What's "structurally" wrong with Portal Bridge

[BaltACD]

7j43k

Firelock76

1.3 BILLION for a bridge?  Maybe I'm naiive, but can anyone tell me just where that 1.3 billion is going to?

 That number's just a ballpark.  I think it's a few million more.

Ed

Prices vary between rural Washington state and the urban environs of New York City and the Northeast Corridor.

[7j43k]

blue streak 1

 

Read somewhere that bridge requires 4 - 6 full time employees to maintain the bridge.  so four four shifts = $ ?.

 

 

What is "four four shifts"?  

Six full time employees billed out at $50 per hour is $576,000 per year.  If you divide 1.3 BILLION dollars by that number, you could hire the guys for 2257 years.  Assuming no overtime.

Hopefully nothing will break that will require an obsolete part to be custom built.

 

 

 

I suppose I could divide the cost of the custom built part into 1.3 BILLION.

 

Ed

 

  

[MidlandMike]

7j43k

 

 

MidlandMike

 

Salt water was mentioned by another poster.  Are you dismissing salt waters effect on steel?

 

 

 

 

 

Gosh, no.  I am sure that maintenance on a bridge near salt water is (much) more extensive than one that is not.

 

Ed

 

I assume they do extra maintenance, but it is still not going to totally mitigate the effcts of salt water getting on and into the bridge and its working parts.

[Norm48327]

Firelock76

1.3 BILLION for a bridge?

Don't forget they have to pay off the politicians.

(Sarcasm intended.)

[Firelock76]

Norm48327

 

Firelock76

1.3 BILLION for a bridge?

 

 

Don't forget they have to pay off the politicians.

(Sarcasm intended.)

 

Being from New Jersey myself, left in 1987, I suspect they'd have to pay off the right "godfather" as well to ensure they don't have any union trouble.

A little more sarcasm intended, but remember, for something to be funny it has to contain a grain of truth.

[7j43k]

MidlandMike

 

 

 

I assume they do extra maintenance, but it is still not going to totally mitigate the effcts of salt water getting on and into the bridge and its working parts.

 

 

I agree.  But while not total, there will be a certain amount of mitigation.  We do not know the extent of that mitigation.  Or the extent of degradation of the structure due to salt air/water.

A person could declare that the maintenance was done to perfection and blocked all salt damage.  Or a person could say that salt has ravaged the bridge so much that it won't last the decade.  Each could be true.  Or it could be anywhere between those extremes.  COULD.  Not IS.  

 

 

Ed

[blue streak 1]

About shifts  8 hour shifts for bridge 4 bridge tenders, 4 bridge maintainers, 4 signal maintainers, 4  MOW persons.  It add up.  Not counting the various `management persons.  May also occasionally need some CAT maintenance persons.

The First bridge ( north bridge )  will enable 4 tracks to be placed in service from the North River portals thru Secacus to Newark Penn station.  As plans now stand ( subject to change ) the Portal swing bridge will remain in service including outages until the south bridge with additional 2 - 3 tracks is built and put into service. The first new bridge will speed up those trains from present portals to Newark Penn that use the new high bridge. Then when new Gateway tunnels in service trains will not be restricted by 2 tracks across the Hasensack.  

1997 Report states ~300 openings had ~30 failures of various times.  Reliability of just 90%   bad.

The bridge is a swing bridge span of 300 feet.  That gives a passage clearance of ~140 - 145 feet on each side of pivot. More likely of barge to strike present supports. New bridge appears to be 325 -350 clearances for channel straightening. Believe Coast guard now requires clearances of 200+ feet for new installations.   

 

[7j43k]

blue streak 1

About shifts  8 hour shifts for bridge 4 bridge tenders, 4 bridge maintainers, 4 signal maintainers, 4  MOW persons.  It add up.  Not counting the various `management persons.  May also occasionally need some CAT maintenance persons.

Four bridge tenders.  For a bridge that's opened every 4 days.  Oh, THAT is a sweet job.

And four signal maintainers?  Full time signal maintainers for a bridge?  That opens every 4 days?  THAT may or may not be a sweet job.  But I do wonder what they do.  Maybe change lightbulbs in a signal somewhere.  Or sand contacts.

Now bridge maintainers.  Yup.  Now, I'm assuming they get out there and sand the rust off and paint and all.  'Cause that's what I see guys doing on the Bay Bridge.  THAT may not be a sweet job.  Perhaps the bridge tenders who are waiting and waiting and waiting for a barge could come out and help sand and paint.  Perhaps.  

MOW?  Four guys.  Doing what?  

 

 

 

1997 Report states ~300 openings had ~30 failures of various times.  Reliability of just 90%   bad.

 Hey.  Maybe they need MORE bridge maintainers.  I'd sure like to see the report when it describes the failures.  Even one failure is pretty pathetic.  

The bridge is a swing bridge span of 300 feet.  That gives a passage clearance of ~140 - 145 feet on each side of pivot. More likely of barge to strike present supports. New bridge appears to be 325 -350 clearances for channel straightening. Believe Coast guard now requires clearances of 200+ feet for new installations.   

 

I'm pretty sure I read in the paper, just yesterday or so, that there was 70 bargeloads of sludge past the bridge plus 15 other openings a year.  And we're spending 1.3 BILLION so the sludge can keep moving?  If the sludge stayed where it was, maybe someone could build condos-with-a-view-of-New-York on top.  Just a thought.

Anyway, if there was a potential problem of a barge striking the fenders, it just really can't cost 1.3 BILLION to replace them with something much more sturdy.  Like concrete.  And steel.  Sorta like the new bridge, but much smaller.  And cheaper.

 

Ed

[Firelock76]

Probably a lot cheaper in the long run to build a pipeline for the sludge to an area south of the bridge, eliminating barges entirely, and just welding the bridge permanently shut.

Why not?  Especially if the barges are the only marine traffic that need an opening bridge.

[7j43k]

Great minds and all.....

My idea was to use a conveyor belt.

I've gotta find out about this sludge stuff.  Like, is there a sludge mine?  Or is it somehow GROWING?  And why right there? 

 

 

Ed

[7j43k]

Now, THIS makes some interesting reading.  I had a quick skim.  Oh, yes.  I've got a couple of questions.  I've got to read it more thoroughly:

 

http://ntl.bts.gov/lib/8000/8400/8417/SIR9701.pdf

 

 

RAILROAD SPECIAL INVESTIGATION

REPORT

DERAILMENT OF AMTRAK TRAIN NO. 12 AND

SIDESWIPE OF AMTRAK TRAIN NO. 79 ON PORTAL

BRIDGE NEAR SECAUCUS, NEW JERSEY,

NOVEMBER 23, 1996

 

 

 

Ed

[Firelock76]

I'd assume the sludge is coming from a sewage treatment plant.  I know there's one in the Hackensack Meadows somewhere, not sure where though.  The sludge is what's left over from the treatment process, and I believe it's barged off the Jersey coast and dumped far offshore where the ocean can take care of the dilution process.

[BaltACD]

Since some are questioning the cost of a bridge over troubled waters; what about a hole in the ground?

B&P Tunnel replacement in Baltimore $60M for preliminary design work, $3.7B to $4.2B for construction.

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/bs-md-rail-tunnel-study-20151218-story.html

[mudchicken]

Balt: Great Grandpa Grumbles can only see through the filter of a balance sheet. No sense having a war of wits with an unarmed individual. At some point PDN will drop in,  but even he may not be able to get thru to GGG.

[blue streak 1]

MC:  Yep

2 additional tracks across the Hackensack river cannot be denied.  So arguments about not building the new bridge are moot.

 

[7j43k]

blue streak 1

MC:  Yep

2 additional tracks across the Hackensack river cannot be denied.  So arguments about not building the new bridge are moot.

 

 

 

The bridge CAN be denied.

Becaus they lied.

And so I dance the poot.

And hope someone brings a suit

to investigate the galoot

who stands to rake in the loot.

 

 

Ed

 

 

 

[MidlandMike]

7j43k

 

 ...

  I'll note that SP&S also has a swing bridge across the Columbia at Vancouver (the American one).  It is two years older than Portal.  And I suspect that salt water comes up the River that far, though I am not sure.  It's in good working order, and is opened far more often than Portal.

 

Ed

 

 

[Murphy Siding]

7j43k

 

 

blue streak 1

MC:  Yep

2 additional tracks across the Hackensack river cannot be denied.  So arguments about not building the new bridge are moot.

 

 

 

 

 

 

The bridge CAN be denied.

Becaus they lied.

And so I dance the poot.

And hope someone brings a suit

to investigate the galoot

who stands to rake in the loot.

 

 

Ed

 

 

 

 

 Which part are you so fired up about?  The part where a lot of people a lot smarter than you and me say the bridge is worn out and needs to be replaced?  Or the sticker shock of what things cost these days?  I suppose, we could just ignore the bridge until it fell in the river, but that doesn't seem like the smartest move.

[7j43k]

So, suddenly I can't quote anymore.  I click on it, and it ignores me.  Sort of like some people I know.

So.

Yes.  I have found out that salt water doesn't come up to Vancouver on the Columbia River.  So, clearly, that bridge is not susceptable to salt water corrosion.  

That would be the swing bridge that is older than the Portal Bridge.  

So then the problem with the Portal Bridge is salt water corrosion.  Right?  I look forward to hearing more about that.

 

 

Ed

[7j43k]

Murphy Siding

 

 

7j43k

 

 

blue streak 1

MC:  Yep

2 additional tracks across the Hackensack river cannot be denied.  So arguments about not building the new bridge are moot.

 

 

 

 

 

 

The bridge CAN be denied.

Becaus they lied.

And so I dance the poot.

And hope someone brings a suit

to investigate the galoot

who stands to rake in the loot.

 

 

Ed

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 Which part are you so fired up about?  The part where a lot of people a lot smarter than you and me say the bridge is worn out and needs to be replaced?  Or the sticker shock of what things cost these days?  I suppose, we could just ignore the bridge until it fell in the river, but that doesn't seem like the smartest move.

 

 

 

Cool.  Quoting is restored.  All hail the internet god(s).

Mr. Siding.  If I may.  You are correct that I am a bit fired up.  But I don't see where you have the right to define my choices about why that might be so.  

But I do see that you are expressing concern.

In your quote of a previous gentleman, you will note that there is stated that various tracks across the Hackensack "cannot be denied".  Actually, they can.  I live far far away.  And it is partly MY money that will apparently be spent for these extra tracks.  If it were only you and the other gentleman, I would have absolutely no objection to YOU spending YOUR money on this project.  I can and will suggest that you send a check to support this project, so that I can keep my money for my own projects.

And then, going further with your own quote, that same gentleman says "arguments...are moot".  Apparently because he wants/needs more bridges across the Hackensack River.  

So, it appears that his view is that he wants more bridges and therefore arguments are moot.

Mr. Siding.  Do you think that is truly a rational argument?

 

Attending to your very own comments, you express concern about the bridge falling into the river.  I, for one, am against that.  And so we agree.  That is not the smartest move.

And you also reference "people a lot smarter than you and me".  I know it appears arrogant.  And it may indeed be true.  But I do not concede that those people are smarter than me.  And so I do not concede that they are correct.  I will also note that people who are NOT smarter than me have been "righter" than I am.  Frank:  That's Life.

But, if you insist, I will agree that they are smarter than you. (Sorry, dude.  You walked into that one.)

 

 

Ed

 

 

[wanswheel]

The Bergen Record, Feb. 21, 2015

When Bergen County sludge meets rusty Amtrak bridge, both sides lose

By Christopher Maag

Pushing a million gallons of human sludge down the Hackensack River is tricky. The job requires finesse, a rusty barge, a puttering little tugboat, high tide, low winds and an ability to withstand the horrible smell.

It also requires the Portal Bridge to swing open so ships can pass, and that’s where the problems start.

The Portal Bridge is the busiest train span in the Western Hemisphere, carrying 150,000 Amtrak and NJ Transit passengers en route from New Jersey to New York and back. It’s also a century old, and in the past 18 years it has caught fire twice, derailed a train and failed to open or close so many times that officials don’t keep count.

When the bridge can’t open, Bergen County’s sewage backs up by the ton.

When the bridge can’t close, the trains stop.

To fix these problems, leaders of Amtrak hope to replace the Portal Bridge — which swings open, rotating on a center pin to allow vessels to pass through — with two new spans. Together the bridges could cost taxpayers around $2 billion. Driving up the price is a Coast Guard requirement that any new bridge be 53 feet above the water, high enough to allow commercial ships to pass underneath.

For now, the only regularly scheduled commercial traffic on the river is a barge full of sludge.

“It is kind of funny,” Bill Sheehan of Hackensack Riverkeeper said of spending billions of dollars partly to maintain weekly shipments of sludge.

If you live in Bergen County and you like to use the bathroom, the sludge barge likely matters to you. Every day, 73 million gallons of human waste from 550,000 people in 47 communities flows downhill to the Bergen County Utilities Authority’s sewage treatment facility in Little Ferry, on the Hackensack River’s western bank.

The wastewater is disinfected and released into the river. Solids are pumped into gravity tanks and a machine that thickens the waste, according to a description on the authority’s website, creating 5 million gallons of dewatered sludge a month. For final treatment and disposal, the sludge is barged to the Passaic Valley Sewerage Commission’s sewage plant in Newark.

The barge is called Maria and it is perfectly ugly, with a black rusty hull and a red deck faded to splotchy pink. Filling the barge with 1.3 million gallons of sludge takes about a week, said Edward Switay, the Bergen sewage plant manager in Little Ferry.

When the Maria is full, the Moran Towing Co. sends a tugboat named the Turecamo Girls upriver to retrieve it. Lashed together, tug and barge are 159 feet long and 15 feet deep, nearly filling the Hackensack’s navigable channel, according to river charts published by the Coast Guard.

The measurement that matters, of course, is height. The pilothouse of the Turecamo Girls sits five stories above the water. That’s too tall to fit under the Portal Bridge, which is 26 feet above the river’s high water mark, said Craig Schulz, a spokesman for Amtrak, which owns and maintains the bridge.

So every time the sludge barge comes, the bridge must swing open. The Portal Bridge opened 90 times during the past four months of 2014, according to Amtrak. Of those movements, 75 were for the shipments of sludge. Amtrak’s records do not show how often the bridge gets stuck, but Switay said failures happen so often he’s lost count.

“There’s always a problem with that bridge,” Switay said. “It’s the biggest cause of problems and delays we have.”

When the bridge can’t swing open, workers at the sewage plant respond immediately. First they slow down the treatment process, allowing extra sludge to pile up inside the plant’s digesters and tanks. Next the plant starts shipping sludge out by truck. Bridge failures are so common that the utilities authority has standing contracts with local trucking companies, said Robert Laux, the agency’s executive director.

It takes up to 40 sludge-filled trucks rumbling down the narrow streets of Little Ferry every day to replace a single shipment by barge, Switay said.

“If I know the bridge is down, we start trucking right away,” Laux said.

Trucks cannot always keep up, however. After Superstorm Sandy hit in October 2012, the Maria didn’t sail for three months, Switay said, so all sludge left by truck. Once the plant’s tanks filled with solids, workers flushed excess sludge straight into the Hackensack River, Switay said. Eventually the plant exceeded state environmental rules, which limit releases to 30 gallons of sludge per million gallons of water, Switay said.

“It’s a lot of sludge,” said Laux, “and it can’t stay here.”

Even after the Maria resumed sailing, it took two months to flush built-up sludge through the system and get the plant back to normal, Switay said.

The Portal Bridge is just as vexing for Amtrak. The span is based on plans from the 1840s, which means it was obsolete the day it was completed in 1910, said Amtrak President Joseph Boardman.

Today a crew of five people works to keep the bridge functioning, said Schulz. Each movement requires coordination of two antique mechanical systems: One to lift the rails, the other to swing the bridge counterclockwise from its center so that it moves perpendicular to the train line, creating a channel for vessels below.

“It’s tricky because it’s moving parts,” Schulz said, “Old moving parts.”

Both systems are prone to break. On Nov. 24, 1996, the bridge opened at 4 p.m. for a passing tug and barge. The bridge swung closed, but the tracks failed to drop into place, according to a subsequent investigation by the National Transportation Safety Board. The butt of one rail was sticking 5 inches into the air, like a ramp.

Around 6:30 p.m., two trains rolled onto the bridge simultaneously. The wheels of the eastbound train hit the ramp and flew off the track, sending two locomotives and four railcars into a ditch. Flying cars also rammed the westbound train, which was damaged but somehow stayed on the track. No one died, but 43 people were injured.

The bridge hasn’t derailed any trains since, but it remains a constant source of problems for the entire Northeast Corridor, Schulz said, including a fire in 2005 and another in August. Whenever the bridge fails, train delays ripple from Boston to Washington, D.C., Boardman said.

One of the latest failures happened Thursday night, when Amtrak workers opened the bridge at 8 p.m. but could not get it closed for 45 minutes, Schulz said. Even at that time of night, the failure caused backups for Amtrak and NJ Transit.

“The bridge is over 100 years old, and the mechanical and electrical systems are reaching the ends of their useful lives,” said Schulz. “When we open and close it, we run into these problems.”

Amtrak already has plans to tear down the Portal Bridge, but the costs are exorbitant. Simply drawing plans for the replacement bridge cost taxpayers $70 million, according to Amtrak. The design envisions three steel arches over the river, supported by eight white pillars. Its fixed deck would be 53 feet above the water, high enough for trains to travel overhead as the sludge barge passes below.

“We want to build it high enough so it doesn’t have to open and close,” said Schulz.

The obstacle is money. A new bridge would cost $940 million, according to Amtrak, but that estimate is from 2013, so costs may have inched closer to $1 billion.

“The project is ready to go. The design and the environmental review are done,” Schulz said. “What we lack are the funds.”

Compounding the financing problem is that ridership on Amtrak and NJ Transit trains is growing. The two-track Portal Bridge already operates at capacity, however, so replacing it with another two-track bridge does nothing to accommodate new riders, Schulz said. So planners at both agencies hope to build a second new bridge immediately south of the first. Amtrak includes two bridges in its preliminary plans for Gateway, its project to double train capacity between Newark and New York.

No cost estimates exist for Portal Bridge South. But since the second bridge would cross the river close to the northern span, and since the estimated cost of planning and building the first bridge is more than $1 billion, inflation makes it unlikely the second bridge would cost less.

“It’s a lot of money,” Sheehan said. “But the rivers were navigable long before anybody invented a train, a truck or a car. So the new bridges have to be equipped to let ships pass. If we give up that navigability, we limit access to our river.”

That access is key, especially for the barge Maria. Switay sat in the cab of a white utilities authority pickup recently looking at the vessel, which was lashed to the dock with thick blue rope and a heavy metal chain. Inside the truck, with heat blasting his face, he didn't feel the stinging cold outside or smell the overpowering odor of human waste.

For more than three decades, Switay’s job has been dictated by a failing old bridge that he rarely sees and cannot control. As the Portal Bridge continues to deteriorate, Switay figures he’ll just keep improvising until he retires.

“I’ve been here 32 years, and the bridge has been a problem the whole time,” Switay said. “We just deal with it. One way or another, we have to get the sludge out of here.”

[blue streak 1]

The reason for 4 tracks across the Hackensack.  Gateway tunnel bores will add 2 additional tracks.  Granted then the North river tunnels will be taken out of service hopefully only one at a time but when all is finished then there will be 4 tunnel bores from NYP to New Jersey.  Those 4 tracks will need 4 tracks across the Portal firstly just 3. 

[greyhounds]

wanswheel

The measurement that matters, of course, is height. The pilothouse of the Turecamo Girls sits five stories above the water. That’s too tall to fit under the Portal Bridge, which is 26 feet above the river’s high water mark, said Craig Schulz, a spokesman for Amtrak, which owns and maintains the bridge. So every time the sludge barge comes, the bridge must swing open. The Portal Bridge opened 90 times during the past four months of 2014, according to Amtrak. Of those movements, 75 were for the shipments of sludge. Amtrak’s records do not show how often the bridge gets stuck, but Switay said failures happen so often he’s lost count.

The way I see this is that it's all government and there's no creative thought or cost-benefit analysis going on.

The Coast Guard has a one size fits all universal regulation that requires a 53 foot clearance under any new bridge.  But there is minimal river traffic under this bridge and requiring a 53 foot clearance drives up the cost of bridge replacement.  So why is a 53 foot clearance required here?

 "I don't know, but that's the regulation" is not a thoughtful answer.

There is a solution:

http://waterwaysjournal.net/Magazine/ThisWeeksTopNews/NewBoatFeaturesRetractablePilothouse,ZDrives.aspx

It seems such a towboat will get under the present bridge without the bridge being opened.  Rail and river traffic could flow unimpeded.  The current bridge clears 26 feet in the closed position.  The towboat is only 17 feet high with the lowered pilot house.  The immediate problem can be solved with a different towboat design for a lot less than $2 billion.  The need to open and close the bridge for river traffic will be gone.

In addition, the cost of replacement bridges will be reduced if they do not have to clear 53 feet for what is minimal river tonnage.

But nobody seems to be thinking beyond a thoughtless regulation that makes no sense in this particular situation.

[BaltACD]

[7j43k]

Thanks, Wanswheel.

That's a very informative and interesting article--much more in-depth (and well written) than the one I read in a well known big city paper.

I will note that in one place it is said that there were 70 openings for the sludge barge in four months (in the other article, either I misread or they miswrote one year).  But elsewhere it was stated it takes about a week to load the barge.  Which would then be 17 loads out and 17 empties in.  Thus 34, instead of 70.

So I will not take everything there as gospel.  But it is of use in understanding what's going on there.

 

So, I thought I'd go have a look at the geography of the area.  And, RAILFANS, what did I spy?  A freight yard 1000 yards from the sludge loader.  Physically, anyway, it appears the sludge could be hauled by rail. 

Interesting.

 

 

Ed

[Convicted One]

7j43k

, I never hear any real info about what's wrong with it.

 

It would seem that there are 3 primary areas of displeasure with the current bridge.

 

1. it is a traffic bottleneck for Amtrak
2. The bridge operating mechanism is unreliable.

3. The height of the bridge is a restriction for current as well as potential future river traffic.

 

Replacing the entire bridge is the only solution that addresses all three concerns. And, since the people who want to spend the money are not the ones footing the bill, might as well error into the realm of overkill and avoid future possible regrets of not getting all the bells and whistles while the getting is good?

 

While the variable height wheelhouse tug appears to be a workable solution to the current bridge height problem, it does not address possible future requirements  where the lading itself might be of excess height. Nor does it address Amtrak's desire for additional lanes through the area.

And, if you're going to go to the trouble to build new spans, you might as well build spans that will neither be restricting, nor require excessive maintenance.

 

But, at a $Billion, I hope that all alternatives are being considered.

[7j43k]

greyhounds

The way I see this is that it's all government and there's no creative thought or cost-benefit analysis going on.

The Coast Guard has a one size fits all universal regulation that requires a 53 foot clearance under any new bridge.  But there is minimal river traffic under this bridge and requiring a 53 foot clearance drives up the cost of bridge replacement.  So why is a 53 foot clearance required here?

 "I don't know, but that's the regulation" is not a thoughtful answer.

There is a solution:

http://waterwaysjournal.net/Magazine/ThisWeeksTopNews/NewBoatFeaturesRetractablePilothouse,ZDrives.aspx

It seems such a towboat will get under the present bridge without the bridge being opened.  Rail and river traffic could flow unimpeded.  The current bridge clears 26 feet in the closed position.  The towboat is only 17 feet high with the lowered pilot house.  The immediate problem can be solved with a different towboat design for a lot less than $2 billion.  The need to open and close the bridge for river traffic will be gone.

In addition, the cost of replacement bridges will be reduced if they do not have to clear 53 feet for what is minimal river tonnage.

But nobody seems to be thinking beyond a thoughtless regulation that makes no sense in this particular situation.

 

 

I've worked for the guvmint.  And I was lucky to have worked with some thoughtful and hardworking folks.  BUT.  I'm afraid their kind can get kinda rare in certain areas.

I'll be remindful and mention that there is other river traffic than the every 1.7 day/3.5 day (depending on whose numbers are correct) opening for the sludge barge.  There is also the every 8 day opening for "other".  I would hope dealing with that would not be beyond Amtrak's abilities.

 

Ed

[7j43k]

Convicted One

It would seem that there are 3 primary areas of displeasure with the current bridge.

 

1. it is a traffic bottleneck for Amtrak
2. The bridge operating mechanism is unreliable.

3. The height of the bridge is a restriction for current as well as potential future river traffic.

 

Replacing the entire bridge is the only solution that addresses all three concerns. And, since the people who want to spend the money are not the ones footing the bill, might as well error into the realm of overkill and avoid future possible regrets of not getting all the bells and whistles while the getting is good?

 

While the variable height wheelhouse tug appears to be a workable solution to the current bridge height problem, it does not address possible future requirements  where the lading itself might be of excess height. No does it address Amtrak's desire for additional lanes through the area.

And, if you're going to go to the trouble to build new spans, you might as well build spans that will neither be restricting, nor require excessive maintenance.

 

But, at a $Billion, I hope that all alternatives are being considered.

 

 

Working backwards:

3.  I'm not sure why we should foot the bill for "potential future river traffic".  If ya can't fit, don't go there.  Or, better yet:  THEY pay US so THEY can go where THEY want.  In the future.

2.  I still have to read through that report I mentioned.  So far, that would be the only source of info on what might or might not be wrong with the bridge and what could be done.  I am not sure I want to believe simple declarations from "on high" when they appear to be justifying the very project that they have decided they want.

1.  I haven't studied the traffic patterns.  I do know, as we all do, that that area is a very busy spot.  And bottlenecks are, well, bottlenecks.

 

Everything I've heard and read from "the media" emphasizes the decrepitude of the bridge.  And not the possible improvements to railroad traffic flow.  The latter would appear to me the more logically defensable:  "We got this two-track bottleneck, and it really is an irritating problem."  But instead we're shown a rusty bridge and told a sludge barge can't fit.  Well, yeah, the is bridge rusty.  And the barge sorta slightly maybe can't fit.

Planning for the future and spending a lot (maybe too much) for it is apparently not felt to be as attention getting as an old bridge. 

But it makes me feel like I'm being manipulated.  So they got my attention.

 

 

Ed

[Convicted One]

7j43k

3. I'm not sure why we should foot the bill for "potential future river traffic". If ya can't fit, don't go there. Or, better yet: THEY pay US so THEY can go where THEY want. In the future.

 

That's why they are beating the "old and obsolete" drums. More people are willing to identify with that as a problem.

 

But, suppose you are a politician spending the public's money. You just built a bridge on the cheap that prevent's a major manufacturing concern from building a new plant up stream that might have employed thousands.  Guess who the torches and pitchforks are for?

[Firelock76]

Boys, as taxpayers we do have a right to know just where our money's going to. The cost for the new bridge is estimated at $1.3 billion.  OK.  For $1.8 billion you can get an "Arleigh Burke" destroyer, a warship that has to "shoot, move, and communicate" and do it at high speed.  Consider everything that has to go into a warship versus a bridge that just has to sit still and carry trains.

Oh, and forget any kind of new industrial development going in on the Hackensack River north of the bridge.  Not going to happen.  Those days are gone.

One last thing:  When I hear the phrase "people smarter than me" I raise an eyebrow, just a bit.  I'm old enough to remember "people smarter than me" giving us the Viet Nam war, Penn Central and various other big business failures, big city meltdowns, and government gridlock.

Smarter than me?  Sometimes I think it's a case of those in charge being educated beyond their level of common sense.