Interesting. And the Maybrook line would be the most likely thought of Manhattan by pass route...kind of like recreating the old Federal...Shore Line from Boston to Devon to Danbury to Poughkeepsie to Maybrook to Belvedere, Philipsburg, and either Trenton or West Trenton.
However, the first question is why? Why do it? Is there enough need to do it? Maybe using some short cuts across CT instead of the Shore LIne would help...even if only to New Haven or Devon...to enter NYC. Or maybe the Hell Gate route to southwest Brooklyn then tunnel under the Bay or is there room on the Verrazano Bridge for one or two tracks?
Another note: D.C. is directly south of Elmira, NY. So Boston to Albany then the former D&H to Binghamton and south through Harrisburg to Havre de Grace MD? This longer route would really be a showcase for high speed rail over about a 700 mile route with plenty of opportunity to hit the limits on the long valley stretches and get pushed up the hills by the momentum At 50 mph average that is over 14 hours...but with higher speeds averaging 80 could be less than 9 hours and 100 would be 7 hours.
But again, would it really pay to cut out Manhattan? And if so, at what price?
RIDEWITHMEHENRY is the name for our almost monthly day of riding trains and transit in either the NYCity or Philadelphia areas including all commuter lines, Amtrak, subways, light rail and trolleys, bus and ferries when warranted. No fees, just let us know you want to join the ride and pay your fares. Ask to be on our email list or find us on FB as RIDEWITHMEHENRY (all caps) to get descriptions of each outing.
Am I reading this thread right?
Are some contributors here suggesting that a possible solution to Penn Station's worn out tunnels is to bypass Manhattan??
At least when I suggested earlier that a small part of the river be lowered I was being obviously ridiculous. To now put forth seriously the idea of changing trains to get into Manhattan on Amtrak is absurd. Try to sell that idea to the paying public and not just a few railfans; I bet it doesn't get any traction, as it were.
Now can we get back to replacing the tunnels?
As Dave said, some trains would still run through NYP. And as I said, on the 2nd route folks could shuttle in from Newark or someplace like Rye or western CT. No one suggested the old Maybrook line or the Elmira route. And trains would be averaging at least 125 on the new line, not stuck in the past century at 50.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
I didn't directly suggest the Elmira route...in fact I didn't suggest it at all but did suggest Binghamton or Maybrook in order to use existing rights of way and railroads. If your purpose is to avoid Manhattan, then any route idea is game. And it would have to be high speed with very limited stops, too. So a freight railroad cannot say a train leaving Boston stopping say, Springfield, MA; , Albany, NY; Binghamton, NY; Scranton and Harrisburg, PA; and Baltimore, MD to Washington, DC. Off the top of my head I came up with about 700 miles. Even at 125 the average speed will be down around 90 to 100 MPH and Boston to D.C. could be around 7 hours. But how many would really want that? The train needs people to and from locations enroute thus the Shore LIne into Manhattan puts people in the seats and pays the cost of the train. As grande as skipping Manhattan sounds, the sound of Ca Ching is missing unless market research can prove otherwise on another route. And the number of those going all the way Boston to D.C. might fill one train daily anyway, so why not just run it through Penn Station and be done with it. Yeah, change crews at Sunnyside instead.
We had this discussion a while back about bypassing NY, but it was pointed out in a Trains article on the NEC, that about 90% of passengers on a train thru NYP will exit at Penn Station. Hard to justify a bypass with those numbers.
If the present tunnels are only good for 20 more years, then they better start building new tunnels now, based on the length of time it's taking to build the East Side Access.
The bypass idea was only in reference to the new, HSR line if it ever gets built. Building totally new, higher capacity tunnels sounds unlikely, politically.
The idea of a high speed line bypassing New York is to get the Boston - Washington rail proportion closer to what are the NY - Boston and NY - Washington proportions. Again, New Haven - New Rochelle is the big problem NY - Boston. This is new businss for rail. Going via Maybrook and then south through West Trrenton should be no more than 500 miles total, and with high speed, 150mph top, not 125, five hours should be competitive. And 3:20 Boston - Philadelphia, even more.
Looks like this thread has drifted off topic. Alternate routes for HSR and bypasses either need to go to the old thread or establish a new one.
This is about the old tunnels and consequences of the shut down. IMO this thread needs to address reasons for statement of time limit use, including transcript, short term fixes, how to get funding for additional tunnels, does this mean that tunnels cannot be used after the 20 years ? , etc
Blue Streak,
Thanks for bringing sanity back to this discussion.
The conversations concerning tunnels under the Hudson, both existing and new, cannot be either Amtrak or NJT but have include both. This is because of history, geography, and available financing and land. It has to be a joint or cooperative effort because of the scarcity of these resources. Perhaps the only way around NYP would be to extend the Shore LIne across the Bronx and upper Manhattan to utilize the George Washington Bridge and connecting with the Corridor near Secaucus. But I still feel that is not a cost effective need to begin with, that at least another pair of new tunnels and repair or upgrade of the present pair are imperative.
blue streak 1 Looks like this thread has drifted off topic. Alternate routes for HSR and bypasses either need to go to the old thread or establish a new one. This is about the old tunnels and consequences of the shut down. IMO this thread needs to address reasons for statement of time limit use, including transcript, short term fixes, how to get funding for additional tunnels, does this mean that tunnels cannot be used after the 20 years ? , etc
Sorry. The point was to think of alternatives since it sounds unfeasible (and incredibly costly) to build more tunnels at the existing point to gain the needed capacity for the future. So the bypass idea would provide the growth capacity while the existing tunnels could be relined, perhaps
A New York bypass is not a viable alternative from either a political or identified market point of view. Let's get back on topic.
That i your point of view, and you are entitled to it. I would not only wish to increase capacity for the existing business but also grow new business.
1. High-speed bypass of New York City
2. Innovative methods to save, preserve, and strengthen the existing two tunnles.
3. Two new Amtrak Hudson River tunnels or extending 14th Street subway to Secaucus. Or both.
4. Lengthening PATH platforms and other changes to increase capcity
Point 1 is a non-starter based on New York City as a traffic point and the obscene cost of right-of-way acquisition. Point 2 is probably the best approach, but it will also be expensive. Point 3 looks good but boring new tunnels on Manhattan Island is going to be difficult. Extending the Subway is politically unfeasible. Point 4 would help with NJ Transit's traffic but I don't know how many PATH passengers connect to or from Amtrak.
The Port Of New York and New Jersey Authority has to assume some authority and work with Amtrak, MNRR, LIRR, NJT, PATH, MTA, CSX, NS, et al and come up with a comprehensive and all inclusive 5, 10, 25, 50 year plans for accommodating freight and passenger rail traffic through the Tri State area. Yes, the Amtrak tunnels are on life support and just fixing them by patch will not give them a longer life. And just that pair of tracks is not enough for today much less tomorrow or many tomorrows to come. So, at least one new pair of tracks, if not two pair, are needed and the present replaced in place. Run arounds and by passes should be part of the intercity traffic both freight and passenger. Commuter traffic and rapid transit traffic has to be dealt with separately but side by side with inter city passenger and freight traffic tracks. (Right now the only all rail routes into New England from the south and west US is via Castleton Bridge for CSX and Mechanicsville to Hoosic Tunnel for NS. Thus there is a lot of run through freight traffic on the West Shore of the Hudson (CSX) or through Binghamton, NY for NS/Pan Am.) One of the questions would be whether the Poughkeepsie bridge is reclaimable along with the former rights of way to help move some of the through freight traffic away from NYC allowing for ROW use for rail passenger needs. There is no one project which will cure everything but a whole region to be looked at for a legion of projects. The real problem in the end will not be what has to be done or should be done but rather how to deal with the fiefdoms of politicians.
schlimm Sorry. The point was to think of alternatives since it sounds unfeasible (and incredibly costly) to build more tunnels at the existing point to gain the needed capacity for the future. So the bypass idea would provide the growth capacity while the existing tunnels could be relined, perhaps
Replacing the tunnels probably will not happen in the current political environment. I would even state that despite Boardman's public pleas, he is not going to get a multi-billion dollar project of this size going without substantial backing........which I do not think is there. He also has other fires to attend do like renewal of LD equipment, replacement of HSR trainsets. In my opinion Boardman should be more of a realist on large financial projects like this.
Additionally, replacing the tunnels with the current plan does not prevent flooding of the new tunnels if another storm happens equal to Sandy (which wasn't on the scale of very large to begin with). How do you sell that stupidity to the public. The replacement should be able to withstand an intermediate level Northeeastern Storm without a major service disruption, IMO. It should not be just a preservation of the status quo. I would think we are a more advanced country than that.
So this is another case of railfans getting in the way of rail issue advancement, IMO
One more thing I think the decision to cancel the tunnels by the Christie administration was a sound decision based on the financial interests of the State of New Jersey. Interestingly the same reason Wisconsin Governor Walker also cancelled the Talgo to Madison project which again was financially risky for the Wisconsin Treasury. BTW, politically speaking, Obama's HSR project is administered by a appointed Republican (Ray LaHood) not a Democrat. What happened in Wisconsins case was Ray smartly wrote provisions into accepting the HSR funds that specific timetables had to be met along with specific equipment and speed metrics, if any of them failed the HSR grant would become a loan. Of course Governor Walker saw that as a risk. Very similar to Chris Christie and the tunnels project, no provision in the project plan to handle cost overruns for the project and when Governor Christie asked it was implied heavily the participating states would be liable for any overruns. Very few under river tunnel projects run by government agencies finish on time or on budget. So IMO, Governor Christie had a valid point to step in and protect his state financially just like Governor Walker did. Both Governors performed their fiduciary responsibility as they saw it.
Very few railfans read the financial details of a rail project instead they see the project and it becomes a MUST HAVE at any taxpayer cost. I am pretty sure with our country's debt levels that kind of thinking should be left in the past where it belongs as it's not going to find a lot of support outside the readership of Trains Magazine.
Christie first endorsed the tunnel, signed the papers and proclaimed it a great endeavor. His cancelling the project was more political than practical as he wanted to prove to the Tea Party and Conservatives he was no ordinary Republican. I don't think he really understood why he was right in doing so.
But, all that withstanding, Christie and Cuomo and their contingents, along with many other Atlantic coast governments and planners, understand the importance of two tracks and a tunnel under the Hudson between NJ and New York City now and in the future. Boardman is their man to make it happen and probably their best man to do it, too. He has been appointed and served under Republicans for years in many positions, so they evidently trust him enough to listen to what he says. If Congress, under the current do nothing, don't spend a dime, anti public needs pall, doesn't do anything they will be to blame for chaos in transportation for both freight and passengers on the East Coast. As I said earlier, this is not just an Amtrak issue nor a regional commuter issue but also a freight issue. NS and CSX I think know they have to come to the plate with ideas and cooperation so they don't get shut down either by congestion or confiscation. We're not running choo choo trains nor the Lionel set under the Christmas Tree here, but facing real transportation problems connecting New England and Eastern NY to the rest of the country and vice versa. As for a "MUST HAVE at taxpayer cost", it is that and more:it is a must have at any and all cost before it costs more than just dollars and cents.
CMStPnP Additionally, replacing the tunnels with the current plan does not prevent flooding of the new tunnels if another storm happens equal to Sandy
Additionally, replacing the tunnels with the current plan does not prevent flooding of the new tunnels if another storm happens equal to Sandy
Source ?
henry6Christie and Cuomo and their contingents, along with many other Atlantic coast governments and planners, understand the importance of two tracks and a tunnel under the Hudson between NJ and New York City now and in the future. Boardman is their man to make it happen and probably their best man to do it, too.
Yes and yes! Putting an "expiration date" on the existing tunnels is a pretty smart move. It puts some heat on getting new tunnels started. Even if there are ways to extend the existing tunnels life, and there probably are, doing it under traffic would likely be a complete disaster.
FWIW the tunnels appear to be the same kind of construction as London's subway tunnels, some of which are decades older.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
oltmannd Boardman is their to make it happen and probably their best man to do it, too. Yes and yes! Putting an "expiration date" on the existing tunnels is a pretty smart move. It puts some heat on getting new tunnels started.
Boardman is their to make it happen and probably their best man to do it, too.
Yes and yes! Putting an "expiration date" on the existing tunnels is a pretty smart move. It puts some heat on getting new tunnels started.
oltmannd Yes and yes! Putting an "expiration date" on the existing tunnels is a pretty smart move. It puts some heat on getting new tunnels started. Even if there are ways to extend the existing tunnels life, and there probably are, doing it under traffic would likely be a complete disaster.
The problem with this thread all along has been the acceptance of Boardman's statement without any critical questioning with regard to its validity. Has anyone knowledge of the origin of the 20 year estimate?
Dakguy201 oltmannd Yes and yes! Putting an "expiration date" on the existing tunnels is a pretty smart move. It puts some heat on getting new tunnels started. Even if there are ways to extend the existing tunnels life, and there probably are, doing it under traffic would likely be a complete disaster. The problem with this thread all along has been the acceptance of Boardman's statement without any critical questioning with regard to its validity. Has anyone knowledge of the origin of the 20 year estimate?
Look at the daily and weekly delay reports for NJT and Amtrak and how often the wires, ice, third rail, etc. in the tunnels cause a problem of somekind or another. It the tunnel's could be replaced by last Tuesday it would not be soon enough!
henry6 Christie first endorsed the tunnel, signed the papers and proclaimed it a great endeavor. His cancelling the project was more political than practical as he wanted to prove to the Tea Party and Conservatives he was no ordinary Republican. I don't think he really understood why he was right in doing so.
None of that is true and quite honestly I have my doubts the Tea Party is even a political force in New Jersey, if it was NJ taxes would be a whole lot lower than they are and Republican governors would be elected with more frequency.
Instead I will stick with reality on planet Earth vs a political conspiracy theory in your head from goodness knows what source. This is just how the mainstream media reported the decision:
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
"The federal government has earmarked $3 billion for the tunnel project, with another $3 billion being funded by the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, and the final $2.7 billion coming from the state of New Jersey. Christie said the federal commitment is capped at $3 billion and required that any costs above $8.7 billion be absorbed by the State of New Jersey. According to the governor, cost overruns are estimated to be in a range from more than $2 billion to over $5 billion."
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Sounds quite reasonable to me that a NJ Governor should be concerned with the above. Railfans probably not as I stated before............no rail passenger project is too expensive for railfans.
Dakguy201 The problem with this thread all along has been the acceptance of Boardman's statement without any critical questioning with regard to its validity. Has anyone knowledge of the origin of the 20 year estimate?
Agree, Boardman has extensive experience in government and knows he is more likely to get action/ reaction if he creates a crises as our government reacts more to crises (made up and real) than it would otherwise. However I would mention that engineering wise the Hudson River Tunnels are not fixed but instead float and flex, without being taken out of service for an extended period of time I can see at some point a failure happening. Still, is it 20 years away? 30 years away? Need some details on how that timeline was arrived at.
Definitely agree Americans need to employ CRITICAL THINKING skills vs jumping on the band wagon. I am an advocate of requiring at least one critical thinking course in a High Schools required courses. Would reduce the sheeple in this country and lead to better government IMO. Probably would also reduce the ridiculous political conspiracy theories one political party likes to promote against the other.
Sorry, but I've been following this story for the past several years and my information is accurate. The Fed government program was agreed to and signed by Christie then when the shoveling began he pulled the plug. He is most certainly a Tea Party member if only because he has pulled union contracts away from school teachers, stopped spending for police departments, etc.without legislation or negotiations. If he isn't a Tea Party member then either he or tne Party doesn't exist. If you want more proof log onto NJ.com and go through the newpapers of NJ files back several years.
CMStPnP However I would mention that engineering wise the Hudson River Tunnels are not fixed but instead float and flex, without being taken out of service for an extended period of time I can see at some point a failure happening. Still, is it 20 years away? 30 years away? Need some details on how that timeline was arrived at.
However I would mention that engineering wise the Hudson River Tunnels are not fixed but instead float and flex, without being taken out of service for an extended period of time I can see at some point a failure happening. Still, is it 20 years away? 30 years away? Need some details on how that timeline was arrived at.
Reading Conquering Gotham about the engineering struggles when the tunnels were built, I am amazed they have lasted this long, with the number of daily trains going through. There was very real questions as to whether the tunnels would hold up at all when first built, due to the flexing.
And replacing/rebuilding their capacity should be an absolute no-brainer. Not just for the local area, but for the country. In no way will the currently proposed additional tunnels replace the existing tunnels. The real need is probably more like 6 or 8 tracks going under the Hudson.
CJtrainguy Reading Conquering Gotham about the engineering struggles when the tunnels were built, I am amazed they have lasted this long, with the number of daily trains going through. There was very real questions as to whether the tunnels would hold up at all when first built, due to the flexing. And replacing/rebuilding their capacity should be an absolute no-brainer. Not just for the local area, but for the country. In no way will the currently proposed additional tunnels replace the existing tunnels. The real need is probably more like 6 or 8 tracks going under the Hudson.
henry6 Sorry, but I've been following this story for the past several years and my information is accurate. The Fed government program was agreed to and signed by Christie then when the shoveling began he pulled the plug. He is most certainly a Tea Party member if only because he has pulled union contracts away from school teachers, stopped spending for police departments, etc.without legislation or negotiations. If he isn't a Tea Party member then either he or tne Party doesn't exist. If you want more proof log onto NJ.com and go through the newpapers of NJ files back several years.
I'm not a Christie fan and I'll never vote for him but your views of him are definitively one sided to the extent I cannot accept them as accurate. Reads more like rumor mongering from a source with an axe to grind. Also, I know a little about politics, my Grandfather helped run Milwaukee County under the long ago Lawerence Timmerman administration. My Father was also pretty heavily involved in the Milwaukee area Rotary Club. I can pick out a political hatchet rumor in a paragraph as most people can pick out a fourescent orange jacket in a crowd. It's pretty easy.
Would recommend you open your mind more and dig more into what or who is spreading these rumors because carrying them around in your head as truth doesn't do you any good health wise, IMO.
dakotafred This is another test of whether we are serious about remaining a leading country or want to fall behind even our European friends. They've got plenty of money to keep up their infrastructure -- not least of all because we've been doing the heavy lifting for their defense going back to 1941. Who is building high-speed rail lines and projects like the Chunnel? Not the United States. We can't even keep up our 50-year-old Interstate highways and bridges, not to mention water and sewer lines back East that are so much older than that. I'm all for being a force in the world. If we abdicate that role, somebody less friendly to our values will surely fill the breach. But if we allow ourselves to fall apart at home, we will just as surely lose the prosperity that allows us to be that force -- along with so much else.
I think our society is moving away from "unquestioned" large infrastructure projects. If you can make a business case for a project and assemble a constituency it will get funding. Look at the CREATE program in Chicago. As unsexy as it is, it got funding and it is producing results.
The problem I have with boardman and his comments is he has proven to be quite inconsistent over time. For example, I applaud his moves to standardize Amtrak equipment but then I question if he will stick to it vs accepting anything a state with money proposes to him. Time will tell. I think he is going to go against his earlier stance on standardization if he is tempted enough with a money or project. We'll see though.
The issue I have with the tunnels project is he hasn't put a project timeline together, has not listed pros and cons, has not looked at alternatives, hasn't done a whole lot, IMO. He just blurts out that these tunnels need to be replaced and we need to do it ASAP. Where is the business case on paper supporting his comments? There isn't one. No brainer or not, I think the public deserves better than that if they are going to pay close to $7-8 Billion for this project. Thats a lot of money to spend for just two underwater tunnels and it raises suspicions there could very well be a less costly alternative..
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.