# ARC Alternative GML



## Green Maned Lion (Feb 11, 2010)

ARC Alternative GML
​


Why a tunnel?
​



After looking at George Haikalis and RRWG’s idea of a tunnel from Hoboken Terminal to Penn Station, the thought dawned on me that we were not thinking outside of the box. I thought, instead, about a bridge from Hoboken to Penn, which would eliminate the grade conflicts between various subways, water tunnels, and other stuff that has been built in Manhattan over the course of about 400 years.

But after looking at the map, I saw that this would be nuts. The bridge would have to be built diagonally in such a way that it would be a gigantic monument bisecting a major waterway over 2 miles long. How it would be anchored would be a fascinating, but also a huge engineering achievement. Besides, the required grades are simply insane.

However, looking at the map, I noticed the ROW of the Hudson-Bergen Light Rail. It looks so simple, I wonder why nobody thought of it- or at least if someone had, why it was discarded as an idea.

My idea involves building a elevated route from the main lead into Hoboken above the Hudson-Bergen light rail.

At approximately 16th street in Hoboken, the 25kV tracks would separate from the right of way, curve somewhat sharper, at a height of approximately 157 feet, and climb a bridge that would take them across the Hudson and into MTA’s Caemmerer Yards. It would exit the bridge at an elevation of 157 feet above NY street level. The tracks would then diverge, wrapping around one track each the Associated Press building. They would then join and branch out into a stub-end station on the roof of the Farley Post Office, about 110 feet above street level.

There are several aspects to this plan and additional things that would need to be done. The first is electrification and expansion of the line between Hoboken and Newark Penn Station. This line could and would be used by NEC, NJCL and RVL between Newark Penn Station and New York.

Mile 0- End of yard interlocking- elevation, 110 feet. Grade: 1.923

Mile .26 - Convergence of paths, elevation 127 feet. Grade: 1.923

Mile .49 - End of eastern bridge lead, elevation 158 feet. Grade: 1.923

Mile 1.14 - direct center of bridge, elevation 224 feet. Grade: 1.923.

Mile 1.70 - End of western bridge lead, elevation 158 feet.

Mile 2.12 - Western bridge lead starts following above HBLR ROW. Elevation: 121 feet. Grade: 1.664

Mile 3.27 - Western bridge lead diverges again from HBLR ROW. Elevation: 20 feet. Grade: 1.72/1.55 (Westbound, Eastbound)

Mile 3.49/3.73 (W/E)- Bridge joins Hoboken lead.

Now, what I am waiting for is a person like George Harris to come in here and tell me all the reasons why this idea can’t possibly work. The main advantages are several. It increases the number of terminal tracks from 6 to 8. But more importantly, and I could be wrong, but I'd say this project would cost a hell of a lot less to build. And lastly, most importantly, it won't be the complete death trap that the current design is.

Routing:


----------



## PetalumaLoco (Feb 11, 2010)

What's the bridge clearance over the river? The GW Bridge clears the water by 212 feet at mid span.


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Feb 11, 2010)

About 224 feet. On one hand, I assume most things in Manhattan are well above sea level. On the other, I assume that the deck will take up space. So I'd say they'd work out about even.

That damned clearance was no end of a headache. I was initially thinking of just dumping the thing in to MTA's west side yards, (and then down into Penn) but I couldn't get the grades (the best I could work out was about 4.6 % and that was with the thing doing serpentine twists you wouldn't believe). I was about ready to give up (Ah, so that's why not a bridge!) when the idea of mounting the station above the Farley building sparked into my head.


----------



## PetalumaLoco (Feb 11, 2010)

Sounds good. Got to make sure we have clearance for those goosekiller airliners.


----------



## Long Train Runnin' (Feb 11, 2010)

Do you have a price tag??


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Feb 11, 2010)

No, but I have to assume it will cost less then the combined cost of:

1) digging a tunnel under the Hudson.

2) Excavating a 3-story deep-cavern terminal.

3) Replacing Portal- since this bypasses Portal, replacement of Portal is not required for the needed capacity enhancement.

And lastly, not knowing the laws involved, since this is NOT a tunnel and it is NOT underground and it does NOT run on the NEC, it SHOULD be able to accommodate diesel locomotives- whether they could handle the grades is another matter.


----------



## amtrakwolverine (Feb 12, 2010)

sense tunnels use TBMs(tunnel boring machines) that makes the tunnel cost more too cause those machines are not cheap at all.


----------



## tp49 (Feb 12, 2010)

It's an interesting idea.

The bigger issue would be dealing with the extensive lawsuits both from the historic preservationists who would fight building anything on the roof of the Farley Building not so much because it's on the National Register of Historic Properties but because the city's landmarks preservation commission nor the city council would be inclined to approve it. Any attempt would have the project in litigation for a very long time. This is in part why Grand Central Terminal is still standing without obstruction. Several ideas floated for that project included building a skyscraper that would be built around and over the terminal in the same way the Citicorp building is build around and over a church while others outright demolished the terminal. However, the lawsuits over the plan got that killed. Those lawsuits arose due to public anger over the demolition of Penn Station and the desire to not have that happen again at GCT.

Next, you'd then have to deal with the MTA and bringing a structure over their one last remaining cash cow which is the development and air rights to the area above the West Side Yards. This is where in the past stadiums were proposed for both the Yankees and Jets at separate times. The MTA wouldn't just cede their very lucrative property rights to another entity for this purpose. Any attempt to do so would again be in litigation for a very long time.

Last, getting a project of this magnitude through in New York City/State is a very long process that would take a very long time, a lot of money and some good lawyers. Looks like the lawyers would be the big winners in this endeavor.


----------



## AlanB (Feb 12, 2010)

GML it's an intriguing idea that will never get built for a myriad of reasons, many of which I'm probably not even thinking about.

That said however, if such a bridge idea were to be considered, you're really missing the boat here as it were. While I've no doubt that the locals would howl quite loudly, you have the perfect launch pad for a bridge on the NY side that would dramatically reduce the grades needed to climb over the river and allow for connections to the existing Penn Station, as well as an underground station or elevated if that could be pushed through.

One would need to reverse your plan on the Jersey side first, taking the trains off after Secaucus Junction and ramping up along the tracks leading south to Hoboken. Alternatively I suppose that one could tunnel through the hill to reach the light rail tracks that you mentioned, before ramping up. Cross the Hudson on the bridge around 18th Street in Manhattan. Then use the abandoned ROW from the old West Side rail line (also known as the high line) to ramp back down at a more sedate pace. If you reach the current grade level by 30th street or so, you'd be in a position to connect to the existing Penn either via the current Empire tunnel or via a new connection.


----------



## George Harris (Feb 15, 2010)

GML:

I am not going to try to tell you "all the ideas why it won't work" or even that it won't work. I will say that given the politics and other issues in the area, it would probably be 50 years before it got out of the studies and court fights. Many things can be done that are neither reasonable or practical. Not sure where this idea fits. I somewhat like the idea of an elevated entrance to the city. Very impressive for the passengers.

One key problem is that the ocean shipping and inland waterway interests tend to have absolute veto over anything crossing any body of water that might by any stretch of the imagination be considered navigatable. For the Hudson, they will define how high the clearance under the bridge must be and how wide the opening. And some klutz of a ship captain will still probably manage to hit one of the piers, and then scream that it is the bridge's fault.

I do not know what the numbers would have to be for a bridge over the Hudson. I have heard numbers of 135 feet vertical and 800 feet horizontal for clearances over certain bodies supposed to be able to clear ocean going shipping.

3.0% grade is doable with diesels. Otherwise the Southwest Chief, and the many Santa Fe trains for many years before that would not go across Raton and Gloriatta passes. Generally, the desire is to keep the grades to under 2.0%, way under is better. The line ought to be electrified, anyway. Having the sharp curve at the top of the grade is the best place for it. For sure, you DO NOT want a sharp curve at the bottom of a steep grade.


----------



## jis (Feb 15, 2010)

Leaving aside the hissy-fit that the Army Corp of Engineers, the Coast Guard, the block committees around the Farley building, the Township of Hoboken et. al. will throw, since we are considering various possibilities here, have you considered building the bridge a little further North and build the station in the sky on top of the Port Authority Bus Terminal? Seems to me that that would bring the commuters as well as casual travelers into NYC much closer to the typical places that they want to rather than dumping them west of Penn Station. Since they are local travelers they would generallyhave very little reason to want to be near Penn Station when they get to NYC. Just a thought for your consideration.


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Feb 15, 2010)

jis said:


> Leaving aside the hissy-fit that the Army Corp of Engineers, the Coast Guard, the block committees around the Farley building, the Township of Hoboken et. al. will throw, since we are considering various possibilities here, have you considered building the bridge a little further North and build the station in the sky on top of the Port Authority Bus Terminal? Seems to me that that would bring the commuters as well as casual travelers into NYC much closer to the typical places that they want to rather than dumping them west of Penn Station. Since they are local travelers they would generallyhave very little reason to want to be near Penn Station when they get to NYC. Just a thought for your consideration.


Not a bad alternative, although I don't know what the buildings around there are like. I just was tending to think of it as a "Penn Station Expansion" the way NJT is thinking of the deep-cavern terminal in such a way that trains could be routed to it such that the decision could be made to run them here as they left Newark. Obviously, it bypasses Secaucus, but the concept of this connection (or the planned deep-cavern) will kill that white elephant dead anyway. A few select trains will serve it, in all likelyhood.

And George: when I planned this thing, I tended to figure it would have to be Verrazano-max in clearance- that is, anything that fit under the Verrazano-Narrows bridge would fit fine past this thing. I was trying to eliminate all obvious objections to it, besides the historical desecration one (which I didn't think of- doh)


----------



## jis (Feb 15, 2010)

Actually my favorite alternative is to simply connect the 7 extension to the new tunnels and terminate the 7 line at Secaucus. Forget about connecting the new tunnel to Penn Station or building NYPSE or Alterative G or any other such alternatives. All in all this will do more good for more people and will turn out to be cheaper than many other wild ideas that people keep coming up with. No one really needs to run dozens of 6 car trains into Penn Station or its extension. Let people transfer to the subway and go wherever they want to go. Make the transfer to subway truly convenient. Change the layout of SEC and make it cross platform for SEC Upper. Also plan on turning a whole host of trains in SEC instead of stuffing them through the tunnel into NY. This gives the much coveted convenient access to the East Side for the NJ denizens much easier and cheaper than any other way that I can think of.

One of the original goals of ARC that is not met by either the NYPSE plan or the various variants of the high level station plan we have discussed here is getting convenient acces to the upper east side from NJ.

There how's that for out of the box thinking? 

Eventually Amtrak can get around to constructing Plan 780 and a new tunnel when finally the need justifies.


----------

