Tunnel Box

Don31 wrote:

Thomas wrote:1. I am concerned about the potential for businesses to refuse to move once Block 780 gets razed for Penn South.

2. Is below grade different from below street level?

1. Thats what eminent domain is for. Those businesses that cant reach a negotiated settlement would be condemned.

2. Generally speaking they are the same.

To further amplify, the way federal eminent domain works is that if the offer is refused by the property owner, the eminent domain complaint is filed and the ownership transferred. The property owner can contest the amount of compensation in court, but that does not stay the taking. So eminent domain ought not to be an impediment or delay, other than the potential for political intervention which of course is an ever present potential obstacle to anything.

Amtrak was lucky to get tunnel box funding from the Hurricane Sandy Relief Bill. Therefore, in future years, what are other (and realistic) ways to fund the rest of the Gateway Project?

Washington DC becoms funcional and useful things start to get done.

And what will Amtrak need to do to convince the Fed's to give them money for other segments of the Gateway Project?

Thomas wrote:And what will Amtrak need to do to convince the Fed's to give them money for other segments of the Gateway Project?

Get NJT and MTA to contribute to the project as well. If California is expected to ante up half, or more than half the funds for CHSR, NY and NJ should for the Gateway Project too.

electricron wrote:Get NJT and MTA to contribute to the project as well. If California is expected to ante up half, or more than half the funds for CHSR, NY and NJ should for the Gateway Project too.

Holy moly, haven't we gone through this a bagillion times in the Gateway thread? Governor Christie, Governor Cuomo, their administrations, or their states are not going to be funding Gateway. This is Amtrak's project. They will come up with the funding one way or the other.

Why don't we have Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, the District of Colombia, Virginia, Connecticut, Rhode Island, or Massachusetts contribute too? I mean, they're going to be benefiting form increased service along the entire NEC. But the thing is they already are going to chip in. So are the other 41 states, because they all pay federal taxes to fund the federal agency (Amtrak) who will be building the thing.

Although this project is urgently needed, I am still not convinced that Amtrak will receive the necessary funding to complete the Gateway Project. With Washington being so dysfunction recently, you really never know what to expect!!

lirr42 wrote:

electricron wrote:Why don't we have Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, the District of Colombia, Virginia, Connecticut, Rhode Island, or Massachusetts contribute too? I mean, they're going to be benefiting form increased service along the entire NEC. But the thing is they already are going to chip in. So are the other 41 states, because they all pay federal taxes to fund the federal agency (Amtrak) who will be building the thing.

Doesn't California already pay more to subsidize Amtrak California and Surfliners trains than NE states pay to subsidize the NEC?
Yet, California is expected to heavily finance its HSR project while the NE states get a pass for the NEC? That is not fair......
Golly, California is even buying the new rolling stocks for Amtrak use, including new locomotives. When's the last time you heard or read about NE states buying new equipment for Amtrak? If ever? Even the Midwestern states are buying new rolliing stock for Amtrak. Yet, when the Federal government funds the new equipment for the NEC, Californians and Midwesterns pay twice. Again, that is not fair. Please don't suggest citizens in the Midwest and California don't already pay their fair share of federal taxes.
To be fair, all states should follow the same funding formulas to support Amtrak capital projects within their states, including those with NEC services. It shouldn't matter who actually owns the tracks in question, be it Amtrak, commuter rail agencies, or freight railroad companies. Once fairness returns to Amtrak capital projects funding, opposition from other areas of the country might disappear.

^ but here's the thing...the NEC breaks even. The Acela Express makes Amtrak money, and the Virginia Regionals come darn close. The Amtrak California services lose money for Amtrak, that's why California, Seattle, Oregon, Oaklahoma, and all those Midwest states have to pony up support, because their services don't make money.

If the Hoosier State actually turned a profit, Indiana wouldn't have to chip in any extra money. But it operates at an egregious loss, so Indiana has to either pay up or lose the train.

If the Federal Government fronts Amtrak the money for Gateway it will be well used, and they will definitely get a substantial return on their investment.

Adding a second Pennsylvanian will not have a very impressive return on investment, so Amtrak or the Federal Government won't want to put forth any money on its own without substantial state support first.

no the NEC breaks even on operating cost, it is not even partly covering renewal and capital investments

DutchRailnut wrote:no the NEC breaks even on operating cost, it is not even partly covering renewal and capital investments

According to Amtrak, in the next 15 years the NEC needs $11 Billion in capital investment to keep it in good order - as is -without any upgrades of its capabilities. Since the Gateway Project is considered an upgrade, it's an additional expense over that $11 Billion.
I'm not suggesting the Gateway Project isn't needed. But I am suggesting it's only fair to expect NY and NJ to participate with the capital funds needed to build it just as Amtrak expects other states to participate with capital funding for rail projects in their states. I'm assuming fares alone will cover future operations and maintenance of the new tunnel as they do today.

electricron wrote:

DutchRailnut wrote:no the NEC breaks even on operating cost, it is not even partly covering renewal and capital investments

According to Amtrak, in the next 15 years the NEC needs $11 Billion in capital investment to keep it in good order - as is -without any upgrades of its capabilities. Since the Gateway Project is considered an upgrade, it's an additional expense over that $11 Billion.
I'm not suggesting the Gateway Project isn't needed. But I am suggesting it's only fair to expect NY and NJ to participate with the capital funds needed to build it just as Amtrak expects other states to participate with capital funding for rail projects in their states. I'm assuming fares alone will cover future operations and maintenance of the new tunnel as they do today.

Uh, no. Keep it simple, that way less chance of some nonsense slowing things down.

Fares will cover maintenance of the tunnels after they are completed, but until then, I believe that it will be very difficult to pull several sources of funding together to fund Gateway once engineering studies are completed.

Thomas wrote:Fares will cover maintenance of the tunnels after they are completed, but until then, I believe that it will be very difficult to pull several sources of funding together to fund Gateway once engineering studies are completed.

1. No, fares probably won't cover the cost of tunnel maintenance. Dutch and electricron just pointed out that the NEC does not cover more than its operations costs, and if you add another pair of tunnels the maintenance becomes correspondingly more expensive. The lion's share of maintenance costs will be covered by the Feds and by the people of New Jersey (through NJT trackage fees.)
2. Why are you talking about Gateway in a thread specific to the tunnel box?

The tunnel box is related to Gateway. It is the first step of the Gateway Project. Without this tunnel box, it is very possible that Gateway would not come to be.

Also, Amtrak says, "If funding is available to begin preliminary engineering and environmental review in FY2013, in coordination with the Federal Railroad Administration’s NEC FUTURE Tier 1 PEIS, and construction funds are available to permit tunnel construction in the Hudson Yards development site, it is estimated that the Program could be completed in 2025, with the significant construction period beginning in 2017, assuming unconstrained funding."

Does the "preliminary engineering and environmental review" refer to the tunnel box?