• Amtrak Gateway Tunnels

  • This forum will be for issues that don't belong specifically to one NYC area transit agency, but several. For instance, intra-MTA proposals or MTA-wide issues, which may involve both Metro-North Railroad (MNRR) and the Long Island Railroad (LIRR). Other intra-agency examples: through running such as the now discontinued MNRR-NJT Meadowlands special. Topics which only concern one operating agency should remain in their respective forums.
This forum will be for issues that don't belong specifically to one NYC area transit agency, but several. For instance, intra-MTA proposals or MTA-wide issues, which may involve both Metro-North Railroad (MNRR) and the Long Island Railroad (LIRR). Other intra-agency examples: through running such as the now discontinued MNRR-NJT Meadowlands special. Topics which only concern one operating agency should remain in their respective forums.

Moderators: GirlOnTheTrain, nomis, FL9AC, Jeff Smith

  by lensovet
 
Also NJT is literally replacing all their PL42s with 45DPs, ostensibly so they can run this crazy loop service.
  by Jeff Smith
 
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... four-pacts
Long-Awaited NYC Gateway Tunnel Project Split Into Four Parts to Speed Work

-Separating into four pacts ensures competitive bids, GDC says
-Construction was previously delayed from mid-2023 to mid-2024

...
Package 1A will include the portion of the tunnel through the Palisades to the construction shaft in Hoboken, 1B will feature the section of the tunnel going through the West Side of Manhattan under Hudson River Park. Package 1C, which is not expected to start until 2025, will include the tunneling under the Hudson River form the new construction shaft in Hoboken to the shaft in Manhattan.

The Contract Package EA1 will help derisk the full project by fortifying and stabilizing the river bottom on the New York side of the Hudson River.
...
  by Frank
 
All sounds like good news. :-)
  by Gilbert B Norman
 
I must ask; is there even a tunnel boring concern over here?

Mr. Musk, maybe?

Otherwise, one of the overseas concerns, such as that boring the Siemering or Brenner tunnels will need to have their equipment "sailing sailing over the bounding main". Of interest, I believe you will find both those projects, or at least the boring, are set to be complete during '25.
  by David Benton
 
Seems the Germans and Chinese dominate the tunnel machine business.
Generally , each tunnel machine is custom setup for the job. At the end of the job , it is shipped back to home base , and rebuilt to suit the next job.
Plenty here in NZ , have grumbled upbout the cost of sending a huge machine 1/2 way around the world when we have no shortage of hills that could do with a tunnel in them, the response has been even if the exact same machine was used it would still go back to be rebuilt.
  by RandallW
 
Gilbert B Norman wrote: Wed Apr 19, 2023 4:16 pm I must ask; is there even a tunnel boring concern over here?

Mr. Musk, maybe?

Otherwise, one of the overseas concerns, such as that boring the Siemering or Brenner tunnels will need to have their equipment "sailing sailing over the bounding main". Of interest, I believe you will find both those projects, or at least the boring, are set to be complete during '25.
There isn't one over here. Mr. Musk's outfit appears setup to not dig tunnels.
  by west point
 
Although this the first disclose, the river bottom stabilization is very important. It could reduce boring times significantly. The technique to be used to stabilize will be interesting. Guess freezing would not work? maybe inject some kind of shot create, or other concrete product mixture using and injection underwater cement or other kind? Whatever amount timing of boring after stabilizing may be important?
  by Gilbert B Norman
 
Here is a German concern:

https://www.herrenknecht.com/en/

I trust that the planners factored in that for the boring, they were going to need an overseas concern for such, and that any "build American" provisions were considered, and possibly waived.

Mr. Musk's outfit to date appears to be more show than substance.
  by ElectricTraction
 
lensovet wrote: Tue Mar 21, 2023 10:29 amAlso NJT is literally replacing all their PL42s with 45DPs, ostensibly so they can run this crazy loop service.
You seem to really have a thing against the loop. It makes perfect sense to provide more one-seat rides to NYP. The part that doesn't make sense is the ALP-45DPs, they should just electrify the lines, but that's a problem across the region. People want one-seat rides even if it doesn't really save any time.

The Waterfront Connection should also be turned into a full double tracked connection with a flyover so that traffic from both lines could be rebalanced between Hoboken and NYP with enhanced ferry service from Hoboken. More connectivity to more locations from all lines is a good thing for the region.
  by lensovet
 
I absolutely have a thing against the loop, because it's going to cost an incredible amount of money, make an existing station (Sec) and terminal (Hoboken) completely pointless, and require an insane amount of wetland remediation for what is a rather marginal gain. Yes, people like one-seat rides, but you can get 80% of the benefit for 5% of the cost by improving schedules and the transfer experience.

Furthermore, with the increased shift to telecommuting and WFH, NJT should be focusing more on enabling intrastate travel and providing more options for getting places, instead of cramming everything into NYP as if we're trying to accommodate the commute patterns of the early 2000s. Things change with time. Sometimes a project that made sense 2 decades ago no longer makes sense a decade from now. There's no shame in realizing that and reorienting extremely limited public transportation funds to something that is a more effective use of them.

New tunnels and Portal bridges are needed. A new loop to serve 2/8 NJT lines (and probably at most 10% of all trains) is not.
  by ElectricTraction
 
lensovet wrote: Tue Apr 25, 2023 11:32 pmI absolutely have a thing against the loop, because it's going to cost an incredible amount of money, make an existing station (Sec) and terminal (Hoboken) completely pointless, and require an insane amount of wetland remediation for what is a rather marginal gain. Yes, people like one-seat rides, but you can get 80% of the benefit for 5% of the cost by improving schedules and the transfer experience.
It's not going to make Secaucus nor Hoboken pointless at all. Many trains will still go to Hoboken and transfer at Secaucus, some will run the loop. Transfers can also happen the other way, from NEC trains to trains to Hoboken. If they build the other half of the Waterfront connection, they could rebalance the traffic as well, which would be better for all. Not all of the trains can run the loop, even with Gateway and an expanded NYP there isn't an unlimited amount of capacity, and many people still want to go to Hoboken.
Furthermore, with the increased shift to telecommuting and WFH, NJT should be focusing more on enabling intrastate travel and providing more options for getting places, instead of cramming everything into NYP as if we're trying to accommodate the commute patterns of the early 2000s. Things change with time. Sometimes a project that made sense 2 decades ago no longer makes sense a decade from now. There's no shame in realizing that and reorienting extremely limited public transportation funds to something that is a more effective use of them.
You're correct on the first sentence, but your logic falls apart after that. Two things can be true at once, that NJT and LIRR need to rebalance their traffic flows and provide more options for getting more places, and that a lot of people still want to go to NYP and will for a long time to come. If NJT and LIRR both rebalanced their systems to provide equal service between Hoboken and NYP from all lines, and likewise for LIRR between Brooklyn, LIC, GCT-Madison, and NYP, a lot of capacity would be freed up in NYP by people who have a better way to get where they want to go so that people who do wan to use NYP would have a much better experience, and leave more room for growth of the metro area.
  by lensovet
 
The funds available to build projects are not unlimited. A lot more things can be built for the money that this loop will cost, which apparently will only be used by a limited subset of trains. How many dollars are you spending per additional passenger gained from this project?
  by Literalman
 
Project split into 4 parts: 1a, 1b, 1c … What's the 4th part?
  by CraigDK
 
Literalman wrote: Sat Apr 29, 2023 1:54 pm Project split into 4 parts: 1a, 1b, 1c … What's the 4th part?
EA1. That is the contract for the work that will stabilize portion of the Hudson River bed near the New York side.
  by ElectricTraction
 
lensovet wrote: Thu Apr 27, 2023 9:57 pmThe funds available to build projects are not unlimited. A lot more things can be built for the money that this loop will cost, which apparently will only be used by a limited subset of trains. How many dollars are you spending per additional passenger gained from this project?
That's an issue of cost control. The US and NY Metro region are completely out of control. The NY metro region has been averaging around 7x what the construction costs should be based on European projects, and the US as a whole, while not quite as egregious, is still ridiculously overpriced.
  • 1
  • 151
  • 152
  • 153
  • 154
  • 155