The Gateway Program Development Corporation (GDC), noting the importance to showing and not just telling when it comes to complicated transportation projects, has released two animations illustrating what the Portal North Bridge and Hudson River Tunnels will look upon completion.
The animations communicate the scope of each project. The Portal North Bridge animation begins with an aerial view of the project before moving the viewer to the back end of a train traveling along the route. The Portal North Bridge project will replace the 107-year-old two-track bridge, which currently hosts about 450 trains per day traveling between Newark, N.J. and New York Penn Station. GDC explains the existing bridge gets stuck and causes substantial train delays when opening and closing to accommodate river traffic.
The Hudson Tunnel Project animation is displayed in a split aerial and profile view and follows the route of the new Hudson River Tunnel from New Jersey under the Palisades and Hudson River to the west side of Manhattan. GDC issued a reminder that the tubes are in urgent need of rehabilitation and suffer frequent outages from age and water damage due to inundation from Superstorm Sandy in 2012.
“With complicated transportation projects, it’s important that we show and not just tell,” said GDC Chief of Public Outreach Stephen Sigmund. “These animations bring to life the two most urgent infrastructure projects in the country, the 2.5-mile long Portal North Bridge and the two tunnels under the Hudson River to Penn Station, that will unclog a bottleneck causing delays for 200,000 riders and day and threatening 10 percent of the nation’s GDP. Such critical parts of our transportation infrastructure deserve to be reliable, efficient and built for the 21st Century, and these animations demonstrate that that’s just what the new Portal North Bridge and Hudson River Tunnels are.”
Both videos can be viewed on GDC’s YouTube channel.
Short links to the two current videos:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tifnDhyzpfw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qSz0I9_lAVU
The gofund me aerial picture of the Portal bridge on the below link is interesting. As noted elsewhere the waterway transit thru the bridge opening is not perpendicular to the Amtrak tracks. That means a barge tow has to be careful transiting the bridge opening. Further is the waterway under the influence of tides ? If it is tidal maybe barges are only allowed to transit during certain tide times ? That might be one reason that there are strange different times that the bridge is asked to be open ?i
https://www.gofundme.com/replace-the-portal-bridge
EDIT With a single span over the river that is going to be longer than the present swing bridge the navigation thru the bridge should be easier except during construction and when the swing bridge is dismanteled ?
I have a puzzle. The following link says that NJ want to put infrastructure funds for Portal south, Is that a typo or is that mean both Portal north and Portal south are to be funded?
NJ Transit wants to spend its federal infrastructure money on these projects - nj.com
The reason for the new bridge is that there is a marina on the inland side and that garbage barges must also pass through.
The new bridge is estimated to cost 1 billion dollars. Judging by California High Speed Rail, the actual cost should be 2-3 billion.
How about we move the marina to the sea side of the bridge?
How about we buy a low-profile tug that can fit under the existing bridge?
Cost for the above two items? Less than a billion dollars???
THEN you don't have to open the bridge anymore. And it can't get stuck out of position anymore. And you don't even have to pay someone money to do the bridge opening.
Apparently, they've been trucking the sludge for 5 years, anyway. And not needing to open the bridge for that. MIGHT just want to keep doing that.
Whole thing stinks! 3 billion dollars, and lots of people want their share.
Ed
Towboats on the Illinois Waterway have adjustable pilot houses that can be lowered to fit under fixed bridges. Visibility is pretty poor, though, when the pilot house is lowered.
7j43k: Remember the waterway was there first. Almost impossible to decrease clearance height. Plus the center piviot point now does not allow for standard coast guard passage width clearances. Lower clearances increase chances of water traffic hitting part of bridge knocking it out of alignment. There also is that inconvient bend in the waterway approaching the bridge,
Back to the thread. The Portal south question is still open.
blue streak 1 7j43k: Remember the waterway was there first. Almost impossible to decrease clearance height. Plus the center piviot point now does not allow for standard coast guard passage width clearances. Lower clearances increase chances of water traffic hitting part of bridge knocking it out of alignment. There also is that inconvient bend in the waterway approaching the bridge, Back to the thread. The Portal south question is still open.
Yes, the waterway predates the railroad. And, in theory, since it was there first, the users get to tell the railroad to suck it up. That's the theory. I suspect the facts are as I stated: one marina and one sewage plant. Make a nice new marina on the sea side. Deal with the sewage plant. Done. Traffic won't hit the bridge because there won't BE any.
Note also that the bridge won't be rotating anymore, so keeping it in alignment will be easier.
The inconvenient bend has always been there.
If it's REALLY inconvenient to run the barges under the bridge, they can keep trucking it, as they have since 2014. Hell, why not put a spur over to it, and ship it by rail? GOTTA cost less than a billion dollars.
The "thread" is "Portal Bridge and Gateway Tunnels". I'm talking about the former, so we're still in the "thread".
I have yet to hear a good reason to re-do the portal bridge.
I'm waiting.
Ballasted deck and constant-tension cat without weird breaks are reason enough to re-do the crossing.
Doing it as two tracks where there should be at least three (and then leaving out Portal South, which would be another two, for who knows how much later) is goofy. But of course so is redesigning Gateway to be a longer, slower version of the existing tunnels, or giving up even the semblance of high-speed service from the west into Manhattan.
If the bridge don't rotate anymore, then just run the cat through without breaks.
Running constant-tension catenary requires new supports and removal of the old, probably an adventure on the existing structure. Still doesn't get you ballasted-deck in low-maintenance structural materials.
Surprised someone hasn't posted to dredge the channel so vessels can ride lower [/sarcasm]
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
BaltACD Surprised someone hasn't posted to dredge the channel so vessels can ride lower [/sarcasm]
Silly! THAT won't work. But LOCKS would! Yup. We'll build a lock on either side of the bridge. If you make each long enough and wide enough for a Post Panamax container ship, it certainly will also cost billions (a big plus). And you can save a really cool historic bridge.
Win, win. As we say.
Actually, they WOULD have to dredge under the bridge, so your suggestion is appropriate. Thanks to your inspiring lead, we have an alternate solution.
Also more good news: the bridge foundations would be weaked by the dredging, and would have to be extended downwards or replaced completely. Hundreds of millions, certainly.
I think we've got an even better and more productive solution here than the uninspired "causeway"!
[/sarcasm?]
Overmod Running constant-tension catenary requires new supports and removal of the old, probably an adventure on the existing structure. Still doesn't get you ballasted-deck in low-maintenance structural materials.
True. I wonder how much savings in maintenance would be realized, compared to the cost of the new bridge and trackage.
The Portal Bridge has a 23' clearance.
Here's some material on retractable wheelhouses:
http://industrialscenery.blogspot.com/2014/05/variable-height-pilot-houses.html
Here's a video taken from the tug Frances, in New York Harbor:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i1ZXtohfB_Q
I see ads for retractable wheelhouse tugs and tow boats for around $100,000. Notice that that is less than a million dollars. It's less than 10 million dollars. It's less than 100 million dollars.........
Is this project really the best way to spend a couple of billion dollars? I do not see the need.
Except perhaps to "distribute the wealth".
A swing bridge is by definition a navigational hazard and a replacement bridge would definitely be in order, probably a vertical lift. As far as moving the marina, how much might it cost to acquire property for a downriver location, plus the cost of a new facility?
CSSHEGEWISCH A swing bridge is by definition a navigational hazard and a replacement bridge would definitely be in order, probably a vertical lift. As far as moving the marina, how much might it cost to acquire property for a downriver location, plus the cost of a new facility?
Well, if it didn't swing anymore because it didn't have to, it wouldn't be a swing bridge. Anymore.
From an article in the New York Daily News of July 21, 2021, based on Amtrak bridge logs for the period from August 2020 to June 29 2021, the bridge opened seven times, all of which were apparently related to construction of the new bridge. Without this, it appears the bridge wouldn't have been opened at all for about a year.
So, in a way, it's already a not-swing bridge. Just finish the job.
The new marina property could likely be paid for by selling the old property. The cost would be the construction of the new marina. I'm guess a goodly bit less than a billion dollars, even with the new bar with complimentary drinks for life. That little element will certainly win approval from the users of the existing marina.
7j43k CSSHEGEWISCH A swing bridge is by definition a navigational hazard and a replacement bridge would definitely be in order, probably a vertical lift. As far as moving the marina, how much might it cost to acquire property for a downriver location, plus the cost of a new facility? Well, if it didn't swing anymore because it didn't have to, it wouldn't be a swing bridge. Anymore. From an article in the New York Daily News of July 21, 2021, based on Amtrak bridge logs for the period from August 2020 to June 29 2021, the bridge opened seven times, all of which were apparently related to construction of the new bridge. Without this, it appears the bridge wouldn't have been opened at all for about a year. So, in a way, it's already a not-swing bridge. Just finish the job. The new marina property could likely be paid for by selling the old property. The cost would be the construction of the new marina. I'm guess a goodly bit less than a billion dollars, even with the new bar with complimentary drinks for life. That little element will certainly win approval from the users of the existing marina. Ed
Swing bridges that are no longer permitted to swing - can be dangerous to railroad operations. The Amtrak incident with the Sunset Limited near Mobile, AL that killed 47 people was because a tow barge, lost in fog struck the Bayou Cannot Bridge, a former swing bridge that was no longer operational as a swing bridge, and knocked track out of alignment.
From Wikipedia:
"The bridge was struck by the Mauvilla at about 2:45 am. The span had been designed to rotate so it could be converted to a swing bridge by adding suitable equipment. No such conversion had ever been performed but the span had not been adequately secured against unintended movement. The collision forced the unsecured end of the bridge span approximately three feet out of alignment and severely kinked the track."
I am seeing the word "unsecured" there. And more. I propose securing the Portal Bridge when making it non-rotatable.
7j43kFrom Wikipedia: "The bridge was struck by the Mauvilla at about 2:45 am. The span had been designed to rotate so it could be converted to a swing bridge by adding suitable equipment. No such conversion had ever been performed but the span had not been adequately secured against unintended movement. The collision forced the unsecured end of the bridge span approximately three feet out of alignment and severely kinked the track." I am seeing the word "unsecured" there. And more. I propose securing the Portal Bridge when making it non-rotatable. Ed
Very few if any bridges are 'secure' when impacted by thousands of tons of floating monentum. The Sunshine Skyway Bridge in Tampa Bay was taken down by a vessel in 1980 - it was a high level bridge - not a swing span. Thousands of moving tons can damage anything - no matter how well it is 'secured'.
Well, yes. Seems kind of obvious. Bridges hit by large moving masses will likely be damaged.
The barges are lower than the bridge clearance. The tug can be. That is the sum of the heavy river traffic. So I have trouble seeing how the subject bridge is threatened by river traffic if it is rigged permanently closed.
7j43kWell, yes. Seems kind of obvious. Bridges hit by large moving masses will likely be damaged. The barges are lower than the bridge clearance. The tug can be. That is the sum of the heavy river traffic. So I have trouble seeing how the subject bridge is threatened by river traffic if it is rigged permanently closed. Ed
All depends upon who is lost in the fog. Bayou Cannot had not had any issues for 70 or 80 years until it did.
So then the reason to spend 2 billion dollars is because someone someday MIGHT make a wrong turn and bash the bridge that hasn't been bashed yet in 110 years?
Got a solution for that:
I'll be flippant and say that the folks in the marina would be told that the free beverages for life stop when the bridge gets damaged in such a manner.
It would probably work, but it it IS a bit unorthodox.
Alternately, 50 million dollars (or some other appropriate sum) could be spent to make sure the bridge couldn't be hit.
Since the only traffic under that bridge seems to be the poop scow (the cargo of which has been traveling on land for some years now), might just block off ship access to the bridge. Can't get to the bridge, can't damage the bridge.
Replacing this bridge for two billion dollars is a good idea why?
The NEC has about a dozen movable bridges. All but the few that have been replaced are over 100 years old and are approching, or at the end of, their practical lifespan. This is only the latest in a long line of necessary replacements.
MidlandMike The NEC has about a dozen movable bridges. All but the few that have been replaced are over 100 years old and are approching, or at the end of, their practical lifespan. This is only the latest in a long line of necessary replacements.
Mike,
I would like to learn more about the replacement of these bridges, and what failures caused the need. I do not recall seeing such about the Portal Bridge.
From what I've read, the big problems with the Portal Bridge are related to its ability to rotate and lock. If that were the case, and such ability were removed, then the big problems would be removed.
In particular, could you please find a link or something that supports your statements. For a project such as this, there should have been a whole lot of engineering reports that are available to the public.
I am sure you have engineering reports and such to back up your statement; I would just like to read them over for myself.
Thanks,
7j43k MidlandMike The NEC has about a dozen movable bridges. All but the few that have been replaced are over 100 years old and are approching, or at the end of, their practical lifespan. This is only the latest in a long line of necessary replacements. Mike, I would like to learn more about the replacement of these bridges, and what failures caused the need. I do not recall seeing such about the Portal Bridge. From what I've read, the big problems with the Portal Bridge are related to its ability to rotate and lock. If that were the case, and such ability were removed, then the big problems would be removed. In particular, could you please find a link or something that supports your statements. For a project such as this, there should have been a whole lot of engineering reports that are available to the public. I am sure you have engineering reports and such to back up your statement; I would just like to read them over for myself. Thanks, Ed
Swing bridges, wherever they exist are impediments to navigation with the point that facilitates the swing being in the middle of the area that the bridge crosses. From a navigation standpoint a 'wide open' area created by lift bridges and/or bascule bridges are preferable.
Portal is nearing the end of its structural life. The bridge is going to need complete replacing anyway. That takes a new alignment . The picture even shows the rusting of the steel members and paint will not fix the normal rusting away. You keep ignoring that center pivot that in accesable when bridge is in place.
Ask river pilots what they think of swing bridges.
BaltACD Swing bridges, wherever they exist are impediments to navigation with the point that facilitates the swing being in the middle of the area that the bridge crosses. From a navigation standpoint a 'wide open' area created by lift bridges and/or bascule bridges are preferable.
Yup.
And I wonder how much concern for the occassional tug driver's ease of passage drove the decision to replace the bridge. For 2 billion dollars.
I also wonder what complaints on the matter have been made by people using the passageway, over the years.
I looked at on-line photos of the bridge supports, and found no evidence of contact. It does seem that if using the passage was troublesome, there would be evidence of repairs.
So, while it would certainly make the tug driver's job more pleasant, I don't see that it is anywhere necessary.
blue streak 1 Portal is nearing the end of its structural life.
Portal is nearing the end of its structural life.
I've heard that. It seems to be coming from people who want to build a new bridge. For two billion dollars.
I am curious about how the lifespan of a bridge, this bridge, is calculated.
The bridge is going to need complete replacing anyway. That takes a new alignment . The picture even shows the rusting of the steel members and paint will not fix the normal rusting away.
I have seen rust on steel bridge members. And I have seen crews dealing with it. Rust is not a surprise.
You keep ignoring that center pivot that in accesable when bridge is in place.
I don't think so. But neither have I spent much time on it. Right now, it's the center support of a two truss system. It appears to be doing its job fine.
I would think they view them as an unpleasant fact of working life that they have to deal with.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.