Amtrak Gateway Tunnels

merrick1 wrote:

electricron wrote:Let's place the $15 Billion into prospective

Or $12.8 billion (in 2008 dollars) will buy one Ford class aircraft carrier.

Yes, but you can't put too high of a price on American Freedom.

Or something like that. Sorry, cynical today.

And in reference to Mr. Norman's reply to me I have to agree 100%
It's nice to stand in front of a new shiny terminal with a 787 taking off in the background.
Not so nice to stand in front of a dark hole in the ground.

And we know the NY Governor loves his photo-ops.

I agree with the tea party remark, but point out that the "stimulus" (better part of a trillion dollars) could have funded this shovel ready project, along with several other NY Metro capital needs. Even today, certainly a budget that's full of pork and wasteful spending can find offsets to fund this, ESA, PSA, and replacement of ancient catenary NYP - WUS.

So your point, while well taken, in the overall scheme of things, is the same old argument we always make about funding.

Cuomo's point is he doesn't want to get saddled with the debt service. I think he's being very short-sighted, as I think Christie is as well (not so much about the flawed ARC tunnels, but the overall vision). But an economic powerhouse like New York, their neighbors, and their congressional delegation should be able to find offsetting cuts to get the GOP controlled Congress to go along. The Northeast has not done very well in securing TIGER grants; I don't understand that. Meanwhile, dinky little systems get funded around the country, or so it seems, with new start money.

Would the gateway tunnels follow this same vertical profile into the bulkhead?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... iagram.png" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I know the horizontal path has to be different...

TrainPhotos wrote:Would the gateway tunnels follow this same vertical profile into the bulkhead?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... iagram.png" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I know the horizontal path has to be different...

Not at all......

Is it going to cross in an area with shallower river bottom or something? Just curious...

merrick1 wrote:

electricron wrote:Let's place the $15 Billion into prospective

Or $12.8 billion (in 2008 dollars) will buy one Ford class aircraft carrier.

I'm actually rather curious how much it would cost to build a four-track bridge across the Hudson. In particular, a double-swing bridge.

We have the eastern approach already, the LIRR yard. Jump off from W 33rd St and 12th Ave and build a bridge with, say, 50 ft clearance above water to Harbor Blvd. in Weehawken. From there, either cut-and-cover a tunnel through the bluff or build above/below/in the median of 495 until you reach a convenient point to return to the NEC.

Okay folks, let 'er rip with the objections from the Army Corps of Engineers, the EPA, the Coast Guard, the NPS, any and every community, borough, city, county, state and federal action group or agency, and all the commercial and non-commercial users of the Hudson. I already know the spans would need to be massive, and probably asymmetrical.

TrainPhotos wrote:

Don31 wrote:

TrainPhotos wrote:Would the gateway tunnels follow this same vertical profile into the bulkhead?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... iagram.png" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I know the horizontal path has to be different...

Not at all......

Is it going to cross in an area with shallower river bottom or something? Just curious...

It hasn't been determined yet.

electricron wrote:It's the projected costs that scares every governmental body. $15 Billion dollars is the hurdle that's difficult to solve politically, at the local, state, and national levels. There are entire transit systems in most cities across America that have a smaller price tag. And that's before the ultimate cost overruns kick in which almost always happen when tunneling under or immediately adjacent to bodies of water.

Let's place the $15 Billion into prospective, at $2 Million per railcar, Amtrak could buy 7,500 new railcars with the same amount of money. All the parties are going to have to share this high cost; NY, NJ, and Amtrak; neither can afford to finance it individually.

And it doesn't stop at $15 billion. Eliminate the two-track limitation across the Hudson and then another billion will be required for the Portal Bridge. With 4 tracks into Penn Station from the west side, the capacity of the station itself will need to be increased by at least a third.

And once we have 4 tracks from New York to Philly, another 2 will be needed through Baltimore.

Double the capacity through Baltimore, and Washington runs out of platforms.

It all starts with $15 billion. It doesn't end there.

I'm not so convinced that Penn Stations needs to be a third larger. I wonder how far the billions necessary for Penn South would go towards the necessary equipment and infrastructure for NJT-LIRR through running, which would both increase effective capacity at Penn and enhance New York regional rail

mtuandrew wrote:

merrick1 wrote:

electricron wrote:Let's place the $15 Billion into prospective

Or $12.8 billion (in 2008 dollars) will buy one Ford class aircraft carrier.

I'm actually rather curious how much it would cost to build a four-track bridge across the Hudson. In particular, a double-swing bridge.

We have the eastern approach already, the LIRR yard. Jump off from W 33rd St and 12th Ave and build a bridge with, say, 50 ft clearance above water to Harbor Blvd. in Weehawken. From there, either cut-and-cover a tunnel through the bluff or build above/below/in the median of 495 until you reach a convenient point to return to the NEC.

Okay folks, let 'er rip with the objections from the Army Corps of Engineers, the EPA, the Coast Guard, the NPS, any and every community, borough, city, county, state and federal action group or agency, and all the commercial and non-commercial users of the Hudson. I already know the spans would need to be massive, and probably asymmetrical.

You're neglecting the issues with opening times for such a bridge. Train traffic is basically near-nonstop for the vast majority of the day, and the North River is easily one of the busiest commercial waterways I can think of in the U.S; just from a traffic viewpoint, putting a movable bridge over would be at the detriment to everyone. Under is really the only way to go.

jstolberg wrote:And it doesn't stop at $15 billion. Eliminate the two-track limitation across the Hudson and then another billion will be required for the Portal Bridge. With 4 tracks into Penn Station from the west side, the capacity of the station itself will need to be increased by at least a third.

And once we have 4 tracks from New York to Philly, another 2 will be needed through Baltimore.

Double the capacity through Baltimore, and Washington runs out of platforms.

It all starts with $15 billion. It doesn't end there.

While there's some vein of truth in what you're saying, you could continue going ad infinitum with capacity constraints; there is just always going to be something limiting capacity in any system. Additionally, the North River tubes are far more vulnerable to damage than the rest, and in the path of imminent danger for being unusable. They're also the #1 lynchpin in the operability of the NEC. $15bn also is a single lump sum for this project. Even if in the long term and system-wide spending does (and will) get above that, it can be broken down into smaller projects that are (comparatively) easier pills to swallow for politics.

jstolberg wrote:It all starts with $15 billion. It doesn't end there.

It does not. Part of the problem is that Amtrak is asking for way too much stuff to be funded simultaneously which is not going to happen. Even though detailed cost breakdown is not publicly available, I believe that it includes: (1) Penn South, (2) two new tubes, (3) two double track Portal bridges (for total of 4 tracks), (4) two more tracks between the Dock Bridge in Newark and the entrance of the tunnels, (5) reconstruction of Secaucus Station to make it a 6 track station on the upper level, and (6) possibly, but I am not certain "the Bergen Loop". What Amtrak needs to do is cut out everything but (2) and build it for $4B or so and live happily everafter. If NJ wants more trains into NYP they need to pay for all the rest -- none of it benefits Amtrak directly.

EuroStar wrote:

jstolberg wrote:It all starts with $15 billion. It doesn't end there.

It does not. Part of the problem is that Amtrak is asking for way too much stuff to be funded simultaneously which is not going to happen. Even though detailed cost breakdown is not publicly available, I believe that it includes: (1) Penn South, (2) two new tubes, (3) two double track Portal bridges (for total of 4 tracks), (4) two more tracks between the Dock Bridge in Newark and the entrance of the tunnels, (5) reconstruction of Secaucus Station to make it a 6 track station on the upper level, and (6) possibly, but I am not certain "the Bergen Loop". What Amtrak needs to do is cut out everything but (2) and build it for $4B or so and live happily everafter. If NJ wants more trains into NYP they need to pay for all the rest -- none of it benefits Amtrak directly.

I'm pretty sure the $15B is only the gateway tunnels.

The Portal Bridge is a separate project and I believe the Secaucus Station work is strictly NJTransit as is the Bergen Loop.

And while it may not all be funded simultaneously, Congress and the states really do need to get their act together on the NEC. Between this, the work you do describe, the Baltimore tunnels, Susquehanna bridge and other projects, Amtrak will be busy for decades.

bdawe wrote:I'm not so convinced that Penn Stations needs to be a third larger. I wonder how far the billions necessary for Penn South would go towards the necessary equipment and infrastructure for NJT-LIRR through running, which would both increase effective capacity at Penn and enhance New York regional rail

Penn absolutely needs to be larger. The station itself-- forget the North River tubes-- is operating at something like 120% of designed capacity. It was never designed to be a station for New Jersey commuters. The commuter runs went into the Pennsy's Exchange Place station in Jersey City, where there were transfers to the ferries and the PRR-owned Hudson & Manhattan Railway (now the PATH). And there were four other commuter stations on the west bank of the Hudson, too-- Jersey City (CNJ), Jersey City (Erie), Hoboken (DL&W) and Weehawken (NYC-West Shore).

A Penn Station South that shifted Amtrak traffic into a new structure on the south side of 31st Street, leaving the current facility to the LIRR and NJT, would be a huge plus for everyone. And I can say this as a New York City resident who travels through Penn at least twice a month.

You all need to clarify which "needs" are driving your demands for big concrete.

Ridgefielder wrote:

bdawe wrote:I'm not so convinced that Penn Stations needs to be a third larger. I wonder how far the billions necessary for Penn South would go towards the necessary equipment and infrastructure for NJT-LIRR through running, which would both increase effective capacity at Penn and enhance New York regional rail

Penn absolutely needs to be larger. The station itself-- forget the North River tubes-- is operating at something like 120% of designed capacity. It was never designed to be a station for New Jersey commuters.

...which actually as much proves bdawe's point that we need NJT-LIRR through-running as it does that we need Penn South.

Need concourse/platform space? We're getting Penn West (Moynihan) Phase I new concourse
Need retail/waiting space? Moynihan Station proper addresses that. Need more? In Madison Square Garden lease is up in ~8 years
Need more track capacity? NJT-LIRR through running + Gateway + better signals in the tunnels after rehab address that

Sure, eventually you may want a Penn South (and by all means keep it as 40 to 100-year option), but it is only one solution among many. I happen to like this one:

Ridgefielder wrote:there were four other commuter stations on the west bank of the Hudson, too-- Jersey City (CNJ), Jersey City (Erie), Hoboken (DL&W) and Weehawken (NYC-West Shore).

Also, Lehigh Valley station just North of the CNJ station, and tenants Reading at Jersey City (CNJ), New York, Susquehana & Western at Hoboken, and New York, Ontario & Western at Weehawhen. This all left Penn Station with room to host Lehigh Valley long distance trains, and when it was less crowded, The Baltimore & Ohio's as well.