Gateway tunnels now expedited + East river tunnels + Other Gateway projects

18263 views
166 replies
1 rating 2 rating 3 rating 4 rating 5 rating
  • Member since
    December, 2007
  • From: Georgia USA SW of Atlanta
  • 8,328 posts
Gateway tunnels now expedited + East river tunnels + Other Gateway projects
Posted by blue streak 1 on Wednesday, September 03, 2014 8:47 AM

Another article stating expert (?) examination of the old tunnels is in progress and report will be out in a few months.  It may be salt water has caused more damage than Boardman believed in his original statement ?

 

http://www.app.com/story/news/traffic/2014/09/01/sandy-amtrak-tunnels/14928539/

NY Times

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/02/nyregion/repairs-to-new-york-tunnels-will-limit-rail-service.html?emc=eta1&_r=1

NJ newspaper

http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2014/10/new_hudson_river_rail_tunnels_needed_so_old_tunnels_can_be_repaired.html

WNYC

http://www.wnyc.org/story/amtrak-tunnels/

 

 

 

 

  • Member since
    December, 2007
  • From: Georgia USA SW of Atlanta
  • 8,328 posts
Posted by blue streak 1 on Wednesday, September 03, 2014 4:36 PM

As the ARC plan was first proposed it appears that the stub end tunnel south of NYP with no direct connection to NYP was a bad idea. Amtrak could not use it for thru trains or trains going to Sunnyside yard.  The Gateway tunnel as proposed appears to mitigate that oversight.  However Christie should have placed full backing for the Gateway tunnel and have priority for its construction and funds transferred to Gateway.

For whatever reason whether it be to placate highway interests or tax hawks or other reasons that did not happen.

  • Member since
    December, 2007
  • From: Georgia USA SW of Atlanta
  • 8,328 posts
Posted by blue streak 1 on Thursday, October 02, 2014 7:12 PM

Many media reports of the Hudson  ( north ) river tunnels and east river tunnels approaching failure.  Some more alarmist than others here is one from Railway age. . 

http://www.railwayage.com/index.php/passenger/intercity/report-nec-new-york-tunnels-need-major-work.html?channel=41

  • Member since
    December, 2007
  • From: Georgia USA SW of Atlanta
  • 8,328 posts
Posted by blue streak 1 on Friday, October 03, 2014 2:09 AM
  • Member since
    December, 2007
  • From: Georgia USA SW of Atlanta
  • 8,328 posts
Posted by blue streak 1 on Friday, October 03, 2014 2:26 AM

Here is the tunnel assestment report itself which WNYC apparently found.  Draw your own conclusions ?

https://www.scribd.com/doc/241718975/NYC-Tunnels-Assessment-Report

 

 

  • Member since
    December, 2007
  • From: Georgia USA SW of Atlanta
  • 8,328 posts
Posted by blue streak 1 on Friday, October 03, 2014 1:04 PM

This report also had an interesting aside.  The duct work in the east river tunnel(s) in  the walkways has both Amtrak equipment and  "public telephone cable " . Did not find that in North river tunnels.   However the failure of one or more of these tunnels might really severly restrict telephone and cell service as well ?  Most copper cable did not have installed reduntant line but fiber usually does.   

'

https://www.scribd.com/doc/241718975/NYC-Tunnels-Assessment-Report

 

This report certainly is a shot across the bow to Congress, New Yor city and state, and NJ.

 

 

 
  • Member since
    September, 2003
  • 4,346 posts
Posted by Overmod on Saturday, October 04, 2014 9:57 AM

blue streak 1
This report certainly is a shot across the bow to Congress, New Yor city and state, and NJ.

On the other hand, it does note that most of the 'damage' is in the bench wall structure, and chloride infiltration into the ballast, and notes "Apart from the deficiencies noted in this report, we did not observe any indications that the tunnel linings themselves were unsound."

Not to second-guess, but I'd think some sort of short-term encapsulation might keep deterioration of the bench wall structures minimized for a while -- leaving the major expense to be provision of the direct-fixation track.  Interesting to see what systems would be involved, and whether effective 'throughput' in the North River tunnels might be increased if higher speed were allowed by the new structure... 

  • Member since
    December, 2007
  • From: Georgia USA SW of Atlanta
  • 8,328 posts
Posted by blue streak 1 on Tuesday, October 07, 2014 4:20 AM
  • Member since
    December, 2007
  • From: Georgia USA SW of Atlanta
  • 8,328 posts
Posted by blue streak 1 on Tuesday, October 07, 2014 4:45 PM

Just to muddle the water further an former LIRR executive is starting to push for just one tunnel.  Claims two tunnels would require too much NYC realestate ?  $400 M  for real estate seems to be a very small fraction of the whole cost of the tunnels.  Anyone wonder if this is just former LIRR person looking out only for his own RR ?  Might be a way to allow more MNRR ( MTA ) trains in future ?

 

http://www.nj.com/traffic/index.ssf/2014/10/amtrak_has_404_million_hurdle.html

  • Member since
    September, 2011
  • 3,336 posts
Posted by MidlandMike on Wednesday, October 08, 2014 9:07 PM

That former LIRR executive is now technical director of the Lackawanna  Commuter Coalition.  I think he is now involved on the NJ side.  He seems worried that the real estate costs will delay the project.  He wants more efficient use of existing NYP platform trackage.  He shows that LIRR is twice as efficient as NJT   

LIRR traffic  to NYP may drop after the East Side Access (to GCT) opens. Maybe it will be replaced by MN traffic off the NH line.

  • Member since
    January, 2014
  • 199 posts
Posted by zkr123 on Wednesday, October 08, 2014 9:11 PM
Can you imagine the uproar / backlash if one of those tunnels collapse?
  • Member since
    July, 2006
  • 9,610 posts
Posted by schlimm on Monday, November 17, 2014 2:07 PM

"Build $16B Hudson tunnel project or economy could lose $100M a day, Amtrak says"

http://www.nj.com/traffic/index.ssf/2014/11/new_hudson_river_rail_tunnels_could_be_built_in_7.html

C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan

  • Member since
    December, 2007
  • From: Georgia USA SW of Atlanta
  • 8,328 posts
Posted by blue streak 1 on Monday, November 17, 2014 3:44 PM

Lets see $ 100 M per day  =  $ 1 B in ten days = 10 B in 100 days  =  $ 36.5 B in one year.  Although the $ 100 M per day seems off the wall still a good return of investment to build the tunnels ?

A concern is what if a tunnel collaspes ?  Has Amtrak put flood gates on the ends of the present tunnels tunnels ?  Especially the Penn station ends as it is below sea level ?  Flooding could completely shut down NYP if no flood gates..

Did not factor in less loss on weekend days.

 

Now federal government has to worry about lost taxes.  Haven't heard that argument before ?

  • Member since
    December, 2007
  • From: Georgia USA SW of Atlanta
  • 8,328 posts
Posted by blue streak 1 on Sunday, January 18, 2015 7:23 PM

New worries over Penn South station which will be an essential part of the new tunnels.

http://www.northjersey.com/news/hudson-river-train-tunnel-hinges-on-pricey-plan-1.1211136

 

  • Member since
    September, 2011
  • 3,336 posts
Posted by MidlandMike on Sunday, January 18, 2015 8:12 PM

I would think ATK could recoup much of the money they spend to acquire the NY real estate by selling the air rights.

I noticed in the comments following the article, some people not only wanted highway lanes added to the ATK tunnel project, but also pedestrian/bike lanes.

  • Member since
    December, 2007
  • From: Georgia USA SW of Atlanta
  • 8,328 posts
Posted by blue streak 1 on Thursday, February 26, 2015 6:37 PM

NY Times article on another reason that the new Gateway tunnels are needed.  During the winter one tunnel has to be shut down several times a day to have ice removed from leaking tunnels.  Now what happens when one tunnel is shut for long term maintenance and the other has to be shut down for ice removal ?  Article will also stop some sceptics from believing the necessity to close a tunnel for ice removal.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/26/nyregion/taking-aim-at-icicles-to-keep-trains-moving-into-and-out-of-new-york.html?_r=0

 

 

  • Member since
    November, 2011
  • 463 posts
Posted by V.Payne on Thursday, February 26, 2015 8:48 PM

I have wondered why the newest penn station concept requires the expensive land buy of the former power plant site and church as the optimal solution to set up a new concentrated site. 

Conceptually think about it since the expansion is for commuters it would make more sense to have several dispersed stations under the public street ROW along the existing alignment between river tunnels at the intersecting north south subway lines.

The demand in NYC is dispersed, so why not the commuter stations?

Essentially, the station would be a three track shallow tunnel with platforms along the entire length, with crossovers to the middle track for operational issues. Say 3 commuter trains would follow each other closely through the river tunnels, then they could all stop once at one of the platforms they line up with, or stop at each platform in a Congo line. The demand is so large, serve it with a dense arrangement of stops that minimize access costs.

  • Member since
    June, 2002
  • 13,279 posts
Posted by daveklepper on Saturday, February 28, 2015 2:23 PM

BEcause of dispersal on the suburb end, NJC, NEC, RV, M&E, impractical and wasteful.

  • Member since
    May, 2012
  • 3,110 posts
Posted by rcdrye on Saturday, February 28, 2015 4:50 PM

The track layout at Penn Station provides for platforms nearly as long as possible short of putting platforms in the tunnels on 2% grades at either end.

  • Member since
    December, 2007
  • From: Georgia USA SW of Atlanta
  • 8,328 posts
Posted by blue streak 1 on Monday, May 04, 2015 8:22 PM

Amtrak is keeping up the awareness of the North River tunnels.  Also on the link is ~ one hour video about London's Cross rail project and its cost.  take your time on it..

http://www.nj.com/traffic/index.ssf/2015/05/inside_the_aging_cracking_hudson_river_train_tunnels_that_would_cost_billions_to_replace.html

 

 

  • Member since
    November, 2013
  • 1,096 posts
Posted by Buslist on Wednesday, May 06, 2015 2:36 PM

blue streak 1

Amtrak is keeping up the awareness of the North River tunnels.  Also on the link is ~ one hour video about London's Cross rail project and its cost.  take your time on it..

 

 

 

Thanks for the heads up on the Cross Rail video. One of my flats in London was around there, briefly visible in the Video. Rode through the old tunnel when it was still part of the North London Line.

The pressure on the trans Hudson infrastructure continues with an all day web event tomorrow. 

http://www.transhudsonsummit.com/

 

  • Member since
    December, 2007
  • From: Georgia USA SW of Atlanta
  • 8,328 posts
Posted by blue streak 1 on Thursday, May 07, 2015 9:23 PM

Interesting tid bit that Port authority may help fund Gateway tunnels.  Guess that PANYNJ may be worried if North river tunnel(s) happened to close down ?

http://www.northjersey.com/news/port-authority-agrees-to-help-fund-amtrak-s-hudson-river-rail-tunnel-project-1.1328987

 

 

  • Member since
    December, 2007
  • From: Georgia USA SW of Atlanta
  • 8,328 posts
Posted by blue streak 1 on Wednesday, June 24, 2015 11:59 AM
  • Member since
    December, 2007
  • From: Georgia USA SW of Atlanta
  • 8,328 posts
Posted by blue streak 1 on Monday, June 29, 2015 12:25 PM

Another editorial about what will happen if one tunnel closes before a gateway tunnel is operational.

http://www.nj.com/traffic/index.ssf/2015/06/the_nightmare_that_awaits_nj_if_a_hudson_rail_tunnel_is_forced_to_close.html

 

 

  • Member since
    December, 2007
  • From: Georgia USA SW of Atlanta
  • 8,328 posts
Posted by blue streak 1 on Wednesday, July 01, 2015 6:14 PM
  • Member since
    November, 2005
  • 3,972 posts
Posted by wanswheel on Wednesday, July 08, 2015 12:29 AM
Excerpt from NY Times
Gateway, which has been pushed by the Obama administration, calls for two new passenger rail tunnels feeding into Pennsylvania Station in Manhattan, the nation’s busiest and most disgusting transit hub, not to mention a potential fire trap. In 2010, Gov. Chris Christie of New Jersey killed a plan called ARC to add tunnels. Despite federal assurances to the contrary, he claimed potential cost overruns could leave his state holding the bag. Instead, Governor Christie directed money already set aside for the tunnels (including billions from the Port Authority) to roadway projects. Considering the Hudson is a chokepoint for passenger rail traffic all the way from Boston to Washington and even beyond, that move left the whole Eastern Seaboard transportation network in a highly precarious position.
  • Member since
    December, 2007
  • From: Georgia USA SW of Atlanta
  • 8,328 posts
Posted by blue streak 1 on Thursday, July 09, 2015 6:06 PM
  • Member since
    December, 2007
  • From: Georgia USA SW of Atlanta
  • 8,328 posts
Posted by blue streak 1 on Tuesday, July 14, 2015 5:06 PM

Another short article on preliminary work.

http://www.crainsnewyork.com/article/20150709/BLOGS04/150709912

 

 

  • Member since
    November, 2005
  • 3,972 posts
Posted by wanswheel on Tuesday, July 14, 2015 10:27 PM
Chairman Coscia seems to like new tunnels. I hope he gets one eventually.
Port Authority press release, November 7, 2008
Port Authority Chairman Anthony Coscia today called on the federal government to help speed approvals and include the ARC rail tunnel between New Jersey and Midtown Manhattan in a new economic stimulus package.

Mr. Coscia, speaking in Jersey City before a St. Peter's College business symposium, said a second rail tube to supplement the existing century-old tunnel would pay dividends now and in the future: creating jobs quickly while providing long-term transportation improvements.

"The Port Authority is doing whatever we can to help the region through these challenging times,' the chairman said. "But in order to maximize our capital spending -- and do the most good for the region's economy -- we also need a strong partner at the federal level."

Much planning and engineering analysis for the rail tunnel already has been done. The environmental review process is nearly finished. The Port Authority, NJ Transit and New Jersey have earmarked $5.75 billion - roughly two-thirds the project's cost.

Federal project approvals and funding should come quickly enough for the project to break ground in 2009, he urged.

Mr. Coscia said the tunnel is the perfect project to help meet New Jersey Gov. Jon Corzine's goal of spurring economic activity in these difficult times by speeding up construction projects.

"Building a new rail tunnel under the Hudson River will reduce commuting times and provide one-seat rides to tens of thousands of regional commuters,' said Mr. Coscia. "It will also reduce traffic congestion on our roads and improve local air quality."
  • Member since
    September, 2010
  • 1,054 posts
Posted by Electroliner 1935 on Sunday, July 19, 2015 10:13 PM

wanswheel
Federal project approvals and funding should come quickly enough for the project to break ground in 2009, he urged.

wanswheel
Federal project approvals and funding should come quickly enough for the project to break ground in 2009, he urged.

The ]Federal wheels move slower than a late Amtrak train. 2009 was six years ago.

Join our Community!

Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.

Newsletter Sign-Up

By signing up you may also receive occasional reader surveys and special offers from Trains magazine.Please view our privacy policy

Search the Community