Amtrak Gateway Tunnels

Steve F45 wrote:Can Amtrak use any of NJ Transits environmental reviews to speed up the process?

I suspect that's among the least of the issues. First they have to get a funding commitment. Good luck with that.

Steve F45 wrote:Can Amtrak use any of NJ Transits environmental reviews to speed up the process?

About a year ago, I believe the Asbury Park Press reported that NJT and Amtrak were to share some of the environmental work performed for the ARC project. ATM, I can't find the article.

The following article suggests that there is hope for finding some funding to get the Gateway ball rolling this spring. Now, Amtrak has publicly reported that Gateway will be advanced as one, single, project to quad-track NWK-NYP and build the southern NYP annex. However, given the urgent need to repair the existing North River tubes, I wonder if there is any way that the new tunnels can be broken out for NEPA purposes. Would that significantly hasten the completion of environmental review for the underground/underwater portion of the project?

Hawaiitiki wrote:

Arlington wrote: Nice Map.

Interesting map but seems a little inaccurate. I'm pretty sure both ARC and Gateway would have used the same tunnel mouth in NJ. Also, the were also going to have the same ROW between SEC and the tunnel mouth.

ARC was not going to use the existing tunnel mouth. It's tunnel would have started to the south on the other side of the electrical building. Also there would have been a separate row all the way from the Kearny Connection to the tunnel mouth. And some of the Secaucus station would have been demolished and rebuilt to accommodate.

Since the tunnel mouth prep work had already begun under ARC, I would assume Gateway would use the same location.

bleet wrote:Since the tunnel mouth prep work had already begun under ARC, I would assume Gateway would use the same location.

So could you address how right/wrong this map looks?

(Credit: Wall Street Journal. January 2015)

Can you comment section-by-section?
- Divergence after NWK. Gateway is shown having it, ARC didn't
- Portal Bridges. Gateway adds a #2, ARC didn't
- Lautenberg Station. Gateway is shown passing far clear of it. ARC would have demolished/rebuilt part of it (and passed "through" it)
- Lautenberg Trackage. Gateway is shown passing far clear of it. ARC is shown involving Seacaucus Loop & Kearny Yards
- Northeast of Lautenberg. Gateway stays well away from existing NEC. ARC would have widened/followed the existing NEC
- Tunnel mouths: ARC would have been close (but south) of existing tunnel mouths. Gateway is shown having a mouth well-removed
- Underwater tunnel: ARC and Gateway are shown on identical alignments under the Hudson
- Manhattan Mouth: ARC is shown tunneled to North side of NYP, crossing under Hudson Yards. Gateway uses tunnel box to tie in to existing "Moynihan" end.

The Amtrak Inspector General issued a report in December on the contracts for and progress on the construction of the concrete casing (aka the Tunnel Box) with the catchy title: ACQUISITION AND PROCUREMENT: Gateway Program Projects Have Certain Cost and Schedule Risks (18 page, 2.5 MB PDF).

In the OIG report, it is revealed that Amtrak received $50 million in Sandy mitigation funds from the FRA for phase 2 of the concrete casing to extend under 11th Avenue. Amtrak, MTA, and NJ Transit will contribute $16 million in additional funds to get to $66 million needed for phase 2, although NJ Transit had not come through with its share when the report was written in December.

So while raising the really big bucks for the NEC Gateway lies ahead, the federal government has contributed $235 million ($185M for phase 1 + $50M) for the concrete casing project, thanks to the Hurricane Sandy relief funds. Add in the federal funds for the EIS work and the Amtrak, MTA contributions for the concrete casing, I think the total amount raised and being spent on the NEC Gateway so far is somewhere above $300 million. Just have to figure out how to raise the remaining $10 or $15 billion or whatever the price tag is up to over the next 10-15 years. My bet is that the Penn Station South will be postponed to a future phase with the two tunnels under the Hudson river becoming phase 1 to break the costs into more manageable pieces.

bleet wrote:

Hawaiitiki wrote:

Arlington wrote: Nice Map.

Interesting map but seems a little inaccurate. I'm pretty sure both ARC and Gateway would have used the same tunnel mouth in NJ. Also, the were also going to have the same ROW between SEC and the tunnel mouth.

ARC was not going to use the existing tunnel mouth. It's tunnel would have started to the south on the other side of the electrical building. Also there would have been a separate row all the way from the Kearny Connection to the tunnel mouth. And some of the Secaucus station would have been demolished and rebuilt to accommodate.

I got that, I just meant that in the map, even ARC and Gateway appear to have separate mouths.

Hawaiitiki wrote:I got that, I just meant that in the map, even ARC and Gateway appear to have separate mouths.

Or, to be even clearer, we are concerned with three relationships:
1) Gateway's mouth's distance from ARC's mouth. In the map, Gateway is widely-separated from ARC's mouth
2) ARC's mouth distance to the existing NEC mouth. In the map, it is shown as being very close to the NEC mouth (and folks here seem to agree that ARC was going to be *immediately* (a matter of yards) south of the NEC's mouth)
3) Gateway's mouth's distance to the NEC's mouth. If 1 & 2 are correctly shown, then the map is correct in showing Gateway's NJ-side mouth as widely separated FAR south from the NEC's mouth

Is there reason to believe that the map is wrong on any of the three relationships above?

Is the map basically right in showing that Gateway is not only different on how it enters Manhattan (which we've known from all the Tunnel Box work) but also very different in how it gets from NWK to its Hudson tunnel (which I, for one, hadn't thought about, but from the map, my first impression is that Amtrak's plan NWK-mouth is very different. Is my first impression, drawn from the map, correct as far as you experts are concerned?

A couple of things:
1) ARC was actually designed and construction was underway so the map of it is more accurate I would say than the Gateway one.
2) The ARC tunnel mouth on the Jersey side is probably 300 feet south of the existing tunnel mouth and the land acquisition and prep work are done so there's no reason to think Gateway would do all that over again.
3) The ARC plan was loosely attached to the Portal Bridge project which at that point involved two bridges. But don't get caught up on where they are on that map. They would have been a few hundred feet apart at most. The current Portal Bridge replacement plan only calls for one bridge.
4) The ARC plan called for a separate ROW between Kearny and the tunnel mouth but that would absolutely have had interlockings connecting it to the existing row as will any Gateway plan in my opinion.
5) The ARC plan called for a loop track and a separate yard and I suspect those might make a comeback under Gateway depending on operational needs and who pays for what.

Bottom line is that there is a LOT of design work yet to do on any Gateway plan so I wouldn't get too caught up in where things are on this map.

bleet wrote:
.....3) The ARC plan was loosely attached to the Portal Bridge project which at that point involved two bridges. But don't get caught up on where they are on that map. They would have been a few hundred feet apart at most. The current Portal Bridge replacement plan only calls for one bridge.

One bridge **** at this time ****. We don't need two bridges until there are two more tracks under the river.

ARC was also planning on two bridges.

https://web.archive.org/web/20130317042 ... _24_09.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Nice artist's renderings of the two bridges and drawings of one north of the existing bridge and one south of the existing bridge. Simplified drawings of the extra tracks that would be built for all the new capacity.

bleet wrote: 4) The ARC plan called for a separate ROW between Kearny and the tunnel mouth but that would absolutely have had interlockings connecting it to the existing row as will any Gateway plan in my opinion.

The track maps in the report at the above link have the Morris and Essex lines avoiding traffic on the NEC and connecting to the new tunnels. With all sorts of lovely connections so they could more or less get any train to any track during unusual circumstances. I'm not in the mood to go stare at them for 20 minutes. If I remember correctly a third track to Penn Station and provisions for a fourth. Which would mean 5 or 6 to Newark depending on how you want to look at it because the Morris and Essex lines go through Newark and are the busiest lines other than the ones using the NEC beyond Newark.

bleet wrote: 5) The ARC plan called for a loop track and a separate yard and I suspect those might make a comeback under Gateway depending on operational needs and who pays for what.

Bottom line is that there is a LOT of design work yet to do on any Gateway plan so I wouldn't get too caught up in where things are on this map.

Well yeah.. If NJtransit is going to be running a lot more trains during rush hour that implies they are going to have to go out and buy more trains. Which will have to be stored someplace overnight and serviced now and then.

....just like if PATH starts running ten car trains on the Newark-World Trade Center service they will need more cars and after they extend the storage west/south of Penn Station in Newark they are the airport and if they are going that far they might as well do that as revenue moves to a station at the airport and much less constrained yard at the airport.

1. The Gateway tunnel mouth and the former ARC/THE Tunnel tunnel mouth are one and the same.

2. The graphic some of you are referring to was done by a newspaper for God's sake. Do I really need to say more about this????

Don31 wrote:1. The Gateway tunnel mouth and the former ARC/THE Tunnel tunnel mouth are one and the same.

On the Jersey side, yes. Obviously not on the Penn side since ARC was going to a whole separate dead-end station.

Don31 wrote:The graphic some of you are referring to was done by a newspaper for God's sake. Do I really need to say more about this????

Not if you'd supply a link to a better-drawn picture, you wouldn't. words and picture are the medium we work in.

Adirondacker wrote: One bridge **** at this time ****. We don't need two bridges until there are two more tracks under the river.

Well they'd sure as heck come in handy if NJT and/or Amtrak have to start terminating trains at Secaucus due to tunnel work.

F-line to Dudley via Park wrote:

Don31 wrote:1. The Gateway tunnel mouth and the former ARC/THE Tunnel tunnel mouth are one and the same.

On the Jersey side, yes. Obviously not on the Penn side since ARC was going to a whole separate dead-end station.

Correct.

Arlington wrote:

Don31 wrote:The graphic some of you are referring to was done by a newspaper for God's sake. Do I really need to say more about this????

Not if you'd supply a link to a better-drawn picture, you wouldn't. words and picture are the medium we work in.

Point taken. But everything you see in the media should be taken with a grain of salt....