Amtrak Gateway Tunnels

It's up to congress to decide whether to fund this. $30Billion is very high; What should this tunnel cost? How much for the approaches/connections? In Boston, the only part of the Big Dig I-93 that came in on-time and on-budget was the harbor tunnel, and that was because it was prefabricated in a shipyard, barged into place, sunk, bolted together, then lined just like the Gateway tunnels and the existing NY train tunnels.

Wow, page 100! Meanwhile, what is the lead time to order a fleet of ferries? Will the feds pay for ferries?

BandA wrote:Wow, page 100! Meanwhile, what is the lead time to order a fleet of ferries? Will the feds pay for ferries?

Looks like the US Navy is retiring some of its fleet of landing craft soon...

prefabricated in a shipyard, barged into place, sunk, bolted together, then lined just like the Gateway tunnels and the existing NY train tunnels.

I know of NO "existing NY train tunnels" built that way.

The only one I know of is the 63rd St tunnel, which exists, but does not yet carry mainline railroad trains, only the F subway. It's supposed to carry Long Island Railroad trains, but that's not planned to start until several centuries from now.

NY&LB wrote:

prefabricated in a shipyard, barged into place, sunk, bolted together, then lined just like the Gateway tunnels and the existing NY train tunnels.

I know of NO "existing NY train tunnels" built that way.

Oops, my mistake, the North River tunnels were a combination of drilling through rock and "shoving" through mud. But digging a trench and plopping in pre-fabricated tunnel sections is the best way I think if it is mud/gravel/clay, and it worked well in Boston. Freezing the soil & trying to cut through frozen mud, that was a disaster.

Politico is reporting that Trump is trying to press Paul Ryan not to fund the Gateway tunnels, apparently in response to Chuck Schumer resisting some of Trump's nominees.

This is why I do not care for politics (or Trump and Schumer). Stop the fighting and games and just get the job of funding and building the tunnels done!

BandA wrote:It's up to congress to decide whether to fund this. $30Billion is very high; What should this tunnel cost? How much for the approaches/connections? In Boston, the only part of the Big Dig I-93 that came in on-time and on-budget was the harbor tunnel, and that was because it was prefabricated in a shipyard, barged into place, sunk, bolted together, then lined just like the Gateway tunnels and the existing NY train tunnels.

I think the reason why that can't be done for Gateway is due to all the contaminants (PCBs, etc.) in the riverbed that would be released if there was dredging so an immersed tube is out of the question.


As for the Trump and Schumer tug of war... two things: 1) Trump clearly doesn't realize how urgent the project is if he's essentially saying "we're not chipping in" and 2) Schumer and others in his party are not doing themselves any favors by obstructing seemingly just about EVERYTHING Trump proposes on anything (even when it's something the Democrats would otherwise want i.e. DACA deal).

The irony is if Trump proposed the Feds footing the bill for the entire Gateway project AND proposed having it expedited to get it finished ASAP that could have worked in his favor in 2020. There are plenty of Democrats who flocked to Trump over Clinton in 2016 and depending on who they run in 2020 (likely another identity politics-minded candidate) Trump could have quite an edge inspite of... well, you can figure that out

NY&LB wrote:

prefabricated in a shipyard, barged into place, sunk, bolted together, then lined just like the Gateway tunnels and the existing NY train tunnels.

I know of NO "existing NY train tunnels" built that way.

The double-deceker 63rd Street tunnel was built this way in the '60s. Prefab sections were barged out to the East River and sunk into trenches in the riverbed. They blasted through Roosevelt Island for one of the city's deepest subway stations.

I also believe the first of the H&M (PATH) tubes downtown actually sit on the river bottom with a type of blanket over the top - they're not bored completely under the river.

rr503 wrote:

bostontrainguy wrote:

Dick H wrote:From The Hill. Trump personally wants Gateway Tunnel dumped.
http://thehill.com/policy/transportatio ... ect-report" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Maybe pushing back against Shumer a bit trying to get some cabinet nominees? Politics . . . the art of the deal.

Nope. Punishing us for not voting for him. Sad that the 'businessman' can't see the fact that 20% of our national GDP comes from the cities dependent on the NEC.

Trump does little that is not a bargaining chip. NY/NJ will get the tunnel if some local senators capitulate on some big issues. What they are, I have no idea, but he's probably whispered them in Schumer's ear.

Just thought, if they freeze the "mud" they could scoop it up including the PCBs without contaminating the water....much.

Gateway is a nationally critical project rather than something that will principally benefit Schumer. Trump has made staff choices and appointment nominations of shockingly terrible quality, and Gateway should not be the barter piece which lets him make more.

The fact that Chris Christie's name has resurfaced of late is interesting given his history with ARC.

If anyone thinks that there will be any federal money coming for the tunnels over the next 3 (or 7) years, then they must be from Mars. The way politics is played in Washington and US in general will prevent any funding from materializing for the foreseeable future. The project is just too high profile for its own good.

Christie cancelled the ARC to score a few points with the right. This was done even after the Feds offered to pay for some of the cost overruns. Obama's administration retaliated by not allocating any rail money to NJ (outside Sandy funds) until the $15 million for the Portal Bridge during the last Obama year. That was supposedly done by a rail friendly administration! It is no surprise that now Trump is using the tunnel funding to aggravate Schumer, Booker and the other area Democrats. It does not really matter whether Schumer is holding appointees or not. The tunnel is the largest leverage that the administration has on him and it will never give up on that leverage, so the money is never coming. Schumer cannot sell the rest of his caucus on things such as "the wall", DACA or immigration, so he has no choice, but to suck it up and pretend to be fighting the administration for tunnel money. This is the shortsighted way politics is played these days and nothing will change even with the November elections regardless of the election results.

In terms of the states paying more than 50%, the states really need to ponder why they should pay more than 50% for a tunnel into the old Penn Station. NJT in particular gains only minimally from tunnels going into Penn -- maybe an extra train or two at most due to the fact that after the tunnel is built, then Penn Station will be the choke point (now the tunnels are the choke point). If the states will be paying more than 50% they should want control and that pretty much means ARC style project with a new terminal. The benefit of a new terminal to NJ is obvious. NY's gain from a new terminal is implicit because if NJT reduces their reliance on the existing Penn, then there will be space for Metro-North trains into Penn. So if the project is built mostly with local money, it makes no sense as currently conceived (don't forget that the current Gateway was "invented" as a response to Christie's cancellation of the ARC when the Feds leaned Democrats). NJ and NY have no reason to fund what is federal infrastructure for the Northeast Corridor between Boston and Washington. NJ and NY for the most part need to be able to get their commuters to Manhattan and back. Gateway as currently conceived, especially the tunnel only portion is not solving that problem.

johndmuller wrote:Our politics have now become so toxic now that it probably doesn't matter how risky it is to procrastinate building these tunnels or how they might cost $XYZ$ - regarding which no one can really make a cost/benefit analysis anyway because the downside of not having the tunnels at all (or even just having only one tube) is so high as to make even 2 times $XYZ$ seem cheap and the cost of screwing up millions of people's jobs/lives and hundreds of companies and their workers (not to mention secondary, tertiary, etc. effects) can only approximately be measured anyway.

This p_ssing contest over whether and/or who pays what and when is totally irresponsible on the part of everyone who is involved and needs to STOP; and this should be clear no matter which side of the proverbial fence one is on.

Its the same with a lot of other contentious issues going on now; too many people in power seem to think that it is more important to be seen as getting their personal way than to do the right thing - or even sometimes to do what they might consider to be the wrong thing, just to keep the country moving along at peace with itself. It doesn't have to be this hard. Wise up.

JDM: Excellent post and thought...From Bloomberg today 3/5:

http://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2018- ... n-economy/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

This project is so important to millions of people and should not be a victim of partisan petty
political squabbles no matter who is involved. The problem here is that it may take closing one
or both tubes to make something happen...

I noted mention of the PATH tubes under the Hudson...The WTC to Exchange Place tubes were
extensively renovated in the period after 9/11 but the tubes to 33rd Street have not seen major
work in comparison. Keep in mind that tunnel is even older then the PRR tunnels.

What a closure of any of these tunnels may do is expedite or in other words "force the hand" and
get the #7 line extension into Hudson County built even quicker. The demand will be there - but
with a closure of the PRR tunnels could this route handle the added cross-Hudson traffic that will
use this route to Midtown Manhattan? Hopefully it never comes down to this...

MACTRAXX

I keep returning to this major point, it's too expensive. It's too big for the existing Penn Station. It'll be just right for a future expanded Penn Station that will never be built. When will this project face realities and start a diet to reduce its scope and expense?

I'm beginning to think that for any new tunnel to be built into Penn Station ownership of the railroad and station will have to change. Maybe it is time for States along the corridor to take full ownership of the NEC. With local ownership, maybe more realistic and affordable updates will be proposed.