# Christie kiled the ARC tunnel



## Dutchrailnut

It's official!


----------



## Devil's Advocate

What a surprise. Get ready for a lot more of these sorts of press releases after the midterms.


----------



## Dutchrailnut

20 years of planning(even if its bad planning), and fat boy sends it down the drain.

maybe he does not realize he is screwing middle class, it takes jobs to pay taxes.

It takes transportation to get to these jobs.

If project cost is 8.7 now no matter how you slice it it will be 10.8 when restarted after fat boy is gone.


----------



## Devil's Advocate

You don't think the opening post was cut back _far more_ than is necessary to avoid copyright complications? Not every infraction requires a sledge hammer to correct. :excl:


----------



## MrFSS

daxomni said:


> You don't think the opening post was cut back _far more_ than is necessary to avoid copyright complications? Not every infraction requires a sledge hammer to correct.


The OP quoted the ENTIRE article. That is against copyright rules and the rules of this forum.


----------



## Nexis4Jersey

Good , goodbye flawed other projects killing project , this tunnel has been a NJT Fetish since day one , kinda like the MBTA's Urban Ring BRT.....There poorly planned and don't take in any future expansions.


----------



## Dutchrailnut

The original was a press release by both NJ, reuters, NJT, and oters read rules for fair use..


----------



## Shawn Ryu

I support Chris Christie. Hes a breath of fresh air compared to the Democrat Corzine.

And hey, NJ cant spend money they dont have. Period.

It takes jobs to pay taxes. But it takes lower taxes to attract jobs.


----------



## PRR 60

I don't think it is a coincidence that those who are most upset by Governor Christi canceling the project are not from New Jersey. If New York residents want the tunnel, how about anteing up a few bucks. New Jersey and New Jersey taxpayers were taking a huge risk with this project. If costs ran over estimate, New Jersey would have been on the hook for potentially billions. I am grateful this governor had the courage to pull the plug on a bad deal.

If New York City, New York State, or the feds have a better deal for New Jersey taxpayers, step on up. Otherwise, with no financial stake in the tunnel and nothing to lose if things go wrong, New Yorkers and the New York Times should mind their own business.


----------



## Eric S

Weren't the costs going to be split between the feds ($3 billion), Port Authority ($3 billion), and state of NJ ($2.7 billion)? That doesn't seem to be a completely unreasonable break-down. New Jersey would seem to gain the most from the project, so its share ($2.7 billion plus 1/2 of $3 billion) was largest; New York gains from the project as well, so it ought to bear some of the cost burden, which it would have ($1.5 billion, 1/2 of PA's $3 billion); and the nation as a whole benefits somewhat, so it was to bear some of the burden.

All that being said, I found it quite frustrating that NJT & Amtrak could not work together to find a way to construct and tunnel that would serve both railroads.


----------



## sechs

Shawn Ryu said:


> It takes jobs to pay taxes. But it takes lower taxes to attract jobs.


I guess this is why so many in New Jersey need to commute to New York for work.


----------



## PRR 60

Eric S said:


> Weren't the costs going to be split between the feds ($3 billion), Port Authority ($3 billion), and state of NJ ($2.7 billion)? That doesn't seem to be a completely unreasonable break-down. New Jersey would seem to gain the most from the project, so its share ($2.7 billion plus 1/2 of $3 billion) was largest; New York gains from the project as well, so it ought to bear some of the cost burden, which it would have ($1.5 billion, 1/2 of PA's $3 billion); and the nation as a whole benefits somewhat, so it was to bear some of the burden.
> 
> All that being said, I found it quite frustrating that NJT & Amtrak could not work together to find a way to construct and tunnel that would serve both railroads.


The primary source of PA revenue is from bridge and tunnel tolls, and those tolls are primarily paid by NJ residents going into New York. There is relatively little reverse auto commuting from New York into New Jersey. In that respect, the PA contribution is not really 50% from New York. It is primarily from NJ motorists.

More fundamentally, the federal and PA contributions are fixed. If the project comes in on estimate, the NJ contribution would be $2.7 billion. But if the project came in $2 billion over estimate, NJ picks up the entire tab for the overrun. The NJ contribution would balloon to $4.7 billion. Some estimates are now saying the final cost could be $6 billion over estimate. NJ taxpayers would be on the hook for $8.7 billion. NJ and NJ taxpayers are assuming all the risk of this project, and that is a bad deal.

For anyone who thinks the cost of a project like this will not overrun, I have two words: Big Dig.


----------



## AlanB

PRR 60 said:


> I don't think it is a coincidence that those who are most upset by Governor Christi canceling the project are not from New Jersey. If New York residents want the tunnel, how about anteing up a few bucks. New Jersey and New Jersey taxpayers were taking a huge risk with this project. If costs ran over estimate, New Jersey would have been on the hook for potentially billions. I am grateful this governor had the courage to pull the plug on a bad deal.
> 
> If New York City, New York State, or the feds have a better deal for New Jersey taxpayers, step on up. Otherwise, with no financial stake in the tunnel and nothing to lose if things go wrong, New Yorkers and the New York Times should mind their own business.


This New Yorker, formerly NJ resident who lived in one of the areas that will be most affected by the failure of Christie to continue to the project, happens to be for the project. But I'm for the project not because I see any benefit to NY; there is none. I see the benefit for NJ. NY doesn't care if NJ builds this tunnel. There is no benefit to NY. In fact, NJ's failure to build this tunnel just means that more jobs go to New York residents instead of NJ residents. That's why NY isn't helping to pay.

And while I do understand that NJ would be on the hook for cost overruns and that's not something that allowences were made for, those $6, $7, and $8 Billion numbers being tossed around are numbers that Christie is using simply to justify a decision he had already made a while back. Even the Fed is not predicting such numbers, they're talking maybe $1 to $1.5 Billion in overruns.


----------



## Dutchrailnut

well ARC is back on life support:

http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2010/10/hudson_river_tunnel_project_ma.html


----------



## DET63

Christie Halts Train Tunnel, Citing Its Cost



> By PATRICK McGEEHANPublished: October 7, 2010
> 
> 
> 
> The largest public transit project in the nation, a commuter train tunnel under the Hudson River to Manhattan, was halted on Thursday by Gov. Chris Christie of New Jersey because, he said, the state could not afford its share of the project’s rising cost.
> 
> 
> 
> Mr. Christie’s decision stunned other government officials and advocates of public transportation because work on the tunnel was under way and $3 billion of federal financing had already been arranged — more money than had been committed to any other transit project in America.
> 
> 
> 
> The governor, a Republican, said he decided to withdraw his support for the project on Thursday after hearing from state transportation officials that the project would cost at least $2.5 billion more than its original price of $8.7 billion. He said that New Jersey would have been responsible for the overrun and that he could not put the taxpayers of the state “on what would be a never-ending hook.”


Click on the link above for much more.


----------



## DET63

Dutchrailnut said:


> well ARC is back on life support:
> 
> http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2010/10/hudson_river_tunnel_project_ma.html


Comment in response at the link above:



> *Bearcat21* October 08, 2010 at 4:29PM
> See my post from yesterday regarding this story... Christie is a MASTER at poker. He knows that the socialist regime in Washington would never let a monster building project, with thousands of union jobs (voters) hanging in the balance, they'll bail it out.
> 
> 
> 
> Christie is masterfully playing his hand and in the end will get New Jersey out-from-under this future albatross and the Fed's will pick up the tab or at least assume the risk to the state on any overruns. In the end we'll be at budget... the fed's will get hosed and NJ/NY get their tunnel.
> 
> 
> 
> Dem's... just come to grips with the fact that this guy is really good. Period.


----------



## Devil's Advocate

MrFSS said:


> daxomni said:
> 
> 
> 
> You don't think the opening post was cut back _far more_ than is necessary to avoid copyright complications? Not every infraction requires a sledge hammer to correct.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The OP quoted the ENTIRE article. That is against copyright rules and the rules of this forum.
Click to expand...

And you deleted the ENTIRE article sans links, completely neutering the opening post. Sometimes it's better to use a scalpel instead of machete.


----------



## jis




----------



## Nexis4Jersey

what about these plans , mutiple ARC Routes too absorb the regions growth....and to provide thru service... Yes the maker of the maps did notice the errors on some of the lines but by then it was to late.


----------



## Dutchrailnut

The maker of those maps should stick to dreaming of girls, as Transportation is not his cup of tea.

a dream thats all that is.


----------



## PRR 60

Dutchrailnut said:


> The maker of those maps should stick to dreaming of girls, as Transportation is not his cup of tea.
> 
> a dream thats all that is.


I'm thinking that girls have not been working out that well for him and this is his entertainment.


----------



## Nexis4Jersey

Dutchrailnut said:


> The maker of those maps should stick to dreaming of girls, as Transportation is not his cup of tea.
> 
> a dream thats all that is.


LOL , the person who helped him make it is an Amtrak Engineer , also 2 Transit planners helped him......idk i like his ideas.


----------



## Dutchrailnut

most likely not Civil Engineer and the planners have no technical knowledge.


----------



## jis

All I can say is it is easy to draw lines on maps. And just drawing a bunch of lines on a map does not make it a plan


----------



## Nexis4Jersey

jis said:


> All I can say is it is easy to draw lines on maps. And just drawing a bunch of lines on a map does not make it a plan


So we shouldn't have thru service , every other Major Regional Rail system in the world does and NYC doesn't? Thats absurd and stupid to think like that , we need more Rail lines through Manhattan the system needs to be freeded up some more.


----------



## George Harris

Nexis4Jersey said:


> So we shouldn't have thru service , every other Major Regional Rail system in the world does and NYC doesn't?


Not true, and not even close.


----------



## TVRM610

daxomni said:


> MrFSS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daxomni said:
> 
> 
> 
> You don't think the opening post was cut back _far more_ than is necessary to avoid copyright complications? Not every infraction requires a sledge hammer to correct.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The OP quoted the ENTIRE article. That is against copyright rules and the rules of this forum.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And you deleted the ENTIRE article sans links, completely neutering the opening post. Sometimes it's better to use a scalpel instead of machete.
Click to expand...

I'd like to agree with this... Its seems ridiculous to delete the article without providing a link or something. Seems like someone is power hungry?


----------



## Nexis4Jersey

George Harris said:


> Nexis4Jersey said:
> 
> 
> 
> So we shouldn't have thru service , every other Major Regional Rail system in the world does and NYC doesn't?
> 
> 
> 
> Not true, and not even close.
Click to expand...

Majority of systems do.......except a few.....I mean't cities with huge Regional rail systems.....


----------



## sechs

Chicago and Los Angeles come to mind. LAUS is a stub-end station. Although it has a through track, CUS is also a stub-end station; I believe that all of the other downtown stations are end-of-the-line.


----------



## jis

Nexis4Jersey said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> 
> All I can say is it is easy to draw lines on maps. And just drawing a bunch of lines on a map does not make it a plan
> 
> 
> 
> So we shouldn't have thru service , every other Major Regional Rail system in the world does and NYC doesn't? Thats absurd and stupid to think like that , we need more Rail lines through Manhattan the system needs to be freeded up some more.
Click to expand...

Before you shoot off please read my message carefully one more time. I stated no position regarding the lines drawn on the map. All that I said is just drawing lines on a map does not costitute a plan. Minimally at least some idea of how much it will cost and where the money will come from is a necessary element of a plan.

On the matter of through running, some through running makes sense. But a position that claims that everything must be through run is equally as absurd and dogmatic as no through running. Secondly, every city is unique in it's pattern of traffic flows. Just because through running works on a particular route in one city does say much at all about whether such will work in another city. So "every city has it" ( even though itself an untrue statement) is not a valid argument to justify such all by iself for a city that does not.


----------



## Ryan

sechs said:


> Chicago and Los Angeles come to mind. LAUS is a stub-end station. Although it has a through track, CUS is also a stub-end station; I believe that all of the other downtown stations are end-of-the-line.


Even though may Amtrak trains run through WAS, neither MARC nor VRE provide through service.

So, systems that don't provide run through service:

MARC

VRE

Metrolink

Metra

Systems that do:

???


----------



## Eric S

Ryan said:


> So, systems that don't provide run through service:
> 
> MARC
> 
> VRE
> 
> Metrolink
> 
> Metra
> 
> Systems that do:
> 
> ???


Systems that do: SEPTA. Beyond that, though, I'm at a loss to think of one in the USA or Canada.


----------



## AlanB

Eric S said:


> Ryan said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, systems that don't provide run through service:
> 
> MARC
> 
> VRE
> 
> Metrolink
> 
> Metra
> 
> Systems that do:
> 
> ???
> 
> 
> 
> Systems that do: SEPTA. Beyond that, though, I'm at a loss to think of one in the USA or Canada.
Click to expand...

Actually one has to be careful about saying that MARC doesn't provide run through service. It is correct to make that claim in DC, but in Baltimore MARC does indeed provide run through service.

Also, while I'm uncertain if it's possible to actually buy a "run through" ticket, technically Seattle's Sounder does run through.


----------



## jis

AlanB said:


> Actually one has to be careful about saying that MARC doesn't provide run through service. It is correct to make that claim in DC, but in Baltimore MARC does indeed provide run through service.
> 
> Also, while I'm uncertain if it's possible to actually buy a "run through" ticket, technically Seattle's Sounder does run through.


I think the situation in US is partly because there is an attitude that local railroad is for commuters who travel into the city to work and out again to get back home.

In other countries, irrespective of whether there is run through or not, the general attitude is that local trains are suburban trains that enable people to go from one place to another, generally around the city and is not primarily focused on getting to a job in the city center (though many do use it for that too).

That attitude produces timetables that look very different in nature even when there is no run through, and wherever possible opportunities for run through are exploited much more readily, instead of having endless arguments about whether there will be enough riders riding through, which is what we spend all our energy in, in this country.


----------



## Trogdor

AlanB said:


> Also, while I'm uncertain if it's possible to actually buy a "run through" ticket, technically Seattle's Sounder does run through.


Sounder has two routes which happen to approach Seattle from different directions, but there's only one trip (southbound in the AM, northbound in the PM) where it would even be possible for a passenger to ride from south of Seattle to north of there. I don't know if the equipment even runs through, but I doubt it.

So, if that's a definition of run-through, then you add plenty more systems in the US. Metrolink, you can go "through" LA, Metra can take you "through" Chicago. Heck, if you count different carriers (and why should buying tickets on two different carriers count any different from two tickets on one carrier), you can go "through" New York on commuter rail. Each of those systems mentioned offer many more through-riding opportunities than Sounder does.

Similar to your MARC example, CalTrain does run some trips "through" San Jose.


----------



## jis

Usually in these discussions on run through, the term is used to refer to single seat ride across a main terminal. For example, many SEPTA trains in Philly run through center city. In Paris all RER lines except E run through the center city (Gare du Nord for B, D, Gare de Lyon for A, D, Gare Austerlitz for C), in Tokyo the Sobu - Yokosuka line from say Narita to Kurihama via Tokyo Central, Shinagawa and Yokohama). In addition of course there are oodles of terminating service too in each of those cases.

Strictly speaking then Newark is an example where everything (almost) runs through. Only trains that don't are the RVL trains. Whereas New York Penn, none of the commuter service runs through, only Amtrak does.


----------



## jim hudson

Help needed from you Urban road warriors since it's been awhile since I was in the NE/CHI/LAon a regular basis! IIRC the GO Train system in Toronto is run through and wouldnt the Metro in STL, where we just returned from the Gathering and rode end to end, be considered run through? :unsure: Jim


----------



## Eric S

jim hudson said:


> Help needed from you Urban road warriors since it's been awhile since I was in the NE/CHI/LAon a regular basis! IIRC the GO Train system in Toronto is run through and wouldnt the Metro in STL, where we just returned from the Gathering and rode end to end, be considered run through?
> 
> 
> 
> Jim


I suppose GO Transit's 2 Lakefront lines in Toronto could be considered (and may be operated?) as one run-through line. However, the other GO Transit lines are not.

And MetroLink in St. Louis is a light rail line/system, whereas I believe the original question dealt with commuter/regional rail systems.


----------



## MattW

TRE At the Fort Worth station is a run through, if I recall correctly, there's one stop west of FTW, the T&P Station, but I can't remember if that's a stop for every trip or not or if that even counts.

Railrunner also offers service from Belen straight through to Santa Fe.


----------



## Nexis4Jersey

The Sounder

Rail Runner

Front Runner

Septa

Go Transit

Trinity Railway Express

Metrolink

Caltrain

So why not NYC? There are alot of Reverse commuters going into Jersey form LI or CT or visa versa.....


----------



## jis

Nexis4Jersey said:


> So why not NYC? There are alot of Reverse commuters going into Jersey form LI or CT or visa versa.....


Any citation for what the numbers are?

Also, as a first step, if the numbers justify, through running can be instituted on existing infrastructure without worrying about expensive infrastructure expansion.

Currently the problem faced in the New York area is insufficient operating funds. There is no point in building more infrastructure if we have no plan on how to fund operations. Indeed, I think it is unlikely that any significant new service in the New York area will get added through or otherwise until a stable source of funding for operations is identified and put into place. No one either in NJ or NY has been addressing this specific issue, and have been just winging year to year for now.


----------



## AlanB

jis said:


> Nexis4Jersey said:
> 
> 
> 
> So why not NYC? There are alot of Reverse commuters going into Jersey form LI or CT or visa versa.....
> 
> 
> 
> Any citation for what the numbers are?
> 
> Also, as a first step, if the numbers justify, through running can be instituted on existing infrastructure without worrying about expensive infrastructure expansion.
> 
> Currently the problem faced in the New York area is insufficient operating funds. There is no point in building more infrastructure if we have no plan on how to fund operations. Indeed, I think it is unlikely that any significant new service in the New York area will get added through or otherwise until a stable source of funding for operations is identified and put into place. No one either in NJ or NY has been addressing this specific issue, and have been just winging year to year for now.
Click to expand...

In NY it's actually even worse. The state hasn't increased the level of funding for the MTA is over 10 years now IIRC. What hasn't increased in price in 10 years? :unsure: How they expect the same amount of money to do the same job is beyond me.


----------



## Trogdor

Nexis4Jersey said:


> The Sounder
> 
> Rail Runner
> 
> Front Runner
> 
> Septa
> 
> Go Transit
> 
> Trinity Railway Express
> 
> Metrolink
> 
> Caltrain
> 
> So why not NYC? There are alot of Reverse commuters going into Jersey form LI or CT or visa versa.....


What are you talking about, here? As mentioned, Metrolink and Sounder do *not* offer through service through their main cities. Metrolink offers connecting service (which you can also do in NYC). Sounder offers one connection opportunity per day.

CalTrain only offers service through San Jose (and it is certainly not "reverse commute" service, as the trains to Gilroy are peak direction, peak period only), because the main "destination" on the route is San Francisco. That is no different than NJT offering service through Newark because the main destination for its service is New York. I thought that was made fairly clear in previous posts. You seem to be intentionally choosing to ignore facts inconvenient to your argument.

Further, I think it's a huge stretch to say that TRE really counts in this case because even though it does operate "through" the main downtown station in Forth Worth, it travels less than a mile to its next (and final) stop (which, IIRC, serves mainly as a Park & Ride lot). In my opinion, that hardly counts as a significant through-riding opportunity. Passengers who have jobs any distance west of downtown Forth Worth are no better served by the T&P stop than they are the main intermodal stop.

So, that cuts your list of systems with true "through-running" service in half. Granted, passengers in New York still have to make the transfer (and change operators in New York), but NY is one of the few places where doing so is not that much of an inconvenience (depending on where your origin and destination are) given the amount of service provided.

Personally, I'd much rather have the NYC level of service (even with a Penn Station transfer) than to deal with the transit "service" offered in places like Fort Worth, Salt Lake City, etc.


----------



## Eric S

Nexis4Jersey said:


> The Sounder
> 
> Rail Runner
> 
> Front Runner
> 
> Septa
> 
> Go Transit
> 
> Trinity Railway Express
> 
> Metrolink
> 
> Caltrain


Of those, SEPTA, GO Transit (only on one line), RailRunner, and Front Runner (not yet, but planned) are the only ones that offer through-routed service through the major downtown/central city upon which their service is focused. And only SEPTA and GO Transit are really sizable commuter/regional rail systems somewhat comparable to New York area systems.

Of the large commuter/regional rail systems/networks in the US & Canada, only SEPTA offers anything like what you are suggesting, so New York is hardly unique in not having through-routed service.


----------



## Green Maned Lion

First, in the odd event that somebody thought I might be this Nexis dude, I'm not.



Dutchrailnut said:


> 20 years of planning(even if its bad planning), and fat boy sends it down the drain.
> 
> maybe he does not realize he is screwing middle class, it takes jobs to pay taxes.
> 
> It takes transportation to get to these jobs.
> 
> If project cost is 8.7 now no matter how you slice it it will be 10.8 when restarted after fat boy is gone.


Of course he realizes who he's screwing. Fat boy is a rich, stupid, jerkish, fool who thinks it is more important to support his campaign contributors than to support the people that voted him in to office. Fortunately, though it will take 4 years, what the voters giveth, the voters can taketh away.

That being said, though I am sad that rational thought never played through, we're better off killing this misbegotten silliness then building it. Killing it increases the impetus for construction of a through-traffic tunnel connecting to either Grand Central or Penn Station allowing Amtrak to use it and allowing for later expansion. Building this tunnel as planned with 34th street would have left us stuck with it, and without money for Amtrak, FRA, or somebody else with sense, to supplement the current tunnels.

I'm not glad its gone. I have mixed feelings.



Nexis4Jersey said:


> The Sounder
> 
> Rail Runner
> 
> Front Runner
> 
> Septa
> 
> Go Transit
> 
> Trinity Railway Express
> 
> Metrolink
> 
> Caltrain
> 
> So why not NYC? There are alot of Reverse commuters going into Jersey form LI or CT or visa versa.....


First of all, I don't know many reverse commuters. I am heavily involved in this state's rail advocacy group, and we generally don't talk about reverse commuters, even. People moving through NJ, yes, but not reverse commuters.

That being said, why not NY? Do you enjoy ignoring the obvious? In the New York Metro Area, we have not one, not two, but three major agencies handling commuter mass transit- NY's Metropolitan Transportation Authority, NJ's New Jersey Transit, and the joint Port Authority of New York and New Jersey.

Beyond that, MTA consists of two almost independently operated commuter railroads, and two rapid transit railroads (NYC Subway, SIRR). We're not even talking bus services, here.

So in total, we have four independent state organizations (NJT, PATH, MNCR, LIRR) that operate rail service across borders of four states (NY, NJ, PA, CT) plus a pair of rapid mass transit systems (SIRR, NY Subway). Six organizations, all with their own fiefdoms, egos, budgets, capital expenditures, and planning departments. And in the middle of all this, owner of a good portion of the infrastructure, Amtrak.

And you... want them to work together? Smoothly? Sharing equipment? Personnel? Stations? Are you CRAZY?!?!


----------



## amtrakwolverine

Some more news on this



> TRENTON, N.J. (AP) — Gov. Chris Christie said he'll consider restarting a stalled New Jersey-New York rail tunnel if someone else helps pick up the tab. Otherwise, he said, he's comfortable walking away from the $9 billion project.


http://portal.wowway.net/news/read.php?id=18210973&ps=1011&srce=news_class&action=1&lang=en&_LT=UNLC_USNWU00L1_UNEWS


----------



## jis

Translation, if the feds (or NY or Warren Buffett) promise to cover all cost overruns that NJ can come up with then we will build the tunnel otherwise we will blame the feds (and anyone else that we can think of) for our (NJ's) inability to find the necessary local funds to build the tunnel.


----------



## TVRM610

Green Maned Lion said:


> That being said, though I am sad that rational thought never played through, we're better off killing this misbegotten silliness then building it. Killing it increases the impetus for construction of a through-traffic tunnel connecting to either Grand Central or Penn Station allowing Amtrak to use it and allowing for later expansion. Building this tunnel as planned with 34th street would have left us stuck with it, and without money for Amtrak, FRA, or somebody else with sense, to supplement the current tunnels.
> 
> I'm not glad its gone. I have mixed feelings.


I completely agree GML. This project was so flawed in its design I'm personally glad it's gotten killed. It really never made any sense to me. While Christie killed it for the wrong reasons in my book, I'm still hoping the project is completely dead and they can go back to the drawing board and come up with some less pricey solutions.


----------



## jis

TVRM610 said:


> I completely agree GML. This project was so flawed in its design I'm personally glad it's gotten killed. It really never made any sense to me. While Christie killed it for the wrong reasons in my book, I'm still hoping the project is completely dead and they can go back to the drawing board and come up with some less pricey solutions.


I doubt that the overall price of anything that solves the capacity problems and meets the original goals of ARC as spelled out in the original scoping document will be any less. But I do believe that alternate plans more aligned with at least what was Alternative S and a somewhat pricier Alternative G would certainly give more bang for the buck, i.e. better ROI. Also there may be a better way to stage the construction over a period of time thus keeping the price per year within manageable levels.


----------



## DET63

ARC Tunnel project cancellation a matter of dollars and cents: NJ governor



> *ARC Tunnel: Christie on Wednesday permanently scrapped a $9 billion-plus rail tunnel connecting his state and New York City, a decision that cements his reputation as a cost-cutter and comes at the expense of commuters who endure frequent delays.*
> TRENTON, N.J.
> 
> Gov. Chris Christie says it was all about dollars and cents, but his critics say it was all about politics.
> 
> 
> 
> Christie on Wednesday permanently scrapped a $9 billion-plus rail tunnel connecting his state and New York City, a decision that cements his reputation as a cost-cutter and comes at the expense of commuters who endure frequent delays.
> 
> 
> 
> He said he was sticking by a decision made earlier this month to kill the nation's biggest public works project because of runaway costs. He rejected a variety of financial proposals offered by the federal government to salvage the tunnel under the Hudson River, saying none fully relieved New Jersey of responsibility for overruns.


----------



## jis

Before we go off name calling here, one might want to be aware that a significant portion of the rail advocacy groups around NY and NJ are not particularly unhappy with that particular set of tunnels not being built. Christie probably did half a right thing for mostly the wrong reasons, though he has also mentioned two things:

1. The tunnels should have connected to Penn Station, perhaps to placate the rail advocacy groups.

2. The way to proceed now is to come up with a plan for collaborative development of trans-Hudson capacity with Amtrak, Port Authority and the Feds, which actually makes way more sense and potentially addresses the funding issue to some extent.

But it remains to be see whether he will proceed to do the other half of the right thing.

The tunnels will be needed eventually, in 15 years maybe, but it is not at all clear that this was the best use of the money, the way this set of tunnels was designed. Meanwhile, there are many things that can be done to address immediate overcrowding issues, which ironically is reduced some due to the enormous fare hikes, a definite Christie wrong decision.

But again the fact still remains that unless a stable source of operating bugets can be found, just building capital infrastructure is a waste of money, since there will not be funds available to operate anything on the infrastructure.

Meanwhile, getting the NJT bureaucracy to come to the realization that they cannot just continuously ignore everyone that produces cogent arguments against what they want to do to preserve and expand their bureaucratic fiefdoms at the cost of the taxpayers, is a positive development in and of itself. They do need to understand that they are our employees and need to start to behave reflecting that fact.

Meanwhile in NJ many are relieved that we might actually get some funding again for some intra-state projects like the Lackawanna Cutoff, MOM and West Trenton and Glassboro, which were all pretty much given up as dead for now because of the incessant vacuum cleaner under the Hudson that was sucking up every available penny and then some.


----------



## AlanB

jis said:


> Meanwhile in NJ many are relived that we migtht actually get some funding again for some intra-state projects like the Lackawanna Cutoff, MOM and West Trenton and Glassboro, which were all pretty much given up as dead for now because of the incessant vacuum cleaner under the Hudson that was sucking up every available penny and then some.


I can't imagine that any of the saved money from this project is going to find it's way into any train projects. That won't buy Christie enough votes for his coming Presidential bid. That money will go into the roads so that he can avoid raising the gas tax, and NJ has one of the lowest if not the lowest taxes around, so that he can look like a hero.

And yes, I do agree that the tunnel as planned had issues, but that still didn't make it useless either.


----------



## Devil's Advocate

I think I'm gonna have to agree with Alan on this one. A lot of political capitol is being expended on killing the tunnel. Whatever comes next won't be rail-based or it might confuse the very same voters Christie is trying so hard to appeal to.


----------



## jis

AlanB said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Meanwhile in NJ many are relived that we migtht actually get some funding again for some intra-state projects like the Lackawanna Cutoff, MOM and West Trenton and Glassboro, which were all pretty much given up as dead for now because of the incessant vacuum cleaner under the Hudson that was sucking up every available penny and then some.
> 
> 
> 
> I can't imagine that any of the saved money from this project is going to find it's way into any train projects. That won't buy Christie enough votes for his coming Presidential bid. That money will go into the roads so that he can avoid raising the gas tax, and NJ has one of the lowest if not the lowest taxes around, so that he can look like a hero.
> 
> And yes, I do agree that the tunnel as planned had issues, but that still didn't make it useless either.
Click to expand...

First of all I agree on the gas tax issue. But having said that....

Nothing is useless if one completely ignores ROI. Soon after these tunnels were completed Amtrak would have started spending another $15 billion on another set of tunnels (with of course its own cost overruns etc.  ) which arguably are not really necessary, if the original new set of tunnels would connect to the right place in the first place. As I have mentioned elsewhere, I would like to see the basis of the astounding traffic growth projections.

Actually it is after seeing Amtrak's plan that I got fully convinced that this set of tunnels really needed to be killed off for good while it was possible, and have the Amtrak proposal be used as the basis for the tunnels that actually get built. So I am not unhappy to see them gone personally.

The NJ part of the money saved (not the federal contribution) will go into the TTF, and we will see how that is spent. Of course nothing is cast in stone either way. Also, another fact that is slowly coming out is that there was no money on the expense budget side planned with sources identified to actually operate a single additional train through the new tunnel. So as it stands conceivably we would have a spanking new tunnel with mostly nothing running through it.  Well except for the only 30 something Midtown Directs a day, which are already funded, and a handful of redirected Main/Bergen trains, if they did not cancel the loop-de-loop connection due to budget overruns, which was a distinct possibility.

It also is certain that at least for now the southern span of the Portal replacement will not be built since it has nowhere to connect to absent the new tunnels. That is another $775 million (which may or may not be part of the numbers being bandied about depending on who you talk to, which conceivably could hasten the construction of the much needed northern span. Again, nothing cast in stone, since the northern span is supposed to be funded jointly by Amtrak and NJDOT, with help from the feds, while the southern span was supposed to be a NJT/FTA project.

Additional fun stuff discovered is that some of the contracts let out were possibly illegal, since the losing bidders just joined the winners thus raising the possibility that the whole bidding process was a sham. The investigation on that is just starting up from what I am told.

We have certainly not seen the end of all this yet.

Incidentally, many in New Jersey are now actually coming out agreeing with the premise that a tunnel to New York makes sense for New Jersey only in the context of a Regional solution rather than as a single handed NJ project. There is enough infrastructure, existing and new in NJ that needs attention far more urgently than an exclusive NJ use tunnel to New York. Inevitably, the only way for NJ to build tunnels to New York single handedly would shortchange these more urgent needs within the state.

BTW, here is a smaple of some stuff that is coming out in the press on this matter:

1. LaHood on ARC: One derailment won't stop progress

2. Frankly, Lautenberg and LaHood deserve the blame for the ARC fiasco - Paul Mulshine/Star Ledger


----------



## Devil's Advocate

jis said:


> The NJ part of the money saved (not the federal contribution) will go into the TTF, and we will see how that is spent.


First they also have to pay the federal government back from their own coffers, correct? Maybe the federal money can quickly be allocated to a state that is ready to move forward now without insisting on financial protections that will probably never come. Unless I'm mistaken the window of opportunity will be closing soon and anything that's not underway very near future will likely be suspended once the new congress assumes power.


----------



## jis

daxomni said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> 
> The NJ part of the money saved (not the federal contribution) will go into the TTF, and we will see how that is spent.
> 
> 
> 
> First they also have to pay the federal government back from their own coffers, correct? Maybe the federal money can quickly be allocated to a state that is ready to move forward now without insisting on financial protections that will probably never come. Unless I'm mistaken the window of opportunity will be closing soon and anything that's not underway very near future will likely be suspended once the new congress assumes power.
Click to expand...

Yes, this bag of federal money will most likely go elsewhere. However, if it is true that there will be a pressing need for additional tunnels as part of NEC, then eventually federal money will materialize again, NJ and NY state monies and PANYNJ money. OTOH, if there is no pressing need then there will not be money and that is just as well. Actually not having this budget overhang might indeed make it easier to get funding for the more sensible Amtrak plan for Hudson (and East River) crossings and Penn Station expansion, when the time comes.

No point in pissing federal money down into the drain under 34th St at this point, into a station that can never get further interconnection to anything to the east due to the presence of the NY City Water Tunnel #1 at the east end of the proposed station, notwithstanding NJT's protestations to the contrary.

I was at the RCLC where NJT stated this protestation. They were duly challenged and were completely unable to substantiate any basis for their claim that the water tunnel will get removed as an obstacle. Apparently it was a mere wishful thinking on their part that no one from New York City was willing to corroborate. I was one of the people that raised this issue in my deposition before the RCLC. NJT first tried to ignore the question and then tried to obfuscate around it.

IMHO eventually we will get a more cost effective and better solution, but it will be 5 to 10 years later than the current proposal would have got us a less cost effective and poorly connected solution. But I hasten to add this is purely speculation on my part, and if one subscribes to the theory of "bird in hand is better than two in the bush" irrespective of the overall cost and benefit (or lack thereof), then my speculation would be viewed as pointless.


----------



## Green Maned Lion

I agree with Jishnu almost completely. Its unfortunate that we couldn't simply restructure the project, but barring that I am glad its dead. We'd be stuck with a stupid white elephant otherwise.


----------



## jis

A few interesting developments at the recent (10th Nov) NJ Transit Board meeting relative to the now canceled ARC project.....

At this meeting NARP, NJ-ARP, Lackawanna Coalition, and the Regional Railroad Working Group presented written testimony supporting the cancellation of the ARC project. The Tri State Transportation Campaign gave oral testimony opposing the Governor's decision.

In addition NJ-ARP testified that there is no justification for going through with the add-on order for 100 MLVs and 10 dual power locomotives since their primary use was to be in ARC Macy's basement station. They requested that these add-on orders be canceled forthwith and the saved money be applied to like number of EMUs at an appropriate time.

All of those that testified in support of the cancellation of ARC also strongly recommended that NJ Transit start working with Amtrak to come up with a solution benefiting both. The Transport Commissioner expressed an opinion concurring with that sentiment. Since then the Governor's office has also explicitly made statements supporting such and NJT has started talking to Amtrak.

The issue of decision making process and governance of the ARC project also came up. Specifically the issue of the 1200 page full report that was hidden away by the previous NJT management but was used to produce the short summary document eliding all details that would enable anyone to validate or refute the conclusions reached, that killed off Alternative G was discussed. NJ Transit had used the excuse that since that document is a DRAFT it falls beyond the reach of any request for public release. NJT had consistently stonewalled the release of this critical document that was used to make one of the most crucial decisions to not meet one of the fundamental goals of the original Scoping document. The Commissioner and the Executive Director both stated that if a request under the NJ equivalent of the federal FOIA request were made in writing to remove the document's Draft status and release it to the public, they would take the necessary steps to release it to the public. So, if they do follow through on that, finally we may know the actual real reason why decisions were taken and whether they were consistent with known facts or if something else was the determining factor. Naturally there are several organizations that are crafting such requests.

As usual, what will come of all this one never knows. But at least things are not standing still and they seem to be moving in a direction that is not entirely hopeless.

In other news a second testimony from NJ-ARP concerned the Princeton Dinky, opposing its conversion to Bus, and supporting possible conversion to LRT if that would reduce cost of operation. NJT Management said that they are backing off from the BRT proposal and are in the process of crafting a resolution in support of continuing the Dinky as is for now. This after the Princeton community soundly defeated an attempt by a previous Mayor of Princeton trying to pass a resolution in support of conversion to BRT.


----------



## Green Maned Lion

It is amazing, to me, the limited amount of information that ever gets out to the public. It took forever for me to find out the provisions in the governor's statement requesting that NJT work with Amtrak. The Governor's stance on this, at least publicly, is something I am fully in agreement on.

I also go on record thanking my friends Jim Raleigh, and Joe Clift, and others that fought tirelessly to kill this poorly conceived and badly planned memorial to George Warrington's ego. I express hope that through efforts by NJT, Amtrak, PANYNJ, NYC, NJ-ARP, NARP, RRWG, the Lackawanna Coalition, and others, we manage to get a tunnel built, to Penn Station, and at least get said project started intelligently before Christie leaves office.

I had expressed publicly that I thought this was a lost cause. But efforts on the part of many have seemingly made sense, and it seems for the moment that the best possible of outcomes may prevail.


----------



## AlanB

Green Maned Lion said:


> It is amazing, to me, the limited amount of information that ever gets out to the public. It took forever for me to find out the provisions in the governor's statement requesting that NJT work with Amtrak. The Governor's stance on this, at least publicly, is something I am fully in agreement on.
> 
> I also go on record thanking my friends Jim Raleigh, and Joe Clift, and others that fought tirelessly to kill this poorly conceived and badly planned memorial to George Warrington's ego. I express hope that through efforts by NJT, Amtrak, PANYNJ, NYC, NJ-ARP, NARP, RRWG, the Lackawanna Coalition, and others, we manage to get a tunnel built, to Penn Station, and at least get said project started intelligently before Christie leaves office.
> 
> I had expressed publicly that I thought this was a lost cause. But efforts on the part of many have seemingly made sense, and it seems for the moment that the best possible of outcomes may prevail.


While I've no doubt that many toiled in their efforts to kill something that they didn't like, it's a pretty safe bet that all their efforts were in vain.

This tunnel was killed for one reason only. Governor Christie found a way to avoid having to raise the gas tax in NJ, something that is desperately needed. By dumping the monies set aside for this tunnel into the state's transportation fund, he staves off confronting the issue of raising the gas tax. That makes him look like a hero and furthers his political aspirations.

And rest assured he has political aspirations. If he didn't, then instead of running around the country campaigning for others, he'd have been home in the state working with his staff to make such an important decision like killing the tunnel as intelligently and educated as possible. Instead he was getting his face shown on national TV so that he can start his presidential bid and not be a total unknown to the world.

I do appreciate all the good work done by so many others in NJ, and while I was one that still ascribed to the idea that ARC as planned was better than nothing which is what we now have and most likely will have for many more years now, again this wasn't cancelled because of their hard work.


----------



## jis

ARC was killed because the managers of the project were caught in a half lie by a Governor whose agenda fit the situation. No doubt about that. The concerned advocates were able to use that alignment of planets to further their agenda, there is no doubt about that either. Indeed in an earlier post on this board I had observed that "a curious coalition of budget hawks and rail transit advocates will succeed in killing this project" or something to that effect.

For over a decade now the advocates that GML mentions, have diligently attended every NJT Board and ARC RCLC meetings and entered testimony with a consistent position. If someone wishes to truly believe that a bureaucracy can ignore public testimony forever and do whatever it likes, then surely our democracy is in a very dire straits. These advocates are no random people off the streets either. One is a retired Chief of traffic planning at LIRR. Another is a Transportation consultant who has variously worked for NJTransit, London Underground and various other premier transit agencies around the world specializing in Project Planning and Execution. And a third one is credited with having been the lead influence that finally killed the Westway and transferred the funding towards transit.

It should also be noted that none of them have claimed credit or gloated over this event either. They genuinely believe that it was a travesty to build a project based on a Scoping Document of which two primary goals, that of getting NJ commuters to the East Side, and of providing additional capacity for Amtrak, was completely ignored in a mid-night smoke-filled room maneuver while hiding away and stonewalling access to the master document that was used to justify that change. This is no way to run an outfit that is going to spend over $10 billion dollars of our money. Sorry if we disagree on that.

In any case there was this long record for the new Commissioner and his boss to see. Whether or how they used it, one would never know. Of course if it pleases someone to believe that the advocates had no effect and it was just the evil Governor, that is fine too. But the right thing happened, and that is what matters in the opinion of this observer. And since that is what I believe, I also believe that it is time to start on advocating for building the right tunnel with the right connectivity.

BTW, this has been a windfall of sorts for Amtrak since they are now back in the game due to the efforts of these advocates. If the NJT tunnels had been built, Amtrak's tunnel to Penn Station would have been just a dream for the next many many years, since there is no way that the nation would have coughed up another $10 billion for another pair of tunnels for a long time to come.

But OTOH, notwithstanding whatever his immediate imperatives are, it is also clear that anything that he is saying about continuing any work whatsoever on the tunnel at all is because of the tireless efforts of the few rail advocates in NJ who ironically in the past have been blamed by many who supported this tunnel unconditionally, as ones that had never seen a rail project that they did not like.

If you wish to get some idea of what kind of situation a state can place itself in under crushing debt from a single project, spend some time studying the Big Dig and its finances, and see what part of Massachusetts transport budget goes into paying off the debt, while the infrastructure rots away. Incidentally, thanks to the financial viz previous Governor, NJ's TTF starting next year will already be consumed in its entirety paying debt service with nothing to spend on any new project, unless the present Governor comes up with some way to replenish it. So the fact that the NJ component of the ARC project will likely replenish the TTF is not a bad thing. Afterall without money in TTF there will be no NJT Capital Projects of any sort, rail or otherwise. Indeed this might actually move the Portal South replacement along faster since the broke TTF is supposed to cover the NJ contribution to that project.

As for the ARC project, because of less than forthright presentation of the cost figures by the ARC managers and poor cost controls ARC was slowly but surely headed in that direction, with the USDOT estimate of a 50/50 chance that it would be completed for some figure over $10 Billion. The lowball figure of 8.7 that was bandied about, finally everyone agreed was a mythical figure and no one, including NJT believed was realistic. It was necessary to get past the first hurdle of utility for cost test in the Federal New Start Grant process. ARC had already run out of most of the contingencies (of over $1.1 Billion) in their contract budget allocations, that was set aside in the budget even before the first inch of tunnel had been dug. So real contingency was something that the State of NJ would have had to cover, as and when it arose, and USDOT's 90% confidence estimate for the cost was indeed north of 12 billion.

Now I might not agree with almost anything else that Christie does. But under these circumstances, as an NJ taxpayer, I am convinced that the right thing to do was to kill this project off and dismantle the bureaucracy that put together this monstrosity and start over again. As many post from me previously would easily establish, I was a relatively strong supporter of this project for a long time, and participated diligently in each RCLC for the last decade or so. With great deal of angst and dismay I watched at close range the way the bureaucracy ran amok, and the previous Governor pandered inexcusably to that bureaucracy. Notice that the previous Governor also did not raise the gas tax when his party was in full control of the NJ legislative bodies. He instead hocked the state out to further in the future by issuing more bonds to pay off previous bonds. So while it is easy to take a simplistic view about evil Christie, it really is not that simple in reality.

There are many villains in the plot. But at present our focus should be to the future, learn the lessons from this fiasco and try to ensure that it is not repeated and an actually useful tunnel that is usable to the best effect by NJ commuters as well as HSR travelers of the NEC is built as soon as possible. That is my firm hope and dream, and the same advocates that worked hard to kill this tunnel believe in that AFAIK, and are again working tirelessly towards that.

Incidentally, another bit of info that most are unaware of is that a group of NJ advocates did meet La Hood late last year to raise the issue of budget overruns, and raised the question of what FTA was going to do about it when it happens. Again, whether La Hood did anything with that bit of info, one will never know. Remember that Christie was going on happily with the project until La Hood sent a letter to him asking him to sign off on a commitment that NJ will cover all cost overruns and will not ask the Feds for any more money, before an FFGA for the USDOT New Start Grant could be signed. I would also note that this is no different from what FTA did with 2nd Ave. and ESA, which has placed NY State in an unenviable position of having to cover all cost overruns which seem to be borderline out of control, and will delay both projects at least by several years and by as much as a decade possibly. Indeed there is a significant chance of 2nd Ave simply getting mothballed again if the NY economy does not improve enough to increase tax receipts significantly from current levels.


----------



## jis

As I have said before there will be interesting twists and turns. Here is one:



> The railroad issued a statement on Thursday night saying its primary interest is advancing high-speed rail service along the Northeast Corridor. The statement concluded by saying any potential joint rail project would require NJ Transit's commitment to "fully fund all costs associated with creating additional commuter train capacity."


Amtrak has no interest in NJ Transit tunnel

The jockeying for position begins. 

As I said, Amtrak is back in the game, at least until a further rightward swing takes place in Washington DC.


----------



## AlanB

Sorry, Jishnu, but I didn't notice the Gov making any mention of the other failings of the project when he cancelled things. The only reason given was the cost overruns. He could have made his case much stronger by bringing all aspects of this into the picture; he didn't.

Is it possible that some of the experts pushed hard on the Gov's assistants? Certainly, I must agree that is a possibility and that they in turn pushed the Gov harder. But I remain firmly convinced that this was political and nothing else. If there was some way that Mr. Christie could have come out smelling like a rose by keeping the project going, it would still be going despite everything else.

And it's not a matter of ignoring public testimony, most of the public is simply unaware of that testimony. Only rail advocates are really aware of the testimony, and this one living just across the river wasn't even fully aware of some of what you say. I knew that there was dissent, but not to the levels you express and not from experts like you've listed. Granted I no longer vote in NJ, but if someone like me who follows rail closely wasn't fully aware of this, you can bet your average NJ taxpayer hasn't a clue.

I do agree with you that Mr. Corzine should have and could have raised the gas tax too. Just like Mr. Christie, he kicked the can further down the road hoping that it will be someone else's problem and that they'll get the blame for it.


----------



## jis

AlanB said:


> Sorry, Jishnu, but I didn't notice the Gov making any mention of the other failings of the project when he cancelled things. The only reason given was the cost overruns. He could have made his case much stronger by bringing all aspects of this into the picture; he didn't.


I have no doubt in my mind that he by himself had no desire to make his case stronger in the way that you and I would like. It is some of the people that work for him however, who do have a bit of intellectual honesty about such things AFAICT. Pardon my cynicism is showing.



> Is it possible that some of the experts pushed hard on the Gov's assistants? Certainly, I must agree that is a possibility and that they in turn pushed the Gov harder. But I remain firmly convinced that this was political and nothing else. If there was some way that Mr. Christie could have come out smelling like a rose by keeping the project going, it would still be going despite everything else.


I don't disagree that from the Governor's personal perspective it is mostly political and partly that his wife did not want to arrive in a deep station a few blocks from Penn Station I am told. 

In that sense the advocates just provided him ammunition to further his own political objectives. If he was not hell bent on making a political point I am sure the advocates could have equally been ignored by him as they were by Corzine, on both ARC and MOM, because his political cronies wanted things the way they were, i.e. no MOM and ARC full steam ahead, never mind how much it costs and how useless the final thing becomes.



> And it's not a matter of ignoring public testimony, most of the public is simply unaware of that testimony. Only rail advocates are really aware of the testimony, and this one living just across the river wasn't even fully aware of some of what you say. I knew that there was dissent, but not to the levels you express and not from experts like you've listed. Granted I no longer vote in NJ, but if someone like me who follows rail closely wasn't fully aware of this, you can bet your average NJ taxpayer hasn't a clue.


It is only after the Correspondent (not Reporter) Paul Mulshine started writing a series of articles on ARC that the public actually started seeing a glimpse of the other side of the story. The Democratic machine in NJ had done an excellent job of steam rolling any opposite view completely out of site on this matter. Please note that I am a registered Democrat and I am truly ashamed of the behavior of the Democratic Party in NJ on this matter. Sometimes it felt more like Kremlin than Trenton.

The news media in New Jersey has not exactly come out looking too good either. For example the premier NJ newspaper reported profusely on the one single anti-cancellation testimony at the NJT Board meeting and initially completely ignored the 5 pro-cancellation testimony, until someone gently asked the reporter whether he was a reporter or an op-ed column writer. Such is the state of our supposedly balanced and impartial press which is supposed to report the news in an unbiased way.



> I do agree with you that Mr. Corzine should have and could have raised the gas tax too. Just like Mr. Christie, he kicked the can further down the road hoping that it will be someone else's problem and that they'll get the blame for it.


Actually Christie is doing less of kicking the can down the road than Corzine. He is just crumpling the can in place instead. Corzine was doing exactly what multiple governments in Massachusetts did in course of the Big Dig. Christie is ostensibly saying we will stop investing until we have money to invest, while studiously avoiding the most obvious way of getting the necessary money to invest in infrastructure - that just like Corzine; which in the long run is not a wise thing to do. A middle road has to be found involving some cutback in spending and some source of additional funds or some way of retiring some of the crushing debt.


----------



## Green Maned Lion

jis said:


> That is my firm hope and dream, and the same advocates that worked hard to kill this tunnel believe in that AFAIK, and are again working tirelessly towards that.


I can't speak for all of the advocates in New Jersey, of course, but those in my neck of the woods are gearing up to work just as tirelessly attempting to restart this project, Penn Station First (and only!) as they worked attempting to kill the Deep Cavern.

The facts of the matter are, Alan,

1) On the surface, and on all levels I can think of, this project seemed, at best, ill-conceived.

2) NJT worked diligently to come up with excuses not to furnish the information that would demonstrate the above to be wrong.

3) The mechanisms for preparing designs, winning bids, turning in bids, and so on ad infinitum seemed to primarily be designed to funnel money into the hands of the various construction companies and engineering firms working on the project.

4) I have no doubt that at the end of the day, Chris Christie killed the ARC project for the furtherance of his political career. However, I believe it was thanks to the tireless efforts of the rail advocates that the situation progressed to a point where Christie decided it was in his best interest to kill it.

If certain people hadn't worked up Mulshine, if Mulshine hadn't worked up the public, if public sentiment hadn't become such that killing it seemed advantageous, I have no doubt the project would still be going.

I have constantly hounded members in my coalition that the key to a politicians ear isn't convincing him what you are preposing is best for his constituents. It is convincing him that what you are preposing is best for him. I know that some members of my group took that to heart, and it probably helped us. It wasn't what one person did, or one groups efforts, or one event. It was the cumulative efforts of many people, and many things, working for many reasons.

And what we did wasn't directly convincing Christie to kill the tunnel project. It was in slowly creating a situation that, given Christie's purposes, plans, and stratagem, killing the tunnel came to be an imperative for him.

For once, that situation was created by unloading a heck of a lot of truth.


----------



## jis

From _Asbury Park Press_:



> *Amtrak backs away from shared tunnel*
> 
> _By LARRY HIGGS • STAFF WRITER • November 12, 2010_
> 
> Amtrak officials have pulled the plug on talks about a shared tunnel project with NJ Transit, using engineering and design work already done.
> 
> ...
> 
> Using NJ Transit's engineering for a joint tunnel was ruled out because the ARC project designs aren't conducive for intercity train travel, said Clifford Cole, Amtrak spokesman. That design had tracks ending in a dead-end station under 34th Street.
> 
> ...
> 
> Amtrak officials said in a release they "remain open to exploring ways to expand trans-Hudson passenger rail capacity with NJ Transit, but Amtrak's primary interest is in advancing Northeast Corridor high-speed rail service."
> 
> ....
> 
> Cost sharing by NJ Transit appears to be a concern for Amtrak officials.
> 
> "Such a collaboration with NJT would require their commitment to fully fund all costs associated with creating additional commuter train capacity," Amtrak officials said.


You can read the whole article here.

I can sympathize with Amtrak's position. Afterall there is zero reason for Amtrak to have to stick to the idiotic 2% grade limitation based on NJ Transit's arbitrary determination that their poor choice of equipment cannot handle start from dead stop on any greater grade, never mind that they do so all the time on the greater than 2.5% grade on the eastbound hole at Union.

This 2% argument was rolled out by NJT to justify removing the connection to the old Penn Station.


----------



## Dutchrailnut

jis said:


> I can sympathize with Amtrak's position. Afterall there is zero reason for Amtrak to have to stick to the idiotic 2% grade limitation based on NJ Transit's arbitrary determination that their poor choice of equipment cannot handle start from dead stop on any greater grade, never mind that they do so all the time on the greater than 2.5% grade on the eastbound hole at Union.
> 
> This 2% argument was rolled out by NJT to justify removing the connection to the old Penn Station.


actually a 2% grade is about maximum in conventional standard railroading, even for Amtrak.


----------



## jis

Dutchrailnut said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can sympathize with Amtrak's position. Afterall there is zero reason for Amtrak to have to stick to the idiotic 2% grade limitation based on NJ Transit's arbitrary determination that their poor choice of equipment cannot handle start from dead stop on any greater grade, never mind that they do so all the time on the greater than 2.5% grade on the eastbound hole at Union.
> 
> This 2% argument was rolled out by NJT to justify removing the connection to the old Penn Station.
> 
> 
> 
> actually a 2% grade is about maximum in conventional standard railroading, even for Amtrak.
Click to expand...

True, but if they can agree to greater than 2% for Portal south, what makes the decision making criteria different for the tunnel, which is in some ways a less hostile environment?

Anyhow Amtrak will have to figure out, or has already some idea on how they will connect their tunnel to their Penn Station I would imagine, though wonders never cease


----------



## Green Maned Lion

I am in shock. NJ Transit had the gall to pander to the governor's request by attempting to foist the deep cavern on Amtrak?

The only wild card here is whether Lautenberg can manage to force Amtrak to take the project on. Lautenberg's stance on this terminal has made me wonder whether he is still compos mentis.

Why has he stuck by this project so firmly? Does he want a tomb to compliment his mausoleum?


----------



## AlanB

Green Maned Lion said:


> Why has he stuck by this project so firmly? Does he want a tomb to compliment his mausoleum?


No.

He's been in politics long enough to know that it will take many, many years of hard work to ever get this close to building any tunnel under the river again. Which is one of the reasons that I still supported the plan, even after they killed the connection to NYP.

I'll be lucky if I ever get to ride a train through a new tunnel under the North River now; and I'm only 50 as of next month. But my guess is that it will be at least 2020 before any shovels ever go back into the ground for any new rail tunnels under the Hudson.


----------



## Green Maned Lion

Alan, the fact of the matter is, Lautenberg and others could have shot down each of the stupid aspects of this project at the times they occured- such as the loss of the Penn Station connection. They didn't. If a reason that doesn't involve corruption exists, I'd like to know it.


----------



## jis

Now this plan has always made a lot of sense to me.....

Take Number 7 to Secaucus

On the side a few of us from NJ-ARP had been working on this proposal. Glad to see Bloomberg and NY State take this one on. It considerably reduces the need for extremely expensive construction in and around Penn Station, and actually takes NJ riders where they want to go - Grand Central and vicinity, with a single change to subway at Secaucus. Reduces the need for bringing any additional trains into Manhattan from NJ for the immediate future. Does require some construction at Secaucus to enable turning around trains there. So the connection from Secaucus to a small storage yard around the old Boonton line would be needed.But that is already part of the original Secaucus design. One has to build the additional piece.

Let's see what Christie says about that.

Eventually this might actually reduce the need for tunnels into Penn station to a single additional tube too.


----------



## AlanB

jis said:


> Now this plan has always made a lot of sense to me.....
> 
> Take Number 7 to Secaucus
> 
> On the side a few of us from NJ-ARP had been working on this proposal. Glad to see Bloomberg and NY State take this one on. It considerably reduces the need for extremely expensive construction in and around Penn Station, and actually takes NJ riders where they want to go - Grand Central and vicinity, with a single change to subway at Secaucus. Reduces the need for bringing any additional trains into Manhattan from NJ for the immediate future. Does require some construction at Secaucus to enable turning around trains there. So the connection from Secaucus to a small storage yard around the old Boonton line would be needed.But that is already part of the original Secaucus design. One has to build the additional piece.


Well it would make the monument that NJT built in the Meadowlands far more important and useful. And for the record, I've never been opposed to the idea of the transfer station, just the massive and largely underutilized facility that got built.



jis said:


> Let's see what Christie says about that.


If it requires any of the money that he plans to take from ARC to put into the roads and avoid the needed gas tax increase, then the answer will be no.

On a separate note, I do have to wonder how the Port Authority would view this project. In some sense this is a more direct threat to their PATH trains, than ARC would have been.

Finally of course, care will have to be taken so as to not interfere with yet another new tunnel(s) under the river and to NYP. This idea reduces the need and urgency for commuter train access to NY, but doesn't change the fact that Amtrak needs to get more trains into NY.


----------



## Devil's Advocate

> The two sides are now wrangling over *Mr. LaHood’s demand* that New Jersey repay $271 million the federal government has spent on the project. City officials had initially hoped that they could recapture the $3 billion pledged by the federal government, but that no longer seems possible, and the project will most likely have to compete with others around the country for the money.


I thought the release of the federal funds were on the written stipulation that they be used exclusively for rail transportation. But this New York Times article seems to be claiming that it was strictly a matter of LaHood's decision and that his decision alone removed the possibility of spending the three billion federal dollars on roads.


----------



## AlanB

daxomni said:


> The two sides are now wrangling over *Mr. LaHood’s demand* that New Jersey repay $271 million the federal government has spent on the project. City officials had initially hoped that they could recapture the $3 billion pledged by the federal government, but that no longer seems possible, and the project will most likely have to compete with others around the country for the money.
> 
> 
> 
> I thought the release of the federal funds were on the written stipulation that they be used exclusively for rail transportation. But this New York Times article seems to be claiming that it was strictly a matter of LaHood's decision and that his decision alone removed the possibility of spending the three billion federal dollars on roads.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure where you see, or are reading into things, that it was Mr. LaHood's call on moving that money to roads. All Federal transportation funding always comes with conditions on its use. In some cases you can indeed apply to switch the funding to other projects, but usually that only happens with very small grants. Transit activists would be up in arms to see $3 Billion originally marked for transit end up in the roads. Especially with so many other transit projects on the wish list awaiting funding.

Besides, NJ's problem with the roads remains its lower than the national average gas tax. I'm not opposed to Federal help funding roads & highways, but helping out NJ when the current and past administrations refuse to bring NJ's gas tax in line with the rest of the country is wrong. Especially when it hurts transit projects elsewhere.

The Stimulus monies are more locked in and would require an act of Congress with the consent of the President to change the money from rail to roads, like Wisconsin wants to do. The NJ project however was not funded via Stimulus monies. AFAIK that funding was coming out of the Mass Transit Fund.


----------



## Devil's Advocate

AlanB said:


> I'm not sure where you see, or are reading into things, that it was Mr. LaHood's call on moving that money to roads.


So what is the author talking about when he specifically references LaHood? Presumably the real issue is the way the funding bill was written and has nothing to do with LaHood making demands. You seem to be spending all your time on me instead of looking at what the author actually wrote. If anyone is contradicting you it's him, not me.


----------



## Ryan

The only think that the author is saying that Mr. LaHood made a decision on was about the getting the state to repay money that the feds have already spent on the project (since it was canceled). The fact that the money can't go straight from the ARC tunnel to this extension is a completely separate matter. Like Alan, I have no idea why you're bringing roads into the equation at all.


----------



## Devil's Advocate

Ryan said:


> The only think that the author is saying that Mr. LaHood made a decision on was about the getting the state to repay money that the feds have already spent on the project (since it was canceled).


I figured the repayment was part of the original bill's wording and not even up to LaHood? As for wanting to redistribute rail money to roads, yeah I must just be imagining that since nobody has ever made such a request.


----------



## Ryan

daxomni said:


> Ryan said:
> 
> 
> 
> The only think that the author is saying that Mr. LaHood made a decision on was about the getting the state to repay money that the feds have already spent on the project (since it was canceled).
> 
> 
> 
> I figured the repayment was part of the original bill's wording and not even up to LaHood?
Click to expand...

You figured incorrectly.


> As for wanting to redistribute rail money to roads, yeah I must just be imagining that since nobody has ever made such a request.


I don't see where anyone has claimed that, or what its relevance is.


----------



## AlanB

Daxomni,

It's Mr. LaHood's job to demand the money back from NJ because they have failed to live up to their obligations to run the train. Again, I do believe that in this case it might have been possible for the money to be shifted to a road project, but I'm not aware of any such request from New Jersey to do so. And as I mentioned before, it would be highly unusual to do so with this much money involved and so many clamouring for transit monies from the Fed.

But unlike the Stimulus monies that Wisconsin and Ohio seem to be about ready to reject, the money from the NJT project has different rules and conditions. It will take an act of Congress to allow Ohio and Wisconsin to either use those funds on roads or at least prevent it from going to other states, so as to reduce the deficit. Of course it's totally laughable to think that $1.2 Million is going to make a dent in a $13+ Trillion deficit.

And I'm sorry that you feel that way, but I wasn't targeting you. You'll know when I do that. I still don't see what you're seeing in that article that led you to believe that Mr. LaHood made the decision to tell NJ "No, you can't use these funds on your roads." I ask you to please point out the specific language that you believe is saying this, because again, I'm not seeing that. Sorry! 

I do see a reference to New York City officials hoping that perhaps they could have gotten Mr. LaHood to give them the money so as to advance the idea of sending the #7 Trains under the river to NJ. And I suspect that Mr. LaHood might well have the power to do that, but I'm not sure that he will. In large part simply because at present this is just an idea. There are no plans and no funding agreements between NY, NYC, NJ, and the Port Authority.


----------



## jis

AlanB said:


> I do see a reference to New York City officials hoping that perhaps they could have gotten Mr. LaHood to give them the money so as to advance the idea of sending the #7 Trains under the river to NJ. And I suspect that Mr. LaHood might well have the power to do that, but I'm not sure that he will. In large part simply because at present this is just an idea. There are no plans and no funding agreements between NY, NYC, NJ, and the Port Authority.


You are correct. The money cannot be transferred just like that because in order to get to the FFGA (Full Funding Grant Agreement) stage, there must be a NEPA (National Environmental Policy Act) FEIS (Final Environmental Impact Statement) approved in a so called RoD (Record of Decision). This will take at least 2 years for a new project, maybe a little shorter if they are able to use substantial parts of the work done for the ARC tunnels FEIS. The ARC tunnels left clear the easement for future Amtrak tunnels so that won't be a problem.

On the matter of source of the ARC funds,the Federal component of it was from the FTA New Starts Grant program, which is governed by a completely different set of rules from the Stimulus ones,and indeed La Hood has considerable leeway to move the money around to whatever, as long as it is a project that qualifies for the New Start Program, which has a complicated set of qualifying criteria. That is why Senator Gillibrand is merely grandstanding and whistling in the wind when she talks about allocating the money to ESA or 2nd Ave. Subway. That simply cannot be done. They are not New Start Projects any more and FTA has capped both of those as far as FTA contribution is concerned.


----------



## Green Maned Lion

I've always liked the idea of the 7 to Secaucus. I say it'll never happen, though. MTA is not chartered to operate service in New Jersey itself, and it is not within the pervue of the NYCTA. Adding the NYCTA to the general bureaucracy surrounding Hudson River crossings would be... problematic.

In the real world of solving commuters problems, though, it is an ideal solution. I think, by the way, it would greatly reduce the need for additional tunnels, because I think it will eventually reduce the number of trains NJT sends to New York on peak, just as they did with Hoboken.


----------



## Devil's Advocate

AlanB said:


> It's Mr. LaHood's job to demand the money back from NJ because they have failed to live up to their obligations to run the train.


If he did not demand it back could they simply keep it? I'm just curious because I honestly don't know how these things work.



AlanB said:


> And I'm sorry that you feel that way, but I wasn't targeting you. You'll know when I do that. I still don't see what you're seeing in that article that led you to believe that Mr. LaHood made the decision to tell NJ "No, you can't use these funds on your roads."


It wasn't meant as a statement so much as a question. If my assumption was incorrect, as it appears it was, then no biggie.


----------



## AlanB

daxomni said:


> AlanB said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's Mr. LaHood's job to demand the money back from NJ because they have failed to live up to their obligations to run the train.
> 
> 
> 
> If he did not demand it back could they simply keep it? I'm just curious because I honestly don't know how these things work.
Click to expand...

First please understand that I'm not 100% certain of all the rules and as I've mentioned before, the some of the rules are very different for Stimulus monies.

That said, it is important to know that in general the Fed doesn't just hand a state a check for the entire amount promised. Much like a bank holding a loan does to a new home builder, the Fed pays out portions of the monies promised as certain bench marks are reached. In the case of the home builder, dig the foundation, the bank sends a check for X. Get the house framed, the bank sends another check for Y. And so on and so on.

The same applies here, as things are built and mile stones are reached, the Fed sends off a check. Of course these days it might even be an electronic transfer.

So the bulk of the $3B promised by the Fed still remains in Federal coffers and not in NJ's hands. What Mr. LaHood is demanding that NJ repay is one or maybe two of those installment payments. However, in this case and especially for the amount in question, I'm of the mind that Mr. LaHood probably could have said to NJ, "just keep the money or use it on this rail project or even use it on this road."

I think however that he was somewhat frustrated by Mr. Christie's entire attitude. It's a pretty big snub when Mr. LaHood says "let's talk about this first please before you decide anything" and then he opens the paper to find that Mr. Christie has announced that he's killing the project the day before their meeting is to take place.

I also think that Mr. LaHood is playing hard ball here to also send a message to Wisconsin & Ohio, that they aren't going to keep that money either. Although again, here the rules are more different, since that is Stimulus money that must go to trains unless Congress changes things and the President agrees. But again, Mr. LaHood is still sending a message, "kill what we want and you guys will get the bill."


----------



## jis

AlanB said:


> So the bulk of the $3B promised by the Fed still remains in Federal coffers and not in NJ's hands. What Mr. LaHood is demanding that NJ repay is one or maybe two of those installment payments. However, in this case and especially for the amount in question, I'm of the mind that Mr. LaHood probably could have said to NJ, "just keep the money or use it on this rail project or even use it on this road."


Actually, strictly speaking none of the $3 billion is in NJT's hands, since the FFGA for that has never been signed. It was a special agreement between NJT and FTA which allowed NJT to temporarily draw certain amount from FTA which would have been charged against the $3 billion after the FFG was signed. Since it wasn't, theoretically NJT is on the hook for whatever they have already spent out of the temporary grant against a full grant that has not been approved, nothwithstanding all the huffing and puffing that Weinstein and Christie are exercising their lungs in.


----------



## Shanghai

*Personally, I think it was a big mistake for Governor Christie to cancel the ARC Tunnel,*

*however, I think it would have been a bigger mistake for Christie not to cancel the tunnel*

*when a projected 2.3 billion cost overrun has been identified - before the project seriously*

*got underway and who knows what the actual overrun would be to completion. The taxpayers of*

*New Jersey should not be responsible for such an irresponsible plan.*

* *

*I do hope that a resolution can be found to properly fund the tunnel, with proper Manhattan*

*terminations. I feel that in the future, the tunnel will be required for NJ and for Amtrak*

*services.*


----------



## jis

jis said:


> Actually, strictly speaking none of the $3 billion is in NJT's hands, since the FFGA for that has never been signed. It was a special agreement between NJT and FTA which allowed NJT to temporarily draw certain amount from FTA which would have been charged against the $3 billion after the FFG was signed. Since it wasn't, theoretically NJT is on the hook for whatever they have already spent out of the temporary grant against a full grant that has not been approved, nothwithstanding all the huffing and puffing that Weinstein and Christie are exercising their lungs in.


Pardon me for responding to my own post, but I have come across an interesting analysis from someone I trust, though I am not going to name the person since I have not obtained permission for doing. But notwithstanding I would like to point out that this is not something that I dreamed up, it has some basis in fact. However, for all practical purposes you should take this as hearsay for now.

Apparently it is now coming out that when the FTA approved the early access fund for NJT to start work on ARC, the $271 million that is being talked about, FTA was already aware of the possible cost overruns. The funding was arranged through a motion of the Congress arranged by a certain Senator from a certain Mid-Atlantic state adjacent to New York, and officials at FTA signed off on it, knowing full well that it was most likely sunk money (one of those officials being Simpson, the current Transportation Commish in the same said state). This also involved a quick nod-nod wink-wink between said Senator and the then Governor of the same state, and neither NJT (which already knew of the budget shortfall issues and was hoping nobody else would notice before the FFGA is signed  ), nor the new incoming Governor (who then was not aware of the budget overrun issues) were made aware of the nature of this deal by the outgoing Governor, who was busy sticking a shovel in the ground and tearing down one McDonalds in Bergen County to get the ball rolling before he left office. So now there is most likely going to be an investigation of who did what to whom in Washington DC, while NJ gets to sit tight on the money until investigations get to the bottom of it all.

Isn't politics fun? Also illustrates why it is important to flip the control of government from one party to another from time to time  Helps uncover some unsavory stuff.


----------



## PRR 60

I'm willing to bet that senior citizen Senator from a state adjacent to New York will not be in a great hurry to open that investigation into the cancellation of ARC that he so vocally promised. Those sorts of things can get out of hand when you have issues you would prefer not to become public. That would not be the type of legacy he is seeking.


----------



## Green Maned Lion

PRR 60 said:


> I'm willing to bet that senior citizen Senator from a state adjacent to New York will not be in a great hurry to open that investigation into the cancellation of ARC that he so vocally promised. Those sorts of things can get out of hand when you have issues you would prefer not to become public. That would not be the type of legacy he is seeking.


'Course not. He likes his legacies to contain granite and marble and arise from the middle of marshlands like a Soviet monument to largess.


----------



## jis

Given the hanky-panky that went on in the waning days of the Corzine administration, I was certain that this was coming:

From the WSJ:



> Gov. Chris Christie plans to challenge the $271 million bill the federal government says New Jersey owes after canceling a rail tunnel.
> The administration is completing plans to retain a Washington law firm to try to stop the Federal Transit Administration from collecting money spent on engineering and construction for the $8.7 billion Hudson River tunnel, Christie spokesman Michael Drewniak said Wednesday. The unnamed firm has expertise in federal transit matters.


Read the whole article here.

Notice that the senior senator is in the act too trying to get the Fed DOT to reduce the bill.



PRR 60 said:


> I'm willing to bet that senior citizen Senator from a state adjacent to New York will not be in a great hurry to open that investigation into the cancellation of ARC that he so vocally promised. Those sorts of things can get out of hand when you have issues you would prefer not to become public. That would not be the type of legacy he is seeking.


Specially, since he would not want his name taken off from the station that it is applied to like happened with Harrison Williams at Metropark. :giggle:


----------

