# GOOD NEWS!!



## Andrew (Aug 5, 2013)

Well, I suppose that this can't hurt Amtrak...

http://www.midhudsonnews.com/News/2013/August/02/MN_oneseat_Schumer-02Aug13.htm


----------



## the_traveler (Aug 5, 2013)

I hope it happens!


----------



## jis (Aug 5, 2013)

The MTA part of his will primarily be the Secaucus Loop which otherwise has not much reason to exist, even though NJT insisted that it was critical. Of course if MTA kicks in some money for the tunnels too that would be nice but I am not holding my breath. They are deep in the hole with ESA and SAS for many years to come.


----------



## Andrew (Aug 5, 2013)

1. Is it likely for the MTA to kick in let's say $4 Billion over the next two capital plans (2014-2019 and 2020-2024)? $2 Billion can come from operating costs and another $2 billion from bonds. Do not forget--the Gateway Project is expected to add platforms in Penn Station South (Block 780), so this should free up space for Metro North's Hudson Line trains that will serve Penn Station commuters...

2. Does anybody know about the Gateway Project Presentation that is upcoming this week in New Jersey?


----------



## afigg (Aug 6, 2013)

Andrew said:


> 1. Is it likely for the MTA to kick in let's say $4 Billion over the next two capital plans (2014-2019 and 2020-2024)? $2 Billion can come from operating costs and another $2 billion from bonds. Do not forget--the Gateway Project is expected to add platforms in Penn Station South (Block 780), so this should free up space for Metro North's Hudson Line trains that will serve Penn Station commuters...


$4 billion from the MTA? Good grief, no. The MTA might be maneuvered into contributing a token or small part of the funding package, but the Gateway project is not a direct concern of theirs. The MTA has to figure out to pay for Phase II of the Second Ave subway, completion of the East Side Access project, and a long list of NYC and NY state transit needs. Getting public support for the Gateway project from the MTA board and the NYC political leadership may be of more value to Amtrak to help build the public consensus for the project.


----------



## AlanB (Aug 6, 2013)

afigg said:


> Andrew said:
> 
> 
> > 1. Is it likely for the MTA to kick in let's say $4 Billion over the next two capital plans (2014-2019 and 2020-2024)? $2 Billion can come from operating costs and another $2 billion from bonds. Do not forget--the Gateway Project is expected to add platforms in Penn Station South (Block 780), so this should free up space for Metro North's Hudson Line trains that will serve Penn Station commuters...
> ...


While I certainly wouldn't say that Gateway is at the top of the list of concerns for the MTA, it is most certainly a direct concern of the MTA. Remember, the MTA pays NJT to run trains into Rockland County for the West of the Hudson riders. And ridership on those lines is growing. To the point where the MTA has been investing money into those lines.

This is not to suggest that the MTA would go nuts contributing money to Gateway, they would still be a minor player by comparison to Amtrak, NJT, and the Port Authority. One thing that could make them give a bit more however would be a guarantee that they'd get some current NJT slots @ NYP for Metro North if Penn South were built and NJT got those slots.


----------



## Andrew (Aug 6, 2013)

Well, I hope that the MTA can contribute at least $2 billion for the Gateway Project (along with AT LEAST another $2 billion from NYC and NY State). This totals $4 billion...

THAN

--$4 Billion from the Port Authority

--$2 billion from NJ

--$5 Billion from Washington

(perhaps 3 of the 5 Billion can come from the RRIF Program)?


----------



## jis (Aug 6, 2013)

We are at present so far away from the stage where we would be looking for sources for funding for Gateway in a big way that it is almost pure speculation with no basis to get at those numbers, bordering on fantasy.

The reality is they are currently scrounging to get $20million per year to keep the Design Team together, and struggling at it. Basically NJ managed to find some money to do so this year with a few million thrown in from somewhere by Amtrak. That is pretty much it for now.


----------



## Andrew (Aug 6, 2013)

jis said:


> We are at present so far away from the stage where we would be looking for sources for funding for Gateway in a big way that it is almost pure speculation with no basis to get at those numbers, bordering on fantasy.
> The reality is they are currently scrounging to get $20million per year to keep the Design Team together, and struggling at it. Basically NJ managed to find some money to do so this year with a few million thrown in from somewhere by Amtrak. That is pretty much it for now.


Is NJ's money for the Gateway Studies from NJ Transit or Christie's Budget?

If Amtrak is able to start an engineering and environmental contract package for the tunnels this fall--as they hope to do--how long until final design gets completed?


----------



## jis (Aug 6, 2013)

Amtrak won't be able to start anything this fall, so just fuggedaboudit.

There is no difference between Christie's budget and NJTransit's budget. NJTransit is essentially part of New Jersey Governor's fiefdom. It has a Board of lampposts who will vote whichever way the Governor's agent The Transport Commissioner asks them to. Each of them owes their position on the Board to the Governor, so what do you suppose they will do? This is the way it works here irrespective of which party holds those respective positions.

Anyway, the NJ money is from NJ Department of Transportation.


----------



## George Harris (Aug 7, 2013)

jis said:


> Amtrak won't be able to start anything this fall, so just fuggedaboudit.
> There is no difference between Christie's budget and NJTransit's budget. NJTransit is essentially part of New Jersey Governor's fiefdom. It has a Board of lampposts who will vote whichever way the Governor's agent The Transport Commissioner asks them to. Each of them owes their position on the Board to the Governor, so what do you suppose they will do? This is the way it works here irrespective of which party holds those respective positions.
> 
> Anyway, the NJ money is from NJ Department of Transportation.


And New Jersey is about the same level of example of clean government as Chicago.


----------



## Andrew (Aug 7, 2013)

So how much is Amtrak likely to receive in FY2014's budget for Gateway Studies?


----------



## afigg (Aug 7, 2013)

Andrew said:


> So how much is Amtrak likely to receive in FY2014's budget for Gateway Studies?


No one can answer that question. Because it depends on the outcome of the budget battle in the House and the Senate where many members of the Tea Party group are willing to shut down the government and default on debt to achieve their goals of severe government cuts. The outcome could be a continuing of the FY2013 budget, or more sequestration cuts, or a budget deal at the proposed Senate funding levels, or a shut down of the government & the Amtrak LD train network. NO ONE KNOWS HOW IT WILL PLAY OUT.

You are fixated on the Gateway project. Which is just one part, a major part true, but still just one part of the bigger picture of maintaining, modernizing and upgrading the NEC. To get a broader perspective of the challenges with the NEC, you should read the Critical Infrastructure Needs on the NEC report from the NEC Commission. But please don't post endless questions about the NEC report that no one can answer.


----------



## Andrew (Aug 8, 2013)

For some reason, I can not open that link.

But, speaking of the Gateway Project, the tunnel box began construction today under Hudson Yards...


----------



## jis (Aug 9, 2013)

Andrew said:


> For some reason, I can not open that link.
> But, speaking of the Gateway Project, the tunnel box began construction today under Hudson Yards...


Just remember that the 63rd St. tunnel box under East River was built in 1969-1972. The first train ran through it in 1989. The lower level two tunnels in the box are yet to see a train run through it. Perhaps in the next 3 to 5 years.


----------



## Andrew (Aug 9, 2013)

jis said:


> Andrew said:
> 
> 
> > For some reason, I can not open that link.
> ...


Interesting point. But do you really see that happening with the Gateway Project?


----------



## jis (Aug 9, 2013)

I give it a 50 50 chance of that happening. Remember at present there is no funding and no plan for producing funding. The whole thing is at a stage where ARC was in the late 80s early 90s. It will all depend on how the approach to handling the debt develops over the years. Remember that the 63rd St tunnel fell victim to NY City's brush with bankruptcy.


----------



## Andrew (Aug 10, 2013)

1. I have heard that ESA will open for revenue service in 2019. Therefore, why do you think that a train will be able to run through the new tunnels in 3 years?

2. I would say that with an improving economy--and overall less debt--the "core" part of the Gateway Project will occur:

--4th track through Harrison

--new MOW between Kearny Junction and tunnel boxes/A Interlocking

I am, though, still not convinced about "Penn South." I am not a huge fan of the Upper Level Station, and many people seem to think that the Deep-Level Station underneath Block 780 will not occur. What do you think is the percentage or probability that the Upper Level gets chosen?


----------



## George Harris (Aug 14, 2013)

jis said:


> Andrew said:
> 
> 
> > For some reason, I can not open that link.
> ...


To put a scale on what this time frame really means: I first read about this 63rd Street tunnel in the ENR in the college library during my student days. My thoughts on it at that time was the cross section of the LIRR trains was so small as to appear extremely short sighted. I could retire and go on Social Securtiy tommow if I so choose, and this part of it IS STILL NOT USED. My opinion on this structure has not changed and I see no reason why it should.


----------



## Andrew (Aug 22, 2013)

George Harris said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> > Andrew said:
> ...


Well, hopefully this does not occur with the Gateway Project...

What is a more likely way of funding the Gateway Project: RRIF Program or just plain Amtrak ticket revenue?


----------



## jis (Aug 22, 2013)

Amtrak ticket revenue is one thing that is not going to fund the Gateway Project, as for one thing there isn't enough free cashflow (like significantly more than zero on a sustained basis) at Amtrak to make that possible, unless a target completion date for Gateway is set in the latter half of this century.  and why should it? The biggest beneficiary of Gateway is not really Amtrak Train Operations at all. This is one of the reasons that Amtrak the TOC (Train Operating Company) needs to be more clearly separated from Amtrak the IMO (Infrastructure Management Organization). There is too much confusion within and without Amtrak about which money should be or could be used for what.


----------



## Andrew (Sep 1, 2013)

There has been talk about a future 6, 7, or 8 track Penn South option. My question is, though, if a SIX track option gets chosen for Penn South--or for the Deep-Level Station--would only 18 trains per hour be able get used in the new station, at 3 trains per track per hour, instead of 24? (I seem to remember that ARC was supposed to be 24 trains per hour on six tracks)...


----------



## Anderson (Sep 2, 2013)

I don't know if the 24 trains per hour number was:

(A) Limited by tunnel capacity (that would be a train every 2.5 minutes);

(B) Limited by platform capacity (that would be a train every 20 minutes on 8 platforms or every 15 minutes on 6 platforms); or

(C ) Limited by present operational plans (i.e. there just aren't enough NJT trains planned at the present time to fill up more slots).

For what it's worth, I think it's probably A: I don't think they want to risk planning for more than that lest they overload timetables down the road.


----------



## Andrew (Sep 2, 2013)

Thus, are you saying that 24 trains per hour on 6 Tracks is just not doable, and or unrealistic?


----------



## Anderson (Sep 2, 2013)

Andrew said:


> Thus, are you saying that 24 trains per hour on 6 Tracks is just not doable, and or unrealistic?


I am not. That would be option (B). With option (A), I'm saying that more than 24 trains per hour on a two tunnel system (remember, the plan is to have two tracks in the tunnels leading to those platforming tracks) is probably undoable whether you have six tracks at the platform or sixty so long as you're running one tunnel in and one tunnel out.

_With that said_, it may be the case that trying to bring a train in, discharge passengers, potentially board passengers, and take a train out in fifteen minutes might be a little tight. That's likely what the study is discussing: How many platforms do they need, considering that this is a stub-end setup more or less. In theory, if they had a _lot_ more platforms/storage tracks they could run both tunnels inbound for a bit and park the trains at the platforms or on storage tracks, but the benefit of doing so is not likely to be justified by the expense of adding those tracks to the station.


----------



## Anderw (Sep 2, 2013)

1. It's just that, from what I understand, at least for the Gateway Project, Amtrak is looking at an 8 track stub-style station immediately to the south of the existing station. But, there are future plans for a SIX track station beneath that one. The Upper Level Station is the goal, but I would not be surprised if the Lower Level Option gets chosen... Thus, could NJ Transit operate 18 trains into the Lower Level on 6 tracks, and have 6 go the current Penn Station, (with a redesigned A Interlocking)?

2. Would it be financially cheaper to forget Penn South and instead have a "Penn Station Connector" from 12th Avenue to Penn Station, and have bored tunnels travel either under 30th or 31st street, and tie into the Lower Level of Grand Central Terminal?


----------



## Anderson (Sep 2, 2013)

Where should I begin? There are a whole lot of utility tunnels, subways, and high-rise sub-basements that such a tunnel would run into.

Also, with the additional station...that is, I believe, part of some of those super-high-speed rail projects. It's not connected to NJT's project.


----------



## Andrew (Sep 3, 2013)

Anderson said:


> Where should I begin? There are a whole lot of utility tunnels, subways, and high-rise sub-basements that such a tunnel would run into.
> Also, with the additional station...that is, I believe, part of some of those super-high-speed rail projects. It's not connected to NJT's project.


Are you talking about the tunnel I was referring to Grand Central Terminal from West Midtown, Manhattan? (Just to clarify, this tunnel was not supposed to go into Penn Station. Rather, there would be a spur from 12th avenue to connect to the tunnel box which would take it into Penn Station). From what I understand, though, NJ Transit considered this proposal I think a decade a go.

Thus, are you saying that a new trans-hudson tunnel--with a connection to Grand Central--is highly unlikely?


----------



## AlanB (Sep 3, 2013)

Andrew said:


> Anderson said:
> 
> 
> > Where should I begin? There are a whole lot of utility tunnels, subways, and high-rise sub-basements that such a tunnel would run into.
> ...


He's talking about a tunnel to get to Grand Central from NYP. It's not practical and it is very unlikely to ever happen. There is simply too much in the way.

Far more likely would be 2 more tunnels to Queens and Sunnyside. And that's still a long shot! But getting to Grand Central has so many issues that it will never happen unless someone drops mega Billions in the budget to make the project happen. And even then it is still unlikely. You have the Park Avenue Auto tunnel in the way, the Lexington Avenue subway which runs under Park avenue at that point in the way. You have Metro North's loop tracks in the way. You have the platforms at GCT in the way. You have water pipes in the way, power lines in the way (there are no telephone poles in Manhattan so all power lines are undergound). You have steam pipes in the way.

I'm too tired to go on. But a GCT to NYP rail connection is a pipe dream, a railfan's dream, and nothing more.


----------



## Andrew (Sep 4, 2013)

AlanB said:


> Andrew said:
> 
> 
> > Anderson said:
> ...


Lolz. I was not talking about a tunnel FROM Penn Station to Grand Central Terminal. Instead, I was referring to a tunnel that BYPASSES Penn Station but ends up in the Lower Level of Grand Central Terminal. (Perhaps this tunnel could travel 100 or 120 feet below 30th or 31st street--but a tunnel spur or connection would occur in Southwest Midtown, Manhattan to Penn Station). Thus, instead of ADDING platforms in Penn Station, NJ Transit could just slightly increase the number of commuter trains into Penn Station, but have a large share of their additional capacity operate into Grand Central's Lower Level.

I do not think that a tunnel will be bored from Penn Station to Grand Central Terminal, because of the 6th Ave. IND Express Tracks. Thoughts?


----------



## jis (Sep 4, 2013)

You are talking of a tunnel in someones fantasy, since no one who has done any real design or planning work has talked about such a tunnel yet.

And once they get to Grand Central Lower Level, where do you suppose they will put those trains? Another railfan fantasy is that GCT has infinite unused capacity that MNRR has no idea how to make use of.

Drew Galloway, the guy who manages the design work for all this for Amtrak told me once that there really is no problem caused by 6th Ave IND Line. The current East River tunnels get under it and so will any new tunnel east of NYP. All that you need is 2% grade which is just fine for trains that operate in and out of Penn Station.

Having said that I doubt very much that a tunnel exiting to east from NYP will go to GCT. It will more likely go to the Sunnyside area, perhaps even be used for express service to JFK and such.

I truly believe that the desire of NJ folks to get to the east side is much much more effectively addressed by building #7 to Secaucus than trying to figure the labyrinth out to try to build tunnels from NYP to GCT (NYG). Just like the PATH - LEX connection that was popular among rail advocates at one time, this one too looks good on some paper but the devil is sitting in the details. The aficionados have just attached themselves to a preliminary study which had said good things about the GCT connection and generally get extremely upset and red in their face if anyone mentions to them that maybe that study was a preliminary one which missed a few details.


----------



## Anderson (Sep 4, 2013)

Basically, to get much more capacity into GCT, you'd need a third level to be added given the situation in GCT at present. Now, I'm not sure if you could get a train to Galesburg in the 1890s there, but you'd get extra capacity at a good deal of expense. The question, though, is why do it into GCT instead of Penn? There's really no reason you couldn't put all your tunnels into Penn Station, put tunnels out the west side if necessary, and run everything you need to from NJ (as well as some MNRR stuff and the LIRR stuff that's there now) through that.


----------



## Andrew (Sep 4, 2013)

jis said:


> You are talking of a tunnel in someones fantasy, since no one who has done any real design or planning work has talked about such a tunnel yet.
> And once they get to Grand Central Lower Level, where do you suppose they will put those trains? Another railfan fantasy is that GCT has infinite unused capacity that MNRR has no idea how to make use of.
> 
> Drew Galloway, the guy who manages the design work for all this for Amtrak told me once that there really is no problem caused by 6th Ave IND Line. The current East River tunnels get under it and so will any new tunnel east of NYP. All that you need is 2% grade which is just fine for trains that operate in and out of Penn Station.
> ...


But how would a Seven Extension to Secaucus increase capacity between Newark, New Jersey, and Washington DC?

What else did Drew Galloway say? Has he said anything about the minimal amount of Block 780 that will have to get razed if the Upper Level Option gets built, or if the Lower Level Option is actually a better--and more realistic--choice?


----------



## jis (Sep 4, 2013)

He did not say anything with regard to the questions that you ask that is shareable at present. When he is ready to talk about it publicly then we will all know.

What does 7 extension or Gateway Tunnels or NYP to GCT connection or Gateway Tunnel to GCT connection have to do with capacity between Newark and Washington DC? :unsure: Newark - Washington capacity seems to be quite independent of all of those. Indeed you could conceivably increase capacity of Newark - Washington without doing anything to capacity into New York Penn, and just terminate a whole bunch of trains at Secaucus or Hoboken and let PATH and 7 to Secaucus take care of the rest. Sort of like arriving into London Waterloo south of the Thames and then taking the Underground to everywhere else in London.


----------



## Anderson (Sep 4, 2013)

Obviously it is different, but why am I reminded of the New Haven's attempts to truncate service at RTE and the NYC's attempts to truncate service up in the Bronx so they could sell off NYG?


----------



## jis (Sep 4, 2013)

I was not suggesting that anybody do such truncations. I was just trying to explain the fact that Washington to Newark capacity has nothing to do with how traffic between Newark and New York is handled.


----------



## Andrew (Sep 5, 2013)

Are you saying that traffic between Washington DC and Newark, NJ, is not at capacity?


----------



## jis (Sep 5, 2013)

Yes. We have a looong way to go before they get anywhere near capacity.


----------



## Andrew (Sep 5, 2013)

What about between Trenton and Secaucus, New Jersey, on NJ Transit?


----------



## jis (Sep 5, 2013)

Most congested is Swift to Secaucus and Hunter to Rea. Other than that it is fine. Specially with the higher density signaling in place that is coming with the HSR upgrade, it will be fine for years to come. Remember also that most trains are not at their full potential length yet either.


----------



## Andrew (Sep 5, 2013)

1. Could Amtrak (or a contractor) build the deep-level station underneath Block 780 and mine stairwells/escalators to the current Penn Station without razing the street. Also, how deep are the steam pipes and utility lines there?

2. What would take less time to build: Amtrak's Gateway Project or Seven to Secaucus?


----------



## Andrew (Mar 31, 2014)

1. Any chance that Amtrak alters the Gateway Program with regard to Penn Station (in the sense that the ARC 34th Street Station was changed)?

2. Should Gateway receive funding, what would be it's biggest challenge getting to completion?


----------

