All Things Portal Bridge: Amtrak and NJT Status and Replacement Discussion

finsuburbia wrote:Nice looking arch river spans.

I see that they opted to go with more structure rather than embankment. With 29 bridges with 124 spans, it really is a pretty massive project. I wonder though how much more it would have cost to allow for a duck under of the southern western approach spans and a double tracking of the proposed duck under for the northern western approach which would allow for the oft-discussed westbound waterfront connection.

I'm not sure what you've asked is even possible or necessary. Since all the construction in the project happens east of the existing NEC overpass of the M&E -- the proposed duck-under is close to 3,000 feet east -- it seems to me the only way to connect to the waterfront would be to somehow connect to the ARC loop tracks and get trains to Hoboken that way. Because of the close proximity to the bridge where that would have to happen it may not even be possible. But assuming it is then you wouldn't need a southern duck-under since NEC track 2 already has a connection to the southern bridge. And the northern duck-under already has a connection to NEC track 4. IF all that were possible and desireable and affordable then a bigger need might be for a third track on the southern bridge to avoid delays as waterfront trains decelerate/accelerate going on and off the loop.

But I can't see anyone spending a nickle on this even assuming it's possible.

bleet wrote:

finsuburbia wrote:Nice looking arch river spans.

I see that they opted to go with more structure rather than embankment. With 29 bridges with 124 spans, it really is a pretty massive project. I wonder though how much more it would have cost to allow for a duck under of the southern western approach spans and a double tracking of the proposed duck under for the northern western approach which would allow for the oft-discussed westbound waterfront connection.

I'm not sure what you've asked is even possible or necessary. Since all the construction in the project happens east of the existing NEC overpass of the M&E -- the proposed duck-under is close to 3,000 feet east -- it seems to me the only way to connect to the waterfront would be to somehow connect to the ARC loop tracks and get trains to Hoboken that way. Because of the close proximity to the bridge where that would have to happen it may not even be possible. But assuming it is then you wouldn't need a southern duck-under since NEC track 2 already has a connection to the southern bridge. And the northern duck-under already has a connection to NEC track 4. IF all that were possible and desireable and affordable then a bigger need might be for a third track on the southern bridge to avoid delays as waterfront trains decelerate/accelerate going on and off the loop.

But I can't see anyone spending a nickle on this even assuming it's possible.

That's not quite what I was envisioning. The idea would be to extend the proposed track 7 (see slide 8 in the DBE presentation) through the proposed track 5 duck under and then under the southern approach spans, continuing along the Hackensack river to connect with the M&E just west of the Lower Hack Bridge. It would be a separate track so as not to interfere with the M&E connection to the ARC tracks because it would probably require sharper curves and thus run at a slower speed (plus it would only require one switch rather than two).

It would be desirable because of the operational flexibility it would provide and the possibility for new service options. For example, ARC will take the majority of NYC bound trips away from Hoboken. This will allow HOB service to be redeveloped using lower capacity (but higher frequency) DMU/EMU service for intra-state travel especially for connections to the HBLR.

finsuburbia wrote:

bleet wrote:

finsuburbia wrote:Nice looking arch river spans.

I see that they opted to go with more structure rather than embankment. With 29 bridges with 124 spans, it really is a pretty massive project. I wonder though how much more it would have cost to allow for a duck under of the southern western approach spans and a double tracking of the proposed duck under for the northern western approach which would allow for the oft-discussed westbound waterfront connection.

I'm not sure what you've asked is even possible or necessary. Since all the construction in the project happens east of the existing NEC overpass of the M&E -- the proposed duck-under is close to 3,000 feet east -- it seems to me the only way to connect to the waterfront would be to somehow connect to the ARC loop tracks and get trains to Hoboken that way. Because of the close proximity to the bridge where that would have to happen it may not even be possible. But assuming it is then you wouldn't need a southern duck-under since NEC track 2 already has a connection to the southern bridge. And the northern duck-under already has a connection to NEC track 4. IF all that were possible and desireable and affordable then a bigger need might be for a third track on the southern bridge to avoid delays as waterfront trains decelerate/accelerate going on and off the loop.

But I can't see anyone spending a nickle on this even assuming it's possible.

That's not quite what I was envisioning. The idea would be to extend the proposed track 7 (see slide 8 in the DBE presentation) through the proposed track 5 duck under and then under the southern approach spans, continuing along the Hackensack river to connect with the M&E just west of the Lower Hack Bridge. It would be a separate track so as not to interfere with the M&E connection to the ARC tracks because it would probably require sharper curves and thus run at a slower speed (plus it would only require one switch rather than two).

It would be desirable because of the operational flexibility it would provide and the possibility for new service options. For example, ARC will take the majority of NYC bound trips away from Hoboken. This will allow HOB service to be redeveloped using lower capacity (but higher frequency) DMU/EMU service for intra-state travel especially for connections to the HBLR.

Yikes! That is not a very well conceived plan. I hope that you're forgetting the yard that will be built along the north edge of the M&E ROW just west of Lower Hack, precluding any connection your proposed track could make to the M&E.

It's a shame that the CNJ Newark Bay draw was demolished after only about 50 years of use (and very little activity after 1967). That bridge was not even halfway through its life cycle...it's a travesty similar to Penn Station being demolished. That CNJ bridge would be useful today; it would make a good reliever for the Portal Bridge by taking some RVL and NJCL traffic off of Norfolk Southern and the Northeast Corridor. It would also make those two lines less vulnerable to an Amtrak strike. I don't buy the "navigation hazard" argument, the City of Newark made that argument even before the bridge was completed in 1926 (saw an NY Times article.) At the time of its demolition, that was the biggest, newest, and most advanced rail drawbridge in NJ. Its a shame that all these years later we are still using smaller, older bridges.

cruiser939 wrote:

finsuburbia wrote:

bleet wrote: I'm not sure what you've asked is even possible or necessary. Since all the construction in the project happens east of the existing NEC overpass of the M&E -- the proposed duck-under is close to 3,000 feet east -- it seems to me the only way to connect to the waterfront would be to somehow connect to the ARC loop tracks and get trains to Hoboken that way. Because of the close proximity to the bridge where that would have to happen it may not even be possible. But assuming it is then you wouldn't need a southern duck-under since NEC track 2 already has a connection to the southern bridge. And the northern duck-under already has a connection to NEC track 4. IF all that were possible and desireable and affordable then a bigger need might be for a third track on the southern bridge to avoid delays as waterfront trains decelerate/accelerate going on and off the loop.

But I can't see anyone spending a nickle on this even assuming it's possible.

That's not quite what I was envisioning. The idea would be to extend the proposed track 7 (see slide 8 in the DBE presentation) through the proposed track 5 duck under and then under the southern approach spans, continuing along the Hackensack river to connect with the M&E just west of the Lower Hack Bridge. It would be a separate track so as not to interfere with the M&E connection to the ARC tracks because it would probably require sharper curves and thus run at a slower speed (plus it would only require one switch rather than two).

It would be desirable because of the operational flexibility it would provide and the possibility for new service options. For example, ARC will take the majority of NYC bound trips away from Hoboken. This will allow HOB service to be redeveloped using lower capacity (but higher frequency) DMU/EMU service for intra-state travel especially for connections to the HBLR.

Yikes! That is not a very well conceived plan. I hope that you're forgetting the yard that will be built along the north edge of the M&E ROW just west of Lower Hack, precluding any connection your proposed track could make to the M&E.

D'oh, forgot about that one. Still, the yard is not built yet (the contract I don't think has even been advertised) and could theoretically be altered so that a track could be built on the north side of the yard (although it might require an EA).

In any case, this is pure speculation on my part of whether it would have been a feasible design choice. At this point, the chance that a westbound waterfront connection would be built this way are pretty slim to none.

moveonrp wrote:It's a shame that the CNJ Newark Bay draw was demolished after only about 50 years of use (and very little activity after 1967). That bridge was not even halfway through its life cycle...it's a travesty similar to Penn Station being demolished. That CNJ bridge would be useful today; it would make a good reliever for the Portal Bridge by taking some RVL and NJCL traffic off of Norfolk Southern and the Northeast Corridor. It would also make those two lines less vulnerable to an Amtrak strike. I don't buy the "navigation hazard" argument, the City of Newark made that argument even before the bridge was completed in 1926 (saw an NY Times article.) At the time of its demolition, that was the biggest, newest, and most advanced rail drawbridge in NJ. Its a shame that all these years later we are still using smaller, older bridges.

Even if the Bay Bridge remained, where would the Coast Line and RVL trains go? The CNJ terminal was gone after 1967 and the tracks in Bayonne do not connect to Hoboken.

I think I figured out why the southern bridge went from moveable to fixed. In looking back at the scoping documents, the southern bridge needed to be moveable because the connection to the ARC yard was going to be West of the bridge. Under that configuration, the bridge needed to be lower -- at 40 feet -- to make the grade manageable. It appears that once the ARC plan settled on trains getting to the yard via the loop east of the river there was no longer a need to have the bridge lower-- hence it got raised and fixed. Just a guess on my part but it seems to jive with the documents.

R36 Combine Coach wrote:Even if the Bay Bridge remained, where would the Coast Line and RVL trains go? The CNJ terminal was gone after 1967 and the tracks in Bayonne do not connect to Hoboken.

Don't tell that to the HBLRT.

Seriously, though, there's enough disused rail infrastructure in western Jersey City that a CNJ-Hoboken connection could very easily have been accomplished, for a lot less than it would have cost to build HBLRT on its current alignment.

moveonrp wrote:

R36 Combine Coach wrote:Even if the Bay Bridge remained, where would the Coast Line and RVL trains go? The CNJ terminal was gone after 1967 and the tracks in Bayonne do not connect to Hoboken.

Don't tell that to the HBLRT.

Seriously, though, there's enough disused rail infrastructure in western Jersey City that a CNJ-Hoboken connection could very easily have been accomplished, for a lot less than it would have cost to build HBLRT on its current alignment.

Furthermore, that rail infrastructure was not so disused back in 1967. Connecting to Hoboken Terminal would have been a far cheaper affair back then. (And the ironic thing is, it was all NJDOT's call even then.)

And the CRRNJ Terminal "gone"? What's that building I see in Liberty State Park? Exchange Place Terminal, Erie Terminal and Weehawken Terminal are indeed gone, by contrast. (Perhaps the PRR was a bit hasty abandoning in Jersey City and ought to have waited, to allow Metroliners to serve Wall Street…?)

There was basically a 30 year absence of NJCL trains from the Waterfront from the closing of Exchange Place in 1961 to the Waterfront Connection in 1991. Even so, Hoboken and Lower Manhattan were still only a short ride away by PATH from Newark Penn Station.

bleet wrote:I think I figured out why the southern bridge went from moveable to fixed. In looking back at the scoping documents, the southern bridge needed to be moveable because the connection to the ARC yard was going to be West of the bridge. Under that configuration, the bridge needed to be lower -- at 40 feet -- to make the grade manageable. It appears that once the ARC plan settled on trains getting to the yard via the loop east of the river there was no longer a need to have the bridge lower-- hence it got raised and fixed. Just a guess on my part but it seems to jive with the documents.

While it's an admirable guess, that's all it is. The current plan includes a turnout from track 6 west of the bridge for a future connection from the Kearny Yard. As I said before, it was a trade from Rail Ops for a greater grade in exchange for bridge reliability.

How worn out is it? For it's age & the number of trains that use it, in ok shape, compared to new it's a steaming pile of tinder.

I've seen them prepping the site along the sides where the piers are to go.

- A

moveonrp wrote:It's a shame that the CNJ Newark Bay draw was demolished after only about 50 years of use (and very little activity after 1967). That bridge was not even halfway through its life cycle...it's a travesty similar to Penn Station being demolished. That CNJ bridge would be useful today; it would make a good reliever for the Portal Bridge by taking some RVL and NJCL traffic off of Norfolk Southern and the Northeast Corridor. It would also make those two lines less vulnerable to an Amtrak strike. I don't buy the "navigation hazard" argument, the City of Newark made that argument even before the bridge was completed in 1926 (saw an NY Times article.) At the time of its demolition, that was the biggest, newest, and most advanced rail drawbridge in NJ. Its a shame that all these years later we are still using smaller, older bridges.

The US Coast Guard supported the NY NJ Port Authority, the primary instigator of Bay Draw's removal, in the hazard argument. While I concur that it may not have been a true hazard, it did prevent the passage of the ever increasing size of ships from accessing Ports Elizabeth and Newark, both Port Authority properties. That was the real reason for the Port Authority's desires. Not unlike the current issue with the vertical clearance of the Bayonne Bridge, which will need to be raised or replaced to accommodate the larger vessels.

GIven the port's contribution to our local economy, it's hard to argue that the port was more important than the bridge.