ARC-tunnel update?

To use a silly analogy, it's like buying twice as big of a bottle (twice the "capacity"), but you only actually fill it up with water slowly, so you're not running at full capacity right after you have the capacity.[/quote]
ah ha good answer thank you. so they will need more equipment and employees just not as much as it sounds right away. Its a gradual thing over a 13 year span. interesting thanks. JC[/quote]
Fred has done a good job of explaining things thusfar. Essentially in or around 2014 NJT will have to go out and find more road crews to handle the increased service, so you'll get another shot then if you're still looking for work. [/quote]
If I'm still looking then I'll be living in your basement JC

Shouldn't doubling the number of tracks into NY actually wind up tripling (not just doubling) the peak-direction rush hour capacity for NJ Transit? With a total of two tracks, during the pm rush hour you only have one outbound track serving all homebound commuters, with one other track used for inbound trains. But once you move to four tracks, now you can have three outbound tracks in the afternoon rush (and similarly, three inbound tracks during the morning). This is is how Metro-North runs their Park Avenue operations, with three tracks operating in the peak direction at rush hours.

Of course, NJ Transit may not be able to exactly replicate this, since GCT has a lot more train storage capacity than Penn, and Amtrak would likely need to always have the two tracks leading to "Old" Penn Station operating in different directions. But I would hope that the design of the tracks to the new 34th Street Station would allow for both tracks to be used in the same direction for all or part of the rush hour. Since the new station won't have "thru" access from Sunnyside (will it?), this might be difficult to do, since the new station would eventually fill up (in the morning) or empty of equipment (in the evening), but it seems a real lost opportunity to triple rush hour capacity if not.

Expresstrain,

You have stepped into an unfortunate quagmire. The addition of two tracks will NOT create the four-track system you imagine. Unfortunately for a thousand reasons (some good, some bad, all sad), the new tunnels are not going to the original Penn Station but to a separate station approximately 140 ft below 34th street. As a result, the operations will be completely separated.

Also, even if the two new tunnels DID go to the original Penn Station, the plan you describe (with three tracks going in peak direction) would like be impossible. NJT does not have yard capacity at Penn Station the way the LIRR does -- Every train that comes in has to go out. The yard in Sunnyside is not really an option, since that requires using LIRR tubes -- which are in tight demand during the peak.

It was a beautiful, sunny afternoon as I went through Secaucus today. (I saw a strange sight: a set of MARC cars up from Baltimore but, alas, I digress).

I noticed again how much work is being done in the landfill just south of Secaucus. Supposedly this has nothing to do with ARC, but it seems like it could very well have to do with preliminary engineering for the Portal Bridge. I can recall seeing trucks on both sides of the Hackensack River some mornings during my commute into the city.

At the same time, it seems like they have leveled the Landfill in a way that would be essential for staging construction both for the ARC loop and the new bridge. To make this post relevant to this thread, what will the Landfill look like once the loop is built? Will there still be a grassy hill in the middle, or will it all be flattened out?

last time i drove down 1&9 over the NEC they had the jersey barriers up and took out the original center divider and shoved traffic over. Looks like they were getting ready to start demo of the warehouse and probably set those large bulkhead beams to hold back the embankment.

Despite change of name, it will always be the The Tunnel in my mind.

jumsmuj wrote:It was a beautiful, sunny afternoon as I went through Secaucus today. (I saw a strange sight: a set of MARC cars up from Baltimore but, alas, I digress).

I noticed again how much work is being done in the landfill just south of Secaucus. Supposedly this has nothing to do with ARC, but it seems like it could very well have to do with preliminary engineering for the Portal Bridge. I can recall seeing trucks on both sides of the Hackensack River some mornings during my commute into the city.

At the same time, it seems like they have leveled the Landfill in a way that would be essential for staging construction both for the ARC loop and the new bridge. To make this post relevant to this thread, what will the Landfill look like once the loop is built? Will there still be a grassy hill in the middle, or will it all be flattened out?

Despite what I might have posted earlier, the work going on in the Malanka Landfill is in fact related to the ARC project. The only work being performed for the Portal project right now are test borings being drilled on either side of the river. I can't say for sure, but I believe the hill in the landfill will be removed.

One thing I haven't seen is a layout for the Secaucus station after the tunnel and the new Portal bridge are finished. I thought I read in one of the scoping documents that two new tracks were being built south of the current station but maybe I misread that. And if that's true has anyone seen a plan for that part of the project? (Which would seem to be a pretty big deal considering it might involve actually demolishing the current entrance or at least some substantial construction.)

I knew I read it somewhere:

A new island platform and associated expanded areas would be provided at Frank R. Lautenberg Station
between the two new south side tracks for intrastate and interstate passenger travel.

From the ARC FEIS

bleet wrote:One thing I haven't seen is a layout for the Secaucus station after the tunnel and the new Portal bridge are finished. I thought I read in one of the scoping documents that two new tracks were being built south of the current station but maybe I misread that. And if that's true has anyone seen a plan for that part of the project? (Which would seem to be a pretty big deal considering it might involve actually demolishing the current entrance or at least some substantial construction.)

As you found in the FEIS, there will be a two track ROW with an island platform. It will require massive renovations to the South Mezzanine area of the current station and will tie into the main building when completed.

cruiser939 wrote:

bleet wrote:One thing I haven't seen is a layout for the Secaucus station after the tunnel and the new Portal bridge are finished. I thought I read in one of the scoping documents that two new tracks were being built south of the current station but maybe I misread that. And if that's true has anyone seen a plan for that part of the project? (Which would seem to be a pretty big deal considering it might involve actually demolishing the current entrance or at least some substantial construction.)

As you found in the FEIS, there will be a two track ROW with an island platform. It will require massive renovations to the South Mezzanine area of the current station and will tie into the main building when completed.

One concern that I have with the current design is that trains coming from the new (south) portal bridge will block trains coming from the loop if they stop at the new island platform. Were bypass tracks (perhaps by moving the interlocking for the loop tracks east of the station) considered/are a non-precluded option?

finsuburbia wrote:

cruiser939 wrote:

bleet wrote:One thing I haven't seen is a layout for the Secaucus station after the tunnel and the new Portal bridge are finished. I thought I read in one of the scoping documents that two new tracks were being built south of the current station but maybe I misread that. And if that's true has anyone seen a plan for that part of the project? (Which would seem to be a pretty big deal considering it might involve actually demolishing the current entrance or at least some substantial construction.)

As you found in the FEIS, there will be a two track ROW with an island platform. It will require massive renovations to the South Mezzanine area of the current station and will tie into the main building when completed.

One concern that I have with the current design is that trains coming from the new (south) portal bridge will block trains coming from the loop if they stop at the new island platform. Were bypass tracks (perhaps by moving the interlocking for the loop tracks east of the station) considered/are a non-precluded option?

Well I don't know what was considered early on in the project, this is the way it will be built in the future. Trust me when I tell you that people have considered the operational impacts and the decision to move forward has been made under the assumption that minimal trains will be stopping to utilize that platform. What does that mean? Well for all you people on the M&E, MCBL, RVL, and Bay Head trains - you most likely won’t be stopping at Secaucus. People on the NEC and NJCL - you will be stopping at Secaucus with about the same frequency that you are now. People on the ML, BCL, and PVL - you will be stopping at Secaucus (lower level) no matter what, just like you do today.

cruiser939 wrote: Well I don't know what was considered early on in the project, this is the way it will be built in the future. Trust me when I tell you that people have considered the operational impacts and the decision to move forward has been made under the assumption that minimal trains will be stopping to utilize that platform. What does that mean? Well for all you people on the M&E, MCBL, RVL, and Bay Head trains - you most likely won’t be stopping at Secaucus. People on the NEC and NJCL - you will be stopping at Secaucus with about the same frequency that you are now. People on the ML, BCL, and PVL - you will be stopping at Secaucus (lower level) no matter what, just like you do today.

Suffice it to say that I would expect this to be a significant issue only in the rush hours. There will probably not be a huge issue with even M&E, MCBL etc. stopping in non-rush hours. In any case the purpose of a stop at SEC will become facilitation of intra-Jersey transfers, and for those as long as regular service is maintained into HOB from the Main?Bergen/Pascack Lines and the Dover/Gladstone/Montclair-Boonton lines, stoppage at SEC is less critical for M&E/MCBL etc. lines. I suspect RVL might still stop some at SEC to facilitate intra-Jersey transfer, though even that is not super-critical since such transfer can be done using NEC/NJCL trains for the cost of an additional transfer at NWK.

NEWARK — NJ Transit's board on Wednesday unanimously approved the first tunneling contract for an $8.7 billion rail tunnel between New Jersey and Manhattan. Barnard Construction Co. of Bozeman, Mont., and Judlau Contracting of New York will be paid $583 million to dig the mile-long tube.

LINK

Here's a link to the official release.

http://www.arctunnel.com/pdf/news/2009- ... warded.pdf

This is for the Manhattan part of the tunnel from 12th Ave to the new station. The contract for the tunnel through the Palisades is apparently in prequalification and the contract for the part actually under the river won't be awarded until late next year it seems. (At least according to the website. http://www.thetunnelproject.com/ ) Actually, it's interesting reading about each of the 25 different contracts involved.