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

bleet wrote:For Cruiser or others in the know... what's the status of this project? I thought construction was supposed to have begun this year but was it shelved when ARC was cancelled? Also I noticed that the Lautenberg Gateway proposal suggested a different plan than the original. What's up?

i would think cancelled, just because of ARC. i think Cruiser could answer it better

The Portal Bridge project was/is separate from the Hudson rail tunnels, no construction funding has yet to be secured for the Portal bridge replacement. There's funding secured for the planning and engineering of the replacement of the bridge, but no funding yet for actual construction. Once the ARC project was underway funding was going to be sought for the Portal Bridge replacement. Now with ARC cancelled and the new Amtrak lead plan many years away, if ever, the Portal Bridge project will probably happen before too long.

NJT has funding for, and will be finishing up, the final design process. After that, it's Amtrak shows. If they ever actually move ahead with their Gateway plan (which is extremely unlikely anytime in the near future), then they can adapt the plans that NJT has done and move forward from there. No money has been allotted for construction as of yet.

hate to ask- but are the plans likely to be cut back without ARC moving forward?

Who was(is) going to own the two bridges? Is it a correct guess that Amtrak would own the 3 track bridge and NJ was going to own the 2 track?

michaelk wrote:Is it a correct guess that Amtrak would own the 3 track bridge and NJ was going to own the 2 track?

Without ARC, the two-track bridge will be a bridge to nowhere. Literally. No new tunnel, nowhere for the bridge to go.

The best we could hope for, now, is Portal still being replaced by the three track bridge, with the third track merging with the waterfront connection track, resulting in three tracks all the way between Newark and Secaucus. This should help make things go a little bit faster, at least.

mrsam wrote:

michaelk wrote:Is it a correct guess that Amtrak would own the 3 track bridge and NJ was going to own the 2 track?

Without ARC, the two-track bridge will be a bridge to nowhere. Literally. No new tunnel, nowhere for the bridge to go.

The best we could hope for, now, is Portal still being replaced by the three track bridge, with the third track merging with the waterfront connection track, resulting in three tracks all the way between Newark and Secaucus. This should help make things go a little bit faster, at least.

I honestly didn't read the whole portal bridge website- but looked like they wanted 2 bridges for redundancy and also so they didn't have to cross the midtown direct trains across the other 2 tracks all the time- hence the duck under bit. Seems the narrowed down options all had the duck under or fly over - so that bit was important.

Is the duck under bit only really necessary for when service gets increased at some point in the future with another tunnel? I know i've sat around on the RVL train waiting for a gap to cross over the NEC. And although I've never rode a midtown direct train I've seen them parked waiting for a gap as i went past on NEC/NJCL/RVL. Dont recall getting 'stuck' entering or leaving the NEC on a NJCL train since the duck unders are there. So seems it would have some value even without ARC- but i wouldn't really know how much.

The schematics on the NJT ppt's show connections on the east side of the bridge to the existing tracks leading to Secaucus. So it all still could connect into the current system even without ARC- If the fly under is still important.

michaelk wrote:

mrsam wrote:

michaelk wrote:Is it a correct guess that Amtrak would own the 3 track bridge and NJ was going to own the 2 track?

Without ARC, the two-track bridge will be a bridge to nowhere. Literally. No new tunnel, nowhere for the bridge to go.

The best we could hope for, now, is Portal still being replaced by the three track bridge, with the third track merging with the waterfront connection track, resulting in three tracks all the way between Newark and Secaucus. This should help make things go a little bit faster, at least.

I honestly didn't read the whole portal bridge website- but looked like they wanted 2 bridges for redundancy and also so they didn't have to cross the midtown direct trains across the other 2 tracks all the time- hence the duck under bit. Seems the narrowed down options all had the duck under or fly over - so that bit was important.

Is the duck under bit only really necessary for when service gets increased at some point in the future with another tunnel? I know i've sat around on the RVL train waiting for a gap to cross over the NEC. And although I've never rode a midtown direct train I've seen them parked waiting for a gap as i went past on NEC/NJCL/RVL. Dont recall getting 'stuck' entering or leaving the NEC on a NJCL train since the duck unders are there. So seems it would have some value even without ARC- but i wouldn't really know how much.

The schematics on the NJT ppt's show connections on the east side of the bridge to the existing tracks leading to Secaucus. So it all still could connect into the current system even without ARC- If the fly under is still important.

Under the original plan, NJT would construct both bridges but Amtrak would finance the majority of and own the northern span while NJT would own the southern span.

Without ARC, there is no need for a southern bridge. Without a southern bridge, there is no need for a fly-over or duck-under. The connections you saw to the east of the bridges in the original design was only included because it was necessary based on how construction was planned to be staged. Once built and operational, it would have been stupid to pay money to then remove it.

Oh, and here's a nice little nugget for you guys to munch on. The northern bridge is only 2 tracks now. Thank you Amtrak and no funding...

Lovely about Amtrak not kicking in and now only 2 tracks.

Have the feds / Amtrak always been so difficult or is the behavior of late new post-arc spitefullness?

michaelk wrote:Lovely about Amtrak not kicking in and now only 2 tracks.

Have the feds / Amtrak always been so difficult or is the behavior of late new post-arc spitefullness?

HAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHA

Hello Everyone!

With the current plan being for a two track new bridge to the north of the existing one, what is the reasoning for demolishing the old one? I realize that it costs money, but with four tracks over the river, wouldn't it make sense to build two more tracks to Kearny and keep the old bridge? The benefits would be relatively small, most likely only in terms of NEC and M&E trains not waiting to use the same track going west of Secaucus. In the east direction the only benefit is that M&E trains will wait to merge into the NEC at Secaucus, not Kearny. Hopefully those two more tracks cost only in the $100 million range, not in the $1 billion, so that it is easier to find money for them. But the idea is that this gives 4 tracks on part of NYP-Newark to be used in the future when hopefully something such as the Gateway gets built.

EuroStar wrote:Hello Everyone!

With the current plan being for a two track new bridge to the north of the existing one, what is the reasoning for demolishing the old one? I realize that it costs money, but with four tracks over the river, wouldn't it make sense to build two more tracks to Kearny and keep the old bridge? The benefits would be relatively small, most likely only in terms of NEC and M&E trains not waiting to use the same track going west of Secaucus. In the east direction the only benefit is that M&E trains will wait to merge into the NEC at Secaucus, not Kearny. Hopefully those two more tracks cost only in the $100 million range, not in the $1 billion, so that it is easier to find money for them. But the idea is that this gives 4 tracks on part of NYP-Newark to be used in the future when hopefully something such as the Gateway gets built.

The old bridge is not worth keeping. I'm sure if they could get rid of it tomorrow, they would!

THis project is pretty much on ice now, isn't it? It looks like Portal will be with us for another generation. Was the design work for a new span even completed?

JCGUY wrote:THis project is pretty much on ice now, isn't it? It looks like Portal will be with us for another generation. Was the design work for a new span even completed?

Well, they got money last year to complete the design work. Hopefully they used it for the purpose that it was given.

I suspect Portal replacement will happen before we see the rest of Gateway happening. But everything is tied up with evolving a new model for funding anything along the NEC. It is entirely possible that Portal would get funded by some combination of FTA, FRA, CMAQ and PANYNJ. The jury is still out.

Portal is beyond its operational lifespan. It needs replacement 10 years ago.

There is no question that the old bridge is beyond its lifespan, but there is also no doubt that it will be with us for another 4-5 years minimum unless it actually fails completely. All information available points that the "replacement" will be a fixed 2 track span to the north of the existing one. This improves operations in one extremely important way: no opening and closings of the bridge that disturb the trains.
But a 2 track bridge is a 2 track bridge. I am interested whether there are operational advantages to having three or four tracks between Kearny Junction and Secaucus and whether that can be accomplished at a reasonable cost by keeping the old movable bridge while waiting for Gateway or something else to materialize in the distant future if ever. I am curious what people who have more knowledge than I do think about that.