Amtrak Gateway Tunnels

Jeff Smith wrote:A fairly detailed analysis of the current situation and challenges posed by Gateway. I'd quibble with some of the characterizations (ARC was not meant to "replace" the North River tunnels; it was meant to supplement and divert NJT trains, and with acknowledged design flaws. But overall, a pretty good summation in spite of some of the bias exhibited.

I don't fully agree with one statement in the Bloomberg article. "Gateway is more complex than the project Christie killed: It’s a tunnel, plus upgrades to Pennsylvania Station and, on the New Jersey side, expanded track capacity and replacement of a 105-year-old bridge in the swampy Meadowlands region."

Is the Gateway project really more complex than ARC? On the NJ side, ARC was going to build 2 Portal bridges and 2 new tracks for a total of 4 from Newark to Manhattan. The Gateway tunnels are shallower on the Manhattan side leading to NYP rather than deep tunnels to the new NYPE station. And 850' feet of the tunnels on the Manhattan end are already close to built out. The biggest difference in complexity is between the deep underground station, aka Macy's basement versus Penn Station South which would be built by acquiring a city block, removing the buildings to dig out a space for platforms and tracks and then have developers put up new buildings over the NYP south extension. Property acquisition costs for NYP South are higher, but I think the overall construction would be simpler.

There was a good article in the New York Times several days ago on the concrete casing / tunnel box being built from 10th Avenue to under 11th Avenue: Relief for Local Rail Woes Is Taking Shape in Concrete by the Hudson. It is a detailed look at the status of the project with a video and pictures of the completed casing.

Excerpt of some of the more technical content:

The two-tube concrete casing that preserves Amtrak’s right of way under the Hudson Yards development and the Long Island Rail Road yards west of Pennsylvania Station in July 2014, almost a year after construction began. The photograph shows how the parallel tubes, heavily reinforced with steel rods known as rebar, were built in an excavated open cut. A concrete ceiling was later poured over the cut, making the tubes invisible from above. They make a gentle southwesterly curve between 10th and 11th Avenues, leading to West 30th Street, while descending slightly, at a 2 percent slope. Each of the tubes is about 20 feet wide, big enough to accommodate an Amtrak or New Jersey Transit train.

As part the right-of-way project, Amtrak demolished and is rebuilding the Long Island Rail Road equipment maintenance shop where the east end of the concrete casing had to be excavated. When the shop is complete, cars will roll up on elevated tracks with trenches underneath them, permitting inspectors to examine undercarriages while standing up. Flanking platforms will also make it possible to board the cars.

Excavation started predictably with Manhattan schist, the familiar bedrock that underlies much of Manhattan Island. But as crews made their way westward, they encountered a deposit of granite. “We thought that was hard,” said Dennis K. Nazzaro, a vice president of the LiRo Group, construction consultants on the project. Worse was to come: a vein of quartz that made drilling extremely difficult. Mr. Nazzaro showed samples of each.

A bridge carries 11th Avenue over the Long Island Rail Road yards where the current phase of the right-of-way excavation project is taking place. To support the bridge temporarily, Amtrak and its contractor, Tutor Perini, made use of an enormous steel beam, about 120 feet long and 8 feet tall, that had been fabricated a half-century ago for Interstate 95 in Connecticut. It was no longer needed after reconstruction work on that highway.

Arlington wrote:The "costing billions more" is a bit of a cheap shot--inflation does that, and it isn't quite the same as saying "price has gone up in real terms." And Christie can still say now, as he did at the time, that he didn't believe that cost estimates then were accurate. Frankly, he can point to current cost estimates as confirmation that the old ones were lowballed.

The big charge that Christie cannot defend against is plain old timing, and the unforgivable delay that he alone caused. We knew the tunnels needed help and would one day need to be closed for refurb and that the only thing that'd save NJ commuters a whole lotta hell was a a new tunnel (even before Sandy, we knew "a Sandy" or some bad thing was coming, even if it were just age)

Politicians are elected. They will do what the electorate wants. Christie cancelled ARC in October 2010, and three years later was re-elected in a landslide. I don't recall ARC being a major issue for either side in the 2013 election. Presumably that means the NJ electorate was, at the time, happy with the decision.

Cost overruns are not an unreasonable concern. For an example from the other side of the country, check out this article on the new SF-Oakland Bay Bridge-- original cost estimate $250 million, total cost as-built to date $6.5 billion. http://www.citylab.com/politics/2015/10 ... un/410254/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Is that a great way to build major infrastructure? Absolutely not. Did it go more smoothly back in 1900, when the only people involved in the decision-making process for the Pennsylvania Tunnels & Terminals Extension were Alexander Cassatt and the board of directors of the Pennsylvania Railroad? Absolutely. But like it or not, that's the world we live in today-- this is the way we the voters have decided we want to do this. I'm just happy that the governors of NY & NJ seem to now be on the same page and things are moving forward: even if it did take a few-hundred-thousand p**ed-off NJT commuters to make this happen.

The ARC tunnel plan was a terrible idea and did not deserve to be built. What is happening now is a good first step. It was easier when it was just the PRR because that company had a single goal in mind. Dealing with two State Government agencies, NJT, Metro North and the LIRR, along with Amtrak makes the entire project much more complicated. Angry voters not withstanding, the original plan, if built out would not have been the answer. What is really needed is a regional rail service for the entire Northeast. Perhaps start with the New York Metro area but rail transport should not be limited by artificial State borders. I realize this will be considered inflammatory but the NEC really needs to be a separate and unique company independent from Amtrak. The commuter rail services from Boston through DC should be linked in as a single entity that deals with the Boston-Washington corridor independent of State interference. Each State should contribute funds that supports a rational rail plan that supports the infrastructure to link the region. Perhaps then planning will be easier.

Agreed that if ARC had been built it would have been a disaster, not least because it would not have allowed the closure of the old tubes for maintenance. But I hope Amtrak retains ownership of the NEC. Amtrak is popular. I worry that if the NEC were independent, red-state animus or Tea Party insanity would make it even more difficult to get funding for NEC work.

afiggatt wrote:

Jeff Smith wrote:A fairly detailed analysis of the current situation and challenges posed by Gateway. I'd quibble with some of the characterizations (ARC was not meant to "replace" the North River tunnels; it was meant to supplement and divert NJT trains, and with acknowledged design flaws. But overall, a pretty good summation in spite of some of the bias exhibited.

I don't fully agree with one statement in the Bloomberg article. "Gateway is more complex than the project Christie killed: It’s a tunnel, plus upgrades to Pennsylvania Station and, on the New Jersey side, expanded track capacity and replacement of a 105-year-old bridge in the swampy Meadowlands region."

Is the Gateway project really more complex than ARC? On the NJ side, ARC was going to build 2 Portal bridges and 2 new tracks for a total of 4 from Newark to Manhattan. The Gateway tunnels are shallower on the Manhattan side leading to NYP rather than deep tunnels to the new NYPE station. And 850' feet of the tunnels on the Manhattan end are already close to built out. The biggest difference in complexity is between the deep underground station, aka Macy's basement versus Penn Station South which would be built by acquiring a city block, removing the buildings to dig out a space for platforms and tracks and then have developers put up new buildings over the NYP south extension. Property acquisition costs for NYP South are higher, but I think the overall construction would be simpler.

Actually ARC did NOT include anything other than the new tunnels and the 34th street station. The Portal bridges were not included nor were any changes to the ROW between the bridges and Newark Penn Station. So including all of that stuff AND Penn Station South is why the project costs so much more than before.

But I'm encouraged by the small but important steps... NJT is taking on the environmental studies on the tunnel -- which should be simplified by what was already done for ARC... the design of one of the Portal bridges is done I think... and the tunnel box construction continues towards the river. At least it's something.

Costs between ARC and Gateway appear to be apples to oranges. The costs of just the ARC bores and Gateway bores may be a better comparison. Then the other Gateway projects, Penn south, 4 tracking, each new portal bridge,& Secaucus loop separate.
But even comparing just bore costs may be difficult due to different lengths and depths.

JoeG wrote:Agreed that if ARC had been built it would have been a disaster, not least because it would not have allowed the closure of the old tubes for maintenance.

Yes it would. NJT service could've been squeezed into the ARC tunnels completely during the renovations. And current Amtrak service could've probably continued with just one tube and then th eother one could've been closed for renovations. Amtrak doesn't have nearly as many trains as NJT. These changes would've not been ideal but not nearly as much of a disaster as closing one tunnel now would be.

JoeG wrote: But I hope Amtrak retains ownership of the NEC. Amtrak is popular. I worry that if the NEC were independent, red-state animus or Tea Party insanity would make it even more difficult to get funding for NEC work.

NEC trains lines are the only profitable parts of Amtrak. If they are separated, Amtrak will require even more subsidies that the Republican/Tea Party dominated Congress has no plans to provide. I am afraid that this privatization of NEC is essentially a plan to hurt Amtrak even further.

It isn't so clear that the NEC is profitable. It might be profitable if maintenance and capital costs are ignored, but, as we are now seeing, those costs are substantial and growing. Getting the states the NEC passes through to agree to put up lots of cash is like herding cats. Right now, despite grumbling, Amtrak continues to get some Federal funding. If the NEC were separated from Amtrak the chance of the NEC getting Federal money would undoubtedly decrease.

Defiant wrote: And current Amtrak service could've probably continued with just one tube and then th eother one could've been closed for renovations. Amtrak doesn't have nearly as many trains as NJT. These changes would've not been ideal but not nearly as much of a disaster as closing one tunnel now would be.

Sorry but as lawyers say. " Assumptions made not in fact " Amtrak just use one bore if ARC built ?
1. At present Amtrak is having to close at least one bore almost every weekend for temporary repairs. What is it to say that the remaining bore will fail more often until it is also closed for a medium term repair ?
2. Until Gateway bores are in service NJT will often have to divert to Hoboken whenever one old bore is closed.
3. We may suspect when Gateway bores are complete there will be no schedule increase until at least one North river tunnel bore is refurbished and back in service.
4. It " may " be Amtrak will allow additional NJT trains thru the remaining old bore with proviso that any additional trains would be diverted to Hoboken if remaining bore is closed.

west point wrote:Costs between ARC and Gateway appear to be apples to oranges. The costs of just the ARC bores and Gateway bores may be a better comparison. Then the other Gateway projects, Penn south, 4 tracking, each new portal bridge,& Secaucus loop separate.
But even comparing just bore costs may be difficult due to different lengths and depths.

I would expect the Gateway tunnel to be much more direct and therefore shorter than ARC. ARC had to go deeper and had a loop in it to go below the original tunnels while keeping the grade manageable. Doesn't mean it will be cheaper but still...

We shouldn't forget that the estimated cost of ARC was probably a lowball amount anyway.We will never know what it would have cost. We don't yet know what Gateway will cost either. But it has to get built.

You never know. I believe the TZB came in at much less than anticipated, didn't it?

Jeff Smith wrote:You never know. I believe the TZB came in at much less than anticipated, didn't it?

The one being built right now? The one that's not finished yet?
The one that I'm not sure we have a final price for?
The one that we're not even sure how we're paying for yet?
The one that Cuomo tried to take money from an clean water fund to pay for the bridge?

That one?

(and I say "we" as I'm one of the taxpayers on the hook for something we don't seem to have a grip on how we're going to pay for it.)

Yes. That one. Do you have a point? I know there were questionable financial arrangements about it.

My point is that, and I'm no fan of Cuomo, he got the project started pretty quickly upon taking office, and that my impression of the timeline leading up to that start was that the cost came in much lower using design-build process, not design - bid - build. The former places responsibility for cost overruns on the contractor, according to this web-site:

http://www.newnybridgegallery.com/updates/faqs/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

This could of course go up. Nevertheless, it's certainly a faster way of getting the bridge done than what's being used for Gateway.

The one being built right now? The one that's not finished yet?

Yes. Due to open April 2018.

The one that I'm not sure we have a final price for?

Is there ever a final price for public works' projects? Look at ESA and how long it's dragged on. What's your point.

The one that we're not even sure how we're paying for yet?
The one that Cuomo tried to take money from an clean water fund to pay for the bridge?

Yes, we all know this. We don't know how we're paying for Gateway either. So perhaps I should have said "coming in at" rather than "came in at". Again, I don't see your point. My point is TZB is a good example for how to get something started quickly, and at less cost. As I said, I recall in the run-up to the TZB start they were talking many more billions, not around $4 or $5b.

That's my point.