs would rather kick the can down to future years. When the ultimate failure comes it will be the current POLS that will get the sword. Politics is nasty and it is every one for themselves now not later and what current POLS perceive as in their best interests..


Well there needs to get to be voter pressure. Maybe everyone who commutes using the tunnels should stay home from work for a day and tell their bosses why they're doing it. If they don't feel they can stay home from work, they should attempt to commute by car. The resulting monumental traffic jam might cause the business leaders and the politicians to realize that they're playing with fire by risking having the tunnels fall apart.

Of course, I'm not sure whether it's possible to make rush hour traffic on the Holland and Lincoln Tunnels and the George Washington Bridge any worse than it already is.


----------



## Bob Dylan

Interesting comment about traffic on the bridges and tunnels into the Apple from Jersey !

Wonder if Govs Cuomo and Christie and Mayor Blasio would like another "Trafficgate" between NY and NJ?


----------



## jis

The fact of the matter is that trans Hudson travel and specifically additional rail tunnels is primarily for the benefit of NJ and secondarily for New York. Actually Amtrak could live with the current tunnels for quite a while yet, even with one tunnel out for the general amount of demand it places on the tunnels. Until NJ gets of its thumb up its you know what, nothing will happen, since it really is not going to harm anyone else as much as it will NJ if tunnel outage becomes more prevalent than it already is.

I suspect NY will get around to it after it has recovered from its twin big digs - ESA, and SAS. NJ really needs to get its gas tax up to be able to inject considerable amount of money into its transport infrastructure. As soon as they start showing some serious sense of purpose the others will start working with them seriously, but I suspect not much will happen until then. All this means is we have to wait for you know who to exit stage right first. Endless bluster never produced anything concrete.


----------



## Thirdrail7

If anyone could see the inside of the North Tube, they'd be appalled. I believe Affigatt posted a video of the south tube that pales in comparison.


----------



## west point

JIS: One factor you have not considered. Almost every weekend Amtrak closes say the north tunnel and the next weekend the south tunnel is closed. This is for " emergency " repairs. Now when one tunnel is closed what happens if the other is closed for a weekend ?


----------



## jis

Why would one tunnel be closed for scheduled maintenance when the other is out of service for some other reason, unless both had problems? The tunnels are closed for scheduled maintenance not because they choose to collapse just before the weekend begins. So some catastrophe strikes, If for some reason one tunnel cannot be used, the other will of course not be taken out of service for scheduled maintenance.

Now if someone wishes to call "scheduled maintenance" "emergency repair" well. It is not like any of those scheduled maintenance could not be postponed for a week if need be.

This is not to belittle the need for a lot of TLC that those tunnels need to keep them in service. But pointless scaremongering does not help anyone's cause.

Of course, if north tunnels become unusable simultaneously then all bets are off. but a very reliable source (like the guy in charge of maintaining those, among other things) tells me that such a time is at least 20 to 25 years away and with enough TLC could be postponed even further. Thats is what raises the urgency for getting additional tunnels work started, because such work will take at least 10 years if not more, and the more it is delayed the more critical things become.


----------



## afigg

jis said:


> The fact of the matter is that trans Hudson travel and specifically additional rail tunnels is primarily for the benefit of NJ and secondarily for New York. Actually Amtrak could live with the current tunnels for quite a while yet, even with one tunnel out for the general amount of demand it places on the tunnels. Until NJ gets of its thumb up its you know what, nothing will happen, since it really is not going to harm anyone else as much as it will NJ if tunnel outage becomes more prevalent than it already is.
> 
> I suspect NY will get around to it after it has recovered from its twin big digs - ESA, and SAS. NJ really needs to get its gas tax up to be able to inject considerable amount of money into its transport infrastructure. As soon as they start showing some serious sense of purpose the others will start working with them seriously, but I suspect not much will happen until then. All this means is we have to wait for you know who to exit stage right first. Endless bluster never produced anything concrete.


If NY and the MTA can find the capital funds, Phase 2 of the Second Ave Subway will get started in 4-5 years. So, that will be taking up NY and MTA funding. But, yes, the East Side Access project is sucking up a lot of money and is way behind even the schedules of just a few years ago. If the NEC Gateway project has to wait for ESA to wrap up before getting a significant funding contribution from NY state, that could be a problem.

A lot of people get sticker shock at the $15 billion ballpark number for NEC Gateway (the figure I think excludes North Portal bridge, but includes the south Portal, 2 new tracks in NJ, the Hudson tunnels of course, and the NYP south expansion). Worth noting that the combined total of the ESA (current) cost estimate of $10.2 billion and the Port Authority's colossally expensive World Trade Center PATH & subway white dinosaur station at circa $4 billion adds to $14+ billion, close to the cost estimate for NEC Gateway. So it is possible to raise $15 billion for transit and rail projects in or leading to Manhattan, it is just that Amtrak does not have the ability to take the lead on the project by itself. It needs NJ, PANYNJ, the state & city of NY, and the other NEC states to step up to the plate. With NJ as the weak link in this group.


----------



## west point

JIS: My point on the tunnels is Amtrak has stated there is a chance that one of the tunnels might need to closed sooner for a 1 Yr+ stabilization. Then the other tunnel closed on alternate weekends ----------


----------



## Andrew

Well, Booker's new Amtrak reauthorization proposal includes reinstating Amtrak's NEC profits back onto the Northeast Corridor.

Perhaps Amtrak could take out a large RRIF loan which could help contribute to the Gateway Tunnel Resielency Project?


----------



## jis

Andrew said:


> Well, Booker's new Amtrak reauthorization proposal includes reinstating Amtrak's NEC profits back onto the Northeast Corridor.
> 
> Perhaps Amtrak could take out a large RRIF loan which could help contribute to the Gateway Tunnel Resielency Project?


That could be part of the funding, but trust me, until NJ puts money on the table it won't happen.

Amtrak has pretty much been told by Congress that it will need to use RRIF to get any new equipment. One then needs to look at how Amtrak is able to monetize the tunnel to pay off the additional debt load caused by the tunnel.


----------



## Andrew

jis said:


> Andrew said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, Booker's new Amtrak reauthorization proposal includes reinstating Amtrak's NEC profits back onto the Northeast Corridor.
> 
> Perhaps Amtrak could take out a large RRIF loan which could help contribute to the Gateway Tunnel Resielency Project?
> 
> 
> 
> That could be part of the funding, but trust me, until NJ puts money on the table it won't happen.
> 
> Amtrak has pretty much been told by Congress that it will need to use RRIF to get any new equipment. One then needs to look at how Amtrak is able to monetize the tunnel to pay off the additional debt load caused by the tunnel.
Click to expand...

New Jersey may not put any money into Gateway until Governor Sleazeball leaves in January of 2018 (assuming that he does not get indicted or beat Trump or Bush for the 2016 Republican Nomination). But, I would put that a future New Jersey TTF may contribute to Gateway, and the Port Authority's John Degnan has said that the Port Authority will help get Gateway started...

Booker's RIFIA proposal includes pushing back the repayment period to 50 years (from the current 35 for RRIF).

I also think that the Tunnel Box extension in Manhattan will get funded regardless of the state of the economy next year or in 2017.

When you say new equipment, are you referring to fleet replacement, such as new Acela Express Trainsets, or the Gateway Project?


----------



## jis

Yeah I am sure PA will come up with three to four billion like they did for ARC.

Yeah, new equipment is fleet replacement and enhancement.


----------



## Andrew

jis said:


> Yeah I am sure PA will come up with three to four billion like they did for ARC.
> 
> Yeah, new equipment is fleet replacement and enhancement.


It is my understanding that Governor Sleazeball and Governor Cuomo both called for the Port Authority to sell real-estate to help fund transportation improvements. Besides a new PA Bus Terminal in Manhattan, I believe that the Port Authority is also looking at funding Gateway...

I still say that RIFIA will play a part in funding Gateway.

Do you think that the next major federal transportation bill will include Gateway funding?

Amtrak could monetize the new hudson tunnels by raising commuter rail fees--throughout the Northeast Corridor--just as will be happening this October 1st and I believe in 2018.


----------



## jis

Amtrak does not get to determine fees. The NEC Council does. Amtrak just does what the Council decides. It's hands are tied. It is not a free agent any more as far as that goes. The states have to essentially agree to pay for it either lump sum up front or in dribs and drabs over 30 years, or some combination thereof. I am not sure that there is too much room for raising fares specially on NJT much more. Mr powder puff has stretched things quite to the limit.


----------



## Andrew

jis said:


> Amtrak does not get to determine fees. The NEC Council does. Amtrak just does what the Council decides. It's hands are tied. It is not a free agent any more as far as that goes. The states have to essentially agree to pay for it either lump sum up front or in dribs and drabs over 30 years, or some combination thereof. I am not sure that there is too much room for raising fares specially on NJT much more. Mr powder puff has stretched things quite to the limit.


What do you think will happen then with regards to the Gateway Project?


----------



## west point

If NJ does not put out funds for Gateway then charge them charge much extra for running thru Gateway


----------



## jis

Remember NJ is a member of the NEC Council which determines the charges.


----------



## Andrew

west point said:


> If NJ does not put out funds for Gateway then charge them charge much extra for running thru Gateway





jis said:


> Remember NJ is a member of the NEC Council which determines the charges.



I was asking if this means that the Gateway Project will not get built or when (WHICH YEARS) do you think major construction will begin? (Amtrak is looking at beginning construction of the Gateway Tunnel Resielency Project, which will construct new infrastructure from near Allied Interlocking in New Jersey to 30th street between 12th and 11th avenues in Manhattan, around 2020).


----------



## afigg

Looks like the political maneuvering to get serious about financing and getting going on the NEC Gateway is heating up. US DOT Secretary Foxx sent a letter on Monday to Cuomo and Christie asking for a meeting to discuss how to fund the project. The widely publicized delays last week for NJ Transit and Amtrak may have focred the issue. Along with the optics of Christie blaming Amtrak for the infrastructure problems.

NY Times: Transportation Secretary Seeks Meeting With Cuomo and Christie on Hudson River Rail Tunnels. Excerpts:



> Transportation Secretary Anthony Foxx, hoping to spur action on long-stalled plans for new Hudson River rail tunnels, sent a letter on Monday to the governors of New York and New Jersey urging them to meet with him in the next two weeks to map out a strategy for building new crossings.
> 
> The letter from the nation’s top transportation official came after a series of crippling train delays frustrated tens of thousands of New Jersey Transit riders and provided the latest reminder that the century-old rail tunnels, used by New Jersey Transit and Amtrak to traverse the Hudson, need to be replaced.
> 
> Mr. Foxx asked Gov. Chris Christie of New Jersey and Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo of New York to meet to discuss their states’ roles in a proposal, known as the Gateway Project, to build new rail tunnels.


......



> In his letter on Monday, Mr. Foxx said that the Obama administration was willing to explore federal financial assistance for the project. The Federal Railroad Administration and Amtrak have discussed financing tools to get the project started, he said, but they needed support from the states.
> 
> “Neither Amtrak nor your individual states, acting alone, can replace these tunnels,” he wrote. “It will take all of us working together.”


A meeting in the next 2 weeks means a meeting in _August_. When many of the power that be are on vacation. Foxx is getting serious here.


----------



## Andrew

afigg said:


> Looks like the political maneuvering to get serious about financing and getting going on the NEC Gateway is heating up. US DOT Secretary Foxx sent a letter on Monday to Cuomo and Christie asking for a meeting to discuss how to fund the project. The widely publicized delays last week for NJ Transit and Amtrak may have focred the issue. Along with the optics of Christie blaming Amtrak for the infrastructure problems.
> 
> NY Times: Transportation Secretary Seeks Meeting With Cuomo and Christie on Hudson River Rail Tunnels. Excerpts:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Transportation Secretary Anthony Foxx, hoping to spur action on long-stalled plans for new Hudson River rail tunnels, sent a letter on Monday to the governors of New York and New Jersey urging them to meet with him in the next two weeks to map out a strategy for building new crossings.
> 
> The letter from the nation’s top transportation official came after a series of crippling train delays frustrated tens of thousands of New Jersey Transit riders and provided the latest reminder that the century-old rail tunnels, used by New Jersey Transit and Amtrak to traverse the Hudson, need to be replaced.
> 
> Mr. Foxx asked Gov. Chris Christie of New Jersey and Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo of New York to meet to discuss their states’ roles in a proposal, known as the Gateway Project, to build new rail tunnels.
> 
> 
> 
> ......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In his letter on Monday, Mr. Foxx said that the Obama administration was willing to explore federal financial assistance for the project. The Federal Railroad Administration and Amtrak have discussed financing tools to get the project started, he said, but they needed support from the states.
> 
> “Neither Amtrak nor your individual states, acting alone, can replace these tunnels,” he wrote. “It will take all of us working together.”
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A meeting in the next 2 weeks means a meeting in _August_. When many of the power that be are on vacation. Foxx is getting serious here.
Click to expand...

What's your point about the August comment?

Another article about a potential Gateway meeting:

http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-07-28/amtrak-tunnel-needs-action-now-foxx-tells-christie-and-cuomo


----------



## Ryan

His point is that Congress goes on recess for all of August, and the town empties out. Having a meeting then can be compared to having a meeting on the Friday after Thanksgiving or between Christmas and New Years. Either nobody will attend, or you're serious and screwing with people's leave plans.


----------



## west point

We have no idea why the meeting in August. Hope this does not mean that things are worse than we have been told ?


----------



## afigg

west point said:


> We have no idea why the meeting in August. Hope this does not mean that things are worse than we have been told ?


I figure Secretary Foxx is pushing to have the meeting with the Governors in the next 2 weeks to get the ball rolling on the serious negotiation process on who pays how much. It will be a lengthy process with a lot of posturing from the major players and will involve many stakeholders. Already, the Port Authority has responded with a somewhat snarky letter, even though the PANYNJ board will ultimately do what Christie and Cuomo tell them to do.

Good news article on the funding challenges: Analysis: Committing cash is key to Hudson tunnel talk. Excerpts:



> Governor Christie said Tuesday that he and New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo would accept an invitation to talk with the Obama administration’s top transportation official about Amtrak’s failing 105-year-old tunnel under the Hudson River.
> 
> Whether the meeting produces action, however, may depend on if Christie and Cuomo are ready to commit dollars from their states for a new tunnel project proposed by Amtrak.
> 
> ....
> 
> Foxx’s invitation came after Sen. Cory Booker of Newark suggested to Foxx on Sunday that he and Christie meet. Booker is the top-ranking Democrat on the surface transportation subcommittee and co-sponsor of a bill that would overhaul Amtrak policy and increase funding.
> 
> ....
> 
> The problem, however, is that New Jersey’s transportation fund is virtually broke, and if Christie were to agree with Foxx and Cuomo on an equitable split of the Gateway costs, there is no indication of where New Jersey’s share of the money would come from.
> 
> On Tuesday, the chairman of the Port Authority, John Degnan, sent a letter to Foxx calling new tunnels a priority and expressing disappointment that the secretary did not attend a transportation summit held by the agency in May.
> 
> Degnan asked Foxx to provide a better understanding of how much funding is available, saying that so far the federal government has capped its contribution to $3 billion of the estimated $14 billion cost of Gateway. Degnan also called on the federal government to “express a willingness to expedite the environmental review process.”


If pushed, NY State will be able to contribute funds for Gateway. Heck, if he really wanted to, Cuomo could probably get the legislature to re-direct $1 or $1.5 billion from the circa $6 billion "windfall" the state is getting from fines paid by the banks. NJ is a problem because Christie has refused to address the state's transportation funding crisis.

The other catch will be getting the House Republicans to fund a NYC project. OTOH, there may be a route for federal funding by allocating remaining Sandy relief and mitigation funds for the core tunnel and new tracks & bridges in NJ parts of the project.


----------



## Andrew

afigg said:


> west point said:
> 
> 
> 
> We have no idea why the meeting in August. Hope this does not mean that things are worse than we have been told ?
> 
> 
> 
> I figure Secretary Foxx is pushing to have the meeting with the Governors in the next 2 weeks to get the ball rolling on the serious negotiation process on who pays how much. It will be a lengthy process with a lot of posturing from the major players and will involve many stakeholders. Already, the Port Authority has responded with a somewhat snarky letter, even though the PANYNJ board will ultimately do what Christie and Cuomo tell them to do.
> 
> Good news article on the funding challenges: Analysis: Committing cash is key to Hudson tunnel talk. Excerpts:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Governor Christie said Tuesday that he and New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo would accept an invitation to talk with the Obama administration’s top transportation official about Amtrak’s failing 105-year-old tunnel under the Hudson River.
> 
> Whether the meeting produces action, however, may depend on if Christie and Cuomo are ready to commit dollars from their states for a new tunnel project proposed by Amtrak.
> 
> ....
> 
> Foxx’s invitation came after Sen. Cory Booker of Newark suggested to Foxx on Sunday that he and Christie meet. Booker is the top-ranking Democrat on the surface transportation subcommittee and co-sponsor of a bill that would overhaul Amtrak policy and increase funding.
> 
> ....
> 
> The problem, however, is that New Jersey’s transportation fund is virtually broke, and if Christie were to agree with Foxx and Cuomo on an equitable split of the Gateway costs, there is no indication of where New Jersey’s share of the money would come from.
> 
> On Tuesday, the chairman of the Port Authority, John Degnan, sent a letter to Foxx calling new tunnels a priority and expressing disappointment that the secretary did not attend a transportation summit held by the agency in May.
> 
> Degnan asked Foxx to provide a better understanding of how much funding is available, saying that so far the federal government has capped its contribution to $3 billion of the estimated $14 billion cost of Gateway. Degnan also called on the federal government to “express a willingness to expedite the environmental review process.”
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If pushed, NY State will be able to contribute funds for Gateway. Heck, if he really wanted to, Cuomo could probably get the legislature to re-direct $1 or $1.5 billion from the circa $6 billion "windfall" the state is getting from fines paid by the banks. NJ is a problem because Christie has refused to address the state's transportation funding crisis.
> 
> The other catch will be getting the House Republicans to fund a NYC project. OTOH, there may be a route for federal funding by allocating remaining Sandy relief and mitigation funds for the core tunnel and new tracks & bridges in NJ parts of the project.
Click to expand...

Good points!

But, Amtrak's reauthorization proposal calls for redirecting their Northeast Corridor operating profits back into the Northeast Corridor--which could help finance the Gateway Project through a massive RRIF loan, or RIFIA loan, which apparently has been recently discussed...


----------



## jis

How is that loan ever going to be paid back? Or are we just going to fall back on the Greek approach to financing?


----------



## Andrew

jis said:


> How is that loan ever going to be paid back? Or are we just going to fall back on the Greek approach to financing?


The NEC profits--which are expected to amount to around $400 million per year--could pay for debt service on these loans, and plus, interest rates are extremely low and have been extremely low for the last few years...


----------



## jis

Andrew said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> 
> How is that loan ever going to be paid back? Or are we just going to fall back on the Greek approach to financing?
> 
> 
> 
> The NEC profits--which are expected to amount to around $400 million per year--could pay for debt service on these loans, and plus, interest rates are extremely low and have been extremely low for the last few years...
Click to expand...

And then what will be used as collateral for the loans needed for buying rolling stock? You cannot use the same profits to cover things several times over. How will we then pay for the other capital work if we eat up the entire profits in paying for just the Hudson tunnels. This idea of using on RRIF loans I don;t believe is a practical one. There has to be capital infusion in the form of outright grants, or this thing is not going to happen. The other possibility is using collateral like incidental real estate development etc., like AAF is using. But I have not seen that proposed anywhere yet.


----------



## Andrew

jis said:


> Andrew said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jis said:
> 
> 
> 
> How is that loan ever going to be paid back? Or are we just going to fall back on the Greek approach to financing?
> 
> 
> 
> The NEC profits--which are expected to amount to around $400 million per year--could pay for debt service on these loans, and plus, interest rates are extremely low and have been extremely low for the last few years...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And then what will be used as collateral for the loans needed for buying rolling stock? You cannot use the same profits to cover things several times over. How will we then pay for the other capital work if we eat up the entire profits in paying for just the Hudson tunnels. This idea of using on RRIF loans I don;t believe is a practical one. There has to be capital infusion in the form of outright grants, or this thing is not going to happen. The other possibility is using collateral like incidental real estate development etc., like AAF is using. But I have not seen that proposed anywhere yet.
Click to expand...

Loans for new Amfleet coaches can be financed by the savings on future maintenance costs. However, I believe that new Dual Mode Locomotives should be funded from capital expenditures. (I think it is unlikely that Amtrak would purchase more than 20 new DM's). How much does a DM locomotive sell for today?

Amtrak might sell the air rights over Sunnyside Yard in Queens to partially fund Gateway.

Port Authority Chairman Degnan's letter to Foxx about Gateway: http://www.scribd.com/doc/272884160/Port-Authority-Chairman-s-Response-to-Foxx-Invitation

Also, for Transportation Secretary Foxx's meeting with Cuomo and Christie, does anyone know if they are looking at funding the entire Gateway Project, or just the Gateway Tunnel Resielency Project?


----------



## afigg

Andrew said:


> The NEC profits--which are expected to amount to around $400 million per year--could pay for debt service on these loans, and plus, interest rates are extremely low and have been extremely low for the last few years...


You keep harping on the possibilities of Amtrak obtaining RIFF or other low interest federal loans to pay for NEC infrastructure projects. The problem is that, unlike a state or city government when it issues 20 or 30 year bonds to pay for road or transit projects, Amtrak does not have the power to levy gas, sales, or real estate taxes that governments often rely on to pay off the bonds. OK, maybe Amtrak could levy a surcharge of some sort on passengers or on the commuter railroads, but it would make Amtrak less competitive and make for a even more complicated financial relationship with the all commuter agencies.
I expect that the Portal bridge and other NEC projects will end up being paid for in part by federal loans, RIFF, TIFIA, or whatever. But it will be DEBT that will have to be paid off with INTEREST over the next 20 or 30 years. Which could become a crushing debt load, if Amtrak or an NEC authority/Commission is not careful - or a couple of powerful Governors push for the NEC to take on more debt, so they don't to pay more out of their transit budgets because they have higher political ambitions. Take on too much debt, and someday, the choice might have to be between paying for basic track maintenance or servicing the debt on track infrastructure. Then Amtrak would have to go to Congress and the states, hat in hand and ask for help. Debt on rolling stock is a different matter because one can figure out how much revenue the Acela or coach cars are generating. Not so simple for new tunnels under the Hudson river or bridge in NJ used by both Amtrak and NJT. RIFF loans are no panacea, although as I said, I expect low interest federal loans for infrastructure are in the NEC's future.


----------



## Andrew

afigg said:


> Andrew said:
> 
> 
> 
> The NEC profits--which are expected to amount to around $400 million per year--could pay for debt service on these loans, and plus, interest rates are extremely low and have been extremely low for the last few years...
> 
> 
> 
> You keep harping on the possibilities of Amtrak obtaining RIFF or other low interest federal loans to pay for NEC infrastructure projects. The problem is that, unlike a state or city government when it issues 20 or 30 year bonds to pay for road or transit projects, Amtrak does not have the power to levy gas, sales, or real estate taxes that governments often rely on to pay off the bonds. OK, maybe Amtrak could levy a surcharge of some sort on passengers or on the commuter railroads, but it would make Amtrak less competitive and make for a even more complicated financial relationship with the all commuter agencies.
> I expect that the Portal bridge and other NEC projects will end up being paid for in part by federal loans, RIFF, TIFIA, or whatever. But it will be DEBT that will have to be paid off with INTEREST over the next 20 or 30 years. Which could become a crushing debt load, if Amtrak or an NEC authority/Commission is not careful - or a couple of powerful Governors push for the NEC to take on more debt, so they don't to pay more out of their transit budgets because they have higher political ambitions. Take on too much debt, and someday, the choice might have to be between paying for basic track maintenance or servicing the debt on track infrastructure. Then Amtrak would have to go to Congress and the states, hat in hand and ask for help. Debt on rolling stock is a different matter because one can figure out how much revenue the Acela or coach cars are generating. Not so simple for new tunnels under the Hudson river or bridge in NJ used by both Amtrak and NJT. RIFF loans are no panacea, although as I said, I expect low interest federal loans for infrastructure are in the NEC's future.
Click to expand...

So how do you see Amtrak contributing to the Gateway Project?

Could a surcharge on passengers occur?


----------



## afigg

The good news is that it appears Gov. Christie will take a break from New Hampshire, where he has been busy serving the people of NJ  , and meet with Gov. Cuomo and Secretary Foxx. Nj.com: Christie says he and Cuomo committed to new Hudson rail tunnel. However, I did not realize that Christie was a civil engineer concerned about the design of the tunnels. Excerpt:



> However, Christie said any proposal on a new crossing between the states would would need to meet specific guidelines before he would sign off on it.
> 
> "Let's be clear," Christie said, "I had a good conversation, I think as I told you guys yesterday, with Governor Cuomo and both of us are committed and had the chairman of the Port Authority send a letter to Secretary Foxx today agreeing to meet, but also saying that there are two priorities for us in building this tunnel: Not only does there have to be appropriate and fair funding from all the parties involved, — federal and both states — but there also has to be a properly engineered tunnel."


The dealmaking and sheer bluster over the next few months could be interesting to watch.


----------



## jis

The more relevant question is where is Christie going to find the money to pay New Jersey's fair share, without raiding the PANYNJ piggy bank. He blithely kept counting the entire PANYNJ contribution is the last round as NJ contribution without taking into consideration that rightfully half that money belongs to NY. So let the spouting of half truths begin all over again with a vengeance!


----------



## afigg

Andrew said:


> So how do you see Amtrak contributing to the Gateway Project?
> 
> Could a surcharge on passengers occur?


Andrew, if you are going to respond with a short question, please trim the quotes from previous posts to just the gist of what you are responding to, so people don't have to plow through long quotes.
As for how Amtrak might drum up funding for its part, wait and see what comes out of the negotiations. Why ask questions that no one here can answer?


----------



## jis

The fact of the matter is that Amtrak will contribute whatever Congress appropriates under the FRA Amtrak account for it, or whatever it instructs Amtrak to do relative to any loans. Not much else.  Amtrak is a creature of the Congress and not much else, notwithstanding wild dreams of many.


----------



## Andrew

Cuomo has said he will make the project a priority if the federal government provides more to Gateway than the $3 billion they have said they would contribute.

My fear, though, is that if the Fed's do not provide more than the proposed $3 billion, then Gateway will not happen.

I still do not know if the politicians are talking about funding the entire Gateway Project or just the Gateway Tunnel Resielency Project.


----------



## jis

When did the federal government say they will contribute anything specific like $3 billion. Could you provide a citation for that please?

Most of your endless questions are addressed in the following:

http://nec.amtrak.com/sites/default/files/Gateway_Amtrak%20Factsheet%20Spring%202015.pdf

http://static1.squarespace.com/static/55196841e4b076742447c850/t/5553e513e4b00483b17a4493/1431561491984/AVitalLink_Amtrak.pdf

Beyond that I doubt anyone knows anything. The second item above is from Drew Galloway and relatively recent (May 2015 vintage).

Feds at present have exactly $0 allocated to this project. Amtrak, the states and PA can find whatever they can. The Surface Transportation Authorization talks vaguely about some $150 million to $450 million per year for capital work on the NEC overall. Of course nothing has passed in a form that could become law yet.

Incidentally, the projected completion date mentioned in the first document above is 2030. This would indicate that there is little expectation that any serious construction will begin before 2018-2020 timeframe.


----------



## afigg

Andrew said:


> Cuomo has said he will make the project a priority if the federal government provides more to Gateway than the $3 billion they have said they would contribute.
> 
> My fear, though, is that if the Fed's do not provide more than the proposed $3 billion, then Gateway will not happen.
> 
> I still do not know if the politicians are talking about funding the entire Gateway Project or just the Gateway Tunnel Resielency Project.


Unless Secretary Foxx has $3 billion siting around, he can't commit that much. Maybe he could make parts of Gateway eligible for FTA programs. Foxx can propose a federal share, but it will be up to Congress to provide the federal funds. What did I say above about dealmaking and bluster over the next few months. This is Cuomo and Christie posturing and playing to the public.

The key is that the many players involved have started talking and negotiating how fund the Gateway project. Or a large part of it: the two tunnels and tracks in NJ and two Portal bridges. Not hard to see Gateway broken into phases with the parts needed only for NJT, namely Penn Station South and the Secaucus Loop kicked into a future phase because Christie does not want to agree to pay for those on his watch. Andrew, you need to realize that coming up with a funding package Gateway will be a long and tedious process. With a lot of bluster and noise coming from one participant. Asking us questions about it won't change anything.


----------



## Andrew

afigg said:


> Andrew said:
> 
> 
> 
> Cuomo has said he will make the project a priority if the federal government provides more to Gateway than the $3 billion they have said they would contribute.
> 
> My fear, though, is that if the Fed's do not provide more than the proposed $3 billion, then Gateway will not happen.
> 
> I still do not know if the politicians are talking about funding the entire Gateway Project or just the Gateway Tunnel Resielency Project.
> 
> 
> 
> Unless Secretary Foxx has $3 billion siting around, he can't commit that much. Maybe he could make parts of Gateway eligible for FTA programs. Foxx can propose a federal share, but it will be up to Congress to provide the federal funds. What did I say above about dealmaking and bluster over the next few months. This is Cuomo and Christie posturing and playing to the public.
> 
> The key is that the many players involved have started talking and negotiating how fund the Gateway project. Or a large part of it: the two tunnels and tracks in NJ and two Portal bridges. Not hard to see Gateway broken into phases with the parts needed only for NJT, namely Penn Station South and the Secaucus Loop kicked into a future phase because Christie does not want to agree to pay for those on his watch. Andrew, you need to realize that coming up with a funding package Gateway will be a long and tedious process. With a lot of bluster and noise coming from one participant. Asking us questions about it won't change anything.
Click to expand...

So we still do not know how much of the Gateway Project is being discussed. Maybe Cuomo is referring to the $3 billion commitment for ARC?

http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2015/07/29/andrew-cuomo-hudson-river-tunnels/

Another link about Gateway: http://www.northjersey.com/news/analysis-committing-cash-is-key-to-hudson-tunnel-talk-1.1382096


----------



## Andrew

A new PDF on the Gateway Project:

http://nec.amtrak.com/sites/default/files/Map_Gateway_Overview_DRAFT_7%20w%20Hudson%20Tunnel%20Proj%20study%20area.pdf

My concern is that both Governors Christie and Cuomo will tell the media that they agreed to a meeting--and then both have the meeting at all!

Now Cuomo is talking about the Gateway Project:

http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-08-07/cuomo-says-u-s-loan-offer-for-amtrak-tunnel-isn-t-acceptable


----------



## afigg

Gov. Cuomo is not exactly showing much leadership here. NYT: Cuomo Says Hudson Tunnels Need Grants, Not Loans to States, From U.S.



> Two weeks after the federal government’s top transportation official urged the governors of New York and New Jersey to meet with him about how to solve the problems plaguing rail service between their states, Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo of New York said on Sunday that such a meeting would be pointless unless federal officials offered grants, not loans, to finance new tunnels under the Hudson River.
> 
> Speaking to reporters before the Dominican Day Parade in Manhattan on Sunday, Mr. Cuomo said he was willing to meet with the secretary of transportation, Anthony Foxx, who had asked for a meeting by Monday, “but there’s no reason to meet now, because it’s very simple.” The states could not afford to pay back a loan, Mr. Cuomo said; only cash would do to help cover the estimated $14 billion cost.
> 
> “I don’t need your advice; I know we need the tunnel,” Mr. Cuomo said. “We’ll build the tunnel — I’ll go out there with a shovel myself — but we need the money.”


Yes, Congress needs to appropriate funds to cover part of the costs for the Gateway project. But how is refusing to meet with Secretary Foxx going to solve that problem? Cuomo and Christie should be meeting both with Foxx and members of the state's Congressional delegations to make the case for funding.


----------



## jis

The sooner people start realizing that the Hudson Tunnels generally are not very high and never has been very high on the totem pole of New York Governor's priority list, the better off they will be from their own mental health angle. I would be absolutely amazed if a New York Governor actually takes a lead on this while the New jersey Governor is busy spending all his time in Iowa and New Hampshire. just isn't gonna happen. I expect a lot of equivocation at best involving perhaps a telephone call or two. If anything NY is in worse financial shape than NJ when it comes to transportation money, what with two major projects running way over budget and behind schedule, with very little chance of getting any substantial rescue package from the feds.


----------



## NE933

I think the Governor is pretty much on target: $14B is impossible for two states, and it's also unreasonable in that the route serves passengers on an intercity corridor that go much farther than just NY or NJ. Grant money, cash, is the only answer for the bulk of Gateway. Gateway, along with the nations' myriad of other decaying infrastructure, is crying out for a funding mechanism other than 'no, there's no money for that'.

Do it now, or else we risk drying up and decaying ourselves. After all, if the Hudson tunnels fail, no one knows how to move allll that traffic elsewhere. There are no other tunnels, no bridges, ferries can't handle it, the roadways can't either. Unfortunately Amtrak's recent handling of big capital projects are starting to appear mediocre, and even poor in some cases, which hurts the credibility needed to stand up, call, and get the money and cooperative work needed.


----------



## Anderson

I've renamed the topic to broaden it a bit. Seems a bit restrictive to refer to a 2013 conference (even if that's what started the thread) when much of the discussion has moved along since then.


----------



## afigg

NE933 said:


> I think the Governor is pretty much on target: $14B is impossible for two states, and it's also unreasonable in that the route serves passengers on an intercity corridor that go much farther than just NY or NJ. Grant money, cash, is the only answer for the bulk of Gateway. Gateway, along with the nations' myriad of other decaying infrastructure, is crying out for a funding mechanism other than 'no, there's no money for that'.


I don't think Secretary Foxx's proposal is that NJ and NY pay the entire costs of Gateway. The additional payments from the NEC states, operating surplus from the Acela and NE Regionals, and the NEC Commission capital grant allocations are presumably part of the mix in figuring out how to fund Gateway. Or, for starters, break out as a Phase 1 stage to fund for now, the State of Good Repair components - two new Hudson tunnels, North Portal Bridge, Sawtooth bridge replacement/rebuild - spelled out in the project overview map linked to by Andrew above.

There are many stakeholders and political players in the process of figuring out to fund the Gateway project. Going to be a long and bumpy ride.

On August 10, the NJ state Senate held a hearing on the recent breakdowns on the NEC that delayed many NJT trains and the Gateway project. NJ.com: Failing equipment, delays could become the new normal, Amtrak VP says. Has a picture of the prop, a cutout section of the 1930s power cable that failed, brought by Amtrak.

Excerpt:



> Amtrak officials told a state Senate panel that it needs at least $1 billion a year to bring its system into a state of good repair and that the canceled ARC tunnel would have provided some help if a Hudson River tunnel were forced out of service for repair.
> 
> Stephen Gardner, Amtrak Executive Vice President and Chief of NEC Business Development, said it would take a recurring investment of at least $4 billion a year to replace aging infrastructure, including the 105-year-old Hudson River tunnels and the century old Portal Bridge.
> 
> During his testimony to the state Senate Legislative Oversight Committee on Monday, Gardner held up a thick black section of a large electrical cable that failed, causing four days of transit delays in July. It was one of several pieces of infrastructure that failed during the week of July 20.


I think there is a typo in the article because $1 billion to get the system to a state of good repair doesn't match the 2nd paragraph figure of $4 billion a year.


----------



## Andrew

afigg said:


> NE933 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think the Governor is pretty much on target: $14B is impossible for two states, and it's also unreasonable in that the route serves passengers on an intercity corridor that go much farther than just NY or NJ. Grant money, cash, is the only answer for the bulk of Gateway. Gateway, along with the nations' myriad of other decaying infrastructure, is crying out for a funding mechanism other than 'no, there's no money for that'.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think Secretary Foxx's proposal is that NJ and NY pay the entire costs of Gateway. The additional payments from the NEC states, operating surplus from the Acela and NE Regionals, and the NEC Commission capital grant allocations are presumably part of the mix in figuring out how to fund Gateway. Or, for starters, break out as a Phase 1 stage to fund for now, the State of Good Repair components - two new Hudson tunnels, North Portal Bridge, Sawtooth bridge replacement/rebuild - spelled out in the project overview map linked to by Andrew above.
> 
> There are many stakeholders and political players in the process of figuring out to fund the Gateway project. Going to be a long and bumpy ride.
> 
> On August 10, the NJ state Senate held a hearing on the recent breakdowns on the NEC that delayed many NJT trains and the Gateway project. NJ.com: Failing equipment, delays could become the new normal, Amtrak VP says. Has a picture of the prop, a cutout section of the 1930s power cable that failed, brought by Amtrak.
> 
> Excerpt:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Amtrak officials told a state Senate panel that it needs at least $1 billion a year to bring its system into a state of good repair and that the canceled ARC tunnel would have provided some help if a Hudson River tunnel were forced out of service for repair.
> 
> Stephen Gardner, Amtrak Executive Vice President and Chief of NEC Business Development, said it would take a recurring investment of at least $4 billion a year to replace aging infrastructure, including the 105-year-old Hudson River tunnels and the century old Portal Bridge.
> 
> During his testimony to the state Senate Legislative Oversight Committee on Monday, Gardner held up a thick black section of a large electrical cable that failed, causing four days of transit delays in July. It was one of several pieces of infrastructure that failed during the week of July 20.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think there is a typo in the article because $1 billion to get the system to a state of good repair doesn't match the 2nd paragraph figure of $4 billion a year.
Click to expand...


A massive RRIF Loan needs to be in the mix! Commuter rail fees are going up this October 1st, and will have to again over the next several years to help fund Gateway. NEC profits can be reinstated into debt service, and the Port Authority of NY and NJ must contribute as well.

From the same article: "http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2015/08/failing_equipment_delays_could_become_the_new_normal_amtrak_vp_says.html

"Gordon said he was heartened by Gardner's testimony that the federal government could put up 80 percent of the estimated $14 billion funding for Gateway through a federal railroad reconstruction program that has $35 billion in uncommitted funds and a loan program that could help states fund their share over 35 years".

My concern, though, is that a RRIF loan gets offered--and even the state of New Jersey offers to chip in--but NY State Governor Cuomo REFUSES! Thus, Gateway ends up never happening--just the replacement of the Portal Bridge and Manhattan Concrete Casing Tunnels.


----------



## Eric S

Andrew said:


> A massive RRIF Loan needs to be in the mix! Commuter rail fees are going up this October 1st, and will have to again over the next several years to help fund Gateway. NEC profits can be reinstated into debt service, and the Port Authority of NY and NJ must contribute as well.
> 
> From the same article: "http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2015/08/failing_equipment_delays_could_become_the_new_normal_amtrak_vp_says.html
> 
> "Gordon said he was heartened by Gardner's testimony that the federal government could put up 80 percent of the estimated $14 billion funding for Gateway through a federal railroad reconstruction program that has $35 billion in uncommitted funds and a loan program that could help states fund their share over 35 years".
> 
> My concern, though, is that a RRIF loan gets offered--and even the state of New Jersey offers to chip in--but NY State Governor Cuomo REFUSES! Thus, Gateway ends up never happening--just the replacement of the Portal Bridge and Manhattan Concrete Casing Tunnels.


What do you mean that NEC profits can be "reinstated" into debt service?


----------



## Andrew

Rather than subsiding unprofitable long distance trains, Amtrak's plan is to put the operating profits back into improvements on the Northeast Corridor--and Gateway is a top candidate to receive these future profits.


----------



## jis

Presumably after they have used part of said profits to pay off the planned RRIF loans for the Aclea IIs. They will need more than just the NEC profits to pay off an RRIF loan if that is what the feds force them to use to cover the Feds 80% in the 80-20 formula, which is of course not what they force highway projects to do.


----------



## afigg

Andrew said:


> Rather than subsiding unprofitable long distance trains, Amtrak's plan is to put the operating profits back into improvements on the Northeast Corridor--and Gateway is a top candidate to receive these future profits.


Andrew, you keep harping on using RIFF loans to pay for Gateway and NEC infrastructure. I expect federally backed RIFF or TIFIA or equivalent loans will be part of the funding package, but I think you overestimate how much debt load the fully loaded operating surplus from the Acela and NE Regionals could be used to cover. In FY14, the Acela and NE Regionals generated a net "surplus" of $482 million according to the September 2014 monthly report. Sounds like a lot, and it does help to put Amtrak on a better financial footing than it was in the pre-Acela era. But, not all of it can go for debt service, some has to go towards paying for the national system and a margin has to be left for recessions and down years.

So, let's say 60% of the $482 million is set aside, $290 million, to cover bond/loan debt payments. The interest rates on 30 Year Treasury notes are around 3% at present. But the era of really low interest rates is about to come to an end with the Federal Reserve about to slowly start raising rates. It will be at least 2-3-4 years before Amtrak or a new entity set up to fund and manage Gateway will be in a position to take out a loan. 30 Year rates may be 4% or 5% or higher by then. I will leave it to you to figure out how big a loan can be taken on with a 30 year loan at 5% interest with $290 million a year in payments available. Once the loan is taken out, the credit card from NEC net "surplus" is effectively maxed out for decades to come. How much of the loan money do you spend on rolling stock to replace the Acelas and Amfleets? How much do you sink into NEC infrastructure and Gateway that gets stuck with 30 years of debt service payments that have to paid?

One avenue of federal funding I have not seen discussed in the press coverage are the Sandy emergency relief funds. The concrete casing is be paid for by Sandy mitigation funds. Using that logic, the new tunnels would qualify. Much of the Sandy mitigation funds have already been allocated. US DOT may have some reserves set aside that could be allocated towards the tunnel parts of the project. There are a lot of Sandy relief funds sloshing around NJ, but I suspect Christie is not going to respond positively to re-allocating more than a token amount of NJ Sandy relief funds to a Gateway State of Good Repair project because he and the power brokers are using those funds for their political interests. Another avenue is to end sequestration which would make some additional relief funds available, but this requires a functional Congress.


----------



## jis

Specially considering that quite a bit of the Sandy relief funds seem to have bypassed those that were actually harmed by Sandy in NJ. There really isn;t a large trove of unallocated fund sitting around anywhere in NJ that does not have prior legitimate claims on it. There needs to be new money allocated. There aren;t enough smoke and mirror in the world for already budgeted money for other purposes to be hijacked.


----------



## afigg

More news on the efforts to line up funding for Gateway. Nj.com: Christie, Senators to meet with feds on rail tunnel funding.



> Governor Chris Christie and U.S. Senators Cory Booker and Robert Menendez will meet with U.S. Transportation Secretary Anthony Foxx next week to talk about Hudson River rail tunnel funding.
> 
> The August 18 meeting, which was first reported on Politico, was confirmed by Suzanne Emmerling, a USDOT spokeswoman.


So, at least Gov. Christie will take a short break from pestering the voters in NH.


----------



## Andrew

jis said:


> Presumably after they have used part of said profits to pay off the planned RRIF loans for the Aclea IIs. They will need more than just the NEC profits to pay off an RRIF loan if that is what the feds force them to use to cover the Feds 80% in the 80-20 formula, which is of course not what they force highway projects to do.





afigg said:


> Andrew said:
> 
> 
> 
> Rather than subsiding unprofitable long distance trains, Amtrak's plan is to put the operating profits back into improvements on the Northeast Corridor--and Gateway is a top candidate to receive these future profits.
> 
> 
> 
> Andrew, you keep harping on using RIFF loans to pay for Gateway and NEC infrastructure. I expect federally backed RIFF or TIFIA or equivalent loans will be part of the funding package, but I think you overestimate how much debt load the fully loaded operating surplus from the Acela and NE Regionals could be used to cover. In FY14, the Acela and NE Regionals generated a net "surplus" of $482 million according to the September 2014 monthly report. Sounds like a lot, and it does help to put Amtrak on a better financial footing than it was in the pre-Acela era. But, not all of it can go for debt service, some has to go towards paying for the national system and a margin has to be left for recessions and down years.
> 
> So, let's say 60% of the $482 million is set aside, $290 million, to cover bond/loan debt payments. The interest rates on 30 Year Treasury notes are around 3% at present. But the era of really low interest rates is about to come to an end with the Federal Reserve about to slowly start raising rates. It will be at least 2-3-4 years before Amtrak or a new entity set up to fund and manage Gateway will be in a position to take out a loan. 30 Year rates may be 4% or 5% or higher by then. I will leave it to you to figure out how big a loan can be taken on with a 30 year loan at 5% interest with $290 million a year in payments available. Once the loan is taken out, the credit card from NEC net "surplus" is effectively maxed out for decades to come. How much of the loan money do you spend on rolling stock to replace the Acelas and Amfleets? How much do you sink into NEC infrastructure and Gateway that gets stuck with 30 years of debt service payments that have to paid?
> 
> One avenue of federal funding I have not seen discussed in the press coverage are the Sandy emergency relief funds. The concrete casing is be paid for by Sandy mitigation funds. Using that logic, the new tunnels would qualify. Much of the Sandy mitigation funds have already been allocated. US DOT may have some reserves set aside that could be allocated towards the tunnel parts of the project. There are a lot of Sandy relief funds sloshing around NJ, but I suspect Christie is not going to respond positively to re-allocating more than a token amount of NJ Sandy relief funds to a Gateway State of Good Repair project because he and the power brokers are using those funds for their political interests. Another avenue is to end sequestration which would make some additional relief funds available, but this requires a functional Congress.
Click to expand...

I still believe that as the overall economy improves, Gateway will get the green light for funding. Senator Schumer has talked about a development corporation that could maximum the amount of money that Gateway could get from federal funding. http://observer.com/2015/08/schumer-calls-for-a-gateway-development-authority-to-fund-hudson-tunnels/

A second article regarding Gateway: http://politickernj.com/2015/08/80-20-federal-split-low-cost-loan-should-bring-governors-to-table-on-gateway-tunnel/

Amtrak is planning to finance Acela 2's with incremental growth in Acela revenue. From.... http://www.amtrak.com/ccurl/133/704/FY15-Budget-Business-Plan-FY16-Budget-Justification-FY-15-19-Five-Year-Financial-Plan.pdf "Amtrak intends to fund the acquisition of this equipment through some type of long term financing. Amtrak’s high level business case supporting the release of the request for proposals shows that incremental growth in NEC revenues resulting from the high-speed trainsets will fund Amtrak’s debt service obligations associated with the financing."


----------



## jis

I think Senator Schumer's plan for setting up a separate agency is, well, interesting and questionable. It may just be a way to give some cover from Cuomo's non-action. We already have one enormous agency whose charter includes construction and maintenance of trans-Hudson infrastructure, which we seem to be neither able to control nor manage, except as a piggy-bank for the two Governors to dive into from time to time for their pet projects. So now we will just have another agency which we will probably lose control of sooner rather than later.

As for NEC surpluses, what is the real number? How would one know when a significant portion of the costs involved are computed by allocation, and are not grounded in any real accounting rollup?

You cannot count on Acela growth for financing Acelas while depending on the same thing to also finance infrastructure.


----------



## Karl1459

A funding option that has not been talked about is some sort of revenue bond, repaid with tolls from use of the project. This would bring in private money for a portion of the project and reduce the staggering amount of money the states and feds need to spend.

This type of bond can be guarenteed by the government(s) to accept the risks of default which usually has a lower rate of interest than non guarenteed bonds where the investors assume the risk of default.


----------



## Andrew

afigg said:


> More news on the efforts to line up funding for Gateway. Nj.com: Christie, Senators to meet with feds on rail tunnel funding.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Governor Chris Christie and U.S. Senators Cory Booker and Robert Menendez will meet with U.S. Transportation Secretary Anthony Foxx next week to talk about Hudson River rail tunnel funding.
> 
> The August 18 meeting, which was first reported on Politico, was confirmed by Suzanne Emmerling, a USDOT spokeswoman.
> 
> 
> 
> So, at least Gov. Christie will take a short break from pestering the voters in NH.
Click to expand...

Do you think this meeting will be about minimizing New Jersey's contribution to Gateway?


----------



## neroden

jis said:


> I think Senator Schumer's plan for setting up a separate agency is, well, interesting and questionable. It may just be a way to give some cover from Cuomo's non-action.


NY routinely sets up "public benefit corporations" (usually ending with the word "Authority", as in "Metropolitan Transportation Authority" and "New York State Dormitory Authority") to do all kinds of things, and has done for a hundred years. Mostly because the state government has a constitutional debt limit, but the public benefit corporations don't. (We should get rid of the stupid constitutional debt limit, but that's another matter.) Anyway, there are hundreds of these public benefit corporations. Setting up another one would be business-as-usual in New York State. If it would allow flow-through of grants from many different sources, it would probably be beneficial. And in NY, the state can set one of these up in a week.


----------



## jis

A pretty good analysis of the current situation:

http://www.northjersey.com/news/analysis-hudson-rail-tunnel-plan-is-popular-but-no-one-wants-the-bill-1.1391222

As for setting up an authority, NY State can do whatever it likes or needs to do to participate most effectively within the bounds of its constitution, but in order to build an interstate tunnel the authority charged with doing so will have to be chartered by a compact of states which will probably require some federal action, like setting up the PANYNJ did. What NY State can do within itself is interesting for dealing with which body from New York will participate but beyond that is of little interest to anyone who is not sitting in New York state I am afraid. Therefore, my assumption is that Schumer is not talking of setting up just a NY State Authority.


----------



## neroden

PANYNJ is a public benefit corporation under New York State law. Its treatment under New Jersey law and under federal law is another matter, but that's the New York side of the ledger dealt with. 

Other "Class D Public Authorities" (interstate) are the Niagara Falls Bridge Commission (representatives from NY and Ontario), and the Buffalo and Fort Erie Public Bridge Authority.


----------



## Andrew

A meeting is now scheduled for Tuesday, August 18th, between Secretary Foxx, Christie, Menendez and Booker.

http://www.nj.com/traffic/index.ssf/2015/08/federal_loan_could_get_new_hudson_river_rail_tunnel_built.html


----------



## Thirdrail7

Andrew said:


> A meeting is now scheduled for Tuesday, August 18th, between Secretary Foxx, Christie, Menendez and Booker.
> 
> http://www.nj.com/traffic/index.ssf/2015/08/federal_loan_could_get_new_hudson_river_rail_tunnel_built.html


Do you think Gov Christie still remembers where New Jersey is? :giggle:

That being said, it should be an interesting meeting.


----------



## Andrew

I really hope that Christie is not just attending this meeting in order to please his voters--without making any additional effort to jump-start the Gateway Project.

Some people think that the Port Authority can be the contributor for the states of New York and New Jersey. from http://politickernj.com/2015/08/80-20-federal-split-low-cost-loan-should-bring-governors-to-table-on-gateway-tunnel/

"Gardner also noted that more than $30 billion remain in the federal Railroad Rehabilitation Infrastructure Financing program for low-interest loans for major railroad infrastructure projects, and that the Gateway program would be a suitable use for that money. New York City’s Metropolitan Transportation Authority got a $967.1 million loan from the program in May at a 2.38 percent interest rate.

“As the bistate agency whose principal mission is trans-Hudson transportation infrastructure, the Port Authority is the logical entity to provide the local match for Gateway,” said Sweeney. “The loan program could make that commitment easier.”

Sweeney has pushed for the agency to include $3 billion to jump-start Gateway as part of its new 10-year capital plan. A 35-year RRIF loan – which is justified for a tunnel expected to last 100 years – would cost between $120 million and $130 million a year at the current 2.7 percent long-term Treasury rate. The administrator of the Federal Railroad Administration has the power to authorize loans from the RRIF program, which was previously authorized by Congress at a $35 billion funding level. (It is my understanding that the Port Authority will likely be renewing their 10-year capital plan this Fall).

Senator Weinberg said she and her colleagues are prepared to reach out to and work with the state’s congressional delegation and the Port Authority to “move the idea forward.”

“We are more than prepared to be pro-active to move this idea forward with a financing plan that gets the project done,” said Senator Weinberg. “Spreading out the Port Authority’s cost up to 35 years would be beneficial because the agency has other critical infrastructure needs, starting with the reconstruction and repair of the Port Authority Bus Terminal to meet increased bus ridership demand over the next 30 years.”


----------



## neroden

Christie certainly has no intention of helping the Gateway Project. Given enough pressure, however, he might agree to it; I don't think he cares enough to be spiteful about it.


----------



## Andrew

neroden said:


> Christie certainly has no intention of helping the Gateway Project. Given enough pressure, however, he might agree to it; I don't think he cares enough to be spiteful about it.


It will be interesting to see how this all plays out.

New Jersey's Transportation Trust Fund will run out in June of 2016. Christie will leave office (that's if he does not become our next president or get indicted) in January of 2018.

I wonder if the next New Jersey Transportation Trust Fund will held contribute to Gateway.

Sweeney--who might become New Jersey's next governor--will take a tour of the North River Tunnels today. http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2015/08/top_nj_dem_to_tour_aging_hudson_rail_tunnel_today.html


----------



## jis

neroden said:


> Christie certainly has no intention of helping the Gateway Project. Given enough pressure, however, he might agree to it; I don't think he cares enough to be spiteful about it.


I agree. He just does not care. Now if we were talking a couple of road tunnels, the entire picture changes. Christie is a dyed in the wool '60s and '70s roadnick, that's all. He simply does not believe that rail has a role to play and deep down believes any investment in rail is wasted money. It should all go to highways.


----------



## Andrew

jis said:


> neroden said:
> 
> 
> 
> Christie certainly has no intention of helping the Gateway Project. Given enough pressure, however, he might agree to it; I don't think he cares enough to be spiteful about it.
> 
> 
> 
> I agree. He just does not care. Now if we were talking a couple of road tunnels, the entire picture changes. Christie is a dyed in the wool '60s and '70s roadnick, that's all. He simply does not believe that rail has a role to play and deep down believes any investment in rail is wasted money. It should all go to highways.
Click to expand...

I think Donald Trump is right that Christie missed his time to be president...

What would be the reasons why the Port Authority takes out a RRIF Loan to help contribute to Gateway, rather than through multi-year capital expenditures?


----------



## jis

I doubt that the PA will take out any loan at all. They first need to reduce their current debt load to manageable levels.


----------



## afigg

Andrew said:


> “As the bistate agency whose principal mission is trans-Hudson transportation infrastructure, the Port Authority is the logical entity to provide the local match for Gateway,” said Sweeney. “The loan program could make that commitment easier.”
> 
> Sweeney has pushed for the agency to include $3 billion to jump-start Gateway as part of its new 10-year capital plan. A 35-year RRIF loan – which is justified for a tunnel expected to last 100 years – would cost between $120 million and $130 million a year at the current 2.7 percent long-term Treasury rate. The administrator of the Federal Railroad Administration has the power to authorize loans from the RRIF program, which was previously authorized by Congress at a $35 billion funding level. (It is my understanding that the Port Authority will likely be renewing their 10-year capital plan this Fall).


So, with New Jersey in effect about to max out its credit card on transportation infrastructure debt because NJ has not increased its gasoline excise tax in 25 years, the state Senator wants the Port Authority to take on a $3 billion RIFF loan. So his answer is let the PANYNJ piggy bank pay for it, or at least for the next few years, while NJ is stuck in political gridlock. A Port Authority piggy bank that has been tapped by Christie and Cuomo along with fiascoes like the huge cost overruns on the World Trade center PATH station.

The US DOT and the FRA have to follow the law and statutory regulations in awarding the RIFF loans, I suspect there would be legal issues with the FRA awarding a RIFF loan for part of the project while the remainder is unfunded. What happens to the federal investment if the project stalls out after spending $3 billion with tunnels bored out halfway under the the Hudson? OTOH, Secretary Foxx may have the authority to waive many of the regulations. For that matter, I don't think the FRA can award a a RIFF loan for a project that doesn't have a completed EIS either. Although the North Portal Bridge is shovel ready.

Going to be a long dance to see who ends up paying for it and what gets built when. Anyway, the NYT is keeping up the pressure with an editorial: Build a New Hudson River Tunnel. Starting excerpt:



> The antiquated rail tunnels under the Hudson River between New York and New Jersey look older than their 105 years. In places, the cement walls next to the tracks are crumbling, exposing the electrical wiring that helps power and control the system. And even though Amtrak officials work every weekend to repair the two and a half-mile long tubes, they are alarmed by the rapid deterioration.
> 
> Even before salt water flooded into the tunnels during Hurricane Sandy nearly three years ago, the tunnels were in trouble. Now the corrosive residue left by the flooding is steadily eating into the concrete and the mechanical and electrical equipment vital to the system.


----------



## Andrew

It will be interesting to see what comes up out of the meeting today with Secretary Foxx, Booker, Menendez and Christie.


----------



## PRR 60

Andrew said:


> It will be interesting to see what comes up out of the meeting today with Secretary Foxx, Booker, Menendez and Christie.


I suspect that all three will tell Secretary Foxx that the federal contribution has to be a grant, not a loan. If some streetcar line in Podunk can get a federal grant, adding tunnel capacity into New York should as well. If I were at that table, my request would be 50% federal and 50% local (states, Port Authority), with overruns shared proportionately. If this is a critical piece of national transportation infrastructure (and it is), then it should be funded as a national project.


----------



## Andrew

Great presentation on Gateway:

http://nec.amtrak.com/sites/default/files/2015-08-10%20Gateway_NJSenate%20Final.pdf


----------



## jis

PRR 60 said:


> Andrew said:
> 
> 
> 
> It will be interesting to see what comes up out of the meeting today with Secretary Foxx, Booker, Menendez and Christie.
> 
> 
> 
> I suspect that all three will tell Secretary Foxx that the federal contribution has to be a grant, not a loan. If some streetcar line in Podunk can get a federal grant, adding tunnel capacity into New York should as well. If I were at that table, my request would be 50% federal and 50% local (states, Port Authority), with overruns shared proportionately. If this is a critical piece of national transportation infrastructure (and it is), then it should be funded as a national project.
Click to expand...

My position would be that the tunnel is an interstate link, and should therefore get the same federal share that interstate highways get. I don't see why a railroad tunnel should be treated any differently from an interstate highway tunnel if one were to be built. Since the primary traffic through the tunnel is commuter traffic, FTA should be in the mix of funding agencies, just like it was in case of ARC. Of course the Federal Highway Fund running on the empty does not help meet those criteria at all.


----------



## John Bobinyec

One article that I just saw (and cannot find again) mentioned that just adding two new North River tunnels, and fixing up the old tunnels, wouldn't increase capacity because:

1) There are only two tracks between the tunnels and Newark,

2) NYP is constrained for capacity

So I was wondering what could be done to help increase train throughput in NYP? How about not allowing NJT trains to dwell in the station by running them through to Sunnyside?

Is there something planned to help with this?

jb


----------



## jis

Who says NJT trains dwell in the station when they arrive on the through tracks, any more than Amtrak trains dwell? They run out to Sunnyside just like Amtrak trains do.

Of course there is no way that NJT trains that arrive into tracks 1 through 4 could run through to Sunnyside. but they are backed out into A yard or deadheaded out back to NJ to make room for more incoming trains during commission hours.

The reason that NYP South is part of the Gateway Plan is primarily in order to provide for additional platform capacity (6 to 8 tracks in the upper level), just like ARC was planning to provide six platform tracks.

Gatreway also includes adding a second pair of tracks from Secaucus to Dock (Newark) effectively quadruple tracking to Newark. However, even if that us delayed as long as quad traacking can be completed Swift that would already provide relief since Midtown Directs branch off there. Also if the Bergen loop is built then additional capacity from Bergen and Main Line would enter the NEC at Secaucus and the lack of four tracks to Newark would not be a problem.


----------



## PRR 60

Joint statement issued by Senator Booker, Senator Menendez, Governor Christie & Secretary Foxx:



> Today, following a meeting in U.S. Senator Cory Booker’s Newark office on the Hudson River Tunnel project , Booker, D-N.J., Gov. Chris Christie, R-N.J., U.S. Secretary of Transportation Anthony Foxx, and U.S. Sen. Robert Menendez, D-N.J., issued the following statement:
> 
> “Transit across the Hudson River carries an enormous and increasing share of this region's workforce and economy, and it is clear that something must be done, and done now, as commuters continue to endure serious daily challenges that come with an aging infrastructure.
> 
> “We had a substantive and productive meeting today and all of us are committed to working together on a path forward on this critical project. Senator Booker, Senator Menendez, and Governor Christie will work with Secretary Foxx to obtain a substantial Federal grant contribution toward the Hudson River tunnels. In addition to grants, we will also work on other funding and financing options.
> 
> “The state of New Jersey supports the Gateway project and is committed to developing a framework with the Federal government to begin it. We all recognize that the only way forward is equitable distribution of funding responsibility and the active participation of all parties. As commuters can attest, we cannot afford further delay.”


----------



## jis

All the proper statements made and the can duly kicked down to the next intersection in the road


----------



## Bob Dylan

Yep, maybe our grandchildren will actually live to see some actual work starting on this project?

Nah!


----------



## Ryan

Or those of us young enough to be your grandchildren.


----------



## afigg

jimhudson said:


> Yep, maybe our grandchildren will actually live to see some actual work starting on this project?


Call me a crazy optimist, but I see the statement, boilerplate as it is, as a sign of real progress in getting the discussions started on how to fund the Gateway project. The first step is to get all the key political figures in NJ and NY and at least many of the Senators in the NEC states to agree that the project is critical and needs to be built. That appears to have been accomplished which is not a small thing. Amtrak, due in part to the breakdowns, has been successful in finally getting the attention of the political leadership. Now the haggling over funding and political maneuvering to get to get Congress to provide some is underway. It won't be a fast or tidy process.

NJ.com article on the meeting: Christie, feds meet, vow to build new Hudson rail tunnel. With a photo of Christie getting out of his car, remembering where Newark NJ Trenton is.

An excerpt:



> Cuomo did not attend Tuesday's meeting but he issued a statement saying he strongly supports the project.
> 
> "I am excited by the dialogue, and I am encouraged by the positive statement issued following today's meeting," Cuomo said. "It appears all parties are on the same page: the key to moving forward is obtaining federal grant support for the project."
> 
> Officials declined on Tuesday to elaborate on specific financing mechanisms that may be on the table.
> 
> "We're looking at a variety of funding options and we're willing to work with regional leaders to expedite them," said Jon Romano, a spokesman for the U.S. Department of Transportation.


With regards to FTA funding, one possible source might be the MAP-21 Core Capacity Improvement program (or its successor in a new transportation bill). I think many of the proposed Gateway project components would qualify, although I expect it would require substantial matching funds from NJ.


----------



## PRR 60

afigg said:


> ... With a photo of Christie getting out of his car, remembering where Trenton is.
> 
> ...


He may or may not remember where Trenton is, but the meeting was at Senator Booker's office in Newark.


----------



## John Bobinyec

Andrew said:


> Great presentation on Gateway:
> 
> http://nec.amtrak.com/sites/default/files/2015-08-10%20Gateway_NJSenate%20Final.pdf


That really is a great presentation. It looks like the new south tunnels connect with Penn Station South. Do they also connect with present Penn Station? Also, from the present tunnels, can trains get to Penn Station South?

jb


----------



## west point

The capacity of NYP will increase only incrementally only as items are completed.

1. New North river tunnels will not in themselves increase capacity.

2. New 2 track north Portal bridge completed.

3. 2 additional tracks from Newark to tunnels is complete.

4. Penn south station is complete

5. One at a time present north river .tunnel is completely refurbished. Second present tunnel is refurbished

6. If old portal swing draw is useable then all the above will except second present tunnel will allow some capacity improvement. Otherwise if swing bridge is not useable then new south portal bridge will be needed.l

7. When all the above completed then can double capacity.

8, A further increase will happen when east river tunnels 5 & 6 are built.

All this is given in the following Gateway info.

See project notes page 8 post # 153


----------



## jis

John Bobinyec said:


> Andrew said:
> 
> 
> 
> Great presentation on Gateway:
> 
> http://nec.amtrak.com/sites/default/files/2015-08-10%20Gateway_NJSenate%20Final.pdf
> 
> 
> 
> That really is a great presentation. It looks like the new south tunnels connect with Penn Station South. Do they also connect with present Penn Station? Also, from the present tunnels, can trains get to Penn Station South?
> 
> jb
Click to expand...

Yes, they do through the so called extended I-Ladder tracks. But primarily they are designed to feed the south side of the station, and during rush hours certain subset of trains that are not assigned to reverse service are supposed to head back out to NJ as deadheads. This is necessary since at least in the current phase of plans there is no egress to the east from those platform tracks.

But in effect the station capacity is improved more than just what you get with 6 or 8 more tracks because all of the conflicting moves that take place now to move trains out of tracks 1 through 4 simply disappear as they get out through the new tunnels, leaving the old tunnels to flow free of congestion at A interlocking.


----------



## Thirdrail7

jis said:


> Who says NJT trains dwell in the station when they arrive on the through tracks, any more than Amtrak trains dwell? They run out to Sunnyside just like Amtrak trains do.
> 
> Of course there is no way that NJT trains that arrive into tracks 1 through 4 could run through to Sunnyside. but they are backed out into A yard or deadheaded out back to NJ to make room for more incoming trains during commission hours.
> 
> The reason that NYP South is part of the Gateway Plan is primarily in order to provide for additional platform capacity (6 to 8 tracks in the upper level), just like ARC was planning to provide six platform tracks.
> 
> Gatreway also includes adding a second pair of tracks from Secaucus to Dock (Newark) effectively quadruple tracking to Newark. However, even if that us delayed as long as quad traacking can be completed Swift that would already provide relief since Midtown Directs branch off there. Also if the Bergen loop is built then additional capacity from Bergen and Main Line would enter the NEC at Secaucus and the lack of four tracks to Newark would not be a problem.


The lack of four tracks to NWK would only be a problem if there are no disruptions and no additional trains. Currently, this area has seen an additional 18 Raritan Valley trains adding to the congestion....and the Raritan passengers want more.

If they get their wish, I could see this as a problem.


----------



## StriderGDM

Current capacity wouldn't change much if any with the new tunnels, but redundancy will and that's really a huge issue. When a single tunnel is out for any period of time during rush hour, it cripples Penn Station.

Now imagine a tunnel out of service for weeks or months!


----------



## west point

Study the report carefully. You will see many things have to be completed to get more capacity under the Hudson.

2 new tunnels, then refurbish old tunnels = expect 4 -5 years, 1 new north Portal high bridge, 4 tracking Newark - tunnel's portals, Penn south built. Note report shows Penn south with 2 levels, New south Portal bridge to replace swing bridge which hopefully can remain in service until south high bridge is built.


----------



## afigg

west point said:


> Study the report carefully. You will see many things have to be completed to get more capacity under the Hudson.
> 
> 2 new tunnels, then refurbish old tunnels = expect 4 -5 years, 1 new north Portal high bridge, 4 tracking Newark - tunnel's portals, Penn south built. Note report shows Penn south with 2 levels, New south Portal bridge to replace swing bridge which hopefully can remain in service until south high bridge is built.


Pretty sure that the existing Portal Bridge will not stay in service after the North Portal Bridge is completed. Once the tracks are cut over to the new high clearance two track bridge, then they can begin to remove the existing Portal swing bridge which is an expensive maintenance nightmare. By removing the old bridge or at a minimum the swing bridge structure, that will eliminate the clearance problem for the waterway and leave space for the South Portal Bridge to go in (if that space is needed).


----------



## afigg

PRR 60 said:


> afigg said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... With a photo of Christie getting out of his car, remembering where Trenton is.
> 
> ...
> 
> 
> 
> He may or may not remember where Trenton is, but the meeting was at Senator Booker's office in Newark.
Click to expand...

My bad. Should have been more careful in posting the wisecrack remark!


----------



## Anderson

Effectively, two new tunnels would give you three tunnels for a while: The fourth would be out of service for a rebuild for a while...figure 3-4 years of this on the basis of two tunnels needing a rebuild...but you'd get four eventually.

The key is that this would allow a tunnel to be out of service at almost any time for various reasons (anything from maintenance to a broken locomotive); aside from a brief period at the peak of each rush hour, three should suffice. Of course, if you get four tunnels you don't have to keep the train in NYP...depending on your equipment, in the long run you could basically run a train into NYP and then back it straight back out to New Jersey (figure three tracks in, one track out at that point...that's what you get at NYG, at least).


----------



## John Bobinyec

With the new North Portal Bridge, what will be the vertical clearance for waterway traffic? Unless the bridge will be "way up there" (like the NJ Turnpike bridges), it looks like part of the plan is a reduction in clearances. If that's true, have the pertinent federal regulations been modified to allow it?

jb


----------



## jis

John Bobinyec said:


> With the new North Portal Bridge, what will be the vertical clearance for waterway traffic? Unless the bridge will be "way up there" (like the NJ Turnpike bridges), it looks like part of the plan is a reduction in clearances. If that's true, have the pertinent federal regulations been modified to allow it?
> 
> jb


Bridge does not have to be way up as high as the Turnpike bridge to meet the regulatory requirements. It has to be just 50' above mean high water mark, and that is the way it is designed. Read the FEIS. Originally the plan was for the north bridge to be 50' clearance fixed structure with 3 tracks and the south bridge to be 45' clearance movable structure with two tracks. A modification was made to make both 50' clearance fixed structures and reduce the number of tracks on the north bridge from 3 to 2, making the two bridges essentially identical, except for location.


----------



## John Bobinyec

Back in the day, I worked at West End Tower on the E-L. It's located just east of the Lower Hack drawbridge, which is downstream on the Hackensack river from the Portal Bridge. Occasionally, the Lower Hack (a vertical lift bridge) would have to open up to let a large vessel pass. That bridge has over 100 feet of clearance. So I guess no large vessels go as far upstream as Portal anymore.

jb


----------



## jis

In the year 2012 Portal had only 28 openings in the entire year, all for barge and tug carrying sewage sludge. Nothing else travels on that river to anywhere inland of Portal anymore. There were talks of simply figuring out another way of moving the sewage sludge and removing the Hackensack from the list of navigable channels above Portal, but the Coast Guard did not want to go that far. All concerned settled for 50' clearance for fixed structures and verified that it is consistent with all laws and regulations currently in force.

I think (but I maybe wrong) that there has always been more traffic through Lower Hack than Portal since as I recall, there is a berth or two for small ships upstream of Lower Hack.

Anyway, this is what Portal North will look like (lloking from the north southwards, you can see the current bridge hidden behind the new bridge):







There will be no special speed limit for the new bridge. It will have MAS of 90mph like the rest of the trackage on either side of it.


----------



## afigg

John Bobinyec said:


> With the new North Portal Bridge, what will be the vertical clearance for waterway traffic? Unless the bridge will be "way up there" (like the NJ Turnpike bridges), it looks like part of the plan is a reduction in clearances. If that's true, have the pertinent federal regulations been modified to allow it?


You don't have to locate the FEIS to find out the vertical clearance for the replacement North Portal bridge. Amtrak has been updating the nec.amtrak.com website and there is a fact sheet for the Portal bridge replacement (link to resource page with link to fact sheet PDF). The new bridge will have 53 feet of vertical clearance compared to 23 feet for the existing swing bridge. I expect part of what makes the replacement bridge project so expensive at close to $1 billion is that the project also includes long access ramps on either side of the new bridge for the higher elevation.

The question remains is how long will it take to get the funds in place to get started on building the North Portal bridge.


----------



## Andrew

According to the new presentation, it looks like the study area for the Gateway Tunnel Resielency Project has moved west from near Allied Interlocking to around Secaucus Junction.

I am also glad that a environmental review and engineering chart was included in that presentation! If a Record of Decision does get issued in October of 2018--as the chart suggests--I am curious about how long it will take to issue tunneling contracts and then sign the contracts and then begin tunnel boring...

I wonder what are the chances that the Port Authority contributes to Gateway--without the states of New Jersey and New York paying?


----------



## jis

As far as I can tell looking at the PA's budget there is no item to cover such payments at present, and the PA is not allowed to mint its own currency yet.


----------



## Andrew

jis said:


> As far as I can tell looking at the PA's budget there is no item to cover such payments at present, and the PA is not allowed to mint its own currency yet.


But that will probably change over the next few years.


----------



## John Bobinyec

Andrew said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> 
> As far as I can tell looking at the PA's budget there is no item to cover such payments at present, and the PA is not allowed to mint its own currency yet.
> 
> 
> 
> But that will probably change over the next few years.
Click to expand...

Which? The line item or the minting?

jb


----------



## Andrew

John Bobinyec said:


> Andrew said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jis said:
> 
> 
> 
> As far as I can tell looking at the PA's budget there is no item to cover such payments at present, and the PA is not allowed to mint its own currency yet.
> 
> 
> 
> But that will probably change over the next few years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which? The line item or the minting?
> 
> jb
Click to expand...

The Port Authority's BUDGET--due to the fact that other projects will get (or should get) completed over the next four years--and an improving economy as well.


----------



## jis

Well, what I was saying that the PA budget plan for the next three years that was being discussed by the PA Board did not have anything in it for Gateway. But I guess dreaming is good for ones health


----------



## Andrew

Can transportation construction projects be put up for bid as Final Design is occurring?


----------



## afigg

Came across a link to this good Capital New York / Politico article while checking to see what the Second Ave Sagas blog has to say about Gateway (and other NYC transit topics): Not Cuomo’s tunnel, but New York’s problem, Takes Cuomo to task for his shifting responses and statements about the project, especially the "It’s not my tunnel!" outburst.



> Experts don't dispute that the federal government should take the lead on a project of this magnitude, but "the governor should definitely be at the table for discussions," said Veronica Vanterpool, executive director of the Tri-State Transportation Campaign.
> 
> That’s because a prolonged tunnel outage would have profound consequences for New York State’s finances, its economy, its future.
> 
> New Jersey residents account for 12 percent of Manhattan’s workforce, according to U.S. Census figures provided by the Partnership for New York City. New Jersey residents account for 16 percent of Manhattan’s wages.
> 
> In 2011, New Jersey residents paid nearly $3 billion in income taxes to New York State, according to the Empire Center for Public Policy. That was 8 percent of New York State’s entire personal income tax levy.
> 
> In fact, New Jersey residents were responsible for more of New York's personal income tax than the residents of all but three New York counties: Manhattan, Nassau and Westchester.


----------



## WoodyinNYC

Andrew said:


> afigg said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andrew said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... if the federal government provides more to Gateway than the $3 billion they have said they would contribute.
> 
> ...
> 
> 
> 
> Unless Secretary Foxx has $3 billion siting around, he can't commit that much. … it will be up to Congress to provide the federal funds. ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So we still do not know how much of the Gateway Project is being discussed. Maybe Cuomo is referring to the $3 billion commitment for ARC?
> 
> http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2015/07/29/andrew-cuomo-hudson-river-tunnels/
> 
> Another link about Gateway: http://www.northjersey.com/news/analysis-committing-cash-is-key-to-hudson-tunnel-talk-1.1382096
Click to expand...

Andrew, You were asked nicely to trim your reposts to focus on the points you want to discuss. That means, Use your delete key. Yes, you can do it.


----------



## WoodyinNYC

WoodyinNYC said:


> Andrew said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> afigg said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andrew said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... if the federal government provides more... than the $3 billion they have said they would contribute. ...
> 
> 
> 
> … it will be up to Congress to provide the federal funds. ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So we still do not know how much of the Gateway Project is being discussed. ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Andrew, You were asked nicely to trim your reposts to focus on the points you want to discuss. That means, Use your delete key. Yes, you can do it.
Click to expand...

I was reading this thread from 2013 to date, and lost my temper at about this point. Reading another couple of pages, it seems that Andrew maybe has learned to trim his repostings. My apologies.


----------



## John Bobinyec

A few posts ago, I mentioned that I worked for the E-L as a towerman at West End Tower in Jersey City. From that point, MP 2.1, to Grove Street Tower, MP .5, we had 4 tracks through the Bergen Tunnels, leading to Hoboken. During rush-hours, three of those tracks were lined up to be in the direction of the rush, with one going the opposite way. At the peak of the rush, each tunnel track had two trains on them, with more coming.

I always wondered how PRR/PC/Amtrak got along with just two tracks under the North River. I guess the answer is that the E-L (Lackawanna) was designed to handle more of a commuter crush than the North River Tunnels.

And so I guess the dilemma that Amtrak is now facing is that NYP is transitioning to have much more of a commuter rush-hour than it used to when it was created. It's a 5-pound "terminal" and everyone is trying to stuff 10 pounds of trains in it, during rush-hour.

jb


----------



## Andrew

For those of you who have not done it yet, check out this Presentation. I especially like the anticipated NEPA/engineering schedule for the Hudson Tunnels, and it appears that the Study Area has been moved west from near Allied Interlocking to just east of Secaucus Junction.

I also wonder how Amtrak can expedite the NEPA process?

http://nec.amtrak.com/sites/default/files/2015-08-10%20Gateway_NJSenate%20Final.pdf


----------



## peconicstation

For some good background on the tunnel project read the book, The Late, Great Pennsulvania Station by Lorraine Dehl.

The first chapters go into exacting detail on the planning and construction of the North River tunnels.

As for the situation that we are in now, it is worth noting that the PRR NEVER intended the tunnels to be used by commuters trains from the west (NJ).

The tunnels and main section of the station were planned for inter city trains only, and a small section was created for the PRR owned LIRR.

The PRR continued to run it's commuter trains from the west into and out of it's Jersey City station at Exchange Place.

The PRR did start to move it's commuters trains into Penn when inter city train travel diminished, closing it's Jersey City terminal in 1961.

I bring this up as any planning for new Hudson River tunnels has to include maximixing utilization of the last waterfront station in Hoboken.

Ken


----------



## Andrew

I wonder how the state of New Jersey is more likely to contribute to Gateway:

through the Port Authority or Transportation Trust Fund?


----------



## jis

Andrew said:


> I wonder how the state of New Jersey is more likely to contribute to Gateway:
> 
> through the Port Authority or Transportation Trust Fund?


Let us know when your wondering have caused you to arrive at an answer


----------



## afigg

Andrew said:


> I wonder how the state of New Jersey is more likely to contribute to Gateway:
> 
> through the Port Authority or Transportation Trust Fund?


I expect NJ will contribute funding both ways. The Port Authority will provide a piece of the funding and may play a substantial role in managing and running the Gateway project. NJ through NJT will provide another piece of the the funding, but NJ has to solve its transportation funding budget crisis first.


----------



## Andrew

The Port Authority is looking to sell several billion of it's real estate to help fund major capital projects--and Gateway could be one of them.

Politicians have recently lobbied to include Bus Terminal and Gateway Project funding in the revised Port Authority Capital Plan, which should either be completed later this year or by mid-2016 at the latest.

Sweeney on Gateway:


----------



## Andrew

I am starting a new topic because the other one is more than two years old.

Here are two recent links that have been posted regarding the Gateway Project:

http://nec.amtrak.com/sites/default/files/2015-08-10%20Gateway_NJSenate%20Final.pdf 

and

http://www.amtrak.com/ccurl/448/160/Amtrak-Ink-Aug-2015.pdf (Slides 10 and 11)


----------



## jis

You may wish to fix the first URL. If you click on it it leads you to nonexistent page.


----------



## Andrew

This link should work: http://nec.amtrak.com/sites/default/files/2015-08-10%20Gateway_NJSenate%20Final.pdf

Pay Special attention to slides 18 and 19...

Slide 18 has the proposed map for Gateway, and Slide 19 has the anticipated engineering and NEPA schedule.

Amtrak is hoping to receive a Record of Decision for Gateway in October of 2018, and complete PE in late 2019. Thus, tunnel boring should likely be able to begin no later than 2021--if not 2020.

I still think the Port Authority will end up contributing to Gateway.


----------



## afigg

An apparent breakthrough on rounding up the funding for the Gateway project. Governors Cuomo and Christie have offered to have NY and NJ pay for half of the estimated $20 billion cost. Of course, they will have to find the money and get their state legislatures to agree. And they want the Port Authority to oversee and manage the project, which in turns, means the Port Authority picks a lot of the contractors and, unless the federal district attorneys can clean up the PA, hands out a lot of patronage jobs tied to the giga-project.

Joint letter to the President

The negotiations will continue.....


----------



## jis

Of course the Governor's want their personal den of corruption to control the thing. It will be years behind schedule and zillions over budget, just like WTC-1. :angry2:

The timelines in the slidesets are nothing more than wish-list dates to shoot for, at the moment.


----------



## Bob Dylan

Corruption @ the Port Authority and the NY/NJ Governors Offices?

I'm Shocked! Shocked! Round up the usual suspects!!


----------



## Andrew

It will be interesting to see how the funding mechanisms play out...

If the Fed's really do end up paying half, perhaps the Port Authority (of New York and New Jersey), can pay 25%, and the states of New York and New Jersey can pay the other 25%.

Christie understands that people in New Jersey really do want Gateway to happen--and Cuomo can get the Port Authority to fund Gateway--all he has to do is tell the people at the Port Authority to chip into Gateway, and they will probably listen to him.

Another really interesting article regarding Gateway:

http://www.wsj.com/articles/christie-cuomo-ask-obama-to-split-hudson-river-tunnel-costs-1442343768


----------



## afigg

NYT editorial on the proposal from Cuomo and Christie to pay for 1/2 the cost of Gateway (or whatever they think should be built): Half a Tunnel Is a Good Start. Unlike the WSJ, this is not behind a paywall (until you get to 10 NYT articles in a month).

Excerpt:



> Many issues need to be resolved. It’s welcome news that Mr. Cuomo has hopped aboard — at one point he said it was “not my tunnel,” but rather New Jersey’s and Amtrak’s. He insists he will go forward if the federal government provides, as he put it in an interview with The Times, “cash, not loans” for its half of the deal. The final agreement will almost certainly involve a complicated payment plan with contributions from all sources.
> 
> Amtrak has already spent more than $300 million to begin designing Gateway and to preserve its right of way, including underground space beneath Manhattan’s booming West Side. Eventually, however, Congress must come through in a major way, increasing funds devoted to mass transit and allowing the rerouting of some of the resources the government devotes to roads to a project of vital importance to as many as 200,000 riders a day on Amtrak and New Jersey Transit.


----------



## Andrew

Do you folks think that Christie and Cuomo are really talking about new tunnels because they actually want to see them get built--or are they just talking because the public wants to hear this?

A copy of Cuomo and Christie's letter: https://www.governor.ny.gov/sites/governor.ny.gov/files/atoms/files/Joint%20_Letter_To_President.pdf


----------



## jis

Until they identify specific source of the money it is all just feel good lullaby IMHO.


----------



## Andrew

Both Christie and Cuomo are advocating for new tunnels.

But they do not specifically say Gateway. Could ARC or Seven Subway Extension to Secaucus be back on track?

If they want the Fed's to pay half in grants, I don't see how this is possible. Perhaps an Amtrak RRIF Loan can be part of the Fed's half?


----------



## jis

No. They mean Gateway.


----------



## jis

http://www.northjersey.com/news/nj-transit-agrees-to-lead-environmental-review-for-hudson-tunnel-project-1.1423177?page=all



> NJ Transit has agreed to lead the environmental review necessary to build a new tunnel under the Hudson River, U.S. Transportation Secretary Anthony Foxx said Thursday. Amtrak will perform preliminary engineering on the project, and the U.S. Department of Transportation will speed approval of environmental permits, Foxx said.
> 
> ......


But there is no funding source identified to fund even the EIS at present.

This also clearly indicates that the Federal DOT is not terribly excited about the Cuomo/Christie idea of giving over control of the tunnel to the corrupt Port Authority, and the joint NY and NJ corruption ring.

The author of the article is wrong in stating that the Gateway tunnels follow the same path as the NJT ARC ones. They do not either horizontally or vertically. They are on a completely different alignment with steeper gradients allowing it to connect to the tunnel boxes that are being constructed near Penn Station.


----------



## afigg

Obviously many questions remain over who contributes and what amounts for the EIS process, but this is real progress. If the EIS process can be expedited or fast-tracked, that will save money. And lots of questions on who makes the final decisions on the configuration. If NJT takes the lead on the EIS, are they going to impose changes that favor NJT short term thinking over Amtrak or future capacity and HSR options for the entire NEC?

NYT article on NJT joining with Amtrak on the EIS: Early Planning for New Hudson Rail Tunnel Is Underway, U.S. Transportation Secretary Says.



> The federal transportation secretary said on Thursday that officials were taking important initial steps to accelerate long-stalled plans to build a new rail tunnel under the Hudson River.
> 
> Speaking at a business breakfast in Manhattan, the secretary, Anthony Foxx, said that New Jersey Transit had agreed to lead the project’s environmental study and that Amtrak would oversee engineering work.
> 
> Mr. Foxx said federal officials would shorten the timeline for approving permits and would discuss federal grants and other financing options with the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, the agency that could be designated to oversee the project.


....



> The Gateway proposal, which includes a new two-tube rail tunnel, an expanded Pennsylvania Station, a replacement for the Portal Bridge in New Jersey and other upgrades, could happen in phases, Mr. Foxx said, with the new tunnel being the first priority.
> 
> “All of that is up for discussion,” he said. “I can’t answer those questions for the region. They have to come together and start answering those questions for themselves. What I can say is that I’m going to be as helpful as I can be in helping them accelerate on the scope they agree to.”


So what about the north Portal bridge replacement? Where is the funding for it?


----------



## jis

It is not clear to me whether the Portal Bridge cost is now considered to be the grand $20 billion for Gateway or not. Of course there is no money allocated for anything yet, and it is not known how much the EIS and preliminary engineering will actually cost either. Yes it is progress, but there are many more steps of progress that needs to take place. I am glad that Foxx seems to be pushing a reluctant bunch of blowhards from the NY/NJ area to actually put some wheels on rails, in a manner of speaking.


----------



## Andrew

The link below is from NJ Transit's board meeting that has the NEPA process expected to get completed in September of 2018. But, does this include the Record of Decision?

http://www.njtransit.com/AdminTemp/board_agenda_10-14-2015_final.pdf


----------



## afigg

Andrew said:


> The link below is from NJ Transit's board meeting that has the NEPA process expected to get completed in September of 2018. But, does this include the Record of Decision?


The answer appears to be in the NJT board agenda document you provided the link for. The proposed schedule is 36 months from a Notice to Proceed is given to the consultant team to complete and receive a Record of Decision from the FRA. But that is only a proposed schedule. It will ultimately be up to the FRA and US DOT as to how long they take to review the NEPA and PE documents, ask for additional information and responses from the NEPA/PE team, and issue a official Record of Decision.


----------



## afigg

There is a 1/4 page size ad on page A15 of the October 26 Washington Post from Amtrak pushing for the Hudson Tunnel Project. I don't have an image handy, but the ad shows a HSR type trainset and a electric locomotive emerging from two sets of tunnel entrances with the NY skyline in the background.

The text is:

"Each day, 200,000 people move in and out of the world's economic capital through a tunnel that is 105 years old."

"The Hudson Tunnel Project"

"It's time to build"

So, Amtrak is continuing to push for funding for Gateway or, what could be the new name, the Hudson Tunnel Project. If the Hudson Tunnel Project refers to the entire Gateway project (or maybe all of it minus NYP South), arguably a better name for getting funding.


----------



## jebr

They had something similar on Instagram today.


----------



## afigg

News report from Politico New York on the negotiations on setting up a new development authority to oversee the construction of the Gateway project: Governors, senators hammering out a framework for new rail tunnel. Excerpt:



> In August, U.S. Sen. Chuck Schumer called on the region to create a separate "development corporation" to build a new rail tunnel connecting New Jersey commuters to their jobs in midtown Manhattan.
> 
> Multiple sources have told POLITICO New York the two states, the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey and federal officials are now hammering out a framework for a new entity dedicated solely to building the project.
> 
> Negotiations are continuing, but one source said the entity's board would likely be populated by two Port Authority representatives, one representative from Amtrak and another from the federal transportation department. The structure of the board is still in flux, the source said.


Geez, go figure, Senator Schumer and the US DOT are reluctant to allow the Port Authority to be the lead agency to directly run the project. A four person board is not going to work if the board routinely splits 2-2 on votes between Christie/Cuomo cronies and Amtrak & the feds. Perhaps they should get a selected representative from the NEC Commission to have a fifth seat on the new authority board to represent the interests of all the states on the NEC.

The writer of the Second Avenue Saga blog has his take on the negotiations and proposed new dedicated entity: Report: Feds, NY, NJ may create new entity to oversee Gateway construction.


----------



## Thirdrail7

I can't say I blame them. I wouldn't want the Port Authority running things. I would prefer they remain on the sidelines for this project even though they are the multi-state agency that controls the crossings between NY and NJ.


----------



## jis

Thirdrail7 said:


> I can't say I blame them. I wouldn't want the Port Authority running things. I would prefer they remain on the sidelines for this project even though they are the multi-state agency that controls the crossings between NY and NJ.


I agree. Port Authority these days is like the inverse Midas touch. Anything they touch turns to mud.


----------



## Andrew

By the way, NEC Futures just released more documents regarding upgrades to the Northeast Corridor.



jis said:


> Until they identify specific source of the money it is all just feel good lullaby IMHO.


It is my understanding that a future New Jersey Transportation Trust Fund would likely contribute to the Hudson Tunnel Project (or Gateway Project), with perhaps a RRIF Loan being used for New Jersey to contribute to Gateway.



afigg said:


> There is a 1/4 page size ad on page A15 of the October 26 Washington Post from Amtrak pushing for the Hudson Tunnel Project. I don't have an image handy, but the ad shows a HSR type trainset and a electric locomotive emerging from two sets of tunnel entrances with the NY skyline in the background.
> 
> The text is:
> 
> "Each day, 200,000 people move in and out of the world's economic capital through a tunnel that is 105 years old."
> 
> "The Hudson Tunnel Project"
> 
> "It's time to build"
> 
> So, Amtrak is continuing to push for funding for Gateway or, what could be the new name, the Hudson Tunnel Project. If the Hudson Tunnel Project refers to the entire Gateway project (or maybe all of it minus NYP South), arguably a better name for getting funding.


It is my understanding that the Hudson Tunnel Project refers to the area between Secaucus Junction, New Jersey, and the vent shaft near the future extension of the Manhattan Tunnel Box near 12th Avenue in Midtown, Manhattan.



jis said:


> It is not clear to me whether the Portal Bridge cost is now considered to be the grand $20 billion for Gateway or not. Of course there is no money allocated for anything yet, and it is not known how much the EIS and preliminary engineering will actually cost either. Yes it is progress, but there are many more steps of progress that needs to take place. I am glad that Foxx seems to be pushing a reluctant bunch of blowhards from the NY/NJ area to actually put some wheels on rails, in a manner of speaking.


I heard that the $20 Billion includes the proposed Penn Station South Expansion and new infrastructure between Kearny, New Jersey, and Secaucus Junction, New Jersey.



afigg said:


> News report from Politico New York on the negotiations on setting up a new development authority to oversee the construction of the Gateway project: Governors, senators hammering out a framework for new rail tunnel. Excerpt:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In August, U.S. Sen. Chuck Schumer called on the region to create a separate "development corporation" to build a new rail tunnel connecting New Jersey commuters to their jobs in midtown Manhattan.
> 
> Multiple sources have told POLITICO New York the two states, the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey and federal officials are now hammering out a framework for a new entity dedicated solely to building the project.
> 
> Negotiations are continuing, but one source said the entity's board would likely be populated by two Port Authority representatives, one representative from Amtrak and another from the federal transportation department. The structure of the board is still in flux, the source said.
> 
> 
> 
> Geez, go figure, Senator Schumer and the US DOT are reluctant to allow the Port Authority to be the lead agency to directly run the project. A four person board is not going to work if the board routinely splits 2-2 on votes between Christie/Cuomo cronies and Amtrak & the feds. Perhaps they should get a selected representative from the NEC Commission to have a fifth seat on the new authority board to represent the interests of all the states on the NEC.
> 
> The writer of the Second Avenue Saga blog has his take on the negotiations and proposed new dedicated entity: Report: Feds, NY, NJ may create new entity to oversee Gateway construction.
Click to expand...

At least folks are talking about Gateway. New Jersey senator Cory Booker even said that New Jersey and New York have had recent discussions regarding Gateway, and that an announcement would be announced soon.

Also, the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey is expected to announce details of a new capital plan at it's December 10th, board meeting. It is possible that Gateway Tunnel funding would be included in the amended capital plan.


----------



## jis

Interesting article on _NEC Futures_ in Philly.com

http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/in-transit/Three-wishes-for-a-new-Amtrak.html


----------



## Andrew

I really hope that Congress does not cut public transportation funding--including Amtrak!


----------



## neroden

FWIW, an EIS on the underwater tunnels would probably fly through really, really fast. The Portal Bridge EIS can mostly be reused. It should be possible to go through the EIS process much faster than is typical.


----------



## neroden

jis said:


> Interesting article on _NEC Futures_ in Philly.com
> 
> http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/in-transit/Three-wishes-for-a-new-Amtrak.html


Alternative 3 ("transform") is a joke and will not happen short of a revolution. It seems to be there as the dumping ground for wishlists; it includes a tunnel under Long Island Sound, which is never going to happen.

Alternatives 1 ("maintain") and 2 ("grow") are interesting. Both contain the Baltimore tunnel replacements and the new Hudson tunnels.

What's really interesting is in New England, however. "Maintain" builds a New London bypass. "Grow" builds a full-scale Hartford-Providence line. Both options seem to have half an eye on sea level rise, as they move critical segments inland (not just in New England).


----------



## jis

The "maintain" and "grow" proposals around New London are all rehash of things that have been beaten to death once before when alternatives for electrification to boston were being considered. They are not really new, but just brushed off old ideas. And yes, the "transform" items are truly transformative/revolutionary. They are there because NEC Future was specifically tasked to consider such transformative ideas and carry out an EIS Level 1 consideration of them.

You can view the full Tier 1 EIS Alternative Report (PDF).

What I find very interesting is the Appendix A: Service Plans and Train Equipment Options Technical Memorandum.


----------



## Eric S

I wish that instead of large, bundled "alternatives" with multiple projects included the study would break out individual/discrete projects - so we could see that Project A (regardless which alternative it's included in) will cost $X and save Y minutes. Because, frankly, that's how this whole thing will likely end up being constructed - piece by piece, project by project, over time, rather than by all the various agencies coming together and agreeing to fund one entire "alternative" or another.

EDIT: I recognize that this is typically how such studies work, that different alternatives are studied, and a preferred alternative is selected. However, it should also be possible to break down costs and time savings for the discrete projects as well.


----------



## west point

Eric that is what many folks have said to this poster. You can even break it down further to how many passenger minutes per dollar spent for present traffic and also future traffic. So first priority should be given for those sections that would save say 6000 passenger minutes saved per million dollars. Compare that to say 5000 passenger minutes saved per million dollars.

The hardest thing to do for that case is how many extra revenue passenger miles will result outside of a section improvement ?. Example: Increasing WASH - Wilmington to 160 MPH will add how many revenue passengers WIL - PHL and WIL - NYP ?


----------



## jis

Remember this is a tier 1 EIS. What some are asking for is generally seen as a tier 2 issue.

There will be many tier 2 EISs that are and will happen. Already in progress are the Gateway and B&P tunnel ones for example.


----------



## neroden

Eric S said:


> EDIT: I recognize that this is typically how such studies work, that different alternatives are studied, and a preferred alternative is selected. However, it should also be possible to break down costs and time savings for the discrete projects as well.


Usually they do. I've read a lot of studies, and they usually do provide a breakdown.


----------



## Andrew

jis said:


> Remember this is a tier 1 EIS. What some are asking for is generally seen as a tier 2 issue.
> 
> There will be many tier 2 EISs that are and will happen. Already in progress are the Gateway and B&P tunnel ones for example.


I thought that the "Hudson Tunnel Project" EIS does not begin until Spring of 2016.


----------



## afigg

The politicians are moving more quickly on this than I would have expected. It has been "leaked" to the press that a deal has been reached and that an announcement will be made soon about the formation of the Gateway Development Corporation to oversee the project.

Capital New York, aka Politico New York, has some details: Governors, senators roll out cross-Hudson rail plan. Excerpts:



> A bistate corporation agreed to by Governors Andrew Cuomo and Chris Christie as well as U.S. Senators Cory Booker and Charles Schumer will begin work on a badly needed cross-Hudson rail tunnel, according to an official summary of a deal obtained by POLITICO.
> 
> As first reported by POLITICO Friday, the corporation will be governed by two members of the Port Authority, a representative from the federal Department of Transportation and a representative of Amtrak. It will be called the Gateway Development Corporation.





> One of the representatives from the Port Authority will chair the board and the Amtrak representative will serve as vice chair, according the deal summary. The Port Authority will provide the group with office space, administrative staff, IT staff, and logistical support.
> 
> The first task before the board will be to establish its financing mechanisms. The next will be to take the first steps toward designing and getting permits for the project.


So the Port Authority will be heavily involved. Presumably the price that Christie and Cuomo demanded in return for the states and the PANYNJ putting up 50% of the cost. (whatever that cost ends up as). The compromise is to set up a separate oversight and management board that hopefully will stay focused on the project and not get too loaded up with political appointees, cronies, and steering contracts to political favorites.


----------



## jis

I bet the two representatives from PANYNJ, one will be appointed by the NJ Governor and the other by the NY Governor. That is the mechanism for providing state's representation in the governance. The other two are basically the federal government and the current owner of the property. Makes sense. It does keep the PANYNJ from gaining direct control which would have been the death knell of the whole thing. OTOH, doing it within the PANYNJ umbrella avoids the need for further Congressional action. It is something that the two Governors can do without going back to the Congress for additional legislation.


----------



## west point

A separate organization to build the new tunnel bores sounds OK. But once completed ownership should go to Amtrak. We do not need another bureaucracy to complicate going under the Hudson. Two separate agencies ? One too many.


----------



## jis

west point said:


> A separate organization to build the new tunnel bores sounds OK. But once completed ownership should go to Amtrak. We do not need another bureaucracy to complicate going under the Hudson. Two separate agencies ? One too many.


According to the press release



> The corporation will own the new tunnel and enter into operating agreements with railroads to use it.


So clearly Amtrak will not own the new tunnels, and the disposition of the old tunnels is not mentioned and is probably YTBD. I wonder what the disposition of the additional two tracks from the tunnel portals as well as the Portal Bridges will be. At present unknown as far as I can tell.


----------



## jis

Andrew said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Remember this is a tier 1 EIS. What some are asking for is generally seen as a tier 2 issue.
> 
> There will be many tier 2 EISs that are and will happen. Already in progress are the Gateway and B&P tunnel ones for example.
> 
> 
> 
> I thought that the "Hudson Tunnel Project" EIS does not begin until Spring of 2016.
Click to expand...

Yeah. For Gateway (tunnel part), the lead agency has been identified so far, that being NJT, and so far it has no funding to do anything.


----------



## Andrew

jis said:


> Andrew said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Remember this is a tier 1 EIS. What some are asking for is generally seen as a tier 2 issue.
> 
> There will be many tier 2 EISs that are and will happen. Already in progress are the Gateway and B&P tunnel ones for example.
> 
> 
> 
> I thought that the "Hudson Tunnel Project" EIS does not begin until Spring of 2016.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah. For Gateway (tunnel part), the lead agency has been identified so far, that being NJT, and so far it has no funding to do anything.
Click to expand...

The Transportation Trust Fund is expected to pay for the EIS.

The projected completion date for the EIS is September of 2018. see: http://www.njtransit.com/AdminTemp/board_agenda_10-14-2015_final.pdf


----------



## jis

They will fail to meet that date if they expect the NJ TTF to pay for it. Dreaming is good though


----------



## afigg

Andrew said:


> The Transportation Trust Fund is expected to pay for the EIS.
> 
> The projected completion date for the EIS is September of 2018. see:


The New Jersey Transportation Trust Fund is getting close to being "broke". That is, it will not have any funds to take on new projects. NY Times articles from May that I found with a quick google search: New Jersey Faces a Transportation Funding Crisis, With No Clear Solution.

The solution is actually quite simple: NJ needs to raise its gasoline tax, now the 49th lowest out of all 50 states, to pay for road maintenance and transportation projects. But that is easier said than done given the political situation in NJ. The weak link in the agreement with NJ and NY to each contribute 25% of the funding and the federal government & Amtrak the remaining 50% is NJ. I think the state will come through with the funds because NJ has too much at stake, but it could be touch and go at times, given how many years the Gateway project is going to take which means it will last through multiple Governors and leaders of the state legislature.


----------



## Andrew

afigg said:


> Andrew said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Transportation Trust Fund is expected to pay for the EIS.
> 
> The projected completion date for the EIS is September of 2018. see:
> 
> 
> 
> The New Jersey Transportation Trust Fund is getting close to being "broke". That is, it will not have any funds to take on new projects. NY Times articles from May that I found with a quick google search: New Jersey Faces a Transportation Funding Crisis, With No Clear Solution.
> 
> The solution is actually quite simple: NJ needs to raise its gasoline tax, now the 49th lowest out of all 50 states, to pay for road maintenance and transportation projects. But that is easier said than done given the political situation in NJ. The weak link in the agreement with NJ and NY to each contribute 25% of the funding and the federal government & Amtrak the remaining 50% is NJ. I think the state will come through with the funds because NJ has too much at stake, but it could be touch and go at times, given how many years the Gateway project is going to take which means it will last through multiple Governors and leaders of the state legislature.
Click to expand...

It is possible that New Jersey will raise it's gas tax and lower the estate tax. There have been many discussions that have occurred recently regarding tax reform in New Jersey.

I do agree that this week's announcement about a new organization to build the tunnels is a very good thing to hear!


----------



## jis

With more than 60% of the state voters polling against a gas tax rise and a Governor promising a veto that cannot be overridden in the Senate because there are not enough votes to do so..... Good luck!

http://www.njspotlight.com/stories/15/11/15/after-earnings-from-bond-sale-are-spent-transportation-trust-fund-will-be-broke/

My bet is they will legislate issuing some more stop gap bonds increasing the overall debt and kick the can down the road until this Governor exits stage right. It is now almost certain that this won't happen by the end of 2016 or early 2017. Hopefully they will be able to eke out the few million that is needed to continue the EIS work out of the proceeds of the bond sales to temporarily replenish the TTF.


----------



## Andrew

jis said:


> With more than 60% of the state voters polling against a gas tax rise and a Governor promising a veto that cannot be overridden in the Senate because there are not enough votes to do so..... Good luck!
> 
> http://www.njspotlight.com/stories/15/11/15/after-earnings-from-bond-sale-are-spent-transportation-trust-fund-will-be-broke/
> 
> My bet is they will legislate issuing some more stop gap bonds increasing the overall debt and kick the can down the road until this Governor exits stage right. It is now almost certain that this won't happen by the end of 2016 or early 2017. Hopefully they will be able to eke out the few million that is needed to continue the EIS work out of the proceeds of the bond sales to temporarily replenish the TTF.


What does "this" refer to?

It sounds like more progress is being made with regarding the Gateway Project: http://www.nj.com/traffic/index.ssf/2015/11/port_authority_discusses_agency_it_would_lead_to_b.html


----------



## afigg

The New York Times has an update on the Gateway plans with additional info on the projected costs. Transportation Secretary Foxx, FRA head Sarah Feinberg, Joe Boardman and Amtrak Chairman Anthony Coscia took a tour in the American View theater/inspection car of one of the Hudson River tunnels on Wednesday. That would have been an interesting train ride to be on.

NYT:  Amtrak Says New York Region’s Rail Projects Could Cost Up to $23.9 Billion

Excerpts:



> Amtrak officials on Wednesday provided the most detailed public account yet for the projected costs of building a new Hudson River rail tunnel and improving other critical parts of the rail infrastructure in the New York region.
> 
> The project, known as the Gateway program, has been championed by Anthony Foxx, the federal transportation secretary, who on Wednesday visited the deteriorating rail tunnel that runs between New York and New Jersey.
> 
> In a presentation to Mr. Foxx, Amtrak officials said the entire project could cost as much as $23.9 billion, with the largest share of about $7.7 billion going toward building the new Hudson tunnel and repairing the existing tunnel. The project includes a host of other elements, including expanding Pennsylvania Station in Manhattan at an estimated cost of $5.9 billion, and replacing rail bridges in New Jersey.
> 
> ....
> 
> After Mr. Foxx toured the tunnel on Wednesday, he said he would continue to advance the plans during the final year of the Obama administration.
> 
> “I’d like to have a financing package that is solid enough by the time we walk out of the door that everyone has the certainty that the project will happen, and the funding set aside to get it done,” he said.
> 
> ....
> 
> The expansion of Penn Station, by adding tracks to the south, could start in 2024 and be completed by 2030, according to the presentation. Work to replace the Portal Bridge in New Jersey, an old swing bridge that often causes delays, could start next year. There was no timeline provided for the Hudson tunnel project, but Amtrak officials have said that work could take about a decade.


Meanwhile Gov. Cuomo is pushing his $100 billion transportation infrastructure plan with big plans for NY Penn Station but nary a mention of the new Hudson River tunnels or the rest of Gateway. Benjamin Kabek of the Second Avenue Sagas blog site posted his (latest) take on Cuomo's big spending plans: Amtrak stays focused on Gateway while Cuomo dilly-dallies with Penn plans


----------



## CSXfoamer1997

About the Gateway Project through New York Penn, I know they'll be constructing new tunnels under the Hudson River, but the question is, will they build tunnels that can handle cars as high as autoracks or superliners?

It certainly would be nice if they built tunnels to handle bilevels.

Also, in the future, will they do any upgrades on the NEC to handle bilevels, such as raising the catenaries a little?


----------



## afigg

CSXfoamer1997 said:


> About the Gateway Project through New York Penn, I know they'll be constructing new tunnels under the Hudson River, but the question is, will they build tunnels that can handle cars as high as autoracks or superliners?
> 
> It certainly would be nice if they built tunnels to handle bilevels.
> 
> Also, in the future, will they do any upgrades on the NEC to handle bilevels, such as raising the catenaries a little?


The issue of the clearance in the proposed tunnels has been discussed previously in this thread. The short answer is that while the new tunnels may provide somewhat greater clearance than the existing tunnels, there is little to no benefit in providing clearance for Superliners or autoracks. NY Penn Station can't handle the higher clearance cars, so where would the higher clearance cars go? I expect there are numerous other clearance chokepoints on the northern NEC such as the Newark station, overpass bridges and so on. Again, search and/or read back in this thread for discussions of the tunnel clearance issues.


----------



## jis

There already are bilevels that fit the Hudson Tunnel loading gauge that operate through them every day. Indeed there are more such bilevel trains than single level trains that operate through the Hudson Tunnels these days.


----------



## CCC1007

...that are not useable for long distance routes.


----------



## jis

CCC1007 said:


> ...that are not useable for long distance routes.


Depends. Europeans successfully run such on sleeper service quite successfully. Just because it has not been done yet does not imply it is impossible. But either way who cares? Single level LD trains work just fine and 99% of the world's heavily used and successful LD trains are single level.


----------



## afigg

It was announced on Wednesday that $70 million is being allocated to the EIS and PE work for the Gateway Project. $35 million from Amtrak, $35 million to come from the Port Authority.

nj.com: New Hudson River rail tunnels take big step forward. Excerpt:



> A project to build new Hudson River rail tunnels will get a $70 million boost from Amtrak and the Port Authority for preliminary work, while federal officials agreed to fast track an environmental review to buy time and save money.
> 
> Federal officials, including U.S. Senator Cory Booker, D-NJ, the Port Authority and New York and New Jersey officials, made the announcement Wednesday, which marks the first major progress on the tunnel project since Govs. Chris Christie and Andrew Cuomo announced a funding agreement between the states and federal government.
> 
> Transportation agencies are in a race against time to start the $20 billion Gateway Project before one of two 106-year-old tunnels has to be taken out of service to repair flood damage, which would severely disrupt commuter rail service.
> 
> "This is huge. It is a significant step," Booker said. "We're farther down the field than I thought we'd be last summer."


A good step, but only a small one compared to the projected $20 billion needed for the project. And $20 billion is a rough estimate at best. (If not a WAG*).

* WAG is an engineering management term for a Wild Ass Guess on what a project or system will cost to design, build, and get operational. At this stage of the project, I don't see how the $20 billion figure can be anything other than a WAG.


----------



## jis

Fortunately the $20 billion is over 15 or 20 years depending on how the project is paced, and it includes way more than just the tunnel and the station.


----------



## afigg

Next City has a good article on the history of the regional politics and recent negotiations/political gamesmanship that took place to reach the agrrement on the Gateway Project: What One Really Expensive Tunnel Means to U.S. Train Travel.

A few excerpts:



> Here’s a story about how business gets done at New York’s Penn Station. In the late 1970s, the escalator connecting Tracks 15 and 16 to the concourse sat broken for more than four years because Amtrak, which owns the complex, and the Metropolitan Transportation Authority, whose Long Island Rail Road trains terminate there, could not agree who should pay to fix it.
> 
> The escalator had already stopped working when Amtrak was granted ownership of Penn Station in 1976. The two agencies squabbled for several years over how the $82,000 repair cost should be divided. An initial agreement split the cost 82-18. Amtrak didn’t think that was fair. A subsequent study determined Amtrak should pay 85 percent. In January 1979, the two sides agreed on an 80-20 funding split.
> 
> On Friday, March 23, the escalator sprang to life. The next day it broke again.





> The Democratic leaders of the New Jersey State Senate have said that the Port Authority should make Gateway funding its top priority. Responsibility for executing the project lies with the bi-state organization, which has a substantial cash flow of its own. In December, the authority enacted its final toll hike of a multi-year escalation. The cash toll on the George Washington Bridge for a car or motorcycle is $15.
> 
> But the Port Authority has already committed bridge and tunnel toll revenues to its own capital plan, which includes some crucial transportation improvements (rebuilding the Goethals Bridge and repairing the GW Bridge’s cables) and some less urgent expenditures, like a $1.5 billion extension of the PATH train to connect Wall Street to Newark Airport. Another increase is not on the table, the agency said in December. And while most experts believe that Port Authority is perfectly positioned to handle a project of this nature, the agency is no stranger to cost overruns and has been plagued by corruption scandals. “A lot has to happen for the public to feel that this is an agency that is spending money wisely and can get projects done on time,” Vanterpool says.


----------



## B757Guy

Interesting stuff... I wonder if/when any of these critical infrastructure items will get built. I use the NEC as part of my commute to EWR for work, and have become friendly with a few of the conductors, and none of them seem to think any of this will ever happen within their career.


----------



## Andrew

The Port Authority is looking into receiving federal grants for the Manhattan Tunnel Box and the Portal Bridge Replacement Project in New Jersey. The link here is from a recent Port Authority Press Release regarding updates pertaining to the Hudson Tunnel Project:

http://www.panynj.gov/press-room/press-item.cfm?headLine_id=2388

Press Release Article
PRINT


GATEWAY PROGRAM PARTNERS MOVE CRITICAL REGIONAL TRANSIT AND RAIL PROJECT FORWARD*Date:* Mar 23, 2016
*Press Release Number:* 41-2016


_*$70 million allocated for preliminary engineering, a federal pledge to streamline environmental reviews and finalization of development corporation structure.*_

The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, Amtrak, and the U.S. Department of Transportation, together with NJ TRANSIT, and with the support of U.S. Secretary of Transportation Anthony Foxx, New York Governor Andrew Cuomo and New Jersey Governor Chris Christie, U.S. Senators Charles E. Schumer (D-NY), Cory Booker (D-NJ), and Robert Menendez (D-NJ) today announced a series of concrete steps to move the Gateway Program forward.

- The Gateway Program’s Hudson Tunnel Project to construct a new rail tunnel under the Hudson River will receive $70 million in funding for critical preliminary engineering work, with $35 million in federal funding coming from Amtrak and $35 million from the Port Authority, subject to the consideration and approval of each party’s Boards, in order to expedite and accelerate environmental review and permitting for the Hudson Tunnel Project.

- U.S. Transportation Secretary Anthony Foxx announced that the department will commit the necessary resources and take steps to accelerate federal environmental reviews and permitting for the Hudson Tunnel Project. Inclusion of the project on the President’s Federal Infrastructure Projects Dashboard is expected and will help ensure swift and thorough completion of the environmental process. NJ TRANSIT already has issued a formal notice-to-proceed for consulting services funded by Amtrak and NJ TRANSIT to help support the process

- The Port Authority, Amtrak, the U.S. Department of Transportation and NJ TRANSIT have agreed to enter into a Memorandum of Understanding setting forth an interim framework for coordination among the parties to advance the Program, including establishment of an executive committee to coordinate activities and specific working groups focusing on environmental permitting, construction and preliminary engineering, funding and financing, rail operations, and governance matters.

- The local agencies also announced their intent to apply for competitive federal grants in the coming months – including those recently authorized by the FAST Act in December 2015 - to advance the Gateway Program. Representatives expect to pursue funding in the coming months from the U.S. Department of Transportation from grant programs such as TIGER, FASTLANE and New Starts. These grants would help fund Gateway’s projects including the Hudson Tunnel Project, Portal Bridge replacement project in New Jersey, and the completion of the Hudson Yards tunnel right-of-way preservation project in Manhattan, which has already received $235 million in federal funds. A $16 million TIGER grant has previously been awarded to NJ TRANSIT to help replace the century-old Portal Bridge which long has been a chokepoint for travel along the Northeast Corridor. NJ TRANSIT will solicit contract proposals for early construction work in the second quarter of 2016.

- The project participants announced today that the Port Authority, Amtrak, and USDOT are taking steps towards finalizing the structure and form of a development corporation to oversee the entire Program. The parties are structuring the new entity to maximize flexibility and eligibility for the full spectrum of federal funding and financing programs, as well as potential public-private partnership structures in order to accomplish the various aspects of the Gateway Program.

The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey’s Board of Commissioners is expected to vote on authorizing $35 million for preliminary engineering for the Hudson Tunnel Project at its March 24 meeting. Amtrak has also pledged $35 million for the preliminary engineering work which will support the environmental and planning efforts for the tunnel project. The new tunnel will allow for the closure and rehabilitation of the existing 106-year old tunnel that was badly damaged by Superstorm Sandy in October 2012. The new two-track, trans-Hudson rail tunnel will provide a vital backup to the current century-old tunnel. 

This financial commitment will help build momentum and expedite review and permitting for the rehabilitation of the existing tunnel and creation of the new tunnel. The Hudson Tunnel Project is a major priority of New York Governor Andrew Cuomo and New Jersey Governor Chris Christie, U.S. Senators Charles E. Schumer (D-NY), Cory Booker (D-NJ), and Robert Menendez (D-NJ), U.S. Secretary of Transportation Anthony Foxx, Amtrak, the Port Authority, and NJ TRANSIT.

The 50/50 contribution from Amtrak and the Port Authority for preliminary engineering is consistent with the overall framework announced in November. Following calls to action by Secretary Foxx, Governors Christie and Cuomo and Senators Booker and Schumer, the non-federal agencies have been pursuing a 50/50 framework between federal and local funding. A development corporation will be responsible for developing a specific funding and financing plan for the Program.

The Port Authority’s Board of Commissioners is also expected to be briefed on steps being taken towards the formation of a development corporation that will oversee and manage the Gateway Program. Consistent with the framework outlined in the November 12, 2015 press release issued by Governors Christie and Cuomo, and Senators Booker and Schumer, the corporation’s board would consist of representatives from Amtrak, Commissioners of the Port Authority as representatives of the States of New York and New Jersey, and the U.S. Department of Transportation. 

The Gateway Program will deliver a set of rail infrastructure projects between Newark, NJ and New York City. Major projects include the construction of the Hudson Tunnel Project including the rehabilitation of the existing rail tunnel, replacement of the Portal and Sawtooth bridges in New Jersey, the Hudson Yards tunnel right-of-way preservation project, and expansion of New York Penn Station, Newark Penn Station, and Secaucus Junction. The Program will improve resiliency and – when completed – is expected to significantly increase capacity for Amtrak and NJ TRANSIT along the busy Northeast Corridor line. 

New York and New Jersey representatives also are expected to utilize federal low-interest loan opportunities as another way to meet their share of the Program’s cost. Later this year, preliminary filings are expected to be submitted to the U.S. Department of Transportation’s credit programs, which will allow for accelerated funding decisions on various projects in the Gateway Program.


----------



## Andrew

New Hudson Tunnel Website. Check it out:

http://www.hudsontunnelproject.com/index.html


----------



## WoodyinNYC

Andrew said:


> New Hudson Tunnel Website. Check it out:
> 
> http://www.hudsontunnelproject.com/index.html


That's a fascinating document!

Thanks for posting it, Andrew.

Apparently to appease the haters, this is no longer an Amtrak project. The FRA is running the show. It is all about restoring the North River Tunnels damaged by Sandy.

And WE PROMISE that it does not increase capacity for Amtrak trains. For real.



> While the Proposed Action addresses maintenance and resilience of the NEC Hudson River crossing,* it would not increase rail capacity.* At the same time, the Proposed Action *would not preclude other future projects to expand rail capacity* in the area. Accordingly, while the Proposed Action may also be an element of a larger program to expand rail capacity, it would meet an urgent existing need and will be evaluated as a separate project from any larger initiative. Ultimately, an increase in service between Newark Penn Station and PSNY cannot be realized until other substantial infrastructure capacity improvements are built in addition to a new Hudson River rail tunnel. These improvements will be the subject of one or more separate design, engineering, and appropriate environmental reviews.


*My bold added.*

The new Portal Bridge, adding tracks Newark-PSNY (as they call it), and any expansion of

Penn Station such as Penn South are separate. So CongressCritters will get a chance down the line to vote against anything that might help Acelas, the "Soviet style" Amtrak, or any form of HSR.

If that's what it takes to get the Tunnel Boring Machines going, we'll take the deal and worry about paying for capacity improvements in a few years.

edited to fix spelling 5/17/16


----------



## Andrew

WoodyinNYC said:


> Andrew said:
> 
> 
> 
> New Hudson Tunnel Website. Check it out:
> 
> http://www.hudsontunnelproject.com/index.html
> 
> 
> 
> That's a fascinating document!
> 
> Thanks for posting it, Andrew.
> 
> Apparently to appease the haters, this is no longer an Amtrak project. The FRA is running the show. It is all about restoring the North River Tunnels damaged by Sandy.
> 
> And WE PROMISE that it does not increase capacity for Amtrak trains. For real.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> While the Proposed Action addresses maintenance and resilience of the NEC Hudson River crossing,* it would not increase rail capacity.* At the same time, the Proposed Action *would not preclude other future projects to expand rail capacity* in the area. Accordingly, while the Proposed Action may also be an element of a larger program to expand rail capacity, it would meet an urgent existing need and will be evaluated as a separate project from any larger initiative. Ultimately, an increase in service between Newark Penn Station and PSNY cannot be realized until other substantial infrastructure capacity improvements are built in addition to a new Hudson River rail tunnel. These improvements will be the subject of one or more separate design, engineering, and appropriate environmental reviews.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *My bold added.*
> 
> The new Portal Bridge, adding tracks Newark-NYPS (as they call it), and any expansion of
> 
> Penn Station such as Penn South are separate. So CongressCritters will get a chance down the line to vote against anything that might help Acelas, the "Soviet style" Amtrak, or any form of HSR.
> 
> If that's what it takes to get the Tunnel Boring Machines going, we'll take the deal and worry about paying for capacity improvements in a few years.
Click to expand...

First and foremost, two additional tunnels, along with substation improvements between NYC and Washington D.C.--and a fourth track over a nearly 10 mile segment in Maryland-- should enable half-hour Acela service to operate at some point in the future.

The new Portal Bridge, which will be located six miles west of Penn Station in northern New Jersey, (and the Manhattan Concrete Casing Project extension) is expected to begin soon, as the Port Authority of NY and NJ is applying for federal grants so that each state--New York and New Jersey--receive a component of the Gateway Project.

Tiger Grants for at least one of those two projects were submitted yesterday.

Here is a recent Port Authority press conference that discusses the Portal Bridge and Tunnel Box extension: http://corpinfo.panynj.gov/pages/board-committee-meeting-videos/ which begins around 16 minutes after the video begins


----------



## B757Guy

Great topic, but at 45, I'm wondering if in my lifetime I will ever see trains running at 160-220mph on the NEC on a regular basis.


----------



## Andrew

Most interesting information from http://www.hudsontunnelproject.com/faq.html:

What is included in the Hudson Tunnel Project?The Hudson Tunnel Project will include the following elements:


A new Northeast Corridor rail tunnel beneath the Hudson River, extending from a new tunnel portal in North Bergen, New Jersey to the Penn Station New York rail complex.
Ventilation shaft buildings above the tunnel on both sides of the Hudson River to provide smoke ventilation during emergencies.
Modifications to the existing Northeast Corridor tracks and signal systems in New Jersey and additional track and signal systems on the Northeast Corridor to connect the new tunnel to the Northeast Corridor. Modifications are anticipated beginning just east of Frank R. Lautenberg Station in Secaucus, New Jersey, and approaching the new tunnel portal in North Bergen, New Jersey.
Modifications to connecting rail infrastructure west of Penn Station New York to connect the new tunnel’s tracks to the existing tracks at Penn Station New York.
Rehabilitation of the existing Northeast Corridor rail tunnel’s structure, tracks, and signals, one tube at a time.


----------



## jis

All this was presented at the TransAction Conference two weeks back by Drew Galloway. Unfortunately haven't been able to get a pointer to the slides yet.

Estimated date of completion (assuming funding comes through in a timely manner) is late 2025, with rehab of the old tunnels taking place 2026 - 2028, so full capacity of four tracks would become available at some point after 2028..

BTW the posted URL above is giving 404, because erroneously the ":" at the end of that line has been included in the URL. The correct URL is: http://www.hudsontunnelproject.com/faq.html


----------



## Devil's Advocate

B757Guy said:


> Great topic, but at 45, I'm wondering if in my lifetime I will ever see trains running at 160-220mph on the NEC on a regular basis.


It seems entirely possible to me that an extremely brief almost insignificant length of track would be rated 160MPH. Any speed improvements more significant than that may border on the impossible under the current governing structure.


----------



## Andrew

jis said:


> All this was presented at the TransAction Conference two weeks back by Drew Galloway. Unfortunately haven't been able to get a pointer to the slides yet.
> 
> Estimated date of completion (assuming funding comes through in a timely manner) is late 2025, with rehab of the old tunnels taking place 2026 - 2028, so full capacity of four tracks would become available at some point after 2028..
> 
> BTW the posted URL above is giving 404, because erroneously the ":" at the end of that line has been included in the URL. The correct URL is: http://www.hudsontunnelproject.com/faq.html


Is there another PDF that I can access?

What did Drew Galloway say regarding getting the ROD and funding strategies for the Hudson Tunnel Project?


----------



## jis

As I said don't have access yet. Didn't say anything about ROD AFAIK.


----------



## Andrew

I went to the Hudson Tunnel Scoping Meeting Today--sounds like the NEPA folks and engineering people are committed to a two year schedule before the Record of Decision gets issued.


----------



## DSS&A

Hi,

The huge 20 year Gottard Mountain Base Tunnel opened for revenue service yesterday. The first freight train will use it on June 3rd. In Europe, they make BIG infrastructure plans and see them through to completion despite multiple politicians over the years. Here's a link to an article about the new tunnel.

http://www.railwaygazette.com/news/news/europe/single-view/view/festival-marks-gotthard-base-tunnel-opening.html


----------



## afigg

US DOT July 14 press release: Gateway Program Projects Take First Step Toward Qualifying For Major USDOT Funding. Excerpts:



> WASHINGTON – U.S. Transportation Secretary Anthony Foxx announced today that two major infrastructure projects in the New York City area are now one step closer to qualifying for federal funding. The U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT) has moved the Hudson Tunnel Project and Portal North Bridge – both critical elements of the Gateway Program – into the Project Development process for New Starts, a type of Capital Investment Grant available through the Federal Transit Administration (FTA).
> 
> ....
> 
> Project Development is the first phase that these projects will be required to complete before a construction grant could be awarded. In this phase, the Hudson Tunnel Project and Portal North Bridge will move forward with identifying a specific development plan and, in the case of the Hudson Tunnel Project, completing the environmental review process. The Portal North Bridge has already completed the necessary environmental review. The move also authorizes the project sponsor, the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey (Port Authority) and its partners Amtrak and NJ TRANSIT to begin incurring costs related to the environmental review and engineering and design activities.


----------



## Andrew

afigg said:


> US DOT July 14 press release: Gateway Program Projects Take First Step Toward Qualifying For Major USDOT Funding. Excerpts:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WASHINGTON – U.S. Transportation Secretary Anthony Foxx announced today that two major infrastructure projects in the New York City area are now one step closer to qualifying for federal funding. The U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT) has moved the Hudson Tunnel Project and Portal North Bridge – both critical elements of the Gateway Program – into the Project Development process for New Starts, a type of Capital Investment Grant available through the Federal Transit Administration (FTA).
> 
> ....
> 
> Project Development is the first phase that these projects will be required to complete before a construction grant could be awarded. In this phase, the Hudson Tunnel Project and Portal North Bridge will move forward with identifying a specific development plan and, in the case of the Hudson Tunnel Project, completing the environmental review process. The Portal North Bridge has already completed the necessary environmental review. The move also authorizes the project sponsor, the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey (Port Authority) and its partners Amtrak and NJ TRANSIT to begin incurring costs related to the environmental review and engineering and design activities.
Click to expand...

And from https://www.transit.dot.gov/sites/fta.dot.gov/files/docs/NJ%20Portal%20North%20Bridge%20PD%20profile_0.pd fand https://www.transit.dot.gov/sites/fta.dot.gov/files/docs/NJ-NY%20Hudson%20Tunnel%20PD%20profile_0.pdf respectively:

[SIZE=16pt]Portal North Bridge Project [/SIZE]

[SIZE=14pt]Hudson County, New Jersey [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]New Starts Project Development Information Prepared June 2016 [/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]The Portal North Bridge Project entails the construction of a new, two-track fixed structure bridge across the Hackensack River in Hudson County, New Jersey along the Northeast Corridor (NEC). The existing moveable swing span bridge has only 23 feet of vertical clearance above the mean high water level and must pivot open to allow maritime traffic to pass through, closing the bridge to rail traffic interrupting operations on the NEC for both Amtrak and New Jersey Transit (NJ TRANSIT). Additionally, the “miter rails,” which allow the rails to disengage and the bridge to open and close, permanently restrict speeds on the bridge to 60 miles per hour, while trains can operate at 90 miles per hours on adjacent portions of the NEC. These conditions create bottlenecks along the NEC, especially during peak commute hours. The new bridge will provide enough vertical clearance to accommodate current and forecast maritime traffic and allow trains to operate at higher speeds. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]The Project is part of the Northeast Corridor Gateway Program, a series of strategic rail infrastructure investments designed to improve current service and create new capacity. The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey (PANYNJ) currently serves as the project sponsor, but the Project is a joint undertaking that also includes Amtrak and New Jersey Transit (NJ TRANSIT). [/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]A Notice of Intent to initiate the environmental review was published in the Federal Register on December 12, 2006. The Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) was published in February 2008, with the Final EIS published in October 2008. The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) issued a Record of Decision (ROD) in December 2008. The current schedule anticipates selection of a locally preferred alternative and its incorporation into the region’s fiscally constrained long range plan in 2017, entry into Engineering in the first quarter of 2017, receipt of a Full Funding Grant Agreement in the second quarter of 2018, and the opening for revenue service in the second quarter of 2024. [/SIZE]

Hudson Tunnel Project


[SIZE=14pt]Secaucus, New Jersey to New York, New York [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]New Starts Project Development Information Prepared June 2016 [/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]The Hudson Tunnel Project is a new two-track heavy rail tunnel along the Northeast Corridor from the Bergen Palisades in New Jersey to Manhattan that will directly serve Penn Station New York. It consists of three major elements: the Hudson Yards right-of-way preservation project, the Hudson Tunnel, and the rehabilitation and modernization of the existing North River tunnel. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]The Hudson Tunnel Project is part of the Northeast Corridor Gateway Program, a series of strategic rail infrastructure investments designed to improve current service and create new capacity. The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey (PANYNJ) currently serves as the project sponsor, but the Project is a joint undertaking that also includes Amtrak and New Jersey Transit (NJ TRANSIT). [/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]The existing 106-year old North River Tunnel is owned by Amtrak. NJ TRANSIT and Amtrak operate approximately 450 trains each weekday through the tunnel that carry over 200,000 daily passenger trips. The North River Tunnel presents reliability challenges due to damage from Superstorm Sandy in 2012, as well as the overall age the tunnel and the intensity of its current use. Significant delays to a large number of trains occur when problems arise. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]The benefits of the Hudson Tunnel Project are twofold. First, the new tunnel will enable the closure of the existing tunnel for reconstruction without causing a significant reduction of capacity. Second, once renovations on the North River Tunnel are complete, its reopening will greatly increase rail capacity and provide greater redundancy in the event of malfunction. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]Preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement is currently underway, and is expected to be completed in March 2018. The selection of a locally preferred alternative and its incorporation into the region’s fiscally constrained long range plan is expected to occur in the first quarter of 2018. The current schedule anticipates the project will enter Engineering in the second quarter of 2018, receive a Full Funding Grant Agreement from FTA in spring 2019, and have both the new tunnel and the rehabilitated tunnel open for revenue service by 2028. [/SIZE]


----------



## CraigDK

CH2M to Serve on Program Management Consultant Team to Amtrak for Gateway Program
A minor update on Gateway.


----------



## Karl1459

CH2M-Hill is VERY well respected for infrastructure engineering in the Pacific Northwest. Good catch.


----------



## west point

*BUT: *we now have the POL from Brooklan wanting Gateway tunnel bores made for freight. That is a laugh as the additional costs would be very large. .


----------



## CraigDK

west point said:


> *BUT: *we now have the POL from Brooklan wanting Gateway tunnel bores made for freight. That is a laugh as the additional costs would be very large. .


I guess that is the natural reaction after the latest attempt at building a freight tunnel to Brooklyn failed recently. "They look like they are going to get their tunnel, we want to use it too!"

The good news is that there are so many other obstacles (above and beyond those that need to be dealt with just to make the new Hudson Tunnels happen, let alone the entirety of Gateway) to running freight along that particular portion of the NEC that sanity might prevail.


----------



## StriderGDM

Huh, first I heard of this... but could be a VERY interesting idea. As I understand it, the tunnels are already being designed such that a lower level for future HSR trains can pass through to a future lower level of Penn Station.

Wonder if you could do some sort of compromise, make just one bore larger, and split off the freight at a deeper point and continue straight under Manhattan, bypassing Penn completely. Hmm.


----------



## jis

The 2.8% gradient should dash all hopes of running any serious freight through it


----------



## PVD

A freight tunnel to Brooklyn could make sense in some ways, but certainly not through NYP and Manhattan.


----------



## jis

From what I have heard, no freight railroad has agreed to use such a tunnel. They will have to be brought kicking a screaming to it. Their tendency has been to terminate their inter-modals away from the mess that is the tri-state area, offload onto tractor trailers and let them handle it. Minimally the passage through such a tunnel would have to be to a large transshipment point with quick turnaround for anyone to take this seriously. Just building a tunnel with slow throughput and turnaround simply won't cut it. Croxton is about as close as one will get to Brooklyn from the west bank with any high priority intermodal train. And most of the New York area freight arrives on the west bank via the CSX River Line and NS Lehigh Valley Line, not on the east bank.


----------



## railiner

If they could ever build an intermodal yard somewhere in mid-Long Island, surrounded by warehouses and good highway access, and improved clearance on the LIRR to allow the operation of double stack trains at night.

Then it might make sense to build a freight tunnel to Brooklyn. Or start by running some freights down the Hudson Line and the Hell Gate Bridge overnite, when their is little passenger train traffic...


----------



## CraigDK

StriderGDM said:


> Huh, first I heard of this... but could be a VERY interesting idea. As I understand it, the tunnels are already being designed such that a lower level for future HSR trains can pass through to a future lower level of Penn Station.
> 
> Wonder if you could do some sort of compromise, make just one bore larger, and split off the freight at a deeper point and continue straight under Manhattan, bypassing Penn completely. Hmm.


Definitely not going to happen. It was suggested by, I believe, some politicians from Brooklyn after the latest effort looking at building a freight tunnel to Brooklyn (where such a tunnel might make sense) collapsed. Some of the obstacles that I alluded to where mentioned here;



jis said:


> The 2.8% gradient should dash all hopes of running any serious freight through it





jis said:


> From what I have heard, no freight railroad has agreed to use such a tunnel. They will have to be brought kicking a screaming to it. Their tendency has been to terminate their inter-modals away from the mess that is the tri-state area, offload onto tractor trailers and let them handle it. Minimally the passage through such a tunnel would have to be to a large transshipment point with quick turnaround for anyone to take this seriously. Just building a tunnel with slow throughput and turnaround simply won't cut it. Croxton is about as close as one will get to Brooklyn from the west bank with any high priority intermodal train. And most of the New York area freight arrives on the west bank via the CSX River Line and NS Lehigh Valley Line, not on the east bank.


----------



## west point

Costs would at least triple for a freight to Brooklyn.

1. larger tunnel bores under Hudson,

2. The tunnel box now under construction will not clear double stacks or auto carriers

3. NYP would need separate tracks with higher and wider clearances for plate "H" that could not be used for passenger trains.

4. Last but very high cost would be tunnel bores for plate "H" under the east river.

On further consideration whole project $ 40 - $50B


----------



## CraigDK

No major disagreement with the first three points. I don't think number four would add significantly to the cost, simply because there are so many other components that are involved (and are fixed cost regardless of the tunnel size) in the overall cost of a project that size.


----------



## jis

Actually one practical problem in trying to go to Plate H height would mean that the floor of the tunnel will have to go lower in order for there to be a safe distance from the tunnel roof to the river bed. his will mean a even higher gradient for the track to come up all the way to the Penn Station level which will defeat the entire purpose of trying to shove Plate H cars in freight train through the tunnel.

Now if Brooklyn would pay for the entire thing without losing any passenger connectivity and capacity - guess what? You just got Nadler's tunnel all over again, quite independent of the tunnels to Penn Station!


----------



## Andrew

Hudson Tunnel Project was already put on permitting dashboard:

https://www.permits.performance.gov/projects/hudson-tunnel-project


----------



## railiner

The freight tunnel would not even go under Manhattan, but go via Staten Island. It would use the former B&O/SIRT bridge from New Jersey, some SIR trackage or ROW, and then a tunnel beneath the Narrows, connecting to the freight line at Bay Ridge, Brooklyn.

Currently, the New York/New Jersey RR operates a carfloat from Greenville Yard, NJ, to Brooklyn to connect with New York and Atlantic Railway...


----------



## PVD

The same people who complain about the trucks clogging their roads do everything they can to block additional avenues for rail freight. Apparently, they believe goods and materials arrive and depart via magic carpets. 8 million or so people in Brooklyn, Queens, Nassau, Suffolk, and Staten Island would likely receive a major long term benefit from better rail access, but the pain of overcoming Nimby-ism and the initial costs to do anything along these lines are considerable.


----------



## jis

railiner said:


> The freight tunnel would not even go under Manhattan, but go via Staten Island. It would use the former B&O/SIRT bridge from New Jersey, some SIR trackage or ROW, and then a tunnel beneath the Narrows, connecting to the freight line at Bay Ridge, Brooklyn.
> 
> Currently, the New York/New Jersey RR operates a carfloat from Greenville Yard, NJ, to Brooklyn to connect with New York and Atlantic Railway...


That is the tunnel proposal that has been shelved and is being criticized by the Brooklyn know nothing council person for cost. Instead he is proposing the impractical idea of running freight through a pair of tunnels with 2.8% gradient that terminates in Penn Station New York for the foreseeable future.


----------



## CraigDK

Andrew said:


> Hudson Tunnel Project was already put on permitting dashboard:
> 
> https://www.permits.performance.gov/projects/hudson-tunnel-project


I hadn't found that website before. It was nice to see the anticipated dates for the completion of the different studies. Unfortunately it didn't have any other details (and some of the other projects on there had even less).


----------



## jis

And the dates are aspirational at best.


----------



## CraigDK

It sounds positive, but still not a lot of details.

http://www.nj.com/traffic/index.ssf/2016/10/schumer_new_hudson_river_rail_tunnel_could_be_fund.html

http://www.newsday.com/news/new-york/officials-full-steam-ahead-for-rail-tunnel-across-hudson-river-1.12456383

http://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-puts-new-hudson-river-tunnels-on-fast-track-approval-process-1476490535


----------



## CraigDK

Some additional articles.

http://www.njtvonline.org/news/video/gateway-tunnel-construction-set-begin-2019/

http://www.railwayage.com/index.php/passenger/intercity/gateway-paradise-by-the-permitting-dashboard-lights.html

Reading through the articles, there wasn't much that hasn't already been discussed. The biggest takeaway from the announcement seems to be that funding will be included in the FTA's FY18 budget for the start of the Portal Bridge North project in FY18 (with construction staring later that year) and funding for the Hudson River Tunnels will be included in the FTA's FY19 budget.

I assume this funding will account for the Feds share of the Hudson River Tunnels (with NJ-NY still needing to cough up their half). I did not see anything to suggest what percentage of the Portal Bridge cost will be covered by the Feds.


----------



## Andrew

Amtrak Gateway Press Release:

http://media.amtrak.com/2016/10/secretary-foxx-sens-schumer-gillibrand-menendez-booker-chairman-coscia-announce-major-developments-for-urgently-needed-gateway-program/


----------



## CraigDK

The Port Authority approves ~$300 million toward the replacement of Portal Bridge.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-10-20/port-authority-approves-money-to-replace-notorious-portal-bridge

It is still a long way to go, but things do seem to be lining up.


----------



## CraigDK

From the Hudson Tunnel Project website...

Two open house meetings are now posted on the events page for November 10 and November 17, there is a flyer available here. The meetings will be on the Preferred Alternative for the project.

They also posted 4 other documents.

A fact sheet #2, Scoping Summary

The Scoping Summary Report

A fact sheet #3, preferred alternative

The Preferred Alternative Summary

I am still reading through the Summary Report (75 pages), but quickly a few highlights...

Grades not exceeding 2.1%

Three Ventilation Plants

The use of TBMs for most of the work

Uses the ARC alignment for the portion in NJ

Will use engineering work and property acquired for ARC

4 concepts where considered


----------



## CraigDK

The Hudson Tunnel Project website has posted the meeting boards from the open houses scheduled last week and this week.

A couple of notes. During the initial review various other alternatives from previous studies (including one that apparently considered a bridge) where reviewed and eliminated. They considered incorporating other project elements (presumably other Gateway elements) into the tunnel project but did not. Four alternative alignments for the tunnel where considered (probably more in depth than the first step), all of them use the tunnel alignment preserved under Hudson Yards in NY and the NJ tunnel mouth and construction staging areas that the ARC project had planned on using. Based on my reading they are using the ARC tunnel alignment from the NJ entrance to the location of the NJ vent plant.


----------



## jis

CraigDK said:


> The Hudson Tunnel Project website has posted the meeting boards from the open houses scheduled last week and this week.
> 
> A couple of notes. During the initial review various other alternatives from previous studies (including one that apparently considered a bridge) where reviewed and eliminated. They considered incorporating other project elements (presumably other Gateway elements) into the tunnel project but did not. Four alternative alignments for the tunnel where considered (probably more in depth than the first step), all of them use the tunnel alignment preserved under Hudson Yards in NY and the NJ tunnel mouth and construction staging areas that the ARC project had planned on using. Based on my reading they are using the ARC tunnel alignment from the NJ entrance to the location of the NJ vent plant.


Yup. It is more or less the same alignment with slight variations. The ARC alignment was slightly different because it incorporated a bellmouth to connect to the northern branch at some point in the future. AFAIK that part has been dropped, which allows for a slightly less complicated alignment under the Palisades. The tunnel portal and the vent shafts will be at the same locations as planned for the ARC tunnel in NJ.


----------



## CraigDK

jis said:


> Yup. It is more or less the same alignment with slight variations. The ARC alignment was slightly different because it incorporated a bellmouth to connect to the northern branch at some point in the future. AFAIK that part has been dropped, which allows for a slightly less complicated alignment under the Palisades. The tunnel portal and the vent shafts will be at the same locations as planned for the ARC tunnel in NJ.


I don't recall how they planned on connecting the northern branch for the ARC project. Out of curiosity, do you have any links that showed how they where planning on that connection?


----------



## jis

I have it in a pile of papers somewhere. They had built in two bell mouths under the Palisades in the design, one in each tunnel, which were going to be at different levels at that point. The plan was to keep the possibility open for boring additional tunnels under the Palisades at some point in the future, to connect from the bell mouths to a point somewhere between where CSX and SusiQ passes under Rt. 3 and Union Turnpike/Patterson Plank Road. This would potentially have allowed connection into Penn Station from both SusiQ towards Sparta and CSX towards the north, both Tenafly and possible future service to Haverstraw or Newburgh on the River Line. It was a bit of a Moonshot IMHO.

back then I participated in each and every RCLC meeting and have mountains of papers in a moving box among a pile of them in my Garage. They were not very good at putting things online back then.


----------



## Andrew

I am trying to figure out if President-Elect Trump would want huge cuts to FTA/ New Starts--or, as many people I have recently spoken to believe, that he is a New Yorker and understands that mass transit funding--and the Gateway Program--are very important to New York City. What do you folks think?


----------



## jis

Not that any of his random collection of campaign statements mean much, but he did say he planned to spent half a trillion dollars on infrastructure over some unspecified period of time.


----------



## Andrew

jis said:


> Not that any of his random collection of campaign statements mean much, but he did say he planned to spent half a trillion dollars on infrastructure over some unspecified period of time.


So maybe that is Trump's way of saying that we shouldn't worry too much about massive cuts to federal mass transit funding?

(I also brought up Gateway since the Portal Bridge and the Hudson Tunnel Project have been into the New Starts funding pipeline). https://www.transit.dot.gov/funding/grant-programs/capital-investments/current-cig-projects


----------



## jis

However, a President can propose all he wants, but if Congress does not include it in their budget that they adopt, it doe not matter what the President thinks.


----------



## CraigDK

jis said:


> Not that any of his random collection of campaign statements mean much, but he did say he planned to spent half a trillion dollars on infrastructure over some unspecified period of time.


I believe that he proposed a whole trillion dollars, and his opponent proposed a half trillion. Neither of them (that I recall) however gave much in details such as time frames or how money would be split among whatever they consider to be under the umbrella of infrastructure.



Andrew said:


> I am trying to figure out if President-Elect Trump would want huge cuts to FTA/ New Starts--or, as many people I have recently spoken to believe, that he is a New Yorker and understands that mass transit funding--and the Gateway Program--are very important to New York City. What do you folks think?


Its my understanding that the FY2017 New Starts are already set (funding and projects), and possibly the FY2018 (at least the funding). I think the first Portal Bridge (that the states have agreed to cover a portion already) is suppose to be included under the FY2018 budget. There is some pre-construction work that is already funded under a TIGER Grant that starts soon.

The Hudson Tunnels should at least be funded through the accelerated EIS work. It sounded like the heavy funding would begin with FY2019 (not sure if they where planning to fund it under New Starts or another program).



jis said:


> However, a President can propose all he wants, but if Congress does not include it in their budget that they adopt, it doe not matter what the President thinks.


True. There are multiple players that will determine what may or may not happen. In my opinion, I suspect the resiliency projects under Gateway will most likely move forward and be completed. The expansion projects slightly less likely, with Penn Station South and the Secaucus Loop being the least likely to be completed (but still possible).


----------



## west point

Can we expect if congress does not follow the president elect then the veto pen might be used a lot ? IMHO it has not been used enough by past presidents. That of course disregards the affordable health care act cancellation that has been vetoed many times.


----------



## jis

You cannot veto an omnibus bill for the lack of funding of some minor thing in it, even if you are Trump. The battles are going to be on big things. Gateway is not a big thing in the overall scheme of things. Most interesting to watch will be whether Ryan gets turfed by Trump or not, and that will determine a lot of very large items like Social Security, Medicare, Infrastructure and Defense.


----------



## CraigDK

jis said:


> You cannot veto an omnibus bill for the lack of funding of some minor thing in it, even if you are Trump. The battles are going to be on big things. Gateway is not a big thing in the overall scheme of things. Most interesting to watch will be whether Ryan gets turfed by Trump or not, and that will determine a lot of very large items like Social Security, Medicare, Infrastructure and Defense.


True, at the federal level it is an all or nothing when it comes to vetos. I also think that Gateway is not a large fish in what is going to be a large pond. Without getting much further from the topic of the thread, I fully expect that Ryan is not going anywhere.


----------



## jis

I have no predictions to make at this point in any direction whatsoever


----------



## Andrew

CraigDK said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not that any of his random collection of campaign statements mean much, but he did say he planned to spent half a trillion dollars on infrastructure over some unspecified period of time.
> 
> 
> 
> I believe that he proposed a whole trillion dollars, and his opponent proposed a half trillion. Neither of them (that I recall) however gave much in details such as time frames or how money would be split among whatever they consider to be under the umbrella of infrastructure.
> 
> 
> 
> Andrew said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am trying to figure out if President-Elect Trump would want huge cuts to FTA/ New Starts--or, as many people I have recently spoken to believe, that he is a New Yorker and understands that mass transit funding--and the Gateway Program--are very important to New York City. What do you folks think?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Its my understanding that the FY2017 New Starts are already set (funding and projects), and possibly the FY2018 (at least the funding). I think the first Portal Bridge (that the states have agreed to cover a portion already) is suppose to be included under the FY2018 budget. There is some pre-construction work that is already funded under a TIGER Grant that starts soon.
> 
> The Hudson Tunnels should at least be funded through the accelerated EIS work. It sounded like the heavy funding would begin with FY2019 (not sure if they where planning to fund it under New Starts or another program).
> 
> 
> 
> jis said:
> 
> 
> 
> However, a President can propose all he wants, but if Congress does not include it in their budget that they adopt, it doe not matter what the President thinks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> True. There are multiple players that will determine what may or may not happen. In my opinion, I suspect the resiliency projects under Gateway will most likely move forward and be completed. The expansion projects slightly less likely, with Penn Station South and the Secaucus Loop being the least likely to be completed (but still possible).
Click to expand...

According to the October Port Authority of NY and NJ Board Meeting Press Conference, both the Portal Bridge and Hudson Tunnel Project have been accepted into the Federal FY 2018 budget.

http://corpinfo.panynj.gov/pages/board-committee-meeting-videos/


----------



## jis

Andrew said:


> According to the October Port Authority of NY and NJ Board Meeting Press Conference, both the Portal Bridge and Hudson Tunnel Project have been accepted into the Federal FY 2018 budget.
> 
> http://corpinfo.panynj.gov/pages/board-committee-meeting-videos/


That means they have been accepted for consideration. After consideration they might still get zero or they might get the whole amount or something in between.


----------



## leacrane

Trump is talking about a trillion in infrastructure. For better or worse he's not a typical GOP on fiscal policy. e.g. he doesn't care about deficits. since he pitched the blue collar types I don't see him canceling projects. The question is, will Congress go against him? not a single Senator from the NE corridor is Repub.


----------



## Palmetto

One quote from Trump that I saw concerning infrastructure investment omitted railroads. He included about everything else, from hospitals to highways.


----------



## Andrew

Palmetto said:


> One quote from Trump that I saw concerning infrastructure investment omitted railroads. He included about everything else, from hospitals to highways.


A quote that was just published had Trump saying that he wants to include subways in his infrastructure plan.


----------



## brianpmcdonnell17

Andrew said:


> Palmetto said:
> 
> 
> 
> One quote from Trump that I saw concerning infrastructure investment omitted railroads. He included about everything else, from hospitals to highways.
> 
> 
> 
> A quote that was just published had Trump saying that he wants to include subways in his infrastructure plan.
Click to expand...

That is interesting considering the trend has been towards light rail and away from subways. I wonder if he wants new subway systems or to expand current ones. To my knowledge, CTA, MTA, and MARTA all have expansion plans. However, I do not believe there has been a brand new US subway system built in at least 20 years.


----------



## jis

brianpmcdonnell17 said:


> That is interesting considering the trend has been towards light rail and away from subways. I wonder if he wants new subway systems or to expand current ones. To my knowledge, CTA, MTA, and MARTA all have expansion plans. However, I do not believe there has been a brand new US subway system built in at least 20 years.


Right. But one has been inaugurated in the last 25 years though  And it has since been expanded.


----------



## MARC Rider

brianpmcdonnell17 said:


> Andrew said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Palmetto said:
> 
> 
> 
> One quote from Trump that I saw concerning infrastructure investment omitted railroads. He included about everything else, from hospitals to highways.
> 
> 
> 
> A quote that was just published had Trump saying that he wants to include subways in his infrastructure plan.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is interesting considering the trend has been towards light rail and away from subways. I wonder if he wants new subway systems or to expand current ones. To my knowledge, CTA, MTA, and MARTA all have expansion plans. However, I do not believe there has been a brand new US subway system built in at least 20 years.
Click to expand...

You know, for people who aren't rail or transit geeks, the term "subway" might refer to any sort of rail transit system. And our President-elect is from New York, where the most common form of rail transit is the subway.


----------



## PRR 60

leacrane said:


> ...not a single Senator from the NE corridor is Repub.


Pat Toomey ( R) - Pennsylvania


----------



## PVD

The subway may be number one, but the 3 largest commuter railroads (by passenger volume) are in the NY Metro area also, and combined handle almost a million riders on a weekday. 2 out of three go to NYP, and politicos are straining to make it 3 out of three


----------



## brianpmcdonnell17

PVD said:


> The subway may be number one, but the 3 largest commuter railroads (by passenger volume) are in the NY Metro area also, and combined handle almost a million riders on a weekday. 2 out of three go to NYP, and politicos are straining to make it 3 out of three


The three NYC commuter railroads have slightly higher ridership than the DC Metro, the second busiest US rapid transit system. Some places even run with subway-like frequency, such as much of the City Terminal Zone on the LIRR and the final few miles into Grand Central on Metro-North.


----------



## PVD

We always think of the very large numbers that the rail rapid transit systems carry, and sometimes overlook the large volumes handled by commuter rail. Your point about the LIRR city zone is very true, service from Jamaica to NYP is such that I sometimes pay the extra few bucks to take the LIRR to NYP for an Amtrak trip, it is way easier than dragging bags on the subway.


----------



## MARC Rider

PVD said:


> We always think of the very large numbers that the rail rapid transit systems carry, and sometimes overlook the large volumes handled by commuter rail. Your point about the LIRR city zone is very true, service from Jamaica to NYP is such that I sometimes pay the extra few bucks to take the LIRR to NYP for an Amtrak trip, it is way easier than dragging bags on the subway.


But, as I said previously, to people who aren't transit geeks/railfans/whatever, commuter rail like the LIRR is just another form of "subway."


----------



## PVD

I'm not convinced that the ridership of those services (which in some areas is extensive) see it that way. Those that don't use the systems might be so inclined.


----------



## jis

PVD said:


> I'm not convinced that the ridership of those services (which in some areas is extensive) see it that way. Those that don't use the systems might be so inclined.


Yeah. Given the fares it is hard to imagine them as subways. 

I am sure when Trump says Subways, given his background, he is probably thinking completing things like the Second Avenue Subway. I am also sure if someone asked him about things like fixing the Hudson Tunnels and bringing LIRR to Grand Central and MNRR to Penn Station, he will gladly include them in his abstract infrastructure plan too. Of course what all that might mean at the end of the day is a bit open ended right now.


----------



## brianpmcdonnell17

jis said:


> PVD said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not convinced that the ridership of those services (which in some areas is extensive) see it that way. Those that don't use the systems might be so inclined.
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah. Given the fares it is hard to imagine them as subways.
> I am sure when Trump says Subways, given his background, he is probably thinking completing things like the Second Avenue Subway. I am also sure if someone asked him about things like fixing the Hudson Tunnels and bringing LIRR to Penn Station, he will gladly include them in his abstract infrastructure plan too. Of course what all that might mean at the end of the day is a bit open ended right now.
Click to expand...

LIRR already goes to Penn Station. Comstruction is underway for the tunnel to Grand Central that will divert some LIRR trains there. Once that is complete, there will be enough space in Penn Station so that Metro-North could go there (this project is still in the planning stages).


----------



## jis

brianpmcdonnell17 said:


> LIRR already goes to Penn Station. Comstruction is underway for the tunnel to Grand Central that will divert some LIRR trains there. Once that is complete, there will be enough space in Penn Station so that Metro-North could go there (this project is still in the planning stages).


Of course. but what does it have to do with anything that I said regarding Trump and his plan?
We are all quite aware of what the current plans are in the New York area which has been discussed extensively and at times heatedly in this forum. 

Or did you somehow imagine that I was ignorant of the plans?


----------



## brianpmcdonnell17

jis said:


> brianpmcdonnell17 said:
> 
> 
> 
> LIRR already goes to Penn Station. Comstruction is underway for the tunnel to Grand Central that will divert some LIRR trains there. Once that is complete, there will be enough space in Penn Station so that Metro-North could go there (this project is still in the planning stages).
> 
> 
> 
> Of course. but what does it have to do with anything that I said regarding Trump and his plan?
> We are all quite aware of what the current plans are in the New York area which has been discussed extensively and at times heatedly in this forum.
> 
> Or did you somehow imagine that I was ignorant of the plans?
Click to expand...

I just wanted to clarify for anybody who was not aware of the plans. Your original post mentioned bringing LIRR to Penn Station in the future and I thought that could confuse someone.


----------



## jis

OH, I see. Slip of the finger has been fixed in the original.


----------



## Metra Electric Rider

jis said:


> brianpmcdonnell17 said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is interesting considering the trend has been towards light rail and away from subways. I wonder if he wants new subway systems or to expand current ones. To my knowledge, CTA, MTA, and MARTA all have expansion plans. However, I do not believe there has been a brand new US subway system built in at least 20 years.
> 
> 
> 
> Right. But one has been inaugurated in the last 25 years though  And it has since been expanded.
Click to expand...

San Juan?  

One wonders, I wonder, if the subway plans are the westward extension to a certain developer-elects projects...?


----------



## jis

Los Angeles Red Line and Purple Line.


----------



## jis

Redact


----------



## CraigDK

http://www.reuters.com/article/new-york-gatewayproject-idUSL1N1DI23N

Just to bring this back to Gateway....


----------



## Andrew

Numerous updates on Gateway Program Development Corportation, regarding expedited environmental review and up to a $6 Billion RRIF Loan...

Watch the link from around 4 minutes...

http://corpinfo.panynj.gov/pages/board-committee-meeting-videos/


----------



## CraigDK

The link in the video is only 3:44 long... To get to the video click on the Board Meeting 11/17/16 link on the right. Watching it now...


----------



## CraigDK

Lots of non related Port Authority stuff in the video, but if I am processing what they have said so far in both the video and past news releases...

Gateway Project Development Corp (an entity of the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey) will be responsible for the overall management of the finance and construction aspects of the project. This development corp is the entity that will make the application for a RRIF loan in the amount of ~$6B to cover part of the cost for phase 1. Phase 1 includes both the Portal Bridge replacement project (the first of the two Portal bridges) and the Hudson River Tunnel Project (the new tunnel [two tubes] and the rehab & modernization of the existing tunnel [two tubes]). Phase 2 is, by my best guess, ever other part of Gateway. I suppose this might get broken up further at some later time.

The two phase 1 projects where estimated to cost about $10B and $1.3B. I am assuming the RRIF loan that was discussed above is to cover NY & NJ share of both projects. The previously mentioned (in this thread) approved Port Authority authorization will cover the interest on this loan (hence why I think the RRIF loan is the states portion of the cost). That leaves about $5.3B or so in funding that still needs to be identified, presumably from the Feds and Amtrak.


----------



## Andrew

CraigDK said:


> Lots of non related Port Authority stuff in the video, but if I am processing what they have said so far in both the video and past news releases...
> 
> Gateway Project Development Corp (an entity of the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey) will be responsible for the overall management of the finance and construction aspects of the project. This development corp is the entity that will make the application for a RRIF loan in the amount of ~$6B to cover part of the cost for phase 1. Phase 1 includes both the Portal Bridge replacement project (the first of the two Portal bridges) and the Hudson River Tunnel Project (the new tunnel [two tubes] and the rehab & modernization of the existing tunnel [two tubes]). Phase 2 is, by my best guess, ever other part of Gateway. I suppose this might get broken up further at some later time.
> 
> The two phase 1 projects where estimated to cost about $10B and $1.3B. I am assuming the RRIF loan that was discussed above is to cover NY & NJ share of both projects. The previously mentioned (in this thread) approved Port Authority authorization will cover the interest on this loan (hence why I think the RRIF loan is the states portion of the cost). That leaves about $5.3B or so in funding that still needs to be identified, presumably from the Feds and Amtrak.


The $6 Billion RRIF Loan is likely the debt service for the Port Authority of NY and NJ, NJ Transit, New Jersey, and New York.

This includes both the Portal Bridge (which the Port Authority said in October should cost a little more than $1.5 Billion) and the Hudson Tunnel Project.

Remember, Gateway Phase 1 is likely to receive a massive New Starts Grant--which will likely include some CMAQ funds as well (which was what originally happened with ARC).


----------



## jis

Andrew said:


> The $6 Billion RRIF Loan is likely the debt service for the Port Authority of NY and NJ, NJ Transit, New Jersey, and New York.


Are you sure about that or are you just pulling it out of the nether regions? Can yo provide any citation in support of this odd theory? Although I must admit that a loan to pay off a loan does sound like what the financial wizards of the Corzine and Port Authority mindset would come up with as a plan  Why worry about actually paying off the last loan if we can postpone the day of reckoning until after or time 



> This includes both the Portal Bridge (which the Port Authority said in October should cost a little more than $1.5 Billion) and the Hudson Tunnel Project.


Only thing being handled right now are the Portal North, which has a separate funding stream and the pair of tunnels plus the repair of the existing tunnels - timeframe for completion of the latter is 2029. The rest of Gateway is on the back burner for now. Or so says the guys managing the project at the last public review. Do you know something that they even don not know or are not disclosing?

I am basing this on information shared by two gentlemen who attended the public review meeting and reported on that at the NJ-ARP Board meeting on Saturday in Chatham NJ, where I was present.



> Remember, Gateway Phase 1 is likely to receive a massive New Starts Grant--which will likely include some CMAQ funds as well (which was what originally happened with ARC).


Unless the new administration changes the rules of the game the feds are on the hook for half the total amount for the tunnel. No one knows whether it will be New Start grants or whatever else. Only the amount is roughly known, the mechanism or budget lines are not known at this time. It will be routed through FTA in all likelihood, but it could be just a targeted single grant over multiple years. And the ground rules may have changed completely after the election.

Given the current FTA New Start scoring rules this project may not make the cut. ARC had great difficulty making the cut which caused them to add the bell mouths for connecting the CSX River Line and North Branch into the tunnel in the future, to make up the necessary utility numbers to cover the huge cost. And those rules are unlikely to change just for one project. This is why it is premature to state categorically that New Start will be involved. Of course, everything is now up in the air. The new administration may even insist that all funding will have to be to a public private partnership with the private party paying into it using some mechanism excusing taxation on the private party. So fasten your seat-belts and hang on until the dust settles. After all that is the mechanism that has been mooted by the President elect for his yuuge $1 Trillion infrastructure investment.

Incidentally Drew Galloway, who was at Amtrak NEC Capital Programs has left Amtrak and showed up at the meeting representing Parsons. He is working on the tunnel from Parsons.

As is now known for sure, that NJTransit is the lead agency for the Tunnel project, which consists of just the tunnels, and nothing else, not even an inch of new tracks west of Secaucus apparently, or any new platforms at Secaucus. The main goal of the project is to complete two tunnels between Bergen interlocking and Penn Station so that the two old tunnels can be taken out of service for rehabilitation. The rest comes after that work is at least well on its way.


----------



## CraigDK

jis said:


> Only thing being handled right now are the Portal North, which has a separate funding stream and the pair of tunnels plus the repair of the existing tunnels - timeframe for completion of the latter is 2029. The rest of Gateway is on the back burner for now. Or so says the guys managing the project at the last public review.


And that is consistent with the Port Authority board meeting video. 



jis said:


> No one knows whether it will be New Start grants or whatever else. Only the amount is roughly known, the mechanism or budget lines are not known at this time.


The last I saw on the Portal Bridge North was around $1.3B and the Hudson Tunnel Project was $10B. Has there been a newer (and more precise) cost estimate given for either?

I have no idea what program the federal share may come from... Based on the earlier announcements that NY & NJ agreed to pay half the tunnel project cost, I theorized (and I have been wrong in the past) that the RRIF loan discussed in the Port Authority video will cover the states share. How the states plan on paying that loan back is an unknown.

Given the amount discussed in the video (~$6B) and the prior estimate and share breakdown for the tunnel project, I would be tempted to assume that the remainder might be directed at Portal North (unless the estimate on the tunnels has risen). Has there ever been a commitment on who (and how much) would fund the Portal North?



jis said:


> Incidentally Drew Galloway, who was at Amtrak NEC Capital Programs has left Amtrak and showed up at the meeting representing Parsons. He is working on the tunnel from Parsons.


That doesn't sound to surprising.


----------



## jis

I have a strong suspicion that eventually the Governors of NJ and NY will fall back on their piggy-bank and under one of the typical deals of tit for tat get the PA to bear significant part of the state's costs in exchange for allowing the PA to milk the citizens a bit more through additional tolling of various interstate river crossings. That's the sort of place where the rubber will meet the road. They might also institute a ticket tax on all rail tickets involving the use of the tunnel to extract some money from there. So expect to see costs of tickets to enter New York from the west/south to go up a bit, like say 5 percent or so, as things get rolling.Part of the RRIF payback may be out of tax on ticket prices, unfortunately, given the sorry state of the debt burden at both NY and NJ State.


----------



## Andrew

jis said:


> I have a strong suspicion that eventually the Governors of NJ and NY will fall back on their piggy-bank and under one of the typical deals of tit for tat get the PA to bear significant part of the state's costs in exchange for allowing the PA to milk the citizens a bit more through additional tolling of various interstate river crossings. That's the sort of place where the rubber will meet the road. They might also institute a ticket tax on all rail tickets involving the use of the tunnel to extract some money from there. So expect to see costs of tickets to enter New York from the west/south to go up a bit, like say 5 percent or so, as things get rolling.Part of the RRIF payback may be out of tax on ticket prices, unfortunately, given the sorry state of the debt burden at both NY and NJ State.


I thought that New Jersey would partially chip in through the new (and larger) Transportation Trust Fund?

I doubt that the Port Authority would pay for the entire $6 Billion loan!


----------



## jis

Andrew said:


> I thought that New Jersey would partially chip in through the new (and larger) Transportation Trust Fund?


For the tunnel. Nope. There is way too much state of good repair work that is sitting around deferred for there to be anything left for the tunnel from the TTF.

Remember TTF is not just rail, it is also buses and road repair and stuff. Given a choice between repairing roads in NJ and bulding a tunnel to New York, guess what most citizens in NJ would opt for.

Right now one of the big battles is about the PA proposed bug new bus terminal backed by the Bergen County folks in NJ that is opposed by NJ rail advocates and by New York City folks. There is $10 billion that PA wants to **** away on a piece of nonsense pushed by Christie appointees, that will continue to be a pissing contest for the foreseeable future, while nothing gets done with the $10 billion which could be spent gainfully elsewhere..

If one is to believe what Congress said this year, the RRIF loan covers the federal portion. The states have to find their portion, and i9n addition the project planners have to figure out how to pay back the RRIF loan.. Congress is unlikely to appropriate that kind of money in the absence of significant private contribution given the way Trump apparently wants to structure the yuuuge infrastructure budget, and Ryan and company have already made it quite clear that something else will have to give to make it a pay as you go thing for the federal government. Meanwhile all the neocons have come out of the woodworks back into all the national defense and security posts. So it is anyone's guess what kind of money will get drained away there. Wait and watch is all one can do right now.

I would strongly recommend that we cease and desist from baseless dreaming about additional federal funding beyond the RRIF loan, and wait to see what the new administration actually intends to do. I take it as a given that all old deemed agreements are now up for renegotiation.


----------



## Andrew

jis said:


> Andrew said:
> 
> 
> 
> I thought that New Jersey would partially chip in through the new (and larger) Transportation Trust Fund?
> 
> 
> 
> For the tunnel. Nope. There is way too much state of good repair work that is sitting around deferred for there to be anything left for the tunnel from the TTF.
> 
> Remember TTF is not just rail, it is also buses and road repair and stuff. Given a choice between repairing roads in NJ and bulding a tunnel to New York, guess what most citizens in NJ would opt for.
> 
> Right now one of the big battles is about the PA proposed bug new bus terminal backed by the Bergen County folks in NJ that is opposed by NJ rail advocates and by New York City folks. There is $10 billion that PA wants to **** away on a piece of nonsense pushed by Christie appointees, that will continue to be a pissing contest for the foreseeable future, while nothing gets done with the $10 billion which could be spent gainfully elsewhere..
> 
> If one is to believe what Congress said this year, the RRIF loan covers the federal portion. The states have to find their portion, and i9n addition the project planners have to figure out how to pay back the RRIF loan.. Congress is unlikely to appropriate that kind of money in the absence of significant private contribution given the way Trump apparently wants to structure the yuuuge infrastructure budget, and Ryan and company have already made it quite clear that something else will have to give to make it a pay as you go thing for the federal government. Meanwhile all the neocons have come out of the woodworks back into all the national defense and security posts. So it is anyone's guess what kind of money will get drained away there. Wait and watch is all one can do right now.
> 
> I would strongly recommend that we cease and desist from baseless dreaming about additional federal funding beyond the RRIF loan, and wait to see what the new administration actually intends to do. I take it as a given that all old deemed agreements are now up for renegotiation.
Click to expand...

But that $6 Billion RRIF Emerging Project Agreement was announced after Trump won the election.

I was under the impression that debt service would be deferred until after the new tunnel is placed into service. This means that the new TTF would actually not fund debt service for the Hudson Tunnel Project.


----------



## jis

Trump administration begins in January. Please don't tell me you did not know that.

TTF cannot be used for debt service. So scratch that idea before or after the debt payments come due. Debt payments will be made from earnings from the collateral, read user fees of some sort. And as I have pointed out, the TTF will run out in eight years again and it is already over committed.


----------



## Andrew

jis said:


> Trump administration begins in January. Please don't tell me you did not know that.
> 
> TTF cannot be used for debt service. So scratch that idea before or after the debt payments come due. Debt payments will be made from earnings from the collateral, read user fees of some sort. And as I have pointed out, the TTF will run out in eight years again and it is already over committed.


Are you saying that you are now concerned that Gateway won't happen?

I was under the impression that a ton of progress has been in the last year.


----------



## jis

Are you saying Gateway won't happen? Show me where I said that and I will eat a crow. 

It is a giant step from a statement that the funding mechanisms will need to be renegotiated, to saying "Gateway won;t happen".

It is now entirely conceivable that Congress will review all agreements reached within 60 days before inauguration and nix select ones that they choose to nix. Everything is up in the air for now. That is all I am saying. This means that talking about CMAQ and FTA New Start and what not is premature. The RRIF Loan agreement will hopefully survive since it does not have to be scored as a new negative in the budget. And that will pay the federal part of the promised fund even if no other appropriation happens. but that means NJ and NY will have to find the other half, or the balance to fund the tunnel.

We already know that the agreement reached on the CR to fund Amtrak is gone. There will be a single quarter CR with no reallocation of funds between NEC and LD. Then there will be a new appropriation for the balance of the year in the shape that the new administration and the Republicans hammer out. The Democrats will be able to play some interference fortunately. So NARP is working hard to get on board with the new Republican leadership to see what can be rescued. It is all back to square one from all the progress that was made last year regarding Amtrak.

Gateway is slightly different, and it might get a somewhat better treatment because there are interests to trade between Wicker (Gulf Coast Service) and Booker (NEC and Gateway), and Rodney F, my old representative from NJ, is the new Appropriations boss on the House side. He is the one that has generally always voted for Amtrak and was also instrumental in getting the Lackawanna Cutoff off the ground. Also fortunately Thune (R-SD) the Transportation Chair in Senate is not inimical to Amtrak and the ranking member on the Democratic side - my current Senator - Nelson is supportive of Amtrak and even NEC. So there is some hope. But then again both Amtrak and Gateway are mere minnows compared to the big fish that people want to fry, so they can get lost in the shuffle.


----------



## jis

BTW, here is the $10 billion pissing contest about the new bus terminal that I mentioned:

http://www.northjersey.com/story/news/new-jersey/governor/2016/11/20/nj-ny-escalate-port-authority-bus-terminal-feud/94166176/


----------



## Andrew

Jis,

Are you saying that new legislation that allows Amtrak to reinvest their NEC revenue back into the Northeast Corridor will have to get reintroduced since a new Congress and Administration is starting in January?!

I was under the impression that the FAST Act enabled Amtrak to reinvest their NEC revenues back into the NEC every year through at least 2020...


----------



## jis

FAST Act is an Authorization. The CR under consideration now, which is a short term CR does not have the FAST Act apportionment in the appropriation for Amtrak. It has the old apportionment between LD and NEC. Hence there will be large transfer of funds from NEC to LD unless most of LD is to be shut down, which won't happen.

An attempt was made before the election to agree on a longer term CR with the new apportionment thrown in. But after the election that is dead.

So now the same funding levels as the previous year will continue with the same apportionment for the first three months. By then supposedly the new administration will get a new appropriation in place reflecting their new priorities. This may or may not be good for Amtrak. your guess is as good as mine at this point. But it will reflect what the allocations apportionment should be according to the Trump administration, negotiated through the Congress. It may or may not follow the FAST Act Authorizations. For Amtrak. Historically, Congress has never followed Authorizations to decide on Appropriations for Amtrak. It has typically been less, sometimes substantially less.


----------



## neroden

Let me get this clear, though: the new CR still has the new "NEC/National Network" structure, not the old "Capital Budget / Operating Budget" structure? I remember NARP was fighting to get that done so that Amtrak didn't have to do its books two different ways.


----------



## jis

neroden said:


> Let me get this clear, though: the new CR still has the new "NEC/National Network" structure, not the old "Capital Budget / Operating Budget" structure? I remember NARP was fighting to get that done so that Amtrak didn't have to do its books two different ways.


No. The new new 3 month CR has dropped all that. This was the gist of the latest missive from NARP.. It is a simple CR so far saying, just carry on as before with same level of funding duly prorated for three months.

They are trying to get that language back in there, but time is short and things too unsettled. They did not sound very hopeful.


----------



## Andrew

Also, you folks can click on the link below, and go to Port Authority Board Meeting Press Conference from 11/17/16. Within that video, in the first two minutes, is a brief and concise summary of all the progress that has been made on Gateway Phase 1-- which includes the new Portal Bridge, and the Hudson Tunnel Project, which includes three major parts:

1. The Hudson Yards Tunnel Box Extension within Manhattan

2. The new twin tubes from New Jersey into Midtown, Manhattan and

3. The complete rehabilitation and modernization of the existing North River Tunnels.

http://corpinfo.panynj.gov/pages/board-committee-meeting-videos/


----------



## neroden

jis said:


> neroden said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let me get this clear, though: the new CR still has the new "NEC/National Network" structure, not the old "Capital Budget / Operating Budget" structure? I remember NARP was fighting to get that done so that Amtrak didn't have to do its books two different ways.
> 
> 
> 
> No. The new new 3 month CR has dropped all that. This was the gist of the latest missive from NARP.. It is a simple CR so far saying, just carry on as before with same level of funding duly prorated for three months.
Click to expand...

OK, so it's back to capital budget / operating budget? That means Amtrak shows a substantial operating surplus over budget, *again*, and transfers the excess to the capital budget. However, without the hamstringing of the national network / NEC distinction, Amtrak is free to transfer that surplus to the capital budget for the national network without providing any accounting to Congress. Since the national network is particularly short of capital, if I were Amtrak that's what I'd be doing right now: moving the operating surplus to the purchase of Viewliner IIs, Chicago Union Station renovations, etc.


----------



## afigg

With the new administration, besides the question of funding for Amtrak and transit, what will happen with the Gateway project? Which was on the fast track in the last year or so of the Obama administration. I doubt that there will be smooth sailing ahead for the project with the political battles that are going to take place over the coming year.

Railway Age article: Menendez presses Chao on Gateway.



> It has been one of the Obama Administration's transportation priorities. The question is: will it be one of the Trump Administration's?
> 
> U.S. Senator Bob Menendez, the ranking member of the Senate’s mass transit subcommittee, met on Jan.18 with U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT) Secretary-designate Elaine Chao to impress upon her that advancing the Gateway project to replace the aging Hudson River rail tunnels must be the nation’s top transportation infrastructure priority in the Trump Administration.
> 
> The senator walked Secretary Chao, who led the U.S. Labor Department under President George W. Bush, through the complexities of the Gateway project, noting that it has bipartisan support from both New Jersey and New York governors, the states’ four U.S. senators, and regional transportation agencies.
> 
> “Gateway is one of the largest and most complex transportation projects in the country. Failure to complete the project in a timely manner would be a disaster for businesses and commuters in our region, and to the nation’s economy. I don’t believe we can be successful in this effort without the support of the Department of Transportation,” Sen. Menendez said.


----------



## Karl1459

IMHO, given where he is from Trump is the most likely Democrat... err Republican... err what ever he is today to understand the pressing need, and personally benefit from investments that need transit access.


----------



## CraigDK

From the Hudson Tunnel Project website...

This (The Alternative Development Report) probably should have been released when they announced the preferred alternative, but it wasn't. Maybe it was a result of the accelerated planning schedule they are using.

Anyway the document gives the reasoning and some detail on why they have chosen the preferred alternative from the 4 different tunneling options and what parts of the work that was done from ARC that can be used going forward. It also does a good job of explaining why some of the crazy ideas (such as having freight use the tunnels and the 4 level bridge across the river idea that someone suggested) are, well, crazy.


----------



## jis

FRA and NJT have released the Draft EIS for the Gateway Tunnel Project, with request to comment deadline of August 21, 2017. You can find it at:

http://www.hudsontunnelproject.com/


----------



## jis

https://www.globalrailwayreview.com/news/63030/gateway-development-portal-bridge/



> Initiating a Gateway development programme to improve rail transportation between Newark and New York City, Governor Chris Christie has broken ground on the replacement of Portal Bridge.


----------



## Green Maned Lion

This project is so imperative, I think politics have largely dropped out of it, at least on the two new tunnels. Now if only a certain group of NJ advocates would shut up... I left over this. (And the fact they re-elected a moron over me for vice chair, but anyway.)


----------



## west point

Although the new Gateway bores are in the long run imperative in the short run the new Portal bridge is more important in the near future. One North river bore failure will still allow a few ( 6 ? ) round trips NYP <> Newark per hour/ Portal swing bridge failure would cut that off and only a Secaucus <> NYP shuttle could operate.


----------



## Green Maned Lion

A full Portal Bridge mechanical failure would only affect the transportation of secondary sewage sludge destined for tertiary treatment. Personally I think the best solution for Portal is spiking it. There are very few things Joe Clift is right about, but this is one of them.


----------



## jis

Green Maned Lion said:


> A full Portal Bridge mechanical failure would only affect the transportation of secondary sewage sludge destined for tertiary treatment. Personally I think the best solution for Portal is spiking it. There are very few things Joe Clift is right about, but this is one of them.


Unfortunately the more common failure mode is when the bridge fails to close after it was opened to let something through though.


----------



## Green Maned Lion

Thus why I think the sensible solution is to have an agreement with the treatment plant and stake the thing shut.


----------



## west point

What do you think the Nimbys would do ?. They would raise a very loud stink over the stink transporting thru their neighborhood on non stop trucks. A very quick court case by the coast guard for impeding a navigable waterway would go against Amtrak.


----------



## Green Maned Lion

NIMBYs? They make loud puerile and uneducated noise about nothing. We at AU make loud adult educated discussions about such things.


----------



## jis

west point said:


> What do you think the Nimbys would do ?. They would raise a very loud stink over the stink transporting thru their neighborhood on non stop trucks. A very quick court case by the coast guard for impeding a navigable waterway would go against Amtrak.


If there is no waterborne traffic in that channel which is too shallow for any serious naval ships anyway, I don't think the Coast Guard will care too much. That is where the agreement with the only customer who creates barge traffic a few times a week comes in. There are numerous other "waterways" under Coast Guard jurisdiction along the NEC where the once openable bridges have been bolted permanently shut. There are others that are bolted shut so as to lay welded rails across them except that they are opened occasionally with 24 hour notice, when the welded rail is cut to open the bridge, and then the rails are welded back together after closing it, so as to allow 100+mph speed limit across the bridge. So no, it is not as open and shut case as is being suggested. Almost anything is possible.


----------



## neroden

Seriously, isn't it possible for them to use shallower-profile barges? Portal Bridge isn't THAT low. I've seen lift bridges which are ultra low, where you couldn't get a rowboat under them without lifting them, but this is not one of those. (There appears to be a lower bridge downstream right next to the Newark-Jersey City Turnpike, route 7.)

Anyway, they've started construction for Portal North (looks like the eastern approach).

http://www.theobserver.com/2017/10/portal-north-bridge-project-underway-in-south-kearny/


----------



## Andrew

How necessary will construction of the Bergen Loop actually be?


----------



## jis

Andrew said:


> How necessary will construction of the Bergen Loop actually be?


Operationall? Or politically?

Sent from my iPhone using Amtrak Forum


----------



## Andrew

jis said:


> Andrew said:
> 
> 
> 
> How necessary will construction of the Bergen Loop actually be?
> 
> 
> 
> Operationall? Or politically?
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Amtrak Forum
Click to expand...

I am asking operationally and to meet ridership demands. Will the Bergen Loop really make a big difference for ridership, or can commuters from Bergen County rely on buses to the Port Authority or multi-level trains involving a transfer at Secaucus Junction?


----------



## jis

If some of us had our druthers they and many others would transfer to the #7 Subway Line at Secaucus.






In short stuffing everything including the proverbial kitchen sink into Penn Station is not a solution, it is the creation of additional problems. Nothing is being done to enhance Subway service for moving people from Penn Station to anywhere else while planning to add all sorts of additional trains into Penn Station. The results will be predictable as night follows day.


----------



## Green Maned Lion

It creates a problem that will increase the will to have certain civil engineering companies design solutions at even greater cost.


----------



## railiner

jis said:


> If some of us had our druthers they and many others would transfer to the #7 Subway Line at Secaucus.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In short stuffing everything including the proverbial kitchen sink into Penn Station is not a solution, it is the creation of additional problems. Nothing is being done to enhance Subway service for moving people from Penn Station to anywhere else while planning to add all sorts of additional trains into Penn Station. The results will be predictable as night follows day.


Very unlikely the 7 train (or any NYC Subway train), would ever leave the state. More likely solution would be to extend the PATH train from Hoboken to Secaucus...But then, NJT already does that...


----------



## Green Maned Lion

We know that. But us NYMA advocates have wild fantasies about a day where there is a NYMATA where EMUs compatible with NJT, MNRR, and LIRR can run rationalized through services in a SEPTA like manner, and the territorial nonsense that probably makes the system about 75% more expensive to run can be abated in a manner that allows to customers better service at reduced cost, while greatly increasing capacity without building massive new stations or tunnels.

Irrational exuberance, I know. We dont actually expect it to happen. But gosh it would be glorious.

As I said, irrational


----------



## jis

railiner said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> 
> If some of us had our druthers they and many others would transfer to the #7 Subway Line at Secaucus.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In short stuffing everything including the proverbial kitchen sink into Penn Station is not a solution, it is the creation of additional problems. Nothing is being done to enhance Subway service for moving people from Penn Station to anywhere else while planning to add all sorts of additional trains into Penn Station. The results will be predictable as night follows day.
> 
> 
> 
> Very unlikely the 7 train (or any NYC Subway train), would ever leave the state. More likely solution would be to extend the PATH train from Hoboken to Secaucus...But then, NJT already does that...
Click to expand...

That is illustrating one of the tragedies of part of the rail advocacy community. Actually none of these constraints that they keep bringing up are written in stone, and any of them can be changed. But not if everyone seriously thinks they cannot be changed. The result will be that we will forever be prisoners of our own lack of resolve, imagination and commitment to making real progress.



Green Maned Lion said:


> Irrational exuberance, I know. We dont actually expect it to happen. But gosh it would be glorious.
> 
> As I said, irrational


Fortunately there are irrational people around. Otherwise we would still be trying to figure out how to move from square to round wheels


----------



## railiner

It would have been much simpler to integrate commuter service thru New York back in the day when one company operated all of them...Penn Central, later, Conrail. And even LIRR was part of the former PRR until it was sold to the MTA.

I like the way Philadelphia integrated the PC and RDG sides of commuter trains when they connected two stub end operations thru Center City via a new tunnel from Suburban Station onto the RDG via Market Street East.

Imagine if New York had built a similar tunnel linking Penn Station with Grand Central...with a wye connection to the East River Tunnels, as well....

You could run trains from New Jersey not only to Long Island, but upstate as well...or from Long Island, upstate. running trains thru, would vastly improve the efficiency of the current Penn Station without the need to expand it. as much...

You could probably have even reduced the total number of tracks in such a case, allowing for wider platforms to handle detraining and entraining crowds...


----------



## Andrew

And if a Bergen Loop does get built--and if Secaucus Junction gets expanded-- I wonder if the expansion will be a two track, island platform, or if there will be four tracks, similar to what the NEC now has through Secaucus.


----------



## west point

It would be an interesting survey of how many persons interchange between NJ Transit and LIRR at NYPS now. The only near future connections will be NYG connecting passengers between MNRR and LIRR if the East side access is ever completed ?


----------



## Thirdrail7

railiner said:


> It would have been much simpler to integrate commuter service thru New York back in the day when one company operated all of them...Penn Central, later, Conrail. And even LIRR was part of the former PRR until it was sold to the MTA.



You do see how that worked out for those railroads, right?



railiner said:


> Imagine if New York had built a similar tunnel linking Penn Station with Grand Central...with a wye connection to the East River Tunnels, as well....
> 
> You could run trains from New Jersey not only to Long Island, but upstate as well...or from Long Island, upstate. running trains thru, would vastly improve the efficiency of the current Penn Station without the need to expand it. as much...
> 
> You could probably have even reduced the total number of tracks in such a case, allowing for wider platforms to handle detraining and entraining crowds...


While it may be more efficient for equipment utilization, it would be horrendous for passenger utilization. A couple of days ago, LIRR had multiple lines closed due to cars on the tracks. Overcrowding was so bad, the MTA restricted access to NYP. This is on top of the multiple days in the last week that LIRR had severe delays due to cars on the tracks.

Today, a NJT train had pantograph troubles and upended service on the west of the station.

While these situations often cause congestion issues for the other railroads in the area, it is another thing if they were waiting for run through equipment. Can you imagine if NJT needed equipment from LIRR during this disruption? Not only would have LIRR passengers been stranded and locked out, so would the NJT passengers. Then, there is the whole cost allocation aspect. That's hardly efficient.


----------



## jis

A more robust system is generally a more decoupled systems where fewer moving parts depend on other part working right. That is why in general endless run through operations with long legs on both sides tend to be very brittle system in the face of failures, that should be avoided. We learned that as we learned about building distributed systems of computers. But I have found it next to impossible to explain this issue to the rail enthusiasts. Most of them appear to have very little experience in building and operating distributed control systems and hence lack the background to appreciate the difficulties in the face of failures.

The balance of course has to be struck somewhere in the happy middle. That is what good engineering is all about.


----------



## west point

JIS: Good points about distributed systems. A main problem in the USA is there is too much old infrastructure and old / incompatible equipment. Sure Japan and much of Europe works well but they have been rebuilt from the ground up..


----------



## jebr

Thirdrail7 said:


> Then, there is the whole cost allocation aspect. That's hardly efficient.


While I agree with your point that run through trains can cause even larger cascading issues, I have to argue against this being any sort of "inefficiency" of such that would make something not worth doing. Cost allocations are political problems, not technical, and often it's better for the end user to have cost allocations dealt with on the agency end than for the end user to have to pay numerous disjointed fares to get from point A to point B. NYC, while maybe not the epitome of numerous non-coordinated (at least farewise) transit agencies, definitely has quite a bit of it (what reason is there, other than political, that PATH is completely separate from the NYC subway, at that neither of those have free transfers with LIRR, Metro North, or NJ Transit (nor are any of those cross-compatible, despite the NYC subway, LIRR, and Metro North all being part of the MTA.)

For the end customer, simplicity should be key, even if more accounting work has to be done on the back end. While there's a lot I can gripe about with our local transit system here in MSP, one thing that's _amazing_ about it is that literally every transit agency that charges a fare is completely standardized not only on fare medium but passes, transfers, etc. I can go from commuter rail to light rail to city bus to suburban bus all on the same fare, with seamless transfers despite them being different modes and (at least for the suburban buses) different agencies. In my opinion, it should be like that everywhere.

I'll step off my soap box now.


----------



## railiner

jis said:


> A more robust system is generally a more decoupled systems where fewer moving parts depend on other part working right. That is why in general endless run through operations with long legs on both sides tend to be very brittle system in the face of failures, that should be avoided. We learned that as we learned about building distributed systems of computers. But I have found it next to impossible to explain this issue to the rail enthusiasts. Most of them appear to have very little experience in building and operating distributed control systems and hence lack the background to appreciate the difficulties in the face of failures.
> 
> The balance of course has to be struck somewhere in the happy middle. That is what good engineering is all about.


Good points....the LIRR West Side Yard does mitigate that situation somewhat, especially since the LIRR has a far greater number of trains than NJT does...in times of service disruption's, there remains the flexibility to 'turn' trains back if necessary...

As would my proposal to have had LIRR trains turn toward GCT from the East River Tunnel's, to run thru onto MN routes...GCT would still have ample storage for trains not running thru...


----------



## railiner

jebr said:


> Thirdrail7 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then, there is the whole cost allocation aspect. That's hardly efficient.
> 
> 
> 
> While I agree with your point that run through trains can cause even larger cascading issues, I have to argue against this being any sort of "inefficiency" of such that would make something not worth doing. Cost allocations are political problems, not technical, and often it's better for the end user to have cost allocations dealt with on the agency end than for the end user to have to pay numerous disjointed fares to get from point A to point B. NYC, while maybe not the epitome of numerous non-coordinated (at least farewise) transit agencies, definitely has quite a bit of it (what reason is there, other than political, that PATH is completely separate from the NYC subway, at that neither of those have free transfers with LIRR, Metro North, or NJ Transit (nor are any of those cross-compatible, despite the NYC subway, LIRR, and Metro North all being part of the MTA.)
> 
> For the end customer, simplicity should be key, even if more accounting work has to be done on the back end. While there's a lot I can gripe about with our local transit system here in MSP, one thing that's _amazing_ about it is that literally every transit agency that charges a fare is completely standardized not only on fare medium but passes, transfers, etc. I can go from commuter rail to light rail to city bus to suburban bus all on the same fare, with seamless transfers despite them being different modes and (at least for the suburban buses) different agencies. In my opinion, it should be like that everywhere.
> 
> I'll step off my soap box now.
Click to expand...

I believe the day is coming when a new type of fare collection will make it possible for people to simply use their 'smart' phones or 'smart' credit/debit cards to travel seamlessly not only on all transit operator's in a metro area, but in any metro area as well...I heard that NYC will soon be replacing the 'swipe' Metrocard's with a new type of fare collection....


----------



## Steve4031

jis said:


> A more robust system is generally a more decoupled systems where fewer moving parts depend on other part working right. That is why in general endless run through operations with long legs on both sides tend to be very brittle system in the face of failures, that should be avoided. We learned that as we learned about building distributed systems of computers. But I have found it next to impossible to explain this issue to the rail enthusiasts. Most of them appear to have very little experience in building and operating distributed control systems and hence lack the background to appreciate the difficulties in the face of failures.
> 
> The balance of course has to be struck somewhere in the happy middle. That is what good engineering is all about.


This is an interesting observation Jis. When run through service was initially suggested I️ was thinking great idea. I was comparing this favorably with the RER lines in Paris when ch seemed to work pretty well.

Sent from my iPhone using Amtrak Forum


----------



## Green Maned Lion

I think SEPTA runs with superior reliability to either MTA or NJT.


----------



## jis

Green Maned Lion said:


> I think SEPTA runs with superior reliability to either MTA or NJT.


SEPTA also does not run every train runthrough. They do so only for a subset of trains, and recently they have reduced the number to increase reliability. 

Sent from my iPhone using Amtrak Forum


----------



## Thirdrail7

jebr said:


> Thirdrail7 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then, there is the whole cost allocation aspect. That's hardly efficient.
> 
> 
> 
> While I agree with your point that run through trains can cause even larger cascading issues, I have to argue against this being any sort of "inefficiency" of such that would make something not worth doing. Cost allocations are political problems, not technical, and often it's better for the end user to have cost allocations dealt with on the agency end than for the end user to have to pay numerous disjointed fares to get from point A to point B. NYC, while maybe not the epitome of numerous non-coordinated (at least farewise) transit agencies, definitely has quite a bit of it* (what reason is there, other than political, that PATH is completely separate from the NYC subway, *at that neither of those have free transfers with LIRR, Metro North, or NJ Transit (nor are any of those cross-compatible, despite the NYC subway, LIRR, and Metro North all being part of the MTA.)
Click to expand...

My point about efficiency is based upon the totality of the issue, including cost allocation, equipment issues and service issues. But if you wish to address them separately, we can do that as well.

While it is political, the main reason for the politics is the financial investments required by the interested parties. This is not uncommon. Who will pay for this? What will "we" get for "our" money? Are "our" interests properly served? PATH is propped up by some of the busiest river crossings and airports in the country. MTA is propped up by taxes, fees and funding from various counties and the state. NJ is funded by fees and state contributions. A common refrain is "what am I getting for our input? and "why we should we pay" When one entity controlled all of this (multiple times), the results ended up bringing us the commuter agencies that we have today. That way, they could be responsible for their costs and operations, which brings us to your second point:



jebr said:


> For the end customer, simplicity should be key, even if more accounting work has to be done on the back end. While there's a lot I can gripe about with our local transit system here in MSP, one thing that's _amazing_ about it is that literally every transit agency that charges a fare is completely standardized not only on fare medium but passes, transfers, etc. I can go from commuter rail to light rail to city bus to suburban bus all on the same fare, with seamless transfers despite them being different modes and (at least for the suburban buses) different agencies. In my opinion, it should be like that everywhere.


I've never been to MSP so I'm not familiar with their operation. One thing I that jumps out is it seems be largely a regional operation, with one commuter rail line, that stretches 40 miles. With the exception of the NYC subway system and LIRR, the commuter services around the tri-state (and SEPTA) region all operate across state lines. Indeed, Septa has stations in Pennsylvania, New Jersey and Delaware.

It is much easier from a financial point of view to chart a path if your hand is the only one involved. Your regional operation can make that claim. The New York mega region can not and since funding is based upon the formula instituted by the state, it will always be an "us and them" mentality that your region can only have on a county level.

To tie this to Amtrak, I've said it for years. Amtrak doesn't really need Gateway, could "survive" without Portal or any upgrades to the East River Tunnels. It is NJT and LIRR that really need and will benefit from these improvements. NJ transit added roughly 150 trains in the last 16 years. LIRR added another 100 trains. Amtrak has actually LOST a few trains in the same time period. So, who should ante up? Who benefits the most? How should the costs be allocated and how will the interests of those who contribute be served? Does LIRR and their high taxed counties really care about someone in New Jersey? They don't even care about financing the NYC subway system, which a lot of them use.

Until there is a consistent form of funding and delivery of services (which is difficult when you have multiple hands in the pot), you will continue to have these issues.


----------



## railiner

Thirdrail7, that is an excellent sumnation...


----------



## MARC Rider

jebr said:


> For the end customer, simplicity should be key, even if more accounting work has to be done on the back end. While there's a lot I can gripe about with our local transit system here in MSP, one thing that's _amazing_ about it is that literally every transit agency that charges a fare is completely standardized not only on fare medium but passes, transfers, etc. I can go from commuter rail to light rail to city bus to suburban bus all on the same fare, with seamless transfers despite them being different modes and (at least for the suburban buses) different agencies. In my opinion, it should be like that everywhere.


When I visited London in the mid 1980s, I was able to by, at the Heathrow Tube station, something called a CapitalCard. This pass allowed me to ride all of the underground/tube lines, the buses, British rail trains within a specified suburban zone, and even some water taxis on the Thames. It was very handy and a good bargain, too. I'm not sure if any American city has anything comparable. In fact, I'm not sure that it's still available in London.


----------



## jis

MARC Rider said:


> jebr said:
> 
> 
> 
> For the end customer, simplicity should be key, even if more accounting work has to be done on the back end. While there's a lot I can gripe about with our local transit system here in MSP, one thing that's _amazing_ about it is that literally every transit agency that charges a fare is completely standardized not only on fare medium but passes, transfers, etc. I can go from commuter rail to light rail to city bus to suburban bus all on the same fare, with seamless transfers despite them being different modes and (at least for the suburban buses) different agencies. In my opinion, it should be like that everywhere.
> 
> 
> 
> When I visited London in the mid 1980s, I was able to by, at the Heathrow Tube station, something called a CapitalCard. This pass allowed me to ride all of the underground/tube lines, the buses, British rail trains within a specified suburban zone, and even some water taxis on the Thames. It was very handy and a good bargain, too. I'm not sure if any American city has anything comparable. In fact, I'm not sure that it's still available in London.
Click to expand...

The current Oyster Card in London is even better.

New York MTA has just hired the folks that manage the Oyster Card system in London to put together the next gen fare collection system in New York, absed on the Oyster technology with similar features.


----------



## brianpmcdonnell17

MARC Rider said:


> jebr said:
> 
> 
> 
> For the end customer, simplicity should be key, even if more accounting work has to be done on the back end. While there's a lot I can gripe about with our local transit system here in MSP, one thing that's _amazing_ about it is that literally every transit agency that charges a fare is completely standardized not only on fare medium but passes, transfers, etc. I can go from commuter rail to light rail to city bus to suburban bus all on the same fare, with seamless transfers despite them being different modes and (at least for the suburban buses) different agencies. In my opinion, it should be like that everywhere.
> 
> 
> 
> When I visited London in the mid 1980s, I was able to by, at the Heathrow Tube station, something called a CapitalCard. This pass allowed me to ride all of the underground/tube lines, the buses, British rail trains within a specified suburban zone, and even some water taxis on the Thames. It was very handy and a good bargain, too. I'm not sure if any American city has anything comparable. In fact, I'm not sure that it's still available in London.
Click to expand...

I just had a similar pass a few weeks ago in Dublin. It worked for the rapid transit style trains, light rail, city bus, and commuter rail.
Sent from my SM-J327P using Amtrak Forum mobile app


----------



## Thirdrail7

Those areas probably cooperate. You can;t even get an EZ-Pass discount on certain state's crossing unless you purchase it from that state or agency!!!


----------



## jis

Transport for London is basically in charge of almost all public transport that runs in the London Region, There are many outfits that fall within that umbrella through contracts and such. But all public transport in and around London, in a relatively large area, including what in the US would be called Commuter Trains, accept the Oyster Card and accept fares paid by smartphone wallets too, though in the latter case you may not be able to take full advantage of all discounts.


----------



## railiner

Thirdrail7 said:


> Those areas probably cooperate. You can;t even get an EZ-Pass discount on certain state's crossing unless you purchase it from that state or agency!!!


True....if you want the best discount on each agencies toll facility, you have to obtain (and use) that agencies E Z Pass....a real inconvenience, as you have to carry a multitude of passes, and be sure to put the ones you don't want charged in the RF shielded envelopes, or you will be charged for each one 'read'.....


----------



## PVD

NYS Thruway honors any NYS CSC issued EZ Pass regardless of agency, I get the 5% off with an MTA B&T pass. They also honor PANYNJ


----------



## RPC

SEPTA Independence Pass works on anything labelled "SEPTA" (commuter rail, heavy rail transit, light rail/streetcar, bus) except for commuter rail downtown before 09:30 on weekdays. (But even here you have to pay a surcharge to get to/from NJ (but not DE).)


----------



## CraigDK

Governors Christie and Cuomo announced today commitments to provide funding for the Hudson Tunnel project.

https://www.governor.ny.gov/news/governors-cuomo-and-christie-announce-commitment-fund-100-percent-states-half-new-gateway

http://www.njbiz.com/article/20171214/NJBIZ01/171219915/nj-ny-reach-agreement-for-gateway-tunnel-funding

https://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local/New-York-New-Jersey-Deal-Fund-Rail-Tunnel-Hudson-464211463.html

$1.75 billion from the State of New York

$1.90 billion from NJ Transit

$1.90 billion from the Port Authority


----------



## Green Maned Lion

If we are lucky, they only want to build tunnels this time...


----------



## Andrew

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/new-york-new-jersey-reach-deal-fund-hudson-river-tunnel-plan-article-1.3699009

I am surprised that NJ Transit will be contributing to the Hudson Tunnel Project--instead of the New Jersey Transportation Trust Fund.


----------



## Green Maned Lion

If they used the TTF they would not be able to justify the next round of draconian service cuts.


----------



## Andrew

Green Maned Lion said:


> If they used the TTF they would not be able to justify the next round of draconian service cuts.


Are you saying charging a trans-hudson ticket surcharge is the right thing for NJ Transit to do?


----------



## Green Maned Lion

No. I am saying that they enjoy doing the wrong thing.


----------



## railiner

Andrew said:


> Green Maned Lion said:
> 
> 
> 
> If they used the TTF they would not be able to justify the next round of draconian service cuts.
> 
> 
> 
> Are you saying charging a trans-hudson ticket surcharge is the right thing for NJ Transit to do?
Click to expand...

A ticket surcharge to New York City on NJT might drive a certain percentage of their passengers to switch over to PATH trains at Newark....unless PATH is hit with a similar surcharge....


----------



## JohannFarley

railiner said:


> Andrew said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Green Maned Lion said:
> 
> 
> 
> If they used the TTF they would not be able to justify the next round of draconian service cuts.
> 
> 
> 
> Are you saying charging a trans-hudson ticket surcharge is the right thing for NJ Transit to do?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A ticket surcharge to New York City on NJT might drive a certain percentage of their passengers to switch over to PATH trains at Newark....unless PATH is hit with a similar surcharge....
Click to expand...

For one person to get from Edison to NYP and back it is $26.50. I dont know if a surcharge added on that would stop me from going into the city altogether, but it would make me want to go less. But also, i can afford a surcharge if im only going into nyc a few times a year. 
Sent from my SM-G930V using Amtrak Forum mobile app


----------



## Andrew

JohannFarley said:


> railiner said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andrew said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Green Maned Lion said:
> 
> 
> 
> If they used the TTF they would not be able to justify the next round of draconian service cuts.
> 
> 
> 
> Are you saying charging a trans-hudson ticket surcharge is the right thing for NJ Transit to do?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A ticket surcharge to New York City on NJT might drive a certain percentage of their passengers to switch over to PATH trains at Newark....unless PATH is hit with a similar surcharge....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> For one person to get from Edison to NYP and back it is $26.50. I dont know if a surcharge added on that would stop me from going into the city altogether, but it would make me want to go less. But also, i can afford a surcharge if im only going into nyc a few times a year.
> Sent from my SM-G930V using Amtrak Forum mobile app
Click to expand...

The NJ Gas Tax went up last year. People are still driving.

I am just surprised that a ticket surcharge is the way that NJ is going to pay for the Hudson Tunnel Project.

I remember Christie supporting a gas tax hike because he wanted some of the TTF to go to Gateway.


----------



## Green Maned Lion

Yeah. The cosa Nostra is known for its honesty,


----------



## Andrew

At least the Portal Bridge is expected to be paid with 25% of the funding coming from the NJ TTF.


----------



## Green Maned Lion

I dont care where funding comes from, as long as it gets built.


----------



## Andrew

What happens if Block 780 can't get acquired? Could tunnels around 100 feet deep be bored under 30th street, and then connect with the hudson tunnel near 12th Avenue?

(I just don't realistically see an entire Midtown city block be demolished)


----------



## Thirdrail7

neroden said:


> Anyway, they've started construction for Portal North (looks like the eastern approach).
> 
> http://www.theobserver.com/2017/10/portal-north-bridge-project-underway-in-south-kearny/


Some early action on Portal North:

NJ Transit, Amtrak wrap up early construction of Portal North Bridge replacement

https://www.progressiverailroading.com/passenger_rail/news/NJ-Transit-Amtrak-wrap-up-early-construction-of-Portal-North-Bridge-replacement--56849



> New Jersey Transit (NJ Transit), in partnership with Amtrak, completed early construction work for the Portal North Bridge replacement program on time and on budget, the transit agency announced late last week in a press release.
> 
> The early construction project was funded through a $16 million Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery grant and a $4 million contribution from New Jersey’s Transportation Trust Fund.
> 
> The completed work included:
> 
> 
> installation of new fiber optic poles to carry fiber optic cable lines that help provide data communications and transmission services to New York City and the surrounding metropolitan area;
> 
> construction of a utility protection structure to protect a century-old cast iron water main that supplies water to Jersey City;
> 
> construction of a finger pier to support future construction activities;
> 
> installation of two high voltage transmission poles that carry power lines that power trains along this section of the Northeast Corridor; and
> 
> construction of a retaining wall west of Secaucus Junction to support the new bridge alignment.


----------



## Thirdrail7

The battle wages on for Portal Bridge, Gateway...and Toy Soldiers! 

https://www.nj.com/traffic/2019/03/...-replacement-gateway-tunnel-another-blow.html

*Feds deal Portal bridge replacement, Gateway Tunnel another blow*



> Overall the FTA gave the Portal project a medium-high justification rating, but the financing ranking dragged overall rating to medium-low. The tunnels received an overall medium low, according to the FTA report.
> 
> Applications have been made for federal grants to help offset the cost of both the Portal Bridge replacement and a companion project to build two new Hudson River rail tunnels as part of the Gateway Project.
> 
> *At this point in time, after several years, both the Hudson Tunnels and Portal North Bridge projects are ineligible to receive Capital Investment Grants funds, because each project has received a medium-low rating from the FTA, said an FTA spokesman.*



The one thing I kind of see is what I have highlighted below:



> The FTA rankings came several days after U.S. Deputy Transportation Secretary Jeffrey Rosen said that there was no Gateway funding in the proposed federal budget because * “those transit projects are local responsibilities,” even though the tunnels and Portal Bridge are owned by Amtrak, the federal passenger railroad company.*
> 
> Rosen said New Jersey and New York have not come up with funding for the project, even though the states have publicly committed more than $5 billion.



Realistically, Amtrak could survive with one tube out of service. NJ Transit would take the hit as they have more than doubled the amount of trains over the bridge in the last 30 years.

I suppose this why it can be considered a "local"' project.


----------



## jis

Why would you expect anything else from an administration which has the most admirable and shameful record in history of lying whenever it suites their convenience, which translates to almost always?


----------



## neroden

So the result of the Trump administration's gross, ridiculous, blatantly poltiically-driven attacks on the most important rail service in the country is going to be...

....the elimination of FTA discretion in favor of Congressional earmarking. Mark my words. The FTA was given discretion under the understanding that it would apply it in a responsible and scientific manner. If it doesn't, Congress will just take back its power to decide what the money gets spent on. Which it should.

This more or less has already been happening, with programs created which were designed specifically to fund specific large projects several times in the last few years.


----------



## Andrew

Should one new tube--instead of two new tubes--be constructed? This potentially could save money over the next several years and still allow for direct Raritan Valley Line Service into Penn Station as well as more MD and NEC Service.

Please read the two attached articles for further reference: 

https://www.railwayage.com/passenger/commuterregional/part-3-of-6-is-this-tunnel-really-necessary/

https://www.railwayage.com/passenger/part-6-of-6-we-have-a-plan-b-do-we-need-a-plan-c/


----------



## jis

The current fire code apparently requires an escape tunnel to be available for such long tunnels. Ergo there is no way to be fire code compliant with a single tunnel anyway. But all this does sell more Railway Age, so why not?

It is interesting when even third world countries that are digging long tunnels are doing so with an escape tunnel, while the richest country in the world appears to be trying to penny pinch itself into building a less safe setup than what third world countries are willing to afford.


----------



## Andrew

I thought maybe the rules would change and thus Amtrak would possibly only build one tunnel--but maybe that would not decongest A interlocking.

And wouldn't two new tubes--without Penn Station South--still add more NJ Transit Rush Hour Capacity?

A revised financial plan for both the Portal North Bridge and the Hudson Tunnel Project will be submitted this week to USDOT.


----------



## keelhauled

According to the New York Times, Amtrak has abandoned hope of Gateway being constructed before the existing tubes fail, and is planning at least $100 million in major repairs in the near future. They hope to avoid closing a tunnel completely, but service disruptions seem likely, at least to some extent.


----------



## west point

Present fire codes do not allow just one bore. New tunnel construction requires at least one cross connetion with another tube about every 800 feet. Gateway must be two tubes. Of course present North river tubes are grandfathered. Check all the light rail tunneling, SEA, LAX


----------



## jis

Here we have the richest city in the richest country in the world arguing about why they need to skimp and build a hazardous single tunnel when much poorer countries are going ahead and building fire safe dual tunnels, whether it be under mountains or under water. Shameful.


----------



## west point

jis it certainly is a shame about all this arguing. 

Friend told me that these repairs were going to be necessary before new tunnel bores were complete that are now being listed for present tubes was going to come but guess I tried to ignore that possibility.


----------



## west point

The following link should give some of the proposed construction cutting corners pause. Making the new bores safe as possible does not come cheap. You can get an idea of how much needs to be done to provide a safe passage from NJ to NYC. The link should also give pause to all the commuters that now use the present North River tubes as to their lack of safety compared to the present standards. JIS any comments ?


----------



## jis

The North River tubes and the East River tubes, of course are problematic, and even more so in the NJT MLVs because there is no emergency egress from the lower level of the cars in the tunnel, since the lower level emergency exits are blocked by the bench walls. That is why the proposed new tunnels have bench walls only on one side in their design.

Incidentally, the underwater tubes of Kolkata Metro Line 2 have cross connected dual bore for double track, and the long single track tunnels under the Himalayan Pir Panjal Range of the Kashmir Rail Link that is under construction, comes with an additional isolate-able escape tunnel.


----------



## west point

Another thought. What if a diesel dual mode derails in one of the old tunnels and catches fire ? That is one reason for my opposition for Amtrak buying them. The tunnels that will be suspect are East River, North River, Maybe Union tunnel east of Baltimore, Baltimore B&P, Washington Union Station tunnel south ( forgot name ). Would a diesel fire be hot enough to cause Concrete to pop off as shown in the tunnel link ?


----------



## Andrew

Amtrak is looking for the third section of the Concrete Casing to be built beneath Hudson Yards in Manhattan.

https://www.politico.com/states/new...-to-build-second-half-of-hudson-yards-1263311 says that, "
Related Companies, the real estate concern run by President Donald Trump supporter Stephen Ross, has signed an agreement with Amtrak to pursue a cheap federal loan for the second half of Hudson Yards — the developer’s opulent city-within-a-city on Manhattan’s West Side.

The company and Amtrak are poised to file an application for more than $1 billion in low-cost debt from the federal transportation department to help fund a platform over the West Side rail yard. The platform would support the second half of a skyscraper city so gilded that some call it Manhattan’s Little Dubai.

On Feb. 11, Related Hudson Yards President Jay Cross and Amtrak Chief Operating Officer Stephen Gardner signed an agreement to pursue the loan, according to details acquired by POLITICO. If successful, the deal could pave the way for Related to begin construction on Hudson Yards’ second phase — several new skyscrapers bounded by 11th and 12th avenues, 30th and 33rd streets...
The details of the February agreement indicate that Amtrak will pay Related $385 million to construct the third and final section of concrete casing along the Gateway tunnel’s future right-of-way — running southwest from 11th Avenue to 30th Street, where it would connect with the future Hudson tunnel, according to details shared by a source familiar with the agreement."

Do you folks think that the Trump Administration would be more likely give federal grants for the 7 train Extension to New Jersey?


----------



## Thirdrail7

Andrew said:


> Do you folks think that the Trump Administration would be more likely give federal grants for the 7 train Extension to New Jersey?



No, especially since the MTA isn't entertaining extending the 7 train to NJ.


----------



## jis

west point said:


> Another thought. What if a diesel dual mode derails in one of the old tunnels and catches fire ? That is one reason for my opposition for Amtrak buying them. The tunnels that will be suspect are East River, North River, Maybe Union tunnel east of Baltimore, Baltimore B&P, Washington Union Station tunnel south ( forgot name ). Would a diesel fire be hot enough to cause Concrete to pop off as shown in the tunnel link ?


That horse had fled the barn long back, as the most intense user of the North River Tunnels, NJ Transit (not Amtrak) use dual mode locomotives in scads through those tunnels.


----------



## neroden

keelhauled said:


> According to the New York Times, Amtrak has abandoned hope of Gateway being constructed before the existing tubes fail, and is planning at least $100 million in major repairs in the near future. They hope to avoid closing a tunnel completely, but service disruptions seem likely, at least to some extent.



There goes the NJT commuter schedules. Actually, with all of NJT's other problems they'll probably be glad to have an excuse to run fewer trains on the NEC, but the commuters of New Jersey will *hurt*. (Amtrak will prioritize its own trains, as it should.)


----------



## west point

has there been any indications when NJT will change their schedules ?. It may be Amtrak does not yet even have funding in hand ?


----------



## jis

west point said:


> has there been any indications when NJT will change their schedules ?. It may be Amtrak does not yet even have funding in hand ?


I find it very hard to believe that Amtrak cannot find a hundred million in their capital budget and NEC operating account surplus.

This could come as a part of this summer's construction season work. Of course the schedule impact will be announced after everything is worked out about the logistics of it. The usual suspects will be:

Amtrak terminating some trains in Newark or Philly from the south.
NJT Midtown Directs diverted to Hoboken.
Possibly a number of rush hour NJT NEC and NJCL trains terminated at Newark or diverted to Hoboken.
Some NJT trains combined and some outright suspended.

etc.


----------



## Thirdrail7

I don't think this construction is likely to occur this fiscal year. There is entirely too much to work out and they are attempting to get the I ladder extension completed prior to the outage.


----------



## Andrew

Operating one tube during rush hour would cause an enormous amount of delays!

Could the current Penn Station--without the Block 780 Expansion--enable additional rush hour NJ Transit trains to run?

Also, USDOT released the environmental assessment for the Sawtooth Bridge. https://cms8.fra.dot.gov/environmen...s/amtrak-sawtooth-bridges-replacement-project


----------



## brianpmcdonnell17

Would NJT service to Penn Station even continue in the event one of the tunnels was closed for an extended period of time? Capacity would be reduced from 24 trains per hour to an absolute maximum of 9. Amtrak already operates about 6 per hour as it is, with hourly Acela and NER round-trips as well as Keystones and various other LD and stare supported routes. Unless I'm missing something, the only way to retain high-frequency NJT service in such an event would be to drastically reduce Amtrak service or increase capacity by running the operating tunnel in one direction only for long periods of time, which would also mess up frequent Amtrak corridor service.


----------



## jis

It is 9 per hour in each direction. Amtrak operates on an average 3-4 per hour in each direction through the tunnel. So no reason for NJT to stop service. They will still have more trains running than Amtrak in he morning and evening rush hours. If a tunnel is shut down, Amtrak will take some cuts too. It is not like they will continue running everything. They won't. Basically, something similar to weekend service, which is designed to enable taking one tunnel out of service, will operate through the tunnels.

I suspect the decision about what will and will not run will be collectively made by the NEC Commission and not unilaterally by Amtrak too.


----------



## brianpmcdonnell17

jis said:


> It is 9 per hour in each direction. Amtrak operates on an average 3-4 per hour in each direction through the tunnel. So no reason for NJT to stop service. They will still have more trains running than Amtrak in he morning and evening rush hours. If a tunnel is shut down, Amtrak will take some cuts too. It is not like they will continue running everything. They won't. Basically, something similar to weekend service, which is designed to enable taking one tunnel out of service, will operate through the tunnels.
> 
> I suspect the decision about what will and will not run will be collectively made by the NEC Commission and not unilaterally by Amtrak too.


Got it; I thought it was 9 per hour total. So is that set-up one which has all trains eastbound for half an hour and all trains westbound the other half hour?


----------



## west point

It just come to my attention that NJ Transit has some plan to build a west bound track from Hoboken line to the NEC underneath the Sawtooth bridge. That would give NJT ability to run trains to and from Hoboken to NEC concurrently. that would be in contrast to only having the eastbound NEC to Hoboken track that was built in the late 1900s just allowing a one way operation., The question is can this westbound track be built before the Sawtooth bridge replacement is complete ? 

If the westbound track can be built now it is vitally important that it be built in case of a North river tunnel bore shutdown.


----------



## jis

brianpmcdonnell17 said:


> Got it; I thought it was 9 per hour total. So is that set-up one which has all trains eastbound for half an hour and all trains westbound the other half hour?


Yes. Strictly speaking, realistically they cannot maintain more than 8tph in each direction continuously because of the variability in the amount of time it takes to clear traffic going one way through A interlocking before the direction can be flipped. But typically in rush hours, by throttling the traffic in the non-rush direction some, they can shoe horn in a few more than 8 or 9 in the rush direction. As I said, this is nothing new. The entire weekend schedule is built based on the assumption that one tunnel will be out of service.


----------



## Andrew

Without Block 780, how many more trains during Rush Hours could NJ Transit operate?


----------



## Andrew

jis said:


> The current fire code apparently requires an escape tunnel to be available for such long tunnels. Ergo there is no way to be fire code compliant with a single tunnel anyway. But all this does sell more Railway Age, so why not?
> 
> It is interesting when even third world countries that are digging long tunnels are doing so with an escape tunnel, while the richest country in the world appears to be trying to penny pinch itself into building a less safe setup than what third world countries are willing to afford.





west point said:


> Present fire codes do not allow just one bore. New tunnel construction requires at least one cross connetion with another tube about every 800 feet. Gateway must be two tubes. Of course present North river tubes are grandfathered. Check all the light rail tunneling, SEA, LAX




maybe the Coronavirus will convince USDOT to change these regulations so that only one tube can be built?









Georgetown Plans $1B Office Building Near Hudson Yards


Georgetown Company is planning to build a 1.1-million-square-foot office building in the Hudson Yards neighborhood on a waterfront site.




commercialobserver.com





Also, a new building is going up where a Gateway Tunnel Ventilation facility is proposed. What happens if the Gateway Alignment in Manhattan can not be preserved?


----------



## John Bobinyec

Andrew said:


> maybe the Coronavirus will convince USDOT to change these regulations so that only one tube can be built?



Why would it?

jb


----------



## Andrew

If transportation agencies take a large hit in revenue, they would not has as much money to build large infrastructure projects. Thus, maybe only one tube can be built at a time instead of 2?


----------



## west point

The minimum number of tubes is 2 for fire and rescue reasons.,


----------



## MARC Rider

Andrew said:


> If transportation agencies take a large hit in revenue, they would not has as much money to build large infrastructure projects. Thus, maybe only one tube can be built at a time instead of 2?


I don't think this project is being paid out of ticket revenues, so this brief partial shutdown is not really relevant to the funding of the project.


----------



## Andrew

west point said:


> The minimum number of tubes is 2 for fire and rescue reasons.,



Do you think that is the right thing to do? 

Also, if fire and rescue reasons require two tubes, why is the Empire Tunnel only single tracked?


----------



## railiner

Andrew said:


> Do you think that is the right thing to do?
> 
> Also, if fire and rescue reasons require two tubes, why is the Empire Tunnel only single tracked?


Not sure, but the Empire Tunnel is not an underwater tunnel, and not very long, either. Again, not sure, but there may even be emergency exits along it...


----------



## niemi24s

Andrew said:


> . . . why is the Empire Tunnel only single tracked?


Do you mean the Cascade Tunnel? Or some North-South tunnel in Manhattan?


----------



## jis

Andrew said:


> Do you think that is the right thing to do?


Yes.


> Also, if fire and rescue reasons require two tubes, why is the Empire Tunnel only single tracked?


Empire tunnel is not under water. It has frequent fire exits.

Why on earth do you want safety regulations to be relaxed to satisfy your silly whims?


----------



## jiml

jis said:


> Yes.
> 
> Empire tunnel is not under water. It has frequent fire exits.
> 
> Why on earth do you want safety regulations to be relaxed to satisfy your silly whims?


There's video shot from trains in that tunnel and both exits and daylight are frequently visible.


----------



## west point

I believe that there is an international standard that there needs to be an emergency egress of about every 800 feet . The "Empire" tunnel is not really a tunnel. it has multiple opening about every 100 feet as I recall.


----------



## Ziv

Playing the devils advocate here, would it be possible to initially build just a single additional tube using one of the existing tubes as the escape tunnel? 



west point said:


> The minimum number of tubes is 2 for fire and rescue reasons.,


----------



## jis

Ziv said:


> Playing the devils advocate here, would it be possible to initially build just a single additional tube using one of the existing tubes as the escape tunnel?


No. The alignment of the new tubes are very different. The Army Corp of Engineers would not allow a tunnel to be dug so close to the base of the river bed as the original ones. The new tunnels go deeper and therefore are longer, so as to stay within grade limitations.


----------



## Ziv

Drat. Figured that it wouldn't be that easy, but I was curious. Thanks, Jis.



jis said:


> No. The alignment of the new tubes are very different. The Army Corp of Engineers would not allow a tunnel to be dug so close to the base of the river bed as the original ones. The new tunnels go deeper and therefore are longer, so as to stay within grade limitations.


----------



## Metra Electric Rider

I think it's actually _more likely_ to happen if we get a massive infrastructure bill to make work after all this is over.


----------



## railiner

Metra Electric Rider said:


> I think it's actually _more likely_ to happen if we get a massive infrastructure bill to make work after all this is over.


Especially if "Amtrak Joe" is elected....


----------



## Andrew

So you think only 1 tube may get built after all?

(Maybe one tube can get built and then a second tube with cross-passages can be built in a future time).


----------



## John Bobinyec

Andrew said:


> So you think only 1 tube may get built after all?
> 
> (Maybe one tube can get built and then a second tube with cross-passages can be built in a future time).



Look at post 439.

From that it seems that if only one tube is built, it will sit dormant until such time as additional tubes are built.

jb


----------



## Andrew

Would it be a lot cheaper to build one new tube (for a total of three tunnels) for more trains and a 4th, smaller tube for emergency vehicles?


----------



## Metra Electric Rider

I don't think anything would stop a bigger tube from being built that could be double-tracked. 

BTW was the Empire "Tunnel" (it's really more of an urban snow shed, but with a park atop, isn't it?) originally double-tracked?


----------



## west point

Once again the Gateway must have 2 tubes. That is evacuation from a problem in one tube allowing passengers and crew to go thru the cross tunnel emergency passageway to other bore. Those passage ways are now about 800 feet apart. That is the new international standard and even various light rail lines have the same or a stairway to surface if the surface is not too far up from bore.
So a double track bore under the Hudson will still need emergency egress passageways..


----------



## Andrew

west point said:


> Once again the Gateway must have 2 tubes. That is evacuation from a problem in one tube allowing passengers and crew to go thru the cross tunnel emergency passageway to other bore. Those passage ways are now about 800 feet apart. That is the new international standard and even various light rail lines have the same or a stairway to surface if the surface is not too far up from bore.
> So a double track bore under the Hudson will still need emergency egress passageways..



Do you think the Coronavirus will end up delaying Gateway construction by a long time?


----------



## railiner

Metra Electric Rider said:


> BTW was the Empire "Tunnel" (it's really more of an urban snow shed, but with a park atop, isn't it?) originally double-tracked?


You're describing different sections of the Empire Line...a single bore tunnel was constructed to go down, below the North River tunnel approaches, to connect to the former NYC west side freight line. The single bore tunnel only contains one track, and is relatively short. It then opens up into what you describe as an 'urban snow shed', really a depressed cut below street level, crossing under crosstown streets and buildings, parks, etc built above it. Sometimes you can see the river and daylight, other times not, for several miles until it eventually reaches the Metro North line at Spuyten Duyvil.


----------



## west point

Andrew said:


> Do you think the Coronavirus will end up delaying Gateway construction by a long time?



Probably coved=19 will not change anything before Jan 1. Mitch will do everything to remove any funds for new bores and Portal. Even if funds are appropriated Mitch's wife Chao will delay it until at least Jan 20. Now for the election . If trump re elected then who knows. If Senate goes D then after Jan 1 some funds can be appropriated before Jan 20
If Senate stays R then mitch will continue trying to eliminate any funds.
If Biden gets elected and Mitch keeps Senate R then going to be delays.
If Biden elected and both House and Senate go D then expect work to start about April 2021.


----------



## jis

Andrew said:


> Would it be a lot cheaper to build one new tube (for a total of three tunnels) for more trains and a 4th, smaller tube for emergency vehicles?


If you have to dig two tubes might as well dig two full size ones. The cost difference between digging two full size tubes and one full and one smaller sized tube is not that great, and eventually when you do have to dig the second full size tube, the overall cost will turn out to be way higher. If two full size tubes are dug, one could save a small amount by not equipping the second tube with tracks, OHE and signaling equipment. But that seems like a truly silly thing to do.

I can't believe that in the allegedly richest country in the world we even require to have this discussion. The cost of the two tunnels is literally peanuts compared to random things that we do choose to spend money on.


----------



## MARC Rider

jis said:


> The cost of the two tunnels is literally peanuts compared to random things that we do choose to spend money on.



You mean like subsidies for peanut farmers?


----------



## Metra Electric Rider

MARC Rider said:


> You mean like subsidies for peanut farmers?


That's essential! Peanuts, especially within such fine products as Reese's are essential, important protein (justification for eating Reese's from co-worker, peanuts are protein!). Hmmm, maybe Reese's can help pay for the tunnel? With a cup shaped terminal building?


----------



## MARC Rider

Metra Electric Rider said:


> That's essential! Peanuts, especially within such fine products as Reese's are essential, important protein (justification for eating Reese's from co-worker, peanuts are protein!). Hmmm, maybe Reese's can help pay for the tunnel? With a cup shaped terminal building?


Aside from the fact that it's not clear how much actual peanut (and thus protein) is in a Reese's Peanut butter cup, if peanuts are so essential to life as we know it, shouldn't the magical hand of the free market be sufficient to ensure a plentiful supply at affordable prices? Why do we need to subsidize the peanut farmers? (And in the case of Reeses Peanut Butter Cups, we also subsidize the sugar growers, who probably produce more of the content of a Reese's Peanut Butter cup than the peanut farmers.)


----------



## MARC Rider

MARC Rider said:


> Aside from the fact that it's not clear how much actual peanut (and thus protein) is in a Reese's Peanut butter cup, if peanuts are so essential to life as we know it, shouldn't the magical hand of the free market be sufficient to ensure a plentiful supply at affordable prices? Why do we need to subsidize the peanut farmers? (And in the case of Reeses Peanut Butter Cups, we also subsidize the sugar growers, who probably produce more of the content of a Reese's Peanut Butter cup than the peanut farmers.)


Farm subsidies, by the way, were at about $20+ billion last year according the npr. 
I believe the cost of the Gateway tunnels is somewhere in the neighborhood of $15 billion. It might be more if you add the various upgrades that need to be done on the approaches (Portal Bridge, etc.) and upgrades to Penn Station itself.


----------



## jis

MARC Rider said:


> Farm subsidies, by the way, were at about $20+ billion last year according the npr.
> I believe the cost of the Gateway tunnels is somewhere in the neighborhood of $15 billion. It might be more if you add the various upgrades that need to be done on the approaches (Portal Bridge, etc.) and upgrades to Penn Station itself.


And that $15-$20 billion for Gateway would be spread out over 10-15 years, so it will never be more than around $2 billion or so a year.


----------



## MARC Rider

jis said:


> And that $15-$20 billion for Gateway would be spread out over 10-15 years, so it will never be more than around $2 billion or so a year.


Has anyone ever costed out the annual price tag for all the desirable rail infrastucture improvements needed across the country? In addition to Gateway in New York, there's the other stuff on the NEC, like the B&P tunnel, and the Susquehanna River bridge. Then there's all of those projects around Chicago, and the "south of the lake," which benefit both passenger and freight rail. There must be other critical chokepoints that could be fixed to improve the performance of rail as both a passenger and freight mode.


----------



## Andrew

Would NJ Transit be able to add more Rush Hour trains after the Gateway Tunnels are built even if the Block 780 Station Expansion is not constructed?


----------



## west point

Andrew said:


> Would NJ Transit be able to add more Rush Hour trains after the Gateway Tunnels are built even if the Block 780 Station Expansion is not constructed?



Once the new tunnel bores are is operation and the old tunnels are fixed Amtrak and NJT will need to change procedures at NYP to run more trains. It will also require more steps and escalators to platforms to reduce dwell times. Steps and escalators cannot be too wide as they would limit passage between their walls and rail cars. Have to have ADA transit space.


----------



## Andrew

west point said:


> Once the new tunnel bores are is operation and the old tunnels are fixed Amtrak and NJT will need to change procedures at NYP to run more trains. It will also require more steps and escalators to platforms to reduce dwell times. Steps and escalators cannot be too wide as they would limit passage between their walls and rail cars. Have to have ADA transit space.



I ask because I do think that the new hudson tunnels will eventually be built, and thus NJ Transit will be able to add more NEC and direct Raritan Valley Line trains into and out of Manhattan. However, I am not convinced that the Block 780 station will ever get built due to a variety of reasons. Also, NJ Transit is already looking at extending one concourse to add a pare of staircases to the platforms at Penn Station.

Maybe a new operating plan could be created to only have Morris and Essex line trains and the Raritan trains to use the new tunnels so as to reduce train conflicts at Swift Interlocking in New Jersey?


----------



## Green Maned Lion

I have a feeling Gateway will be a victim of the coronavirus, not just because of cost, but of obviated need. Rail and transit usage in this country is going to permanently go down as a result of fear and general American stupidity, of which we have a surfeit.

In addition to people choosing to commute in their own sealed automobiles, this event has also made it clear how redundant both a portion of the workforce is, as well as the need to house them in expensive downtown office buildings 5 days a week.


----------



## Andrew

Are you saying that you now believe that the Gateway Project is permanently cancelled?


----------



## west point

I go the other way. There may be more persons taking Amtrak. This economic downturn ( I know that is being optimistic ) will cause many persons to be unable to buy a reliable auto. They will then be forced to take some kind of public transportation.


----------



## Palmetto

Interesting to read today that Richard Anderson, in an interview with Politico, thinks that among transportation modes, passenger rail will be the first to bounce back. He also "outed" as to being a railroad nerd. Who knew?


----------



## Andrew

Can you please copy and paste the article into this forum?


----------



## Metra Electric Rider

I also think it's going to be more likely as part of a stimulus package to aid unemployment.


----------



## jiml

west point said:


> I go the other way. There may be more persons taking Amtrak. This economic downturn ( I know that is being optimistic ) will cause many persons to be unable to buy a reliable auto. They will then be forced to take some kind of public transportation.


It's not just that. Shorthaul air travel is bound to take a hit. Any two points that can be connected by a day's drive or train trip are not going to be attractive to fly for many reasons. If airlines are forced to maintain distancing in their cabins (which appears to be the case) they're going to need something bigger than a regional jet. Something bigger costs more, so will likely be less frequent and more expensive. It could be a "win" for Amtrak, VIA and others.


----------



## Green Maned Lion

All of these comments are based on an extraordinarily flawed assumption- That travel of any significant distance will be anything close to what it was before this pandemic. It won’t. Reliable self transportation is extremely inexpensive; i’ve paid less than $1000 for a reliable automobile several times.

but the main thing is is that people just aren’t going to be moving very far from where they normally are situated. This is not going to be a win for anybody, certainly not Amtrak which is already operating at close to capacity, or at least it was before the pandemic. If Amtrak gets very lucky – very very lucky - they might potentially return to their previous volume. But that would surprise me greatly.

I also expect the existence of intercity bus travel to largely disappear. Greyhound was already 1 foot in the grave, this is going to have them jumping in both feet. A lot of the smaller intercity bus lines are on the weak side as well. It is just going to be harder for people to get from place to place. At least unless you own an automobile or can afford an Uber


----------



## Metra Electric Rider

If the downturn (recession, depression, whatever) turns out to be long, people won't be travelling much, especially people with no money, cheap car or no. And with the potential of a long period with waves of infections from the coronavirus, people will travel by car, but I think it won't hurt Amtrak* as much as it will airlines which will be seen as petri dishes. Funnily enough though, cruise lines are gearing up, they seem to be thinking people have short memories, if that's the case, then things might get back to "normal" quicker. 

*Especially if more grants like yesterdays, both Federal and State, come to pass.


----------



## AGM.12

I don't suppose it has been mentioned, but the glut of crude oil has made driving cheaper and probably will stay that way for the near term. This is a double edge sword for Amtrak and the freight railroads. The downside is obvious, but the cost of diesel will fall. This is the time to lock in these lower prices.


----------



## railiner

AGM.12 said:


> I don't suppose it has been mentioned, but the glut of crude oil has made driving cheaper and probably will stay that way for the near term. This is a double edge sword for Amtrak and the freight railroads. The downside is obvious, but the cost of diesel will fall. This is the time to lock in these lower prices.


I'm convinced. Since I won't be going on cruises or cross country train rides for the foreseeable future, I am going to satisfy my 'wanderlust', by purchasing a motorhome, and take advantage of the low fuel prices...


----------



## MARC Rider

Green Maned Lion said:


> Reliable self transportation is extremely inexpensive; i’ve paid less than $1000 for a reliable automobile several times.


Please point me to where I can find a reliable used car for less than $1,000. (that doesn't involve advanced haggling skills.) Our 2001 Honda CRV is about ready to give up the ghost, and anything we can find that doesn't already have 100,000 miles on it costs at least $10,000.


----------



## Bob Dylan

MARC Rider said:


> Please point me to where I can find a reliable used car for less than $1,000. (that doesn't involve advanced haggling skills.) Our 2001 Honda CRV is about ready to give up the ghost, and anything we can find that doesn't already have 100,000 miles on it costs at least $10,000.


But an Asian Car ( Toyota,Honda,Hyundai ) that's under 100,00 miles with a Clean Carfax and you'll have a good Second Vehicle/ errand car!( as slways,have a Mechanic you trust give it a thorough Indpection)


----------



## Green Maned Lion

MARC Rider said:


> Please point me to where I can find a reliable used car for less than $1,000. (that doesn't involve advanced haggling skills.) Our 2001 Honda CRV is about ready to give up the ghost, and anything we can find that doesn't already have 100,000 miles on it costs at least $10,000.


Well back when I was buying such cars, Mercedes W123 chassis cars were still available at reasonable prices. More modern Benzes are an entirely different ball of wax, reliability and maintenance wise, so that would be out, unless you can find a lower mileage MB 240D. It wouldn’t be under $1k but it would be way under your price range.

However I would suggest 1.9 liter VW TDI from the late 90s or early 2000s with a five speed stick (way way WAY cheaper to maintain with the manual gearbox), preferably in basic GL trim with crank windows. You can get those under $1k with less than 200k miles on them. That would be a reliable used car.

I’m not sure why you think your Honda is giving up the ghost, though.


----------



## Bob Dylan

Green Maned Lion said:


> Well back when I was buying such cars, Mercedes W123 chassis cars were still available at reasonable prices. More modern Benzes are an entirely different ball of wax, reliability and maintenance wise, so that would be out, unless you can find a lower mileage MB 240D. It wouldn’t be under $1k but it would be way under your price range.
> 
> However I would suggest 1.9 liter VW TDI from the late 90s or early 2000s with a five speed stick (way way WAY cheaper to maintain with the manual gearbox), preferably in basic GL trim with crank windows. You can get those under $1k with less than 200k miles on them. That would be a reliable used car.
> 
> I’m not sure why you think your Honda is giving up the ghost, though.


I had one of the VW TDIs, a 92 Golf! ( bought it used with 52,000 miles)

Put over 200,000 Miles on it, then I sold it to a guy who got another 150,000 before it got wrecked.( As you know Diesel used to be Cheaper than Gas)

Great Car!( made in Germany,not the Mexican Golf)


----------



## railiner

Lot's of Toyota Corolla's for sale at or below 1k....
Considered by many as the "bulletproof car", meaning best reliability....


----------



## Metra Electric Rider

I love that this thread is now "Consumer Reports: Most Reliable Used Cars" section.


----------



## jis

Welcome to Used Cars Unlimited Forum Group


----------



## railiner

More AU 'thread drift', or in this case, 'four wheel drift'?


----------



## Andrew

Is it likely that the proposed 50-50 Federal/Local Split will become 40--60 to get the Fed's on board for the new hudson tunnels?


----------



## Green Maned Lion

railiner said:


> More AU 'thread drift', or in this case, 'four wheel drift'?



If you can get any of the vehicles suggested to engage in four wheel drift, you are a better driver than I, Charlie Brown.


----------



## MARC Rider

Green Maned Lion said:


> Well back when I was buying such cars, Mercedes W123 chassis cars were still available at reasonable prices. More modern Benzes are an entirely different ball of wax, reliability and maintenance wise, so that would be out, unless you can find a lower mileage MB 240D. It wouldn’t be under $1k but it would be way under your price range.
> 
> However I would suggest 1.9 liter VW TDI from the late 90s or early 2000s with a five speed stick (way way WAY cheaper to maintain with the manual gearbox), preferably in basic GL trim with crank windows. You can get those under $1k with less than 200k miles on them. That would be a reliable used car.
> 
> I’m not sure why you think your Honda is giving up the ghost, though.


Well, the past 2 years, I've spent $2,000 - $4,000 each year on repairs, this is in addition to fuel and insurance. The air-conditioning doesn't work anymore, and I'm really not thrilled about spending another large chunk of money to get that fixed. Sooner of later, something really major is going to come up. And the old jalopy just doesn't handle the way it used to. I mean, I've got 250k miles and 19 years wit hthis car, it's probably time to let it go.

The way I figure, any used car with 200k miles is not going to be priced under $1k unless it needs more than $1k dollars worth of repairs.


----------



## Asher

Most of those used rice burners are good through 2 1/2 owners, then they start having issues.


----------



## TWA904

Andrew said:


> Is it likely that the proposed 50-50 Federal/Local Split will become 40--60 to get the Fed's on board for the new hudson tunnels?


I was thinking 1/3 Federal, 1/3 NY, 1/3 NJ should get the Fed's on board for the tunnels.


----------



## jis

Jus getting rid of the current fed chieftain would get the feds on board for the tunnel. They were on board until they were taken off board by the current chief. The formula that would work was already agreed upon until for deep personal spite or something the feds reneged. Let us be aware of the history and do the right thing.


----------



## Green Maned Lion

MARC Rider said:


> The way I figure, any used car with 200k miles is not going to be priced under $1k unless it needs more than $1k dollars worth of repairs.



You aren't going to get a "nice" car for under $1000. You aren't even going to get one where everything works. But that wasn't what we were talking about; we were talking about reliable. If it starts up, drives you from point A to point B, and then from point B to point A, with over a 99% certainty rate, it is reliable transportation. 

I started driving in 2001 with a 1976 MB 240D that was, I suspect, more rust than steel, a worn-to-heck engine that could hit 60mph downhill with a tailwind if you really begged it, and a tendency to smoke like you wouldn't believe- but being 25 years old it was emissions exempt in NJ. It cost me $250, and I had enough proof in its service records of roll-overs on its 5-digit odometer that I know it had at least 700k miles on it, and probably more. I suspect it may have actually have been a roll over were it a 6-digit odometer, in fact. 

The radio didn't work, the A/C didn't work, hell the blower for the heater didn't work. It was ugly, creaky- in a Mercedes, mind you!- it smelled, and don't ask about how vague the shift linkage was. It also started every time and drove me to school and work every day for the entire six months I owned it, even in the winter, at which point some idiot in a Honda Civic t-boned me, killing himself, and totaling my car (admittedly, a bird pooping on it would have probably totaled it). I walked away. That is safe reliable transportation, in my opinion, and it cost me $250.

I took the insurance check from his company, and some of the money I got from my job, and spent $950 on a 1982 240D. It had a number of other non-running-properly issues, including non-working a/c (if there is a pre-1990 Mercedes diesel with working A/C I would be fascinated to know about it) but it did the same basic job. You need a car to do the job of getting you to work and back, you can buy one for under $1000. If you want a nice car for under $1000, you're right, you're smoking something.


----------



## Andrew

jis said:


> Jus getting rid of the current fed chieftain would get the feds on board for the tunnel. They were on board until they were taken off board by the current chief. The formula that would work was already agreed upon until for deep personal spite or something the feds reneged. Let us be aware of the history and do the right thing.



The next Gateway Development meeting is scheduled for May 28th at 1 PM so I am curious to know what the update will be.

If Biden wins in November, I still think it is possible his USDOT will make it so that only one tube will be built with very modern emergency communications systems within the tunnel


----------



## Metra Electric Rider

Andrew said:


> Is it likely that the proposed 50-50 Federal/Local Split will become 40--60 to get the Fed's on board for the new hudson tunnels?


Are we talking about Gateway funding or the 4 wheel drive used Subaru or Audi's this thread has moved to? Or an old AMC 4-wheel drive Eagle?


----------



## Andrew

With the economy tanking, what are ways to reduce the size of the Gateway Project? Could two tubes still get built but only one tube be used for Revenue service while the other tube is only used for evacuation trains without third rail or catenary wires installed?


----------



## Green Maned Lion

Given the nature of how the pandemic and the economic crash is going to kill the economy and transit use for a long time to come, the logical way to deal with this and the now equally pointless Portal Bridge project would be to ash-can it. I feel like I can predict this course of action will be taken with considerable certainty.


----------



## west point

Andrew said:


> With the economy tanking, what are ways to reduce the size of the Gateway Project? Could two tubes still get built but only one tube be used for Revenue service while the other tube is only used for evacuation trains without third rail or catenary wires installed?


Very poor economics. Almost all the costs for tunnels are before track, CAT, Signaling. Would expect total costs for those no more than $50.0M ?


----------



## Andrew

west point said:


> Very poor economics. Almost all the costs for tunnels are before track, CAT, Signaling. Would expect total costs for those no more than $50.0M ?



So what do you think should be done with regards to the tunnels?


----------



## west point

First: I believe that the old tunnel bores are very prone for a failure. Amtrak does not have appeared to installed flood gate doors for the entrances to the old tunnels ? Another "Sandy" type hurricane might flood NYP station thereby flooding the old tunnel bores.

Second: New bores will provide a safer crossing under the Hudson. Can any of us imagine what will happen if a NJT commuter train stalls at the equidistant middle of the old bores because of a fire ? There is no way to escape a fire into the other bore.. Have to walk to the NYP and NJ openings and fire stairs to surface. I do not want to hear or see the panic. 

Third: Once the 2 new bores are built to modern fire standards fire evacuation and rescue can be implemented from the other new bore. That includes all trackage, Signaling,, etc. A rescue train with fire fighting capabilities including using the 3rd rail becomes very important, The standard now is a cross connection every 800 feet which will always have an 800 foot train ( 10 cars) access directly beside a stalled train 

Fourth: Flood doors are included in the plans for the new Gateway bores.

Fifth: I hope Amtrak is doing ongoing repairs to the present tunnel bores while the number of trains are down traveling to / from NYP. I would hope that Amtrak is trying to do some of the work as the "L" train rehab project was done. BTW work on those tunnel bores are complete ahead of schedule..


----------



## Green Maned Lion

Well, I see your point. However, I think it is important that you personally locate and propose to both us and the US Congress where the funding for this tunnel project will come from. I am going To guess that by the time all is said and done, and all the graft paid, about $20 billion will be required over ten years.

It’s not coming from New York- they have no money. It’s not coming from New Jersey- we have to cut $10 billion out of our budget, with painful cuts that are going to make a mess out of all kinds of things. The US Congress is is closing on a $4 trillion deficit with calls for another (Probably needed) financial aid bill to combat the looming Great Depression Part Deaux. I suspect they are going to be cutting lots of regular spending just to try to tone the red-ink bleed to a minor geyser.

So tell me, please, I want to know, where is this funding coming for a tunnel project whose effective capacity purpose isn’t needed and probably won’t be for decades?


----------



## MARC Rider

Green Maned Lion said:


> You aren't going to get a "nice" car for under $1000. You aren't even going to get one where everything works. But that wasn't what we were talking about; we were talking about reliable. If it starts up, drives you from point A to point B, and then from point B to point A, with over a 99% certainty rate, it is reliable transportation.
> 
> I started driving in 2001 with a 1976 MB 240D that was, I suspect, more rust than steel, a worn-to-heck engine that could hit 60mph downhill with a tailwind if you really begged it, and a tendency to smoke like you wouldn't believe- but being 25 years old it was emissions exempt in NJ. It cost me $250, and I had enough proof in its service records of roll-overs on its 5-digit odometer that I know it had at least 700k miles on it, and probably more. I suspect it may have actually have been a roll over were it a 6-digit odometer, in fact.
> 
> The radio didn't work, the A/C didn't work, hell the blower for the heater didn't work. It was ugly, creaky- in a Mercedes, mind you!- it smelled, and don't ask about how vague the shift linkage was. It also started every time and drove me to school and work every day for the entire six months I owned it, even in the winter, at which point some idiot in a Honda Civic t-boned me, killing himself, and totaling my car (admittedly, a bird pooping on it would have probably totaled it). I walked away. That is safe reliable transportation, in my opinion, and it cost me $250.
> 
> I took the insurance check from his company, and some of the money I got from my job, and spent $950 on a 1982 240D. It had a number of other non-running-properly issues, including non-working a/c (if there is a pre-1990 Mercedes diesel with working A/C I would be fascinated to know about it) but it did the same basic job. You need a car to do the job of getting you to work and back, you can buy one for under $1000. If you want a nice car for under $1000, you're right, you're smoking something.



So this $250 car, which polluted the air (even if it was legally emission-exempt) and seemed to barely work lasted only 6 months. Let's see, my Honda is almost 20 years old. That means I'd have to buy 40 of those $250 cars to get the same utility. That means paying $10,000 for cars that barely work, pollute the hell out of the air, are not really suitable for freeway driving and long trips. Actually, I wouldn't get the same utility, my $18,000 Honda (purchased used 1 year old) has been more or less fully functional for the entire 20 years, and only in the last couple of years have I started getting really expensive repair jobs. If I couldn't afford to buy a "nice" car, I wouldn't bother with a $250 junker, I'd use public transit, Uber, and maybe rent a car if I really needed one.


----------



## Green Maned Lion

MARC Rider said:


> So this $250 car, which polluted the air (even if it was legally emission-exempt) and seemed to barely work lasted only 6 months. Let's see, my Honda is almost 20 years old. That means I'd have to buy 40 of those $250 cars to get the same utility. That means paying $10,000 for cars that barely work, pollute the hell out of the air, are not really suitable for freeway driving and long trips. Actually, I wouldn't get the same utility, my $18,000 Honda (purchased used 1 year old) has been more or less fully functional for the entire 20 years, and only in the last couple of years have I started getting really expensive repair jobs. If I couldn't afford to buy a "nice" car, I wouldn't bother with a $250 junker, I'd use public transit, Uber, and maybe rent a car if I really needed one.



You apparently didn’t follow. I drove it for six months only because somebody drove into the passengers side of it at about forty miles per hour; the impact was so hard the wheels were all ripped off their mountings; if I had a passenger in the car they would have very likely died. If your Honda got hit like that as you pulled out of the dealer, it would have been totaled after five minutes.

Other than it being a bit underpowered from its age (and the fact that it was frankly underpowered on the day it rolled out of Sindelfingen), an oil change, and countless gallons of diesel fuel (I want to say it averaged about 25 mpg, which isn’t bad considering the return lines were shot), I put no money into that car; $250, that is all.

It never left me stranded, never failed to start (although it frequently failed to shut off, requiring a shove on the manual shut-off switch under the hood), never even crossed my mind that it would- even in the dead of winter. I mean the only thing it really failed to do- miserably- was get me laid.

I wouldn’t have been surprised if itkept chugging along for years; there is a reason why at the time that model and generation of Mercedes was the most popular taxicab in the developing world. Don’t tell me you want a cheap, reliable, running car for cheap- I’d probably recommend a 1995 Lada Niva or Whatever they were calling the Zhighuli in Canada in 1995- and then start talking about comfort and luxury and whatnot when I point out you can get it. And please, God, don’t mention emissions, the main durability and reliability problem that plagues every modern car.


----------



## Metra Electric Rider

I got all y'all topped; paid $5 (truly, not from a relative) for an '83 Volvo 245 and drove it for like four years with little problem (fixed most of what was wrong first weekend I owned it) until my parents bought a new car and insisted I take theirs (which was in the family for 20 years until it rusted away, was trying to get it to 200k). Was a better, if less fun, car than my Scirocco.


----------



## Alice

I did better than Metra Electric. Got a 50-something huge Chrysler (the kind with back fenders that looked like wings and genuine chrome bumpers that looked like teeth in front) from a sailing friend who couldn't sell it (high mileage, dented all around except the chrome, inoperable gas gauge/ odometer/speedometer/etc) on the condition I'd stack his boat over mine when we were both going to the same place. Drove it many miles towing boats all over the west. Until the A-frame contraption on the right front wheel came loose and the wheel came off and rolled to the bottom of the hill (leaving lug nuts on the studs). I might add that it was getting kind of hard to steer in the months before that, which meant everybody in Bay Area traffic kept their distance, a nice benefit of teenage girl doing erratic driving. Those bumpers would cream anything else on the road, especially those cute VWs so popular in Berkeley in the 60s-70s. Got it out of the middle of the road by jacking it up and pushing it over repeatedly, and talked to the resident where I parked it so he would not have it towed. That weekend sold it as-is where-is for $100 to a guy who used it for quite a few more years and miles to haul dope from Mexico. He said it had lots of hiding spots and also didn't sit any lower when carrying quite a payload.


----------



## Ziv

Careful, MER. You almost went full "4 Yorkshiremen" there!





Metra Electric Rider said:


> I got all y'all topped; paid $5 (truly, not from a relative) for an '83 Volvo 245 and drove it for like four years ...


----------



## Metra Electric Rider

Alice said:


> I did better than Metra Electric. Got a 50-something huge Chrysler (the kind with back fenders that looked like wings and genuine chrome bumpers that looked like teeth in front) from a sailing friend who couldn't sell it (high mileage, dented all around except the chrome, inoperable gas gauge/ odometer/speedometer/etc) on the condition I'd stack his boat over mine when we were both going to the same place. Drove it many miles towing boats all over the west. Until the A-frame contraption on the right front wheel came loose and the wheel came off and rolled to the bottom of the hill (leaving lug nuts on the studs). I might add that it was getting kind of hard to steer in the months before that, which meant everybody in Bay Area traffic kept their distance, a nice benefit of teenage girl doing erratic driving. Those bumpers would cream anything else on the road, especially those cute VWs so popular in Berkeley in the 60s-70s. Got it out of the middle of the road by jacking it up and pushing it over repeatedly, and talked to the resident where I parked it so he would not have it towed. That weekend sold it as-is where-is for $100 to a guy who used it for quite a few more years and miles to haul dope from Mexico. He said it had lots of hiding spots and also didn't sit any lower when carrying quite a payload.



Well done. My uncle up in Alberta had one of the later big Fuselage Chryslers - I loved the whine they made as they accelerated. When I sold mine I made like a multi-100% profit.


----------



## Andrew

If telecommuting becomes permanent, than is only Gateway Phase 1 likely to get built?


----------



## Metra Electric Rider

Andrew said:


> If telecommuting becomes permanent, than is only Gateway Phase 1 likely to get built?


I think the jury is still out on that long term, however, NYC isn't likely to shrink that much, there are a lot of jobs that require physical presence and there are also travellers - it's been presented that it's overloaded as it is and no rail access due to tunnel failures would affect the entire national network (at least the NEC).


----------



## Andrew

If Biden loses the election, should the 7 train to Hoboken or Secaucus be looked at as an alternative to Gateway?


----------



## railiner

Andrew said:


> If Biden loses the election, should the 7 train to Hoboken or Secaucus be looked at as an alternative to Gateway?


I doubt seriously, the MTA would ever consider having the subway crossing the Hudson, and operating into New Jersey. The only presence they have in New Jersey, is NJTransit bringing their Port Jervis Metro North trains into Hoboken....


----------



## jis

railiner said:


> I doubt seriously, the MTA would ever consider having the subway crossing the Hudson, and operating into New Jersey. The only presence they have in New Jersey, is NJTransit bringing their Port Jervis Metro North trains into Hoboken....


The Port Jervis and Spring Valley trains are actually NJT trains operated under contract for Metro North for their West of Hudson Service. They contribute a bunch of rolling stock into the NJT pool for equipping that service. The operating staff is NJT.


----------



## railiner

jis said:


> The Port Jervis and Spring Valley trains are actually NJT trains operated under contract for Metro North for their West of Hudson Service. They contribute a bunch of rolling stock into the NJT pool for equipping that service. The operating staff is NJT.


Yes, I was aware of that, but thanks for clarifying what I meant. They don't even want to get involved with manning their own trains, into New Jersey, if they can avoid doing so. 
You would think the Metro North unions would demand either changing crews at the border, or MN crews operating some trains all the way into Hoboken, on a pro-rated mileage basis, but apparently not...


----------



## jis

railiner said:


> Yes, I was aware of that, but thanks for clarifying what I meant. They don't even want to get involved with manning their own trains, into New Jersey, if they can avoid doing so.
> You would think the Metro North unions would demand either changing crews at the border, or MN crews operating some trains all the way into Hoboken, on a pro-rated mileage basis, but apparently not...


Actually MNRR Unions would be a losing position since all of this was duly grandfathered in by the Unions involved when service was transferred from private railroads to state agencies. There is a reason that they have not and possibly will not demand anything like that. 

Incidentally what do you believe is the difference in principle between MNRR crew operating trains into Hoboken and NJT crew operating trains to Port Jervis?


----------



## railiner

jis said:


> Actually MNRR Unions would be a losing position since all of this was duly grandfathered in by the Unions involved when service was transferred from private railroads to state agencies. There is a reason that they have not and possibly will not demand anything like that.
> 
> Incidentally what do you believe is the difference in principle between MNRR crew operating trains into Hoboken and NJT crew operating trains to Port Jervis?


Your explanation of the 'grandfathered' aspect, is probably the reason the Metro North union does not challenge this. 
As for the difference you cited...there isn't any difference, but just a convenient means to avoid a crew change at the border, in the event they (MN crews) did win the right to operate their portion. They would cover a number of runs pro-rated on say a monthly basis to insure that each union would get the mileage they would have covered, had they changed at the border.

An example of how this worked, in the bus industry, was the interline run between Greyhound Lines, and Carolina Trailways...
On the route from Washington, DC to Ocean City, Md., Greyhound had the rights only from Washington to Annapolis, then the rest of the way to the Eastern Shore was Carolina's. The two got together, and pooled their buses, so passenger's would not have to change there. But since the Greyhound portion was so short, it didn't make sense to spend time changing driver's there. So the unions worked it out, that Carolina driver's would operate all the way into the Washington Greyhound Terminal (not the Trailways terminal), the Carolina driver's would prepare two separate trip report envelopes, putting each company's ticket into the respective one. In turn, in the summertime, when several seasonal expresses were added, Greyhound driver's would man those trips, all the way to Ocean City, also preparing two trip reports. But those expresses didn't even have to stop in Annapolis. 
By doing it this way, at the end of the year, each union's driver's would get their proportionate mileage, to match what it would have been, had they changed at Annapolis.

There were a few other examples of this in different places, with other companies...


----------



## jis

There is no crew change at the border today. Who would introducing a procedure that requires crew change serve except a handful of MNRR operations people maybe, and that too eventually at an increased cost to the customer for no gains whatsoever. 

In true AU tradition I think you are trying to fix a non-existent problem and the proposed solution will dramatically increase MNRR's cost of operation of the West of Hudson service, since they will need to create and maintain new crew bases and what not. It really does not make an iota of sense. It is a service operated under contract, just like Metro North operates in Connecticut too. There is no need to change that.

MNRR would serve itself and its customers better by negotiating a more water tight contract with NJT for the operations for better financial terms and better specified penalty clauses if possible.


----------



## west point

Participated in an interchange between EAL and Braniff with crew swap at Memphis. Was just given a differences folder with no training. IMO was not too safe until had operated 3 or 4 trips.


----------



## railiner

jis said:


> There is no crew change at the border today. Who would introducing a procedure that requires crew change serve except a handful of MNRR operations people maybe, and that too eventually at an increased cost to the customer for no gains whatsoever.
> 
> In true AU tradition I think you are trying to fix a non-existent problem and the proposed solution will dramatically increase MNRR's cost of operation of the West of Hudson service, since they will need to create and maintain new crew bases and what not. It really does not make an iota of sense. It is a service operated under contract, just like Metro North operates in Connecticut too. There is no need to change that.
> 
> MNRR would serve itself and its customers better by negotiating a more water tight contract with NJT for the operations for better financial terms and better specified penalty clauses if possible.


I am not trying to "fix a non-existant problem"...as I stated earlier...New York MTA doesn't want any part of operating in New Jersey.


----------



## jis

railiner said:


> I am not trying to "fix a non-existant problem"...as I stated earlier...New York MTA doesn't want any part of operating in New Jersey.


They don’t. So which problem are you talking about?


----------



## railiner

jis said:


> They don’t. So which problem are you talking about?


As I stated back in post #504, the MTA wouldn’t extend the 7 Line into New Jersey, and just commented that the MN trains (just rolling stock, as you clarified), operated by NJT, is their only presence in NJ....


----------



## Andrew

I am concerned that depending on the outcome of the upcoming November election, the Hudson Tunnel Project might not get built at all. But, I am still convinced that a new trans-hudson tunnel must get built to meet future travel demand; this new tunnel does not necessarily have to dump people into Penn Station.

Could a 7 train extension to Hoboken, New Jersey, which would be paid for by FTA New Starts Grants and Port Authority Funds, in addition to bonds from the state of New Jersey, work to reduce congestion into and out of Manhattan? (A 7 train extension would serve Hudson Yards where many businesses are moving to in addition to Manhattan's East Side).


----------



## John Santos

Andrew said:


> I am concerned that depending on the outcome of the upcoming November election, the Hudson Tunnel Project might not get built at all. But, I am still convinced that a new trans-hudson tunnel must get built to meet future travel demand; this new tunnel does not necessarily have to dump people into Penn Station.
> 
> Could a 7 train extension to Hoboken, New Jersey, which would be paid for by FTA New Starts Grants and Port Authority Funds, in addition to bonds from the state of New Jersey, work to reduce congestion into and out of Manhattan? (A 7 train extension would serve Hudson Yards where many businesses are moving to in addition to Manhattan's East Side).



This would only make sense if it connected to the NEC at both ends, and I don't see any reason it would be superior to the Gateway Project.

It would cost billions, comparable to the cost of the new tunnels. Even if it could be built slightly cheaper by being located away from the existing tunnels, it would require surface or underground connections to Penn Station. Manhattan real estate is incredibly expensive, more than making up for possibly slightly reduced tunnel construction costs by moving it up or down stream.

It would have to be a dual tunnel for safety reasons. There is no way to make an end-run around the requirements by making it a subway-only tunnel.

If it bypassed Penn Station (e.g. connecting to Grand Central instead) the tracks would have to make a sharp westward turn immediately south of Grand Central, another huge construction area in the middle of Manhattan, and the difficulties of scheduling a significant and variable portion of the NEC traffic through two different NYC stations would make it impractical.

If it were NOT intended as an alternative to the existing tunnels, the Gateway Project would still be an absolute necessity. The old tunnels are over 100 years old and really need a complete end-to-end reconstruction. There were major problems with flooding during Sandy and salt water wreaked havoc with the electrical systems. The next Sandy could take out one or both tunnels permanently. To prevent this, they would need to shut down one existing tunnel for years to rebuild it and to extend the flood barriers and then repeat for the other tunnel. During this period, capacity of the biggest railroad bottleneck in the country would be reduced by 60-75%, because turning around the direction of a single tunnel means it is carrying no trains for a while during each reversal. The existing tunnels would probably still not meet current safety standards unless they shut down BOTH tunnels to install several cross-linked escape tunnels between them.


----------



## Cho Cho Charlie

I guess NYC could go back to using ferries or barges to carry railroad cars across the Hudson.


----------



## Andrew

Would it be cheaper to construct the new hudson tunnels beneath Hoboken?


----------



## MARC Rider

Cho Cho Charlie said:


> I guess NYC could go back to using ferries or barges to carry railroad cars across the Hudson.


Before they built the tunnels, nobody carried passenger railcars across the Hudson. The trains dead-ended at Hoboken, Jersey City, or Bayonne or whatever, and people would take ferries across the river. NJT still has that sort of service into Hoboken, though I suspect most people ride the PATH trains into Mahattan rather than the ferries, given the rather high ferry fares.

If the Hudson tunnels go kaput, the only alternative for New York- Washington NEC service (as well as the Keystones and the long-distance trains serving the south) would be to terminate the trains in Newark and have people ride PATH to 33rd St, which is only a block from Penn Station. Penn Station would still be usable for New York - Boston service and Empire service.


----------



## brianpmcdonnell17

MARC Rider said:


> Before they built the tunnels, nobody carried passenger railcars across the Hudson. The trains dead-ended at Hoboken, Jersey City, or Bayonne or whatever, and people would take ferries across the river. NJT still has that sort of service into Hoboken, though I suspect most people ride the PATH trains into Mahattan rather than the ferries, given the rather high ferry fares.
> 
> If the Hudson tunnels go kaput, the only alternative for New York- Washington NEC service (as well as the Keystones and the long-distance trains serving the south) would be to terminate the trains in Newark and have people ride PATH to 33rd St, which is only a block from Penn Station. Penn Station would still be usable for New York - Boston service and Empire service.


If the Hudson River Tunnels were to become entirely unusable, they wouldn't even be able to shift all the trains from the south to Newark since they would no longer be able to access Sunnyside Yard. Many of the corridor trains could probably do it, although they would likely have to be push-pull and may not be able to be serviced until returning to their origin. In such a situation, I doubt the LDs would continue beyond Philadelphia; they could even terminate them in Washington if most NEC-bound passengers are going beyond Philadelphia and would need to connected anyway.


----------



## railiner

If the rail tunnels ever closed, they would have to make two of the three Lincoln tunnel tubes “buses only”, perhaps all three, during rush hours to handle the loads....and set up a temporary overload bus terminal as well, perhaps at the Javits convention center....


----------



## jis

railiner said:


> If the rail tunnels ever closed, they would have to make two of the three Lincoln tunnel tubes “buses only”, perhaps all three, during rush hours to handle the loads....and set up a temporary overload bus terminal as well, perhaps at the Javits convention center....


We had a foretaste of that immediately after Hurricane Sandy. It was not pretty.


----------



## Andrew

How would a Biden Administration working with a Republican senate impact both Amtrak and Gateway funding?


----------



## joelkfla

Andrew said:


> How would a Biden Administration working with a Republican senate impact both Amtrak and Gateway funding?


See the article linked in this thread.


----------



## me_little_me

Andrew said:


> How would a Biden Administration working with a Republican senate impact both Amtrak and Gateway funding?


It's not a Republican senate. It is a senate with a few more (if they win at least one of Georgia seats) than Democrats. But there are always "defectors" on any specific issues so any Republicans who like rail or whose constituents do, can and often will cross the line especially if it's not a major issue. Amtrak funding is a peanuts issue. Similarly, Democrats do the same.


----------



## tricia

me_little_me said:


> It's not a Republican senate. It is a senate with a few more (if they win at least one of Georgia seats) than Democrats. But there are always "defectors" on any specific issues so any Republicans who like rail or whose constituents do, can and often will cross the line especially if it's not a major issue. Amtrak funding is a peanuts issue. Similarly, Democrats do the same.



It's a Republican Senate as long as Mitch McConnell has absolute control over what can come up for a vote or even debate on the Senate floor.


----------



## jis

NJT has entered into FFGA (Full Funding Grant Agreement) with the FTA for funding construction of the Portal North Bridge.






Office of the Governor | Governor Murphy and NJ TRANSIT Celebrate Critical Step to Bring Portal North Bridge Closer to Full Funding Grant Agreement


NEWARK — Governor Phil Murphy, Department of Transportation Commissioner and NJ TRANSIT Board Chair Diane Gutierrez-Scaccetti, and NJ TRANSIT President & CEO Kevin Corbett today celebrated the vote by NJ TRANSIT’s Board of Directors authorizing the execution of a Full Funding Grant Agreement...



nj.gov





So now at least that part is in its home stretch. It has been a long struggle.

Now onto the North River Tubes, Portal South, Sawtooth Bridge and eventually NYP South to complete the full four track railroad from NYP to NWK.


----------



## west point

IMHO the Portal south bridge is going to be a long time to even start. Hopefully sometime after the new tunnel bores are done and the old tunnel bores rehabbed ? This poster hopes the old Portal bridge is kept in service but from all indications it will be demolished one the Portal north bridge is complete. My thinking is that 4 tracks from Sawtooth - Newark Penn station would make that portion more fluid because of the constraint of New York direct service.


----------



## Andrew

Congress will review the FFGA over the next 30 days.

Would it be cheaper and faster to run the new Hudson Tunnels via Hoboken instead?


jis said:


> NJT has entered into FFGA (Full Funding Grant Agreement) with the FTA for funding construction of the Portal North Bridge.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Office of the Governor | Governor Murphy and NJ TRANSIT Celebrate Critical Step to Bring Portal North Bridge Closer to Full Funding Grant Agreement
> 
> 
> NEWARK — Governor Phil Murphy, Department of Transportation Commissioner and NJ TRANSIT Board Chair Diane Gutierrez-Scaccetti, and NJ TRANSIT President & CEO Kevin Corbett today celebrated the vote by NJ TRANSIT’s Board of Directors authorizing the execution of a Full Funding Grant Agreement...
> 
> 
> 
> nj.gov
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So now at least that part is in its home stretch. It has been a long struggle.
> 
> Now onto the North River Tubes, Portal South, Sawtooth Bridge and eventually NYP South to complete the full four track railroad from NYP to NWK.


----------



## jis

Andrew said:


> Would it be cheaper and faster to run the new Hudson Tunnels via Hoboken instead?


No. It is already running under North Hoboken. It will have to be a longer tunnel to go under Hoboken Station so it will be more expensive and take longer.


----------



## Andrew

jis said:


> No. It is already running under North Hoboken. It will have to be a longer tunnel to go under Hoboken Station so it will be more expensive and take longer.



I have read reports on potentially having the M and E trains not connect to the NEC at Swift Interlocking; rather, they could run through the Bergen Tunnels and branch off into new cross-hudson tunnels just west of Hoboken Station.

(This would actually reduce construction of new total track).

Does having NJ Transit revently move the Portal Bridge to a FFGA mean that it is likely that the Hudson Tunnel Project will proceed under a Biden Administration?


----------



## jis

Andrew said:


> I have read reports on potentially having the M and E trains not connect to the NEC at Swift Interlocking; rather, they could run through the Bergen Tunnels and branch off into new cross-hudson tunnels just west of Hoboken Station.


That is from A few rail advocates/enthusiasts. They control exactly $0 of budget and are not in any decision making position. They also did not want Portal South and wanted to build a single track new tunnel. None of that is happening.


----------



## Andrew

Does the recent report about repairing the Hudson Tunnels during weeknight and weekends make it less likely that the new tubes will get built?


----------



## Andrew

jis said:


> NJT has entered into FFGA (Full Funding Grant Agreement) with the FTA for funding construction of the Portal North Bridge.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Office of the Governor | Governor Murphy and NJ TRANSIT Celebrate Critical Step to Bring Portal North Bridge Closer to Full Funding Grant Agreement
> 
> 
> NEWARK — Governor Phil Murphy, Department of Transportation Commissioner and NJ TRANSIT Board Chair Diane Gutierrez-Scaccetti, and NJ TRANSIT President & CEO Kevin Corbett today celebrated the vote by NJ TRANSIT’s Board of Directors authorizing the execution of a Full Funding Grant Agreement...
> 
> 
> 
> nj.gov
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So now at least that part is in its home stretch. It has been a long struggle.
> 
> Now onto the North River Tubes, Portal South, Sawtooth Bridge and eventually NYP South to complete the full four track railroad from NYP to NWK.



What happens if the financial plan for the new hudson tunnels is rated low in the upcoming report that is due out in February?


----------



## jis

Andrew said:


> What happens if the financial plan for the new hudson tunnels is rated low in the upcoming report that is due out in February?


You will know in another 8 weeks  If there is political will there are many ways around that should it come to pass.

It will not affect this FFGA.


----------



## Andrew

jis said:


> You will know in another 8 weeks  If there is political will there are many ways around that should it come to pass.
> 
> It will not affect this FFGA.



I was wondering if it is possible that new hudson tunnels never get built.


----------



## jis

Andrew said:


> I was wondering if it is possible that new hudson tunnels never get built.


You are getting a bit tiresome.  Wait for events to unfold. No one can answer your vague speculative questions. However if it will make you feel better, I am happy to assure you that they will be built sooner or later.


----------



## Andrew

jis said:


> You are getting a bit tiresome.  Wait for events to unfold. No one can answer your vague speculative questions. However if it will make you fell better, I am happy to assure you that they will be built sooner or later.



Do you still believe that extending the 7 train to Secaucus would have been a better investment than Gateway?

And regarding Gateway, do you folks think that the engineers on this project made the right decision regarding choosing an appropriate alignment?


----------



## jis

Governor Cuomo is now advocating for the NYPS South extension. This is very good news because that sort of support will be necessary acquire the so called Block 780 to make this happen. It will also have real effect in reducing congestion in NYPS, unlike Moynihan, which is merely cosmetic change. This involves basically changing things in the A interlocking area to smooth out flows to the current station and to these new tracks.



https://www.radio.com/wcbs880/news/local/cuomo-plans-to-add-8-underground-tracks-to-penn-station/


----------



## Bob Dylan

jis said:


> Governor Cuomo is now advocating for the NYPS South extension. This is very good news because that sort of support will be necessary acquire the so called Block 780 to make this happen. It will also have real effect in reducing congestion in NYPS, unlike Moynihan, which is merely cosmetic change. This involves basically changing things in the A interlocking area to smooth out flows to the current station and to these new tracks.
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.radio.com/wcbs880/news/local/cuomo-plans-to-add-8-underground-tracks-to-penn-station/


Good News, but of course since it's New York, the Costs will make Bostons "Big Dig" seem like a Bargain! Lol


----------



## Steve4031

jis said:


> Governor Cuomo is now advocating for the NYPS South extension. This is very good news because that sort of support will be necessary acquire the so called Block 780 to make this happen. It will also have real effect in reducing congestion in NYPS, unlike Moynihan, which is merely cosmetic change. This involves basically changing things in the A interlocking area to smooth out flows to the current station and to these new tracks.
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.radio.com/wcbs880/news/local/cuomo-plans-to-add-8-underground-tracks-to-penn-station/



This is great news IMHO. If I am reading this correctly 8 new tracks would connect to the NEC going west/south to Newark and the Empire corridor going north towards Albany. Is A interlocking the area that allows trains to access the empire corridor?


----------



## Andrew

jis said:


> Governor Cuomo is now advocating for the NYPS South extension. This is very good news because that sort of support will be necessary acquire the so called Block 780 to make this happen. It will also have real effect in reducing congestion in NYPS, unlike Moynihan, which is merely cosmetic change. This involves basically changing things in the A interlocking area to smooth out flows to the current station and to these new tracks.
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.radio.com/wcbs880/news/local/cuomo-plans-to-add-8-underground-tracks-to-penn-station/



I sometimes wonder if it would make sense to build tunnels from near Hoboken Terminal to 14th street or perhaps Houston Street in Manhattan instead of building new trans-hudson tunnels into Penn Station? (While I am a huge supporter of The Gateway Project, I am concerned that not enough consideration is being given to reducing demand into Penn Station).


----------



## MARC Rider

Bob Dylan said:


> Good News, but of course since it's New York, the Costs will make Bostons "Big Dig" seem like a Bargain! Lol


You know, everybody seems to enjoy trashing the Big Dig as a waste of money, but I've been using it (OK, once a year, I drive through it) for the past 15 years, and I even remember trying to drive through downtown Boston on the old elevated freeway as a kid during some family trips. I've found it to be a very useful and functional. Certainly, the elimination of that ugly, disruptive elevated highway did wonders for downtown Boston. I expect that current real estate values in downtown Boston are much, much higher that they would have been had the Big Dig not been dug. Which means that the cumulative property tax revenues for Boston over that past 20 years have been much higher than if the project hadn't gone forward. I suspect that the project, over the long term, has been a net fiscal gain for the region.

Yes, it undoubtedly ended up costing more than the advertised cost, and there was some corruption and incompetence involved in the implementation. Also, it was foolish not to make provision for a future rail tunnel to connect North and South Station. But in the balance, I would say that the project was a net plus for Boston and the surrounding region.

This tendency to trash large, government funded infrastructure projects has a long history in the United States, dating from the dawn of the Republic. There was a faction in the country, consisting mostly of slaveholding plantation owners with tidewater access (Hi there, George Washington!) and coastal merchants who opposed spending public money on "internal improvements" like roads and canals (and later railroads) because their businesses had no need for these internal improvements, and, indeed such improvements opened up farmland and trade opportunities that competed with the plantations and coastal merchants. The building of the National Road (funded by the Federal government) and the Erie Canal (funded by the State of New York) were highly controversial in their day. I'm not sure how controversial the Pennsylvania Main Line of Public Works, a state-run combination canal-railroad was, but, in the end it was absorbed by a private company (the Pennsylvania Railroad), and indeed, nearly all American railroads were funded by private capital. 

The attitude of private capital was summed up by Cornelius Vanderbilt (New York Central Railroad) as "the public be damned." I suspect the vested interests didn't see any benefit to public funding, because they could fund it themselves, and then enjoy their monopoly position. Of course, as we all know, if we hadn't paid for those internal improvements, our country would still be 13 dinky little states clinging to the Atlantic seaboard. On the other hand, all those private railroads gave us was the Robber Barons, monopolies, and the partial dismantling of our railroads in the mid 20th century. It should be noted that every other type of transportation infrastructure in this country, such as roads, waterways, ports, and the air traffic system was developed by the public sector, and I'm sure there's been a lot of corruption and waste on these projects over the years.


----------



## jis

Steve4031 said:


> This is great news IMHO. If I am reading this correctly 8 new tracks would connect to the NEC going west/south to Newark and the Empire corridor going north towards Albany. Is A interlocking the area that allows trains to access the empire corridor?


It controls the western throat of Penn Station from the tunnel portals to the platform tracks.


----------



## John Santos

"I suspect the vested interests didn't see any benefit to public funding ..." No benefit to public funding? They saw HUGE benefits to public funding, especially when they got to own and control and profit from the railroads after the public paid all the up-front costs and took all the risk. See Credit Mobilier and the 19th century railroad land grants.


----------



## MARC Rider

John Santos said:


> "I suspect the vested interests didn't see any benefit to public funding ..." No benefit to public funding? They saw HUGE benefits to public funding, especially when they got to own and control and profit from the railroads after the public paid all the up-front costs and took all the risk. See Credit Mobilier and the 19th century railroad land grants.


Oh, yes, Credit Mobilier, how could I have forgotten that? And the land grants, which I guess were pretty profitable. But didn't that just apply to the transcontinental railroad? Most of the other railroads were privately funded. And, of course the Robber Barons who didn't get the goodies from the Credit Mobiler scheme and the land grants must have been pretty ticked off.


----------



## crescent-zephyr

MARC Rider said:


> Most of the other railroads were privately funded.


Mmmm.... not sure about that. Debatable for sure.


----------



## Bob Dylan

MARC Rider said:


> You know, everybody seems to enjoy trashing the Big Dig as a waste of money, but I've been using it (OK, once a year, I drive through it) for the past 15 years, and I even remember trying to drive through downtown Boston on the old elevated freeway as a kid during some family trips. I've found it to be a very useful and functional. Certainly, the elimination of that ugly, disruptive elevated highway did wonders for downtown Boston. I expect that current real estate values in downtown Boston are much, much higher that they would have been had the Big Dig not been dug. Which means that the cumulative property tax revenues for Boston over that past 20 years have been much higher than if the project hadn't gone forward. I suspect that the project, over the long term, has been a net fiscal gain for the region.
> 
> Yes, it undoubtedly ended up costing more than the advertised cost, and there was some corruption and incompetence involved in the implementation. Also, it was foolish not to make provision for a future rail tunnel to connect North and South Station. But in the balance, I would say that the project was a net plus for Boston and the surrounding region.
> 
> This tendency to trash large, government funded infrastructure projects has a long history in the United States, dating from the dawn of the Republic. There was a faction in the country, consisting mostly of slaveholding plantation owners with tidewater access (Hi there, George Washington!) and coastal merchants who opposed spending public money on "internal improvements" like roads and canals (and later railroads) because their businesses had no need for these internal improvements, and, indeed such improvements opened up farmland and trade opportunities that competed with the plantations and coastal merchants. The building of the National Road (funded by the Federal government) and the Erie Canal (funded by the State of New York) were highly controversial in their day. I'm not sure how controversial the Pennsylvania Main Line of Public Works, a state-run combination canal-railroad was, but, in the end it was absorbed by a private company (the Pennsylvania Railroad), and indeed, nearly all American railroads were funded by private capital.
> 
> The attitude of private capital was summed up by Cornelius Vanderbilt (New York Central Railroad) as "the public be damned." I suspect the vested interests didn't see any benefit to public funding, because they could fund it themselves, and then enjoy their monopoly position. Of course, as we all know, if we hadn't paid for those internal improvements, our country would still be 13 dinky little states clinging to the Atlantic seaboard. On the other hand, all those private railroads gave us was the Robber Barons, monopolies, and the partial dismantling of our railroads in the mid 20th century. It should be noted that every other type of transportation infrastructure in this country, such as roads, waterways, ports, and the air traffic system was developed by the public sector, and I'm sure there's been a lot of corruption and waste on these projects over the years.


Good info, thanks!( I agree with you,as a Career Government Employee, I just like to point out Government Corruption which is wider spread than most Americans realize)


----------



## MARC Rider

For those who don't know anything about the Credit Mobilier scandal, here's the Wikipeida page:

Crédit Mobilier scandal - Wikipedia 

In short, There was a lot of opposition to the Pacific Railroad Act, especially given that at the time they built the the railroad, there was no prospect that it could be a viable business enterprise. After all, there was virtually no commercial activity, no passengers, no freight going on in the 1700 miles between Omaha and California. Even the government funded Pony Express went out of business after they installed a transcontinental telegraph. In other words, the opponents called it a "train to nowhere." The deal was that the Union Pacific Railroad got loans form the Feds, plus land grants. The whole package was worth about $100 million.

On top of that, two crooked executives of the Union Pacific Railroad (one of them was named George Francis _*Train*_ -- you can't make this stuff up) set up a construction company called Credit Mobilier of America (which was not the same as a large French bank of almost the same name). What they did was have Credit Mobilier overbill Union Pacific. It cost Credit Mobilier about $50 million too build the railroad, but they billed Union Pacific about $94 million. The difference was pocketed by the crooked executives. There were also congressmen and senators involved, one of whom was apparently in on the deal, the others were merely bribees. Of course, once it all came out, the Union Pacific and the outside investors were nearly bankrupted. I don't think any of the congressmen or senators went to jail, and neither did the two crooked Union Pacific masterminds who set up Credit Mobilier.

It sure was crooked, but, of course, the naysayers about the transcontinental railroad were wrong; it did generate business, and in fact, many more were built. It might have been built more efficiently and rationally (and cheaply) if the government had just built it themselves and cut out the Union Pacific middleman (and contracted with non-crooked construction companies.)


----------



## Andrew

jis said:


> It controls the western throat of Penn Station from the tunnel portals to the platform tracks.



Does anyone think it might be a good idea to build new trans-hudson tunnels to a different part of Manhattan--instead of stuffing all trains from New Jersey into Penn Station?


----------



## railiner

While having as many transportation lines in one place has its merits, for easy transfer and connections, there may be a point where it is too much. I would assume that the PATH tunnels may also have to be replaced someday (they are even older than the PRR tunnels). Perhaps an alternative would be a new tunnel from Hoboken, or Jersey City to the World Trade Center area, to accommodate NJT trains rather than PATH, allowing one seat rides for most. Having more than one line is also helpful if one or the other has a major disruption. Perhaps the LIRR Brooklyn line could also be extended into a new WTC area terminal, shared with NJT. Even Amtrak might route a few regional's that way...


----------



## jis

railiner said:


> While having as many transportation lines in one place has its merits, for easy transfer and connections, there may be a point where it is too much. I would assume that the PATH tunnels may also have to be replaced someday (they are even older than the PRR tunnels). Perhaps an alternative would be a new tunnel from Hoboken, or Jersey City to the World Trade Center area, to accommodate NJT trains rather than PATH, allowing one seat rides for most. Having more than one line is also helpful if one or the other has a major disruption. Perhaps the LIRR Brooklyn line could also be extended into a new WTC area terminal, shared with NJT. Even Amtrak might route a few regional's that way...


Unlike the North River Tubes into Penn Station, the PATH tunnels have been completely rebuilt during the 9/11 reconstruction. None of the tunnels really need the outer steel ring structure to be fiddled with. All of it has to do with the inner concrete linings which have decayed over time. That is what will be rebuilt in the North River Tubes when they can be taken out of service.

I do agree however, that focusing everything on Penn Station is wrong headed and completely opposite of what all large cities of the world are doing. The trend is to disperse arrival points to multiple ones around the city and then connect them together with local transit. Most European and Asian cities were originally set up that way and are just growing on that theme. None of them are getting rid of any of their dispersed city terminals unlike New York which got rid of most of them with great alacrity, and then landed themselves in the current soup.

Cities that were transit poor and have grown in the 20th and early 21st century have all used dispersed points of termination of services coming into the city and then connected those terminal together with local transit.

A prime example is New Delhi which had two terminal stations in 1947 and no local transit system, other than buses, to speak of, and it was a much much smaller city. Today it is a huge metropolis with a subway system imminently growing to 20 lines linked with subway systems in adjacent cities of Gurgaon and Ghaziabad, and with more than half a dozen terminal stations, with one peripheral station for lines coming in from each direction in addition to the city center terminals:

City Center: New Delhi Jn., Delhi Jn.
Peripheral: Anand Vihar (E), Hazrat Nizamuddin Jn. (S), Sarai Rohilla (W), Azadpur (N)
Others: Ghaziabad Jn. (E), Shakurbasti (W), Gurgaon (SW)

New York currently has four terminal stations Penn, Grand Central, Jamaica and Newark/Hoboken (though not much other than RVL really terminates in Newark, but it is a major connecting point to PATH). There is a serious need to offload Penn Station which has been burdened with everything that remains from the multiple trans-Hudson terminals that were accessed by ferries from New York and not already accommodated in Hoboken, though there has been a trend to shortchange Hoboken and try to load up stuff into Penn too.

In this context I do agree that ideally a south main branch from possibly west of Newark, perhaps taking off at CP Lane and following the Greenville Branch to the Hudson waterfront, through the Jersey City Area, onto WTC Terminal in lower Manhattan onto Brooklyn and then on to Jamaica would be desirable, though I don't see the political will for it yet. There could also be a connection to the Fresh Pond branch thus providing a link towards New England over the Hell Gate from this line. But as I said, all just dreamin'. A City like London would have been actively working on such already.


----------



## jiml

jis said:


> A City like London would have been actively working on such already.


As I was reading through your detailed answer the exact same thought occured, and sure enough you summed it all up in the last line. The only qualifying comment would be that it would take twice as long and cost twice as much as originally planned.


----------



## Andrew

" I do agree however, that focusing everything on Penn Station is wrong headed and completely opposite of what all large cities of the world are doing. The trend is to disperse arrival points to multiple ones around the city and then connect them together with local transit. Most European and Asian cities were originally set up that way and are just growing on that theme. None of them are getting rid of any of their dispersed city terminals unlike New York which got rid of most of them with great alacrity, and then landed themselves in the current soup". 

Jis, you make some great points! I doubt a new line will be built from south of Newark, NJ into Manhattan. But, wouldn't it make more sense to extend tracks from Hoboken Terminal into Houston Street where riders could connect to the 1 train?

Also, do you folks think it is possible mass transit ridership will never return to 2019 levels due to telecommuting?


----------



## railiner

Andrew said:


> Also, do you folks think it is possible mass transit ridership will never return to 2019 levels due to telecommuting?


That's a very good question...hopefully not...
I think telecommuting is great for companies and employees. I can't really see a downside to it. Eliminating hours of commuting would save on energy, resources, quality of life for families...everyone. I can see office building's repurposed into residential complexes, too...


----------



## PaTrainFan

railiner said:


> That's a very good question...hopefully not...
> I think telecommuting is great for companies and employees. I can't really see a downside to it. Eliminating hours of commuting would save on energy, resources, quality of life for families...everyone. I can see office building's repurposed into residential complexes, too...



Many companies are learning that employees can work from home and still be productive while the beancounters are realizing that they can reduce square footage, saving on the bottom line.


----------



## Deni

railiner said:


> While having as many transportation lines in one place has its merits, for easy transfer and connections, there may be a point where it is too much. I would assume that the PATH tunnels may also have to be replaced someday (they are even older than the PRR tunnels). Perhaps an alternative would be a new tunnel from Hoboken, or Jersey City to the World Trade Center area, to accommodate NJT trains rather than PATH, allowing one seat rides for most. Having more than one line is also helpful if one or the other has a major disruption. Perhaps the LIRR Brooklyn line could also be extended into a new WTC area terminal, shared with NJT. Even Amtrak might route a few regional's that way...


Off topic, but when I was living in NYC I always wanted them to extend the PATH train farther north into Manhattan and cross back in to Jersey (like at North Bergan or Fort Lee, or both) to give Jersey commuters a one seat ride farther up into northern Manhattan and to give more areas of Jersey better transit into Manhattan.


----------



## MARC Rider

PaTrainFan said:


> Many companies are learning that employees can work from home and still be productive while the beancounters are realizing that they can reduce square footage, saving on the bottom line.



This may be true up to a point. I have found Zoom conferencing to be stressful and find it hard to relate to the other people in the group. Which means that permanent exclusive telework would be bad for any kind of business that requires teamwork. Telework is really best for that part of the job that you can do on your own. In my case, that was conducting research and writing papers. Anything that involved group activities was always best done in person, though sometimes one could deal with the inferior substitute of a conference call or Zoom meeting. I also managed contractors primarily with telephone conference calls, but the contractor was in San Antonio, and I was in Washington. And I still needed to travel down there a few times a year to make sure they were doing what I wanted them to do. Then, of course, there are people whose work actually involves real physical things, and they have to be at a workplace, whether it's a store, server farm, warehouse, or laboratory, or factory.

Also, the current internet communication technology is horrible. I can't tell you how frequently I have to deal with Zoom freezes and "unstable internet connections," etc. And the video images are distorted and you can't really get the nonverbal cues.

I certainly hope that the cheapskate employers and their beancounters don't get the idea that the workers don't need to come to the workplace.


----------



## Andrew

long story short is that new trans-hudson tunnels will be needed in the future but I think it would have been nice in the past if new tunnels were studied to branch off from Hoboken Terminal to Manhattan's West Side instead of Gateway; while I support Gateway, I question the obsession with wanting to add all new capacity into the current Penn Station. I suppose the argument in favor of Gateway is for redundancy during service disruptions?


----------



## adamj023

With the new admin, it looks like this project will get started.


----------



## me_little_me

Andrew said:


> long story short is that new trans-hudson tunnels will be needed in the future but I think it would have been nice in the past if new tunnels were studied to branch off from Hoboken Terminal to Manhattan's West Side instead of Gateway; while I support Gateway, I question the obsession with wanting to add all new capacity into the current Penn Station. I suppose the argument in favor of Gateway is for redundancy during service disruptions?


Read the book "Subway" by John E. Morris to see the 100+ year history of studies and plans for subways that never got started because someone came up with another alternative. The last thing NYC needs is another choice to delay it until 2200. A new tunnel now is worth 100 better alternatives later because later never comes in NYC.


----------



## IndyLions

me_little_me said:


> A new tunnel now is worth 100 better alternatives later because later never comes in NYC.


Amen. The perfect is very often the arch enemy of the good...


----------



## jis

me_little_me said:


> Read the book "Subway" by John E. Morris to see the 100+ year history of studies and plans for subways that never got started because someone came up with another alternative. The last thing NYC needs is another choice to delay it until 2200. A new tunnel now is worth 100 better alternatives later because later never comes in NYC.


Unfortunately some folks think it is important to show the world how clever they are


----------



## Michigan Mom

Zoom works really well, I am pleasantly surprised by how easy it has been to replace in person meetings with virtual. 
Not a fan of the competing backgrounds, to see who can be the coolest, and people drinking coffee on camera, but for assembling people within and across organizations to get work done and in different time zones, it does the job.


----------



## MARC Rider

Michigan Mom said:


> Zoom works really well, I am pleasantly surprised by how easy it has been to replace in person meetings with virtual.
> Not a fan of the competing backgrounds, to see who can be the coolest, and people drinking coffee on camera, but for assembling people within and across organizations to get work done and in different time zones, it does the job.


Meh.
I guess Zoom is better than a telephone conference call, as you can actually see who is talking. My take is that it's OK for routine meetings, but if you want to accomplish something tricky and critical or if you want to develop working relationships, nothing can beat meeting face to face, in person. And it doesn't really work all that well, with any decent size group, you have people freezing, audio getting garbled, and my favorite, "unstable internet connection."

As far as drinking coffee off-camera, well, we all drink coffee in face-to-face meeting, too.


----------



## crescent-zephyr

Zoom has worked fine for me as well. I’d be fine with it becoming the “new normal.” Pros outweigh the cons big time.


----------



## jis

crescent-zephyr said:


> Zoom has worked fine for me as well. I’d be fine with it becoming the “new normal.” Pros outweigh the cons big time.


It has worked fine for me too. But then I have been using similar technology to manage a project spanning three continents for the last eight or so years before I retired too. 

If you have inadequate technological platform supporting it, it does not work as well.

Having said that, there are many job categories for which Zoom-like technologies are either sub-optimal or inadequate. It is unlikely that traveling to work will ever be entirely subsumed by Zoom-like technologies.


----------



## railiner

If there are some technical shortcomings of teleconferencing, future technology will hopefully fix that, as it has anything that is new. As far as it versus face to face meetings, I think that once it becomes the "new normal", it will be just as effective, and maybe better, because less meetings might have to be canceled due to personal issues of one kind or another. And the flexibility to add other participants for just a brief message, when they might otherwise not be able to attend, and countless other advantages. Those that lament the days of getting away for food and travel at the Company expense will just have to get over it...
Just like they did for the "three martini power lunch"...


----------



## Andrew

Does anyone else think a different terminal tunnel alignment and station should have been chosen instead of Penn Station?


----------



## Michigan Mom

MARC Rider said:


> As far as drinking coffee off-camera, well, we all drink coffee in face-to-face meeting, too.



You are so right, in all you said actually. I'm still pleasantly surprised by how well it has worked even given all the glitches. I think there are situations where the in person relationship building works better, and some where it's not necessary. Regarding the coffee comment, for all these years with in face to face meetings, that has never bothered me, in fact it's been a nice aspect of meetings, just like having pizza or cookies sent in. For whatever reason, eating or drinking on camera is magnified in weird ways, in a professional setting. So, now I just leave the camera off if I need caffeine during a meeting. 
I also tried a Zoom "happy hour" with an old friend, we had our adult beverages and it was just the two of us, maybe because it was informal and not work related, it was very comfortable. 
My view of Zoom meetings seems like it's in the minority, though. People I've talked to who were accustomed to spending many days on the road for meetings are itching to travel again.


----------



## west point

The PATH tunnel ores are interesting. The bores are so crooked that the PATH cars are much shorter than present subway cars. I would expect that new bores when built will have a much greater loading gauge. But what does PATH do. Run two separate sets of cars with different loading gauge or continue with their shorter cars. That is the situation in NY City as the IRT lines are a tighter gauge.


----------



## IndyLions

Michigan Mom said:


> My view of Zoom meetings seems like it's in the minority, though. People I've talked to who were accustomed to spending many days on the road for meetings are itching to travel again.



The reason people are itching to travel may or may not have to do with the whole online meeting collaborative approach.

I frankly find online meetings to be pretty productive, and I enjoy greatly working from home. For me personally, my “itchiness” to travel is as much about the work environment variation and the “change of pace” aspect as it is anything else.

I enjoy the face-to-face element of it, but being in different places and a different work environment are a huge part of it. And even when I travel back to the same places regularly – I often do everything I can to see a little different part of that particular location than I did in a previous visit.

At this stage in my career, if it all possible I avoid suburban hotels and stay in an area where there are things to see and places to eat within walking distance of the hotel. That gives me an opportunity to still remain productive by working in a restaurant or a café or a public place or a train - but the change in environment invigorates me.


----------



## jis

west point said:


> The PATH tunnel ores are interesting. The bores are so crooked that the PATH cars are much shorter than present subway cars. I would expect that new bores when built will have a much greater loading gauge. But what does PATH do. Run two separate sets of cars with different loading gauge or continue with their shorter cars. That is the situation in NY City as the IRT lines are a tighter gauge.


Since there are no plans to replace or augment the PATH tubes at present, this is mainly a theoretical issue.


----------



## jis

IndyLions said:


> The reason people are itching to travel may or may not have to do with the whole online meeting collaborative approach.
> 
> I frankly find online meetings to be pretty productive, and I enjoy greatly working from home. For me personally, my “itchiness” to travel is as much about the work environment variation and the “change of pace” aspect as it is anything else.


My itchiness to travel is mainly because I like to travel, and if attending meetings serves to fund some of it, or at least provide a tax deduction, so much the better


----------



## crescent-zephyr

jis said:


> My itchiness to travel is mainly because I like to travel, and if attending meetings serves to fund some of it, so much the better



Yup! Same here. The meetings work fine in zoom.... but they don’t fund my vacations! Haha.


----------



## MARC Rider

jis said:


> My itchiness to travel is mainly because I like to travel, and if attending meetings serves to fund some of it, or at least provide a tax deduction, so much the better


Most of my career involved lots of TDY (temporary duty) travel. It didn't usually bother me, because

1) I got out of the office and got to (sort of) be my own boss, yet I still got paid, and also had my expenses paid,
2) The work things I did on travel were much more interesting than going to meetings, writing memos, and doing other paperwork (including making travel authorization requests and travel expense claims),
3) I got to see a number of interesting places, often in a lot more depth than if I had visited as a tourist. 

That said, I could do without the trips that involved, say, flying somewhere, having a meeting at the airport, and flying right home.


----------



## jis

MARC Rider said:


> Most of my career involved lots of TDY (temporary duty) travel. It didn't usually bother me, because
> 
> 1) I got out of the office and got to (sort of) be my own boss, yet I still got paid, and also had my expenses paid,
> 2) The work things I did on travel were much more interesting than going to meetings, writing memos, and doing other paperwork (including making travel authorization requests and travel expense claims),
> 3) I got to see a number of interesting places, often in a lot more depth than if I had visited as a tourist.
> 
> That said, I could do without the trips that involved, say, flying somewhere, having a meeting at the airport, and flying right home.


All of that were generally true for me too. I have done exactly two trips in 40 years which were same day out and back for a meeting.

My usual trips were a week long or longer. Typically shortest were something like three days.


----------



## Devil's Advocate

railiner said:


> As far as it versus face to face meetings, I think that once it becomes the "new normal", it will be just as effective, and maybe better, because less meetings might have to be canceled due to personal issues of one kind or another.


A Torx may be "just as effective" as a Phillips but that doesn't mean you should simply replace one with the other.



railiner said:


> Those that lament the days of getting away for food and travel at the Company expense will just have to get over it... Just like they did for the "three martini power lunch"...


If anything the move to telecommuting has probably helped bring the three martini lunch back into vogue again.



MARC Rider said:


> I could do without the trips that involved, say, flying somewhere, having a meeting at the airport, and flying right home.


I don't mind flying out and back in the same day, in fact that's the perfect business trip for me, it's the weird purgatory existence of waking up in some cookie cutter room on the edge of a town you'd otherwise never visit that bugs me.


----------



## jis

Looking back to my trips, it occurs to me that a preponderance of them had to do with either an architecture team meeting or a standards committee meeting. In both cases it was, in addition to the working sessions, a get together with friends and acquaintances every so often. It in effect became more of a community thing. I think that is what made the trips more tolerable than if they were merely staying boxed in a cookie cutter room at the edge of town.

Actually the work trips to London and Paris (when for a period we were active participants in a European Commission project) which happened frequently through the '90s were just the opposite in terms of lodging arrangements. Typically the hotels that I stayed in were closer to center city trading in creature comfort a bit for getting reasonable rates. I seemed to have used a fixed set of low/mid price hotels both in London and Paris near the city center recommended by the locals, and I commuted out to the sticks where the offices were located. I was a heavy user of local commuter passes on the transit system which is excellent in those two cities.


----------



## Andrew

If new trans-hudson tunnels were built to a location other than Penn Station, how would that help Amtrak deal with service disruptions, such as a stalled train, near Penn Station?


----------



## PVD

Some of the NJT traffic which is considerable could be temporarily rerouted which would make single tube ops less awful. Not great, but better than what it is now.


----------



## Andrew

If new trans-hudson tunnels were built to another location (instead of Penn Station), where would have been the best place to put them?


----------



## railiner

Andrew said:


> If new trans-hudson tunnels were built to another location (instead of Penn Station), where would have been the best place to put them?


My first choice would be the World Trade Center area...with a new East River Tunnel to connect to the Brooklyn LIRR line.
Other possible locations might be around Columbus Circle...


----------



## Andrew

interesting but what would be your thoughts on tunneling from Hoboken Terminal to Houston street or 14th street in Manhattan instead?


railiner said:


> My first choice would be the World Trade Center area...with a new East River Tunnel to connect to the Brooklyn LIRR line.
> Other possible locations might be around Columbus Circle...


----------



## west point

Underground is too crowded but tunnel from NJ under Hudson river under GCT on to Queens.


----------



## railiner

Andrew said:


> interesting but what would be your thoughts on tunneling from Hoboken Terminal to Houston street or 14th street in Manhattan instead?


Where would the terminal be? What is in that area, as an attraction for passenger's, or what transit connections exist?


----------



## MARC Rider

railiner said:


> Where would the terminal be? What is in that area, as an attraction for passenger's, or what transit connections exist?


Well, the 14th St./Union Square subway station is a major subway junction.


----------



## railiner

MARC Rider said:


> Well, the 14th St./Union Square subway station is a major subway junction.


That would be a long way along 14th Street from the Hudson. The 'L' subway line already runs along it, as far as the 8th Avenue Station, where it meets the A, C, and E lines. There isn't very much around 14th and 8th as a 'destination'.....


----------



## jis

Any new cross Manhattan tunnel will have to be deep tube, possibly at a level lower than the water tunnels. They will not interfere with anything that already exists, except at the one or two stations where the elevator and escalator shafts will have to be positioned so as to not run into anything major that cannot be relocated as they rise to ground level through the subsurface jumble of stuff.


----------



## Andrew

railiner said:


> That would be a long way along 14th Street from the Hudson. The 'L' subway line already runs along it, as far as the 8th Avenue Station, where it meets the A, C, and E lines. There isn't very much around 14th and 8th as a 'destination'.....



Which neighborhood do you think new trans-hudson tunnels should have been bores to?


----------



## jis

__





See what NYC's new, light-filled Penn Station will look like


The new Penn Station will have vaulted ceilings, big screens and ample waiting room.



www.timeout.com


----------



## Austin17

railiner said:


> Where would the terminal be? What is in that area, as an attraction for passenger's, or what transit connections exist?



This group called "Real Transit" developed a proposal years ago for extending NJT from Hoboken across the river to a terminal at 14th St and 11th Ave in Manhattan. The proposal would extend the 7 south from 34th St and the L west from 8th Avenue to the proposed spot. Pretty straightforward. Here's a link to their website.

Another interesting development: Last week, the New York Daily News editorial board came out against Penn South:



> Instead of Penn South, NJTransit’s pricey stub-end station, Cuomo must pursue a more visionary, cheaper option: Lengthen Penn’s Tracks 1-4 to Moynihan and dig a direct connection to Grand Central, realizing a century-old dream while expanding Penn’s capacity. Then all New Yorkers, from Westchester, Long Island and Rockland/Orange (and NJT) could access both Penn and Grand Central. Everyone can go everywhere.



Not that I think this will make much difference, but it's certainly nice to see one of the prominent papers endorse it.


----------



## Ziv

OK, that comment just begs for a threadjack...
What were your favorites for low/mid level hotels in London and Paris? I will trade you my favorite Naxos and Athens hotels.
Athens it is Hotel Attalos, a tiny little hole in the wall place 200 m. from Monastiraki Metro, just $100US or so. Elevators are so small that if you are wearing a backpack only you can fit in them. But the rooms are completely renovated and the back ones have beautiful balconies over looking the city.
In Naxos it is the Hotel Coronis, overlooking the marina, the Aegean plus the church, which has a beautiful carillon that plays on Sunday mornings. And the nearby Cafe Bossa has an outstanding deal for cappuccino and croissants in the morning, just 4 Euros. I want to say that the hotel was $65US, so it is basic but nice. The upper level corner rooms are very much worth asking for.
Sorry, I take travel seriously and hearing that Jis had favorites in two of the great cities made me ask.
;-)
I hate to say it, but I think travel is what I have missed most these past 10 months.



jis said:


> ...
> 
> Actually the work trips to London and Paris (when for a period we were active participants in a European Commission project) which happened frequently through the '90s were just the opposite in terms of lodging arrangements. Typically the hotels that I stayed in were closer to center city trading in creature comfort a bit for getting reasonable rates. I seemed to have used a fixed set of low/mid price hotels both in London and Paris near the city center recommended by the locals, and I commuted out to the sticks where the offices were located. I was a heavy user of local commuter passes on the transit system which is excellent in those two cities.


----------



## jis

Ziv said:


> OK, that comment just begs for a threadjack...
> What were your favorites for low/mid level hotels in London and Paris? I will trade you my favorite Naxos and Athens hotels.


Instead of thread jacking I chose to thread split and have placed my response at:



https://www.amtraktrains.com/threads/convenient-relatively-inexpensive-hotels-in-europe.78261/


----------



## Andrew

Austin17 said:


> This group called "Real Transit" developed a proposal years ago for extending NJT from Hoboken across the river to a terminal at 14th St and 11th Ave in Manhattan. The proposal would extend the 7 south from 34th St and the L west from 8th Avenue to the proposed spot. Pretty straightforward. Here's a link to their website.
> 
> Another interesting development: Last week, the New York Daily News editorial board came out against Penn South:
> 
> 
> 
> Not that I think this will make much difference, but it's certainly nice to see one of the prominent papers endorse it.



Instead of extending the 7 train South, why not just connect the new NJ Transit tunnels from Hoboken to 14th street and 8th Avenue, where connections can be made to the A, C, E and L subways?


----------



## railiner

I had always thought that instead of the current East Side Access plan soon to be completed, via the new 63rd Street Tunnel, they should have built a junction with the old East River Tunnels, accessible from both directions to a new line under Madison Avenue up to Grand Central, with a connection to the existing MN tracks.... Think of all the possibilities that would have allowed....


----------



## Palmetto

I like that idea, but isn't digging under Manhattan a pain in the you-know-where with all the utility pipes and cables?


----------



## joelkfla

railiner said:


> I had always thought that instead of the current East Side Access plan soon to be completed, via the new 63rd Street Tunnel, they should have built a junction with the old East River Tunnels, accessible from both directions to a new line under Madison Avenue up to Grand Central, with a connection to the existing MN tracks.... Think of all the possibilities that would have allowed....


But no increase in capacity under the river.


----------



## PVD

Well, the 63rd st tunnel isn't new, construction started in 1969. The original concept was a new East Side Terminal, link to the full 2nd Ave Subway. That concept was abandoned years ago, the tunnel was there but not used until the subway was connected, and the LIRR deck is still pending ESA.


----------



## John Bobinyec

railiner said:


> I had always thought that instead of the current East Side Access plan soon to be completed, via the new 63rd Street Tunnel, they should have built a junction with the old East River Tunnels, accessible from both directions to a new line under Madison Avenue up to Grand Central, with a connection to the existing MN tracks.... Think of all the possibilities that would have allowed....



I've been told that the Lexington Avenue subway line was in the way, so they didn't do that.

jb


----------



## jis

John Bobinyec said:


> I've been told that the Lexington Avenue subway line was in the way, so they didn't do that.
> 
> jb


There are two things getting confounded...

1. There was the ARC Alternative G, which was to build a new pair of tunnels to connect the low number tracks of Penn Station into the lower level of Grand Central Terminal. This was considered to be prohibitively expensive and required moving at least one of the tunnels of the Lexington Avenue Subway. MTA kiboshed it saying "no way, no how". Additional problem was that now one had thought through the traffic flow issue if you inserted a pile of trains from Penn station into the already messy situation at Grand Central.

2. What @railner is proposing is different, and I am almost certain is not buildable without rebuilding the East River tunnels themselves on a different alignment. And that has less than zero chance of being taken seriously by anyone. And again, no one has thought through the traffic flow issues that ensue. It is almost certain that MTA will kibosh this idea on traffic flow issues even if people could come up with the $10 billion or something like that needed to build it after disrupting eastbound traffic, including access to Sunnyside Yard from Penn Station for years, while the tunnels are realigned.


----------



## railiner

Palmetto said:


> I like that idea, but isn't digging under Manhattan a pain in the you-know-where with all the utility pipes and cables?





John Bobinyec said:


> I've been told that the Lexington Avenue subway line was in the way, so they didn't do that.
> 
> jb



Digging from 31st or 33rd Streets up to 42nd Street wouldn't be nearly as far as the new LIRR ESA tunnel...(from 63rd down to around 38th Streets), although making the junction to all 4 East River lines would take a lot of work. 

The Lexington Avenue subway line runs under Park Avenue until around 41st Street where it transitions Northeast over to Lexington. So if the new line from Penn would travel under Madison, it should not impact the Lexington subway line. It could also transition diagonally parallel to the subway to reach the lower level GCT tracks..

As far as the engineering difficulty that @jis mentioned...I had not taken that into account on my proposal. If you would compare the total effort either way, I am not sure that my proposal would have cost more or not, but it certainly would have afforded a lot more traffic flow options. Even more, if additional tubes were constructed. And like the 63rd Street tubes, provision could have been made for a new subway crossing piggybacked with it, to provide another crossing to Queens...

Anyway, it's all moot now...


----------



## jis

@railiner, Your proposal (actually a vrsion pretty close to it) was considered in the early days when the ARC MIS document was being developed (this was in the '70s, it's been a while). It was rejected for reasons I described. It did not make it to the list of plausible Alternatives that were presented in the ARC MIS document.


----------



## jiml

Lots of interesting data in this thread.


----------



## west point

The Daily news ignored an item about Penn south. The very long range plans are to extend the stub tracks to become thru tracks then thru east river tunnel bores 5 and 6. The new bores are possible because they will duplicate the same elevations as the present East river tunnel bores. Then Penn south can become the main Amtrak platforms with its wider platforms. 

However bores 5 and 6 cannot be started as they come very close to either Water main 1 or 2 in elevation. Water main #3 has to be completed and connected south of Penn before the proposed bores 5 and 6 can be started. Then Penn south will become the main platforms for most of the Amtrak thru trains and will connect to Sunnyside yard SSY as well.. 

One thought 5 and 6 could be started from the Queens side stopping short of the water main until water main 3 is connoted speeding up the final connection to Penn south. Any chance that would happen? Not likely ?

Do not worry most of us will be long gone before it is completed but still we can hope.


----------



## jis

west point said:


> The Daily news ignored an item about Penn south. The very long range plans are to extend the stub tracks to become thru tracks then thru east river tunnel bores 5 and 6. The new bores are possible because they will duplicate the same elevations as the present East river tunnel bores. Then Penn south can become the main Amtrak platforms with its wider platforms.
> 
> However bores 5 and 6 cannot be started as they come very close to either Water main 1 or 2 in elevation. Water main #3 has to be completed and connected south of Penn before the proposed bores 5 and 6 can be started. Then Penn south will become the main platforms for most of the Amtrak thru trains and will connect to Sunnyside yard SSY as well..
> 
> One thought 5 and 6 could be started from the Queens side stopping short of the water main until water main 3 is connoted speeding up the final connection to Penn south. Any chance that would happen? Not likely ?
> 
> Do not worry most of us will be long gone before it is completed but still we can hope.


Can you provide a citation or a reference to a document that presents this or otherwise point to a source? Thanks.

There is a reason I ask this question.

Water Tunnel 1 is nowhere near the path of the projected tunnels 5 and 6. You are probably confusing yourself with the recollection that eastward construction from the earlier ARC deep station under 34th St was blocked by Water Tunnel 1. But that is history, long gone and hopefully forgotten.

The main problem for breaking out to the east from NYPSS is the 7th Ave subway and the 6th Ave subway and PATH tunnels, both of which slope downwards to the south and are a little deeper at 31st or 30th Sts, than at 32nd and 33rd St.

This was discovered in early planning and according to folks at Amtrak NEC Capital Projects (Drew Galloway - now at PB), they changed plans to make the NYPSS tracks (and hence platforms) at a slightly greater depth (~10-15') than the rest of Penn Station so as to be able to needle those tunnels through the maze to the east that it has to pass through while staying within the ruling gradient limits, if and when they get built. Right now there is neither any plan or funding nor any EIS to do so. 

Incidentally it was also Drew Galloway who spearheaded the entire effort to build the approach tunnel under the West Side development to preserve an entry into Penn Station from the projected new Hudson Tunnels.

As for Penn South becoming the main Amtrak station, that is pure speculation based on not much.

Incidentally the grand visionary plan for Penn South also has a four track very deep station under the same Block 780 in a bored tunnel, for use by High Speed service. This is deep enough to not interfere with Tunnel 1, and involves all sorts of additional under river tunnels, and hence unlikely to see the proverbial light of the day.  Maybe you are confusing that part of the draft document with the 8 track Penn South that Cuomo is talking about?


----------



## jis

Interesting article about Gateway Tunnel in Washington Post. Might require subscription to read....



https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/energy/why-a-hudson-rail-tunnel-is-getting-a-washington-reset/2021/02/08/888ceb60-6a0b-11eb-a66e-e27046e9e898_story.html


----------



## jis

Looks like some major stuff might come to pass around Penn Station. Moynihan is just the beginning.....









Empire Station plan adds tracks to Penn, 10 buildings adjacent to station


The planned expansion could come at the expense of more than 200 residents and 9,000 employees who would have to be relocated, according to the report on the Empire Station Complex.



www.newsday.com










Penn Station Area | Empire State Development







esd.ny.gov


----------



## John Bobinyec

jis said:


> Looks like some major stuff might come to pass around Penn Station. Moynihan is just the beginning.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Empire Station plan adds tracks to Penn, 10 buildings adjacent to station
> 
> 
> The planned expansion could come at the expense of more than 200 residents and 9,000 employees who would have to be relocated, according to the report on the Empire Station Complex.
> 
> 
> 
> www.newsday.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Penn Station Area | Empire State Development
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esd.ny.gov


Still notable is no new Penn Station, which remains "stuffed under Madison Square Garden."

jb


----------



## joelkfla

jis said:


> Looks like some major stuff might come to pass around Penn Station. Moynihan is just the beginning.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Empire Station plan adds tracks to Penn, 10 buildings adjacent to station
> 
> 
> The planned expansion could come at the expense of more than 200 residents and 9,000 employees who would have to be relocated, according to the report on the Empire Station Complex.
> 
> 
> 
> www.newsday.com


PAYWALL!


----------



## Andrew

railiner said:


> That would be a long way along 14th Street from the Hudson. The 'L' subway line already runs along it, as far as the 8th Avenue Station, where it meets the A, C, and E lines. There isn't very much around 14th and 8th as a 'destination'.....



New hudson tunnels can be built to 14th street and 8th Avenue which can act as a convenient transfer station to the subway--which would also help offload Penn Station.


----------



## Andrew

Or, instead of going to Penn Station, what about building new tunnel to Hudson Yards, like what NYC did with the 7 train?


----------



## jis

John Bobinyec said:


> Still notable is no new Penn Station, which remains "stuffed under Madison Square Garden."
> 
> jb


Even that might change is what I am hearing rumblings about (again)


----------



## jis

Trottenberg Commits to Gateway Project - Railway Age


If confirmed Deputy Secretary of Transportation, Polly Trottenberg will make the Gateway Tunnel Project a priority, she said during her confirmation hearing before the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.




www.railwayage.com


----------



## Andrew

The GDC mentioned this past Friday that procurement is moving forward for the PNB project and utility relocation has begun for the final phase of the Hudsin Yards Concrere Casing.

I'm sure that some of you still believe that tunnels should be built to a different location instead of the current Penn Station.


----------



## west point

The new tunnel bores must go to NYP. The old tunnel casings are getting in desperate condition with many leaks. Note all the water located in this link.
In a leaky underwater rail tunnel, workers race against time (msn.com)


----------



## Maverickstation

west point said:


> The new tunnel bores must go to NYP. The old tunnel casings are getting in desperate condition with many leaks. Note all the water located in this link.
> In a leaky underwater rail tunnel, workers race against time (msn.com)



That is an excellent article about the state we find the Hudson River Tunnels in today. It has been well over a hundred and 20 years since Tunnel Engineer Charles Jacob was brought into the fold by Austin Corbin to plan the first of the tunnels. The fact that they have lasted this long is a testimony to the talents of these visionaries.

It is not out of the realm of possibility that either, or both tracks could wind up out of service for an extended time, imagine what that would do to service along the Northeast Corridor. Hoboken Terminal and New York Penn would wind up being end points.

For anyone interested in a detailed account of the original tunnel planning and construction, I highly recommend the book, The Late, Great, Pennsylvania Station, by Lorraine B. Diehl.

Ken


----------



## jis

Buttigieg: $11.6B Hudson River Tunnel a Biden DOT priority


The transportation secretary told lawmakers that the environmental impact statement necessary to move the project along should be complete by June.




www.constructiondive.com


----------



## neroden

jis said:


> There are two things getting confounded...
> 
> 1. There was the ARC Alternative G, which was to build a new pair of tunnels to connect the low number tracks of Penn Station into the lower level of Grand Central Terminal. This was considered to be prohibitively expensive and required moving at least one of the tunnels of the Lexington Avenue Subway. MTA kiboshed it saying "no way, no how". Additional problem was that now one had thought through the traffic flow issue if you inserted a pile of trains from Penn station into the already messy situation at Grand Central.



The official reason for not doing Alternative G was none of these. I kid you not: it was that the real estate which it would have to run under is "too expensive". Right there in the Major Investment Study and the Alternatives Analysis. The analysis may have been wrong, but it said the actual construction was cheaper than all other alternatives, the operations were cheaper than all other alternatives, the ridership was highest, but that real estate acquisition costs would be very high. They were also concerned about "uncertainty" with the effects on "existing operations" but that frankly seemed minimal by the time they abandoned Alt G. I believe they would have had to move the connector between the 42nd St. Shuttle and the Lexington Avenue Line, and of course lose the Oyster Bar.

The official reason for rejecting it was not wanting to pay off the owners of a bunch of very valuable skyscrapers for the curve from north-south to east-west. This may even have been correct, as those rich owners are quite capable of causing massive costs and massive delays (take a look at how Beverly Hills delayed LA's Purple Line). But at the time it felt like they were looking for excuses to ignore the results of their own study.


----------



## Gemuser

neroden said:


> The official reason for not doing Alternative G was none of these. I kid you not: it was that the real estate which it would have to run under is "too expensive".


Pardon my ignorance but " real estate costs" for a tunnel!? I am assuming you mean the actual tunnel and not access points & other items that would actually infring on existing buildings.


----------



## MARC Rider

Gemuser said:


> Pardon my ignorance but " real estate costs" for a tunnel!? I am assuming you mean the actual tunnel and not access points & other items that would actually infring on existing buildings.


If you own a parcel of land, you own it all the way down to the center of the earth. Thus, if someone wants to dig a tunnel under your skyscraper, they have to pay you whatever you want to charge them. If you're the typical New York real estate mogul, that will, indeed be a very, very high figure. This is in addition to the cost of whatever technical measures are needed to keep the skyscraper you're tunneling under from falling down.


----------



## tricia

MARC Rider said:


> If you own a parcel of land, you own it all the way down to the center of the earth.....



Unless the subsurface rights have been sold separately from the surface land. Very common in mining country. Dunno about NYC.


----------



## MARC Rider

tricia said:


> Unless the subsurface rights have been sold separately from the surface land. Very common in mining country. Dunno about NYC.


Yeah, I guess that could happen. That would just make it worse, as then you'd have two parties with whom to negotiate. (Whoever owns the skyscraper on the surface is going to be very concerned that the tunneling won't cause his skyscraper to collapse.)


----------



## MARC Rider

Just for fun, more controversy about the Penn Station redevelopment. I don't think this affects the new Hudson river tunnels, but I believe that the idea is to get some big bux for the real estate development to pay for improvements for the station. That's probably not controversial. The problem seems to be the scale and nature of the proposed devleopment.

Activists rally against massive new development planned for Penn Station area (msn.com)


----------



## jis

It is the proposal to raze Block 780 to build Penn Station South that has got some activists riled up. That is a completely expected thing. They also got up in arms about the Hudson Yard development until an appropriate amount of money changed hands AFAICT.

Ultimately it will depend on what real estate owners wish to see happen. At least in the NY real estate market money talks and everything else walks, and bigger the money, louder the action.


----------



## Bob Dylan

jis said:


> It is the proposal to raze Block 780 to build Penn Station South that has got some activists riled up. That is a completely expected thing. They also got up in arms about the Hudson Yard development until an appropriate amount of money changed hands AFAICT.
> 
> Ultimately it will depend on what real estate owners wish to see happen. At least in the NY real estate market money talks and everything else walks, and bigger the money, louder the action.


At least a certain Family now residents of Florida wont be involved in this Scheme!


----------



## Gemuser

MARC Rider said:


> If you own a parcel of land, you own it all the way down to the center of the earth. Thus, if someone wants to dig a tunnel under your skyscraper, they have to pay you whatever you want to charge them. If you're the typical New York real estate mogul, that will, indeed be a very, very high figure. This is in addition to the cost of whatever technical measures are needed to keep the skyscraper you're tunneling under from falling down.


Thank you for your answer.
To me that is a very strange sitution, as in my state NSW, at least, all sub surface rights are retained by the "crown" [the state government], if they want a tunnel [or a mine for that matter] they simply order it & in the case a tunnel you get nothing unless it causes damage to your assets in which the usual property laws apply.


----------



## neroden

Yep, that's how it works in the US where the rights aren't separated, and in most of NY they aren't. I own rights to the center of the earth for my house, for instance.

The government can eminent-domain an easement for a tunnel. So the skyscraper owner can't charge *arbitrary* amounts. The courts will rule on the "fair value" of the underground easement necessary for the tunnel, and then the transit agency would pay that much in a forced sale. But it can be a long, slow process involving lots of lawyers.


----------



## Andrew

So if we only had to do one trans-hudson tunnel Project, than is Gateway the best use of taxpayer's money?


----------



## IndyLions

I would say yes - because from an outsider's view it has been studied to death.

It's time to get on with it - a catastrophic event is always possible given the current condition of the tunnel(s).


----------



## west point

Andrew: Your question may mislead some to think you mean just one bore.. Just a gentle reminder to persons new to these discussions. International tunnel constructions specifications are rigid.. Any tunnel system now built has to have at least 2 separate bores connected by cross passageways approximately every 800 feet. That is for fire protection and escape ways for passengers.


----------



## joelkfla

west point said:


> Andrew: Your question may mislead some to think you mean just one bore.. Just a gentle reminder to persons new to these discussions. International tunnel constructions specifications are rigid.. Any tunnel system now built has to have at least 2 separate bores connected by cross passageways approximately every 800 feet. That is for fire protection and escape ways for passengers.


Is that just for underwater crossings? The BART Phase II extension in San Jose is proposed to be single bore.


----------



## jis

joelkfla said:


> Is that just for underwater crossings? The BART Phase II extension in San Jose is proposed to be single bore.


Are you sure it will have no emergency exits to the surface? Is it an under water tunnel?


----------



## Willbridge

MARC Rider said:


> If you own a parcel of land, you own it all the way down to the center of the earth. Thus, if someone wants to dig a tunnel under your skyscraper, they have to pay you whatever you want to charge them. If you're the typical New York real estate mogul, that will, indeed be a very, very high figure. This is in addition to the cost of whatever technical measures are needed to keep the skyscraper you're tunneling under from falling down.


The Edmonton LRT tunnel between Central and Churchill Station goes under a bank. There were jokes about how they came in within budget after they went under the vault. As photo 010 shows the clearance was a bit tight.


----------



## joelkfla

jis said:


> Are you sure it will have no emergency exits to the surface? Is it an under water tunnel?


No, it's just a subway, under dry land. That's why I asked if you were only talking about underwater tunnels.

From what I've seen, it is planned to be a single-bore tunnel built with a boring machine, not cut-and-cover. The 2 tracks will be stacked most of the way.

I guess it depends on how you define "tunnel".


----------



## jis

The best description I could find of BART VTA Phase II is:



https://www.vta.org/sites/default/files/documents/VolumeIII_Appendix%2520B_Project%2520Plans%2520and%2520Profiles_feb20_2018.pdf



If the stacked configuration uses a fireproof floor for the upper level then clearly there is plenty of escape routes. For the non stacked parts there appears to be frequent enough stations or ventilation shafts. So I don't really see why they would require a second tube for those. In any case, I would be quite surprised if their design does not meet current fire codes.


----------



## Andrew

jis said:


> Can you provide a citation or a reference to a document that presents this or otherwise point to a source? Thanks.
> 
> There is a reason I ask this question.
> 
> Water Tunnel 1 is nowhere near the path of the projected tunnels 5 and 6. You are probably confusing yourself with the recollection that eastward construction from the earlier ARC deep station under 34th St was blocked by Water Tunnel 1. But that is history, long gone and hopefully forgotten.
> 
> The main problem for breaking out to the east from NYPSS is the 7th Ave subway and the 6th Ave subway and PATH tunnels, both of which slope downwards to the south and are a little deeper at 31st or 30th Sts, than at 32nd and 33rd St.
> 
> This was discovered in early planning and according to folks at Amtrak NEC Capital Projects (Drew Galloway - now at PB), they changed plans to make the NYPSS tracks (and hence platforms) at a slightly greater depth (~10-15') than the rest of Penn Station so as to be able to needle those tunnels through the maze to the east that it has to pass through while staying within the ruling gradient limits, if and when they get built. Right now there is neither any plan or funding nor any EIS to do so.
> 
> Incidentally it was also Drew Galloway who spearheaded the entire effort to build the approach tunnel under the West Side development to preserve an entry into Penn Station from the projected new Hudson Tunnels.
> 
> As for Penn South becoming the main Amtrak station, that is pure speculation based on not much.
> 
> Incidentally the grand visionary plan for Penn South also has a four track very deep station under the same Block 780 in a bored tunnel, for use by High Speed service. This is deep enough to not interfere with Tunnel 1, and involves all sorts of additional under river tunnels, and hence unlikely to see the proverbial light of the day.  Maybe you are confusing that part of the draft document with the 8 track Penn South that Cuomo is talking about?



I wonder if it would make more sense for one of new Gateway tubes to link up with the westbound express track in Secaucus Junction instead of both new tubes beginning on the south side of the current hudson tunnels?

Also, why not extend tracks from Hoboken Terminal to another location within Manhattan--instead of Penn Station?


----------



## MARC Rider

Andrew said:


> Also, why not extend tracks from Hoboken Terminal to another location within Manhattan--instead of Penn Station?



Because they've already done most of the planning and engineering studies for this alignment, and it might be nice to have new tunnels built before the end of the 23rd Century when we're going to have Star Trek style teleportation everywhere, anyway.


----------



## west point

Some fire code links.
Firing up rail tunnel safety (railway-technology.com) 
Structural Fire Protection of Railway Tunnels (mosen.global) passenger fire safety in railroad tunnels - Bing 
Fire safety measures for road and rail tunnels - Intelligent Transport


----------



## jis

Some proposals for improving the ambiance in the old Penn Station complex....









Here's What a Transformed NYC's Penn Station Will Look Like


A transformed Penn Station would replace windowless concourses and dingy, cramped corridors with light-filled spaces and atriums, along with easier access to an improved streetscape, plans revealed Wednesday show




www.nbcnewyork.com


----------



## MisterUptempo

jis said:


> Some proposals for improving the ambiance in the old Penn Station complex....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here's What a Transformed NYC's Penn Station Will Look Like
> 
> 
> A transformed Penn Station would replace windowless concourses and dingy, cramped corridors with light-filled spaces and atriums, along with easier access to an improved streetscape, plans revealed Wednesday show
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.nbcnewyork.com


Well, I guess it's better than nothing. I guess...

For what should be the premier rail facility located in the nation's largest city, this presentation says a lot about where the nation's priorities are. It's a totally half-assed, compromised proposal, put forth just so we don't have to inconvenience the owner of a couple of middling sports franchises. Time to throw the Dolans out, once and for all. 

The original Penn Station is gone and we can't ever have it back. But the need for a facility designed to address rail transport needs first, and everything else a distant second, is as vital now as it was when Penn was first built. The need will only grow over time. Let fix it right this time. 

The idiom "putting good money after bad" describes this proposal perfectly.


----------



## jis

Penn Station Reconstruction


A commuter-first plan to transform Penn Station into a first-class transit hub that better serves passengers with more space, new retail and amenities, and improved accessibility options.




new.mta.info


----------



## jis

The Draft EIS for the real estate development proposed around Penn Station that will fund part of the redevelopment of Penn Station can be found at:

Empire State Complex Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 1 contains pretty complete and understandable overview. Appendix H is about Hotel Pennsylvania and the decision to demolish it. It does have several nice photos of the building.


----------



## jis

Progress! Finally!


> A critical federal component of the Hudson tunnel project, part of the Gateway Programme on the Northeast Corridor (NEC), has received a Final Environment Impact Statement (EIS) and Record of Decision (ROD) from the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) and Federal Transit Administration (FTA).











US Gateway Hudson tunnel project achieves milestone


A second Hudson River tunnel has come a step closer to reality on the busy New York - Newark section of the Northeast Corridor.




www.railjournal.com


----------



## Andrew

jis said:


> Progress! Finally!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> US Gateway Hudson tunnel project achieves milestone
> 
> 
> A second Hudson River tunnel has come a step closer to reality on the busy New York - Newark section of the Northeast Corridor.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.railjournal.com



This is great news!

But, does anyone think that studying a new alignment into a different part of Manhattan--instead of building new tunnels into Penn Station--would have been better than Gateway?

If so, where would these tunnels be built to?


----------



## me_little_me

Andrew said:


> This is great news!
> 
> But, does anyone think that studying a new alignment into a different part of Manhattan--instead of building new tunnels into Penn Station--would have been better than Gateway?
> 
> If so, where would these tunnels be built to?


NO MORE STUDIES! The project needs to get done. Another study might kill the project if the delay is long enough.


----------



## jis

Andrew said:


> This is great news!
> 
> But, does anyone think that studying a new alignment into a different part of Manhattan--instead of building new tunnels into Penn Station--would have been better than Gateway?


No one interested in getting something built before the 23rd century thinks so.


> If so, where would these tunnels be built to?


The question is moot


----------



## west point

Parts of the EIS interesting.
1. If both old bores were shut at same time capacity into NYP thru new bores would not be as great as the 2 old bores. Track configuration problems ? Penn south will probably solve that problem ?
2. Safety systems in old bores have to be upgraded before rehab can start. EIS said systems are not separate.
3. PCBs may be on floor of tunnel maybe leaking from GG=1s ? MYA L tunnel certainly did not have to worry about PCBs !


----------



## neroden

west point said:


> Parts of the EIS interesting.
> 1. If both old bores were shut at same time capacity into NYP thru new bores would not be as great as the 2 old bores. Track configuration problems ? Penn south will probably solve that problem ?



Yes.



> 2. Safety systems in old bores have to be upgraded before rehab can start. EIS said systems are not separate.
> 3. PCBs may be on floor of tunnel maybe leaking from GG=1s ? MYA L tunnel certainly did not have to worry about PCBs !


Yeah, would be from GG-1s. Yucko.


----------



## jis

An exceptionally good video on the Gateway Tunnel Project. Even though it is a plug for Autodesk, it is too good to ignore.


----------



## Willbridge

jis said:


> An exceptionally good video on the Gateway Tunnel Project. Even though it is a plug for Autodesk, it is too good to ignore.



Well done and the commercial side of it was integrated nicely.


----------



## AmtrakMaineiac

The Infrastructure bill finally passed the House last night. I assume it has money in it for Gateway as part of the 66 Billion for rail? As Speaker Pelosi would say, we have to pass the bill to find out what is in it.


----------



## jis

You can find some details here. It is way more than just the money for Amtrak...









Historic Passenger Rail Infrastructure Bill Passes | Rail Passengers Association | Washington, DC


The trajectory of the U.S. passenger rail network has been fundamentally changed with the passage of the Investment in Infrastructure and Jobs Act (IIJA) into law. We went to sleep last night in one world, and today we woke up in a new one.




railpassengers.org


----------



## DSS&A

US Army Corps issued their permit today that will allow the Gateway Tunnels to be built and the existing tunnels rehabilitated.









Finally! Hudson Tunnel Project receives green light for construction - Railway Track and Structures


With the Army Corps of Engineers issuing a permit for construction, the Hudson Tunnel Project could finally begin in mid-2023.




www.rtands.com


----------



## jis

The contract is now signed for the construction of the Portal North Bridge. Construction begins this year and runs to 2027.









Skanska JV signs deal for $1.5bn US bridge


A Skanska-led joint venture is to build the replacement Portal North Bridge in New Jersey, USA.




www.theconstructionindex.co.uk


----------



## joelkfla

jis said:


> The contract is now signed for the construction of the Portal North Bridge. Construction begins this year and runs to 2027.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skanska JV signs deal for $1.5bn US bridge
> 
> 
> A Skanska-led joint venture is to build the replacement Portal North Bridge in New Jersey, USA.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.theconstructionindex.co.uk


Why does it take 5 years?


----------



## jis

joelkfla said:


> Why does it take 5 years?


----------



## Bob Dylan

joelkfla said:


> Why does it take 5 years?


Be surprised if it's finished On Time and on Budget!


----------



## neroden

joelkfla said:


> Why does it take 5 years?


Bridges, especially over water, take TIME. Some very short bridges over a flood control channel in Ithaca took three years each (they were all done in parallel).

First you often have to put something similar to sandbags down and dewater around where the piers or endwalls are going to go. Big tedious thing. Sometimes you can jackhammer them in without removing the water, which is also a big tedious slow thing. Then you have to dig the holes for the piers or endwalls, and put in the foundation (piers, slurry walls, secant walls, whatever it is); pour the concrete...

Then, at least in certain types of soil, you may have to let the foundation SETTLE for a year (that was actually an explicit part of the construction in these bridges in Ithaca)!

Then you can build the pier or endwall caps (and wait for that concrete to cure).

And then put in the structural spans, and then the deck and the road or railroad or whatever.

And this is a long bridge with a lot of piers. They don't generally do the piers all at once because it's a specialist job and they simply don't have the equipment or specialized labor to do a whole lot in parallel; I'd expect one team working on the in-water piers (basically one at a time), one team for the west-side approach piers (again one at a time), and one for the east-side approach piers (again one at a time). (Three teams because the soil situation is different in the three cases, so it'll be using three different techniques, so three different specialist teams.)

Five years is normal. This is working in a navigable channel and in wetlands, with various restrictions. The entire first year is going to be setting up logistics for moving the equipment in and out without environmental damage and without navigation interference, clearing and dewatering locations around the piers, and foundation work. The second year is probably still going to be all piers and earthmoving. In the third year you may start to see more than half-finished pillars sticking out of the ground or the water. Once all the pillars are up, then the rest will go fairly quickly.


If you want to get a sense of the pacing on this stuff, watch the Roaming Railfan's videos on bridge construction for Brightline. They have the advantage that the endwalls are often already there and can be reused.

It may be counterintuitive, but expect to see construction equipment, barges, cranes, and nothing much above ground level for the first year's construction; nothing but poles sticking out of the land and water for the second year; and then probably in the fourth year, it'll start looking like a bridge practically overnight as the spans go in.


----------



## Metra Electric Rider

There's also material and labor shortages to contend with at the moment - that's making everything more expensive and delayed.


----------



## jis

NJDOT working on how to fund its part of the Gateway Tunnel....





__





N.J. Turnpike negotiates paying $81M a year for new rail tunnel loan






www.msn.com


----------



## jiml

Rating upgrade clears way for $10B Hudson tunnel project (msn.com)


----------



## west point

jis said:


> NJDOT working on how to fund its part of the Gateway Tunnel....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> N.J. Turnpike negotiates paying $81M a year for new rail tunnel loan
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.msn.com


Oh wow!--- $81M = 10 years 810M less than 1-1/10 of cost.


----------



## jis

west point said:


> Oh wow!--- $81M = 10 years 810M less than 1-1/10 of cost.


The total cost is around $12-$13 Billion.

According to a very good article by Streetsblog the net proportions of funding responsibility are:

FTA 39.2%
PANYNJ 24.5%
NY 14.3%
Amtrak 11.4%
NJ 10.6%

NJ is a little lower because it is funding the Portal Bridge non federal part entirely by itself via bonds.

These number are over a year old as of the date of this post and will get revised upward when the project begins and the number of years over which this has to be paid may also increase by a few beyond ten. So take this as a ballk park thing rather than a precise thing.

So assuming total cost of new tunnels plus rehab of existing tunnels which is said to be a shade under $13 Billion, NJ's share is $1.38 Billion. Divided into 10 years, each year is $138 Million. The NJ Turnpike contribution covers a substantial part of it leaving only $57 Million to be found in each year's budget.


----------



## jis

Excellent article from NJ.com with more upto date cost estimates and shares of participating entities.









The Gateway project got a new rating. Now what? Here's what's happening behind the scenes


There are lots of near- and long-term tasks underway to get the project ready for a federal funding agreement, which could be completed in a year.



www.northjersey.com





NJ share absolute amount is $1.84 Billion now, and that is between now and 2035. That would change the calculations a bit in the previous post, but still $81 million per year from the Turnpike Authority would be close to half of the NJ contribution per year.


----------



## west point

As noted the rehab of the old tunnel tubes is a significant cost.


----------



## jis

west point said:


> As noted the rehab of the old tunnel tubes is a significant cost.


I have never been able to get a definitive answer to the question of whether the current Gateway Tunnel cost estimates and appropriations include rehabilitation of the old tubes. This article in Washington Post appears to suggest that it does, and that is why the end date is 2035 for the project - 9 years for the new tubes and 3 years for the rehab = 12 years which gets us out to 2035.

But who knows for sure?


----------



## west point

AFAIK cost is the Rehab of old bores, replacement of sawmill (?) bridge, and some additional track to be expanded to 4 MT. Also track work at NYP with new puzzle switches to enable new bores access to tracks 1 - 15 I believe. As well a full CP connecting all tracks where new and old bore tracks will meet in NJ. That is only way the new bores would meet same operational fluidity of old bores.

Another cost is access to the diggings. That as far as I know that has not been settled. Heard suggestion if new bores trackwork could be installed to NJ portal the spoil could be trained out on Amtrak tracks. If some spoil was suitable then it could be dumped on side of ROW that is eventually be expanded to 4 MT..

That alternative will be a possibility as start on new bores will be some time in future due to ventilation shafts have to be dug first.


----------



## jis

west point said:


> AFAIK cost is the Rehab of old bores, replacement of sawmill (?) bridge, and some additional track to be expanded to 4 MT. Also track work at NYP with new puzzle switches to enable new bores access to tracks 1 - 15 I believe. As well a full CP connecting all tracks where new and old bore tracks will meet in NJ. That is only way the new bores would meet same operational fluidity of old bores.


Nothing west of Secaucus Jct is part of the Gateway Tunnel Project. They are however part of the overall Gateway Project.

The current ~$13 Billion covers only the new tunnels and track connections to it at both ends and the rehabilitation of the old tunnels as far as I can tell.

The Sawtooth Bridge or quadruple tracking from Secaucus to Newark is not covered by this budget. Those are separate projects, if and when they happen.

The track work at NYP absent NYPSS is not all that complicated. It is basically extending the northside ladder tracks to the new tunnel tracks, and connecting the new tunnel tracks to the south side ladders north of the diagonal platform.


----------



## joelkfla

jis said:


> The track work at NYP absent NYPS is not all that complicated. It is basically extending the northside ladder tracks to the new tunnel tracks, and connecting the new tunnel tracks to the south side ladders north of the diagonal platform.


What's the difference between NYP & NYPS?


----------



## jis

joelkfla said:


> What's the difference between NYP & NYPS?


NYP is New York Penn Station.

By NYPS I meant to be refering to the proposed New York Penn Station South. Coming to think of it, perhaps it is better to use NYPSS for it.


----------



## joelkfla

jis said:


> NYP is New York Penn Station.
> 
> By NYPS I meant to be refering to the proposed New York Penn Station South. Coming to think of it, perhaps it is better to use NYPSS for it.


Probably ... but I still would've had to ask.


----------



## jis

joelkfla said:


> Probably ... but I still would've had to ask.


NYPSS is actually pretty consistently used in the documents on the project. So people who have been involved will at least not get confused. People who are new to it may need to ask about many things, this being one of those.


----------



## west point

JIS Thanks for the correction . Always get Sawmill and Sawtooth confused.


----------



## jis

west point said:


> JIS Thanks for the correction . Always get Sawmill and Sawtooth confused.


It is called the Sawtooth Bridge because looking from above the edges of that bridge resemble sawtooths.







Here is the EA for the Sawtooth Bridge replacement project:

Sawtooth Bridge Replacement Project Environmental Assessment (EA) (PDF)


----------



## Steve4031

His, those posts about the sawtooth bridge were informative and helpful.


----------



## Willbridge

Steve4031 said:


> His, those posts about the sawtooth bridge were informative and helpful.


Yes. There are lots of people like me who follow this second-hand. 

I was interested to note that one part of the project might be able to use the spoil from another part as fill. We did that in Edmonton for the 1983 extension of the LRT subway. Spoil from the tunnel boring machine was loaded into dump cars and pulled out in the night by Locomotive 2001, formerly of the BC Electric, and originally with the Oregon Electric. It was used as fill for the new yard. We saved many dump truck trips through downtown.


----------



## west point

IMO Sawtooth project is very important. If Sawtooth is complete and for some reason the new Gateway bore are not yet complete, then Sawtooth helps both Amtrak and NJ Transit. At present there is an eastbound track from the NE toward Hoboken. But there is no westbound connection . So westbound trains have to use the eastbound tracks and cross over all NEC tracks at grade to get on westbound track.

Sawtooth is going to add a grade separated westbound tack to connect to the NEC westbound tracks. 
So, if something should happen to one of the old tubes then bi direction travel to Hoboken will be possible. Since Sawtooth can be completed faster than Gateway bores then, IMHO it needs a priority construction schedule. That has not been the case so far as I know. Remember reading the EIS over a year ago?


----------



## jis

west point said:


> IMO Sawtooth project is very important. If Sawtooth is complete and for some reason the new Gateway bore are not yet complete, then Sawtooth helps both Amtrak and NJ Transit. At present there is an eastbound track from the NE toward Hoboken. But there is no westbound connection . So westbound trains have to use the eastbound tracks and cross over all NEC tracks at grade to get on westbound track.
> 
> Sawtooth is going to add a grade separated westbound tack to connect to the NEC westbound tracks.
> So, if something should happen to one of the old tubes then bi direction travel to Hoboken will be possible. Since Sawtooth can be completed faster than Gateway bores then, IMHO it needs a priority construction schedule. That has not been the case so far as I know. Remember reading the EIS over a year ago?


The reverse Kearny Connection track is not part of the current Sawtooth Bridge Replacement Project.


----------



## jis

The $30 Billion is for the entire Gateway Plan covering all new development between Newark and New York Penn Station apparently, including things like the Portal bridges, the Sawtooth bridge and additional to main line track between NY Penn Station and Newark Penn Station.









Amtrak IG: Gateway project needs better management planning - Roll Call


A report by the passenger railroad’s watchdog calls into question its ability to efficiently and effectively implement $30 billion plan.




rollcall.com


----------



## jis

Portal North gets Notice to Proceed. So construction can now commence.


----------



## Amtrak25

west point said:


> IMO Sawtooth project is very important. If Sawtooth is complete and for some reason the new Gateway bore are not yet complete, then Sawtooth helps both Amtrak and NJ Transit. At present there is an eastbound track from the NE toward Hoboken. But there is no westbound connection . So westbound trains have to use the eastbound tracks and cross over all NEC tracks at grade to get on westbound track.
> 
> Sawtooth is going to add a grade separated westbound tack to connect to the NEC westbound tracks.
> So, if something should happen to one of the old tubes then bi direction travel to Hoboken will be possible. Since Sawtooth can be completed faster than Gateway bores then, IMHO it needs a priority construction schedule. That has not been the case so far as I know. Remember reading the EIS over a year ago?



Waterfront Connection has its own rather new bridge and girders. It is not the Pennsy flyover that Sawtooth is. Since all 4 pairs of NJCL trains to and from Hoboken have been gone since the pandemic began, leaving only an eastbound RVL High Bridge train run basically to take employyes to the MMC shop complex that deadheads back from Hoboken it is not currently an operational issue. 

When westbound NJCL trains did use it, they used the lower numbered tracks through Newark Penn, like track 2, and wrong-railed to Rahway so they did not have to crossover much of anything. That is why there has never been a PM westbound Raritan line counterpart.


----------



## jis

More development on Gateway Penn Station South









Designer hired for Penn Station addition as group suggests merging NJ Transit with regional railroads


A transit advocacy group's report called for unifying NJ Transit, Metro-North and the Long Island Rail Road.




www.nj.com





MODERATOR'S NOTE: Please post materiel on single consolidated regional rail , fesibility or lack thereof, to this other thread:






Proposal for NY regional rail


TSTC has made yet another proposal for a consolidated single regional rail authority in the New York area, though some of their claims about what is feasible may be dubious. This is also not exactly the first time that this has been proposed by someone...




www.amtraktrains.com





and focus this thread on changes at NY Penn Station. Thanks.


----------



## jis

More from Trains Magazine on the design contract...









Amtrak awards preliminary design contract for Penn Station expansion - Trains


NEW YORK — Amtrak has awarded a contract to engineering, design, and consulting firm Arup to begin preliminary design for expansion of New York’s Penn Station. The contract, announced Thursday and awarded in partnership with NJ Transit and coordination with New York’s Metropolitan Transportation...




www.trains.com


----------



## jis

Another step...









N.Y., N.J. are in step with each other regarding Gateway Project - Railway Track and Structures


N.Y., N.J. are in step with each other regarding Gateway Project as the two states sign a Memorandum of Understanding outlining funding contributions.




www.rtands.com


----------



## west point

Gosh . All these announcements seem like trying to swim thru molassas. Delay, delay , delay.


----------



## jis

From NY Tines about the cost sharing agreement...









Hudson River Tunnel Project Moves Ahead as States Agree to Share Costs


A project to build new tunnels from New Jersey to Penn Station moved a step closer to construction with an agreement between New York and New Jersey.




www.nytimes.com


----------



## MARC Rider

I passed over the Portal Bridge yesterday. Looks like they're staging construction equipment, and maybe they've even turned some dirt, unless that's for someone else's project. Which side of the current bridge is the replacement going to be built?


----------



## west point

MARC Rider said:


> I passed over the Portal Bridge yesterday. Looks like they're staging construction equipment, and maybe they've even turned some dirt, unless that's for someone else's project. Which side of the current bridge is the replacement going to be built?


North side. That is right side of train leaving NYP or left side arriving NYP.


----------



## joelkfla

NYTimes article Aug. 31, 2022 (unlocked):

"The crucial Gateway transit link from New Jersey to New York will now open three years later than expected and is likely to cost $2 billion more to construct."


----------



## jis

joelkfla said:


> NYTimes article Aug. 31, 2022 (unlocked):
> 
> "The crucial Gateway transit link from New Jersey to New York will now open three years later than expected and is likely to cost $2 billion more to construct."


Possibly the first of many such given what happened to ESA before this. I think there is a slim chance that I will see this completed in my lifetime.


----------



## Long Train Runnin'

Jis I am not sure who else to ask, but I have a feeling you have a pretty good idea. 

What I can't yet visualize is where the new tubes will enter Penn Station. 

This photo is taken basically directly above the current two tubes. To the right are the tracks leading to empire tunnel. 

Just seems pretty crowded down there...


----------



## jis

Long Train Runnin' said:


> View attachment 29642
> 
> 
> Jis I am not sure who else to ask, but I have a feeling you have a pretty good idea.
> 
> What I can't yet visualize is where the new tubes will enter Penn Station.
> 
> This photo is taken basically directly above the current two tubes. To the right are the tracks leading to empire tunnel.
> 
> Just seems pretty crowded down there...


There are two tracks between the Empire Connection and the bathtub wall to the south of it (on the side away from the current tubes). The tracks from the new Hudson tubes will connect to those. Actually the approach tunnels are already in place. All that has to be done is to knock down the bathtub wall and dig a short connecting segment.

All this would be on the right hand side of this photo but out of its field.

The Teal colored tracks in the schematic below are the new tracks that will go in place as part of the Gateway related construction. This is before NYP South is constructed.


----------



## west point

JIS Glad you posted the planned track lay out. If you could post it as a locked reference thread it might help many of our posters especially newer posters. 
Comments on the lay out.
1. Certainly helps that Empire tunnel will access above the present station track 8 limit future to track 18. Should never need those higher tracks normally but--- .
2. Puzzle that new tunnel bores tracks 1 & 4 will only have 1 route to / from station tracks 9 - 18? Another indication that plan is for NJT to mainly use station tracks 1 - 8 ?
3. I supppose that itis way too early to know exactly where the tracks to Penn South will connect to tunnel tracks 1 & 4 ?
4. Reference #3 are there impediments for tracks 1E & 2E to connect to new tunnel tracks 1 & 4.
5. Interesting that present North river tunnel bores already numbered as tracks 2 & 3.
6. Somehow I had not realized that Lines 3 & 4 could only access station tracks 14 and higher. 
7. Which East river tunnel Line is going to be closed for rehab first?. Can understand when Line 3 & 4 are how each closed is going to effect LIRR service to NYP.
8. Are JO and C interlockings controlled from same location? Noticed they overlap station tracks 14 - 17.


----------



## Long Train Runnin'

Thanks Jis. I knew I was missing something. That track diagram really helps make it clear for me.


----------



## Steve4031

That map diagram is awesome. Solves a lot of Penn Station mysteries for me. I knew about some of it, but the visuals are very clear.


----------



## west point

It would be great if this site could have a locked section of major station track diagrams. Include present lay out with planned improvements as the above NYP map has. Ones I think of would be BOS, BON, New Haven, SSY, NYP, PHL, WASH, CHI, LAX.
EDIT added SSY.


----------



## jis

The track diagram that I posted above is the Gateway Phase I diagram. The overall fully completed Gateway track diagram that is proposed for Penn Station and Penn Station South looks like this:






One thing to note about the new tunnels is that they carry tracks 1 and 4 which are the tracks normally used to commuter and slower service between Newark and Trenton. They are the so called "outer" tracks with lower speed limits. The track diagram at Penn Station suggest that the new tunnels are primarily for use by train terminating at Penn Station since they have the most seamless access to the terminating platforms. Accessing the other platforms involves significant conflicting moves.


----------



## west point

jis said:


> Accessing the other platforms involves significant conflicting moves.


That is going to be a problem wile the North river tunnel bores are being rehabbed. If you can start as an administrator a locked thread in Amtrak thread with Amtrak rail yards then each rail yard title listed separately. Your two NYP diagrams could be a start.


----------



## jis

west point said:


> That is going to be a problem wile the North river tunnel bores are being rehabbed. If you can start as an administrator a locked thread in Amtrak thread with Amtrak rail yards then each rail yard title listed separately. Your two NYP diagrams could be a start.


Not as much of a problem since closing the old tunnel(s) will remove or significantly reduce the conflicting moves. The conflicts come in or go out through those tunnels.


----------



## Touchdowntom9

Can someone explain why the portal north bridge is being built with only 2 tracks vs 4? Sorry if this was discussed earlier but seems like a gigantic oversight for a bridge so unbelievably expensive. I know they plan for a portal south bridge but I don't really understand why they cant link a 4 track portal north bridge to the existing tunnels and the newly planned tunnels and therefore only have to build 1 bridge vs 2 (it will take a millennium for that second bridge to be built).


----------



## jis

Unavailability of funding to be able to build a four track bridge and the new tunnels at the same time. Also a two track portal does not create show stopping congestion for the envisaged traffic for the next 15 years.


----------



## Touchdowntom9

jis said:


> Unavailability of funding to be able to build a four track bridge and the new tunnels at the same time. Also a two track portal does create show stopping congestion for the envisaged traffic for the next 15 years.


Where exactly is the second bridge supposed to be built? Can’t really find any maps online, but is it supposed to be built where the current bridge stands today while the portal north is being build slightly north of the current bridge? Or will this be more offset? Seems like the completion of both bridges will be equally as important as the new tunnels given capacity won’t increase without all of those projects being completed


----------



## joelkfla

jis said:


> Also a two track portal does create show stopping congestion for the envisaged traffic for the next 15 years.


Did you mean to have a "not" in there?


----------



## jis

joelkfla said:


> Did you mean to have a "not" in there?


Yup. Fixed. Thanks.


Touchdowntom9 said:


> Where exactly is the second bridge supposed to be built? Can’t really find any maps online, but is it supposed to be built where the current bridge stands today while the portal north is being build slightly north of the current bridge? Or will this be more offset? Seems like the completion of both bridges will be equally as important as the new tunnels given capacity won’t increase without all of those projects being completed


It will be north of the current bridge.

Effective capacity will actually increase even without the new bridge simply because of removal of congestion at A interlocking. At present A interlocking is the blocking factor, not the two track infrastructure west of it. The second set of tunnels will alleviate that to a large extent.

As I said before, the additional capacity will be needed in 15 years when additional platform capacity becomes available at Penn Station, hopefully. As it stands even now, full capacity is needed for only one hour each way each day. 

One unknown is whether demand for peak traffic will grow as was projected before given the nature of office usage as it changes following the COVID experience. That is currently an unknown. If peak hour demand does not grow as fast as was projected then growing facilities to support such need not take place as fast either.


----------



## Andrew

jis said:


> Yup. Fixed. Thanks.
> 
> It will be north of the current bridge.
> 
> Effective capacity will actually increase even without the new bridge simply because of removal of congestion at A interlocking. At present A interlocking is the blocking factor, not the two track infrastructure west of it. The second set of tunnels will alleviate that to a large extent.
> 
> As I said before, the additional capacity will be needed in 15 years when additional platform capacity becomes available at Penn Station, hopefully. As it stands even now, full capacity is needed for only one hour each way each day.
> 
> One unknown is whether demand for peak traffic will grow as was projected before given the nature of office usage as it changes following the COVID experience. That is currently an unknown. If peak hour demand does not grow as fast as was projected then growing facilities to support such need not take place as fast either.



Even if trans-hudson train ridership never returns to 2019 levels, new hudson tunnels are needed to provide a more resilient infrastructure and to provide redundancy during service outages.

Also, which one hour each weekday is Penn Station full? (7--8 am or 8--9 am in the morning and which afternoon hour are you referring to)?


----------



## jis

Andrew said:


> Even if trans-hudson train ridership never returns to 2019 levels, new hudson tunnels are needed to provide a more resilient infrastructure and to provide redundancy during service outages.
> 
> Also, which one hour each weekday is Penn Station full? (7--8 am or 8--9 am in the morning and which afternoon hour are you referring to)?


No one has suggested that the new tunnels are not needed. Why are you shadow boxing that point? 

Also nothing has been said about Penn Station being full.


----------



## Ryan

I think he's referring to this statement.


jis said:


> As I said before, the additional capacity will be needed in 15 years when additional platform capacity becomes available at Penn Station, hopefully. As it stands even now, full capacity is needed for only one hour each way each day.


----------



## jis

I should have used the word throughput since I was talking about flow rates on the Portal Bridge. The blockage is not due to platform occupancy but due to congestion at the western throat caused by conflicting moves that will be reduced with additional platforms on the south side. The full 26tph is barely used over a 60-70 minute window in the 7am to 9am period AFAIR.


----------



## west point

For a long time I could not understand the building of Portal South. That was my mistake. It appears from what I have seen that there is not space south of the present swing bridge to build the second bridge. So what appears to be the plan is once Portal North is fully operational the swing bridge will be removed and Portal south will then be built on the swing bridge's alignment. 

North of the North Portal bridge does not have space to build a 4 track bridge. Remember PATH's Harrison station is having to be moved north as much as possible to just clear Portal North's 2 tracks.

What the plans are for financing is left to the future. Since Portal south will have ramps rising to make freeboard clearances the slopped grades will be quite a bit wider at the base than at the track level.


----------



## jis

west point said:


> North of the North Portal bridge does not have space to build a 4 track bridge. Remember PATH's Harrison station is having to be moved north as much as possible to just clear Portal North's 2 tracks.


PATH's Harrison station, which is miles away from Portal, has no relevance to the Portal Bridge. The Portal Bridge tracks pretty much join the original alignment by Swift interlocking. Even the additional tracks after Portal South is constructed, all are slated to fit within the Amtrak RoW in the Swift area, and most certainly through Hudson Yard west of Swift.

In Harrison station the eastbound PATH track will need to be moved in order to make room for track 4, but that has nothing to do with the Portal project or the location of the Portal North bridge.


----------



## Touchdowntom9

jis said:


> Yup. Fixed. Thanks.
> 
> It will be north of the current bridge.
> 
> Effective capacity will actually increase even without the new bridge simply because of removal of congestion at A interlocking. At present A interlocking is the blocking factor, not the two track infrastructure west of it. The second set of tunnels will alleviate that to a large extent.
> 
> As I said before, the additional capacity will be needed in 15 years when additional platform capacity becomes available at Penn Station, hopefully. As it stands even now, full capacity is needed for only one hour each way each day.
> 
> One unknown is whether demand for peak traffic will grow as was projected before given the nature of office usage as it changes following the COVID experience. That is currently an unknown. If peak hour demand does not grow as fast as was projected then growing facilities to support such need not take place as fast either.


So this tunnel project along with the renovations to Penn Station (Penn South) include the removal of the bottleneck found in A Interlocking? 
And one other question, is the eventual result of this project that Amtrak will use Penn South, while NJT and LIRR would utilize the same platforms that they do today? Or will there be a shuffling of platforms for each transit agency. Sorry for the avalanche but doesnt seem very easy to find details on these things via some puffed up press release materials


----------



## Touchdowntom9

jis said:


> PATH's Harrison station, which is miles away from Portal, has no relevance to the Portal Bridge. The Portal Bridge tracks pretty much join the original alignment by Swift interlocking. Even the additional tracks after Portal South is constructed, all are slated to fit within the Amtrak RoW in the Swift area, and most certainly through Hudson Yard west of Swift.
> 
> In Harrison station the eastbound PATH track will need to be moved in order to make room for track 4, but that has nothing to do with the Portal project or the location of the Portal North bridge.


Is that required relocation of the eastbound PATH track included in any of the funded/active projects ongoing? Because didn't they just build a brand new PATH station there? Looking at a map, you are correct in pointing out that at Harrison there seems to be a pinch and I don't know how they would plan on having 4 tracks + 2 path tracks without either repo'ing track between agencies and building a new one or some other major lift


----------



## Andrew

The GDC is looking at potentially moving some parts of The Hudson Tunnel Project forward before a FFGA gets signed.

I wonder if it would make sense to have the third section of The Hudson Yards Concrete Casing move ahead first. What do you folks think?


----------



## joelkfla

Andrew said:


> The GDC is looking at potentially moving some parts of The Hudson Tunnel Project forward before a FFGA gets signed.
> 
> I wonder if it would make sense to have the third section of The Hudson Yards Concrete Casing move ahead first. What do you folks think?


What's a GDC? What's a FFGA?

Please don't use these acronyms that are not likely to be known by the majority of us. Everyone here is not a transit professional, and these terms are not included in Commonly Used Abbreviations and Terms


----------



## jis

joelkfla said:


> What's a GDC? What's a FFGA?
> 
> Please don't use these acronyms that are not likely to be known by the majority of us. Everyone here is not a transit professional, and these terms are not included in Commonly Used Abbreviations and Terms


GDC = Gateway Development Commission
FFGA = Full Funding Grant Agreement

Now added to the Abbreviations list.


----------



## west point

Everything IMO that can be moved ahead is excellent. Some of the preliminary itens can take alot of time. Especially the utility relocations ( remember the water line for Portal north ). Verticle ventilation shafts can take longeer times as well.


----------



## Andrew

west point said:


> Everything IMO that can be moved ahead is excellent. Some of the preliminary itens can take alot of time. Especially the utility relocations ( remember the water line for Portal north ). Verticle ventilation shafts can take longeer times as well.



The Gateway Development Commission is now looking at both accelerating the Tonnelle Avenue Underpass and the third section of The Hudson Yards Concrete Casing. 

If the Tonnelle Avenue Underpass gets built, why not build the approach structures from Secaucus Junction as well?


----------



## jis

Andrew said:


> The Gateway Development Commission is now looking at both accelerating the Tonnelle Avenue Underpass and the third section of The Hudson Yards Concrete Casing.
> 
> If the Tonnelle Avenue Underpass gets built, why not build the approach structures from Secaucus Junction as well?


Only someone with inside knowledge of the decision making process within GDC can answer that question. I am not aware of any member of AU with such inside access.


----------



## Amtrak25

They started digging on the Jersey side for ARC and stopped very quickly when Christie killed it. Where was that ?


----------

