Amtrak Gateway Tunnels

Adirondacker wrote:Swooping down to 18th Street or so, stopping at 23rd, 34th, Tenth Ave, Times Square and Fifth Avenue takes time. It will be faster to go to Penn Station go one stop to Times Square and take the shuttle. Or in 2050 just stay on the suburban train through Penn Station and get off at Grand Central.

There are subways that serve Penn Station that serve stations on the East Side.

The tangential discussion of adding a bi-level component to the Gateway tunnels similar to ESA in the East River.

I'm not sure where you're getting 18th,23rd and Tenth from. There is nothing about the first two; the latter was abandoned as part of the original extension, and only contemplated as part of any other extension. The southernmost part of the extension are tail tracks and ventilation around 25th. So you have one additional stop at 34th; part of the original extension.

http://web.mta.info/capital/no7_alt.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7_Subway_Extension" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

As for subway stations from Penn serving the East Side, that would ONLY be the E, at 5th and 53rd. So, no, there aren't subways serving Penn that serve the East Side, there's one.

Jeff Smith wrote: The tangential discussion of adding a bi-level component to the Gateway tunnels similar to ESA in the East River.

They have railroad track in common. The LIRR tunnel under 63rd St. is parallel to the subway tunnel. The tracks between New Jersey and Long Island run perpendicular to the tracks under 11th Ave.

Jeff Smith wrote: I'm not sure where you're getting 18th,23rd and Tenth from. .

From looking at a map. Though I've been in that part of town enough to know that it's on the same grid as the rest of Manhattan above 14th Street and don't really need to look at a map. Without looking at a map I know 31st St. is perpendicular to 11th Ave.

The city isn't gonna roll over and not build stations at 41st and 23rd. There's that pesky pesky re-re-re-development program going on in the 30s that's gonna have billions and billions of dollars of flashy new skyscrapers on it. No one is going to abandon the millions and millions of dollars of tunnel south of 34th St. or spend the money or run the risk of burrowing new tunnels under billions of dollars of new skyscrapers. It's why the city built the subway before the skyscrapers went up and why Amtrak found money really really fast to reserve space. Perpendicular to the subway tracks. Extending the tracks down to 23rd and heading out into the river in the vicinity of 21st and 11th would be a lot cheaper and lot less risky. Ya are building curvy tunnels under the river you make a gentle curve so the trains can go through them fast. By the time it's in the middle of the river it'd be in the high teens.

Jeff Smith wrote:As for subway stations from Penn serving the East Side,

The E train stops at 53rd and Lex too.

You may have heard about this little project the MTA is building

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Avenue_Subway" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Trains already run to the station at 63rd and Lex from Herald Square just a block away from Penn Station. The Q will run there someday. Much sooner than any extension of the 7.

The Q along the N and R serve currently serve 59th and Lex. and the N and R will still go there after the Second Avenue Subway opens. Whenever I've been in that neighborhood I take the BMT to and from Herald Square. Changing trains isn't worth the whole block it takes to walk from Herald Square to Penn Station.

People aren't going to take a longer trip so they can get to Times Square. They aren't going trade their two seat ride to take a three seat ride that is longer. Long Islanders aren't going to get the urge to Grand Central and take the subway to New Jersey when they can just take the LIRR to Penn Station and change to NJTransit there. Or vice versa for New Jerseyans. Same thing for Hudson and Harlem line riders. Someday even the Harlem Line riders stop doing it because they just go down the escalators to Son-Of-East-Side-Access under Madison Avenue where the NJTransit trains are. Or the Amtrak HSR station on the lower level.

It would be slower than going to Penn Station, Times Square and the shuttle to Grand Central. It's great if you want to go to Hudson Yards from New Jersey. Other places not so much.

I apologize (and I don't mean this sarcastically) but I don't understand what you're getting at. Are you saying the Gateway tunnels need to include a new PATH tube and/or other rapid transit?

It would be a streach if MTA considered to run the "7" line into NJ,believe the PA would object.
Now if the "Double stacked" new tunnels were to be built,using the same idea the MTA did with the 63rd st tunnel,
reserve the lower tunnels for Amtrak HSR lines,if that ever gets built!

Ridgefielder wrote: I apologize (and I don't mean this sarcastically) but I don't understand what you're getting at. Are you saying the Gateway tunnels need to include a new PATH tube and/or other rapid transit?

No, Other people have the delusion that passengers will get off a train that is going to Penn Station and get on a subway train that takes longer to get them to their destination than just staying on the train and getting off at Penn Station.

Backshophoss wrote:It would be a streach if MTA considered to run the "7" line into NJ,believe the PA would object.
Now if the "Double stacked" new tunnels were to be built,using the same idea the MTA did with the 63rd st tunnel,
reserve the lower tunnels for Amtrak HSR lines,if that ever gets built!

It might be a stretch, but it has been considered, and at this time rejected.

Adirondacker wrote:

mtuandrew wrote:

a new PATH line, 33rd St - Weehawken - Secaucus/Meadowlands

Why would people get off a fast train to Manhattan to get on a slower train to Manhattan?

Who said anything about people going to Manhattan from Amtrak/NJT? Think J-E-T-S Jets Jets Jets and Let's Go Giants! (Manhattan - Meadowlands, Newark - Secaucus - Meadowlands, Secaucus - Weehawken and Weehawken - Manhattan.) It'd be the same idea as the 7 train extension, just with a different operator and different connections.

Are you just not fully reading and comprehending what I'm writing? And the partial quotes out of context don't help. I've already said that.

First, I'm not saying this SHOULD be done. But it can be done. The discussion right now is hypothetical.

Adirondacker wrote:

Jeff Smith wrote: The tangential discussion of adding a bi-level component to the Gateway tunnels similar to ESA in the East River.

They have railroad track in common. The LIRR tunnel under 63rd St. is parallel to the subway tunnel. The tracks between New Jersey and Long Island run perpendicular to the tracks under 11th Ave.

Wrong: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/63rd_Street_Tunnel" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; or at least, unclear. It's a two level tunnel; not next to (parallel) to each other, but one over the other. Yes, the 7 extension tracks would be perpendicular to any potential Hudson crossing. That's why they build tracks that curve. Look at the map here: http://web.mta.info/capital/no7_alt.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; and you'll see a curve at 11th Avenue. So you create a curve to the tunnel portal.

Again, I'm NOT advocating the extension

Adirondacker wrote:

Jeff Smith wrote: I'm not sure where you're getting 18th,23rd and Tenth from. .

From looking at a map. Though I've been in that part of town enough to know that it's on the same grid as the rest of Manhattan above 14th Street and don't really need to look at a map. Without looking at a map I know 31st St. is perpendicular to 11th Ave.

The city isn't gonna roll over and not build stations at 41st and 23rd. There's that pesky pesky re-re-re-development program going on in the 30s that's gonna have billions and billions of dollars of flashy new skyscrapers on it. No one is going to abandon the millions and millions of dollars of tunnel south of 34th St. or spend the money or run the risk of burrowing new tunnels under billions of dollars of new skyscrapers. It's why the city built the subway before the skyscrapers went up and why Amtrak found money really really fast to reserve space. Perpendicular to the subway tracks. Extending the tracks down to 23rd and heading out into the river in the vicinity of 21st and 11th would be a lot cheaper and lot less risky. Ya are building curvy tunnels under the river you make a gentle curve so the trains can go through them fast. By the time it's in the middle of the river it'd be in the high teens.

You apparently didn't look at the map or read the information I supplied. The 7 extension has ONLY tail tracks to ONLY about 25th or so. There will be NO stations at 23rd, 18th, etc. The 10th Avenue station was dropped from the plan. So after Secaucus, you have ONE stop before GCT; at 34th.

The rest of your statement is nonsense.

-The "pesky pesky re-re-re-development program" is WHY the city built the extension to 34th. No one is abandoning tunnels south of 34th St.; those are useful tail tracks, and only go to 25th. But you didn't read what I wrote, did you?

-The tunnels no one is going to "run the risk of" building are ALREADY there, and all you need is the connection to the Gateway Tunnel. Tunnels are built by definition under structures all the time.

-There will be no CURVE under the river. The curve would take place under city streets, just as it does at 11th. And the subways are FULL of tight curves. If you go down to 23rd, your turn radius under ground would be EVEN TIGHTER. There is less land between 11th and the river at that location. You're talking about building a SECOND separate tunnel; much more expensive than adding a second level to the Gateway Tunnel. It would NOT be cheaper as you allege; it's a whole different Tunnel. You didn't think that through, did you?

-"It's why the city built the subway before the skyscrapers went up and why Amtrak found money really really fast to reserve space." Huh? The city didn't build the IRT; private industry did. The city built the Independent subway. The planning had nothing to do with when the skyscrapers went up. They went up at various times as building methods modernized. So did building the subways. The IND system, which WAS built by the city, was built starting in 1932. The Empire State Building was completed in 1931. Learn your history or do your research before you ramble on here.

Adirondacker wrote:

Jeff Smith wrote:As for subway stations from Penn serving the East Side,

The E train stops at 53rd and Lex too.

You may have heard about this little project the MTA is building

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Avenue_Subway" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Trains already run to the station at 63rd and Lex from Herald Square just a block away from Penn Station. The Q will run there someday. Much sooner than any extension of the 7.

The Q along the N and R serve currently serve 59th and Lex. and the N and R will still go there after the Second Avenue Subway opens. Whenever I've been in that neighborhood I take the BMT to and from Herald Square. Changing trains isn't worth the whole block it takes to walk from Herald Square to Penn Station.

People aren't going to take a longer trip so they can get to Times Square. They aren't going trade their two seat ride to take a three seat ride that is longer. Long Islanders aren't going to get the urge to Grand Central and take the subway to New Jersey when they can just take the LIRR to Penn Station and change to NJTransit there. Or vice versa for New Jerseyans. Same thing for Hudson and Harlem line riders. Someday even the Harlem Line riders stop doing it because they just go down the escalators to Son-Of-East-Side-Access under Madison Avenue where the NJTransit trains are. Or the Amtrak HSR station on the lower level.

It would be slower than going to Penn Station, Times Square and the shuttle to Grand Central. It's great if you want to go to Hudson Yards from New Jersey. Other places not so much.

Again, thanks for truncating my statement, and taking me out of context. Yes, those lines cross the East Side at various points. Yes, I've heard about the SAS; thanks for the sarcasm. But it's not the same as a single seat subway ride to the GCT area. Which, incidentally, along with Penn, needs the added capacity to take pressure off the LIRR and MNRR. The more connectivity, the better. And you're wrong on it being slower than walking to Herald Square, or taking the shuttle, by your own logic. It's a two seat connection; one train to Secaucus, one train to the ultimate destination on the 7, and the potential to transfer to MNRR or the Lex. You don't get that by your pained construction. You're talking about a train to Penn (1, possibly 2) from NJ; a walk (3) or subway to TSQ (3), then a shuttle or connection to another line (4). How is that faster than a transfer at Secaucus (2) and direct to GCT with two stops (34th and GCT)?

Adirondacker wrote:

Ridgefielder wrote: I apologize (and I don't mean this sarcastically) but I don't understand what you're getting at. Are you saying the Gateway tunnels need to include a new PATH tube and/or other rapid transit?

No, Other people have the delusion that passengers will get off a train that is going to Penn Station and get on a subway train that takes longer to get them to their destination than just staying on the train and getting off at Penn Station.

Gee, thanks for calling me delusional! I think I've corrected the record, and shown that a connection at Secaucus accomplishes what the RPA was talking about via ARC in getting to the East Side conveniently. And again, I'm NOT advocating the project; however a bi-level tunnel would be planning for the future, whether it's for Subway OR HSR. The 63rd St. Tunnel was derided once as the "Tunnel to Nowhere", but now it can be seen as planning for the future and not short-cutting.

Okay, let's move on from this. As I said, this is all hypothetical at this point. It's conjecture at how best to use the tunnel, a primarily Amtrak project.

If nothing else, someone who wanted to end up on the 7 train could walk 2 or 3 blocks from Penn to the new 34th St. station to get on it.

I don't know that diverging tracks could be run from the south end of the 34th St. station to the entrance to Amtrak's new tunnels, or even for sure which direction they would have to go to line up right. I'm pretty sure that the path would be in three dimensions and that while the x-y path might be challenging the vertical one might be the one that proves most difficult. All told, there's a lot of stuff potentially in the way, including the old tunnels and the Empire connection and various yard tracks and the usual clutter underground. I doubt that one would want to have the tunnel junction under water, but if somebody wants it enough, I suppose a few billion $$ or so could make some engineering problems go away.

I doubt that Amtrak is planning for this - if they have any ideas about a double capacity tunnel pair (4 tracks altogether), I suspect that they imagine the other two tracks to be intermediate future HSR, rather than near future subway. Given the way that Amtrak shot down DC Streetcar's request to use some old tunnels under DC Union Station's yard seemingly to preserve a similar intermediate future HSR pathway under the intermediate future Union Station Expansion project, I would imagine that they would likewise be quick to give the back of their hand to anyone attempting to do the same to their Penn HSR future ROW.

I don't believe that I have heard any official mention of Amtrak thinking about a tunnel project with room for another 2 tracks, but they have suggested that Penn South (and possible 31st St. tunnels going east) as being part of the HSR options, which begs the question of how the HSR's are going to cross the Hudson and whether the new tunnel casing has room for additional tracks below.

As for the 7, I picture it having eventual stations at 23rd and 14th and maybe going further downtown southeast (or not) or maybe going to NJ (or not) or maybe through Jersey City and Bayonne to SI (or not). I'm more inclined to like the L train to NJ, or whatever, but that's just me, . . . As far as a subway in the Amtrak tubes goes, I'd be personally more inclined to see it be a new feeder line or lines from NJ, like along Bergenline, perhaps both north and south and something more likely to be a PATH project (or most likely not to happen either).

some misinformation needing correction.
The Amtrak and FRA planning for Gateway is 2 separate non connected tunnels except for cross connection escape passages for passengers, Passages will be protected by flood doors. Gateway tunnels will be much larger for eventual Superliner type car clearances but not present plate "H" freight cars. Larger superliner type cars ? Not until at least east river tunnels 5 & 6 built and Penn south completed many years in the future. Even so that will be much larger tunnel bores than the east side access tunnel that can only clear type "B" subway cars and LIRR single level cars.
The IRT 7 line is not the best for NJ access with its type "A" cars. A better car is the IND "B" cars such as 14th street line. Much more capacity and with some modifications of 14th line could be single level NJ type EMU car clearances. Much higher passenger load per train + ability to blend in to extensions beyond Secaucus.
So extend 7 line to 14th street and if ever tunnel 14th st line to NJ.

west point wrote: Gateway tunnels will be much larger for eventual Superliner type car clearances but not present plate "H" freight cars. Larger superliner type cars ? Not until at least east river tunnels 5 & 6 built and Penn south completed many years in the future. Even so that will be much larger tunnel bores than the east side access tunnel that can only clear type "B" subway cars and LIRR single level cars.

It would seem that the logical thing to do is allow clearances for double-deck cars which will be necessary in the near future. If a true Superliner style car (or one with next generation specs) is used however, low level platforms would be a problem.

Nowhere is a superliner car mentioned. It does mention the clearance diagram of superliner cars with probably a high level vestibule at one end much like the present NJT bi levels but taller..

Paul Krugman's column appearing in Today's New York Times, gets in a "dig" at Gov. Christie for UNOWAT:

http://nytimes.com/2015/08/31/opinion/p ... a-job.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Fair Use (gives it away):

....and who compromised New Jersey’s economic future by killing a much-needed rail tunnel project

I have to wonder to what extent Mr. Krugman was aware just how flawed was the project that Gov. Christie nixed. I'm sure he travels on enough occasion between his "day job" at Princeton and the gigs he has in town, i.e. Times and the many talk shows on which he appears.

Gilbert B Norman wrote:Paul Krugman's column appearing in Today's New York Times, gets in a "dig" at Gov. Christie for UNOWAT:

http://nytimes.com/2015/08/31/opinion/p ... a-job.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Fair Use (gives it away):

....and who compromised New Jersey’s economic future by killing a much-needed rail tunnel project

I have to wonder to what extent Mr. Krugman was aware just how flawed was the project that Gov. Christie nixed. I'm sure he travels on enough occasion between his "day job" at Princeton and the gigs he has in town, i.e. Times and the many talk shows on which he appears.

Living in NJ, I often read the news on NJ.COM which contains the current (and archived) news articles and photos of many of NJ's print newspapers, both daily and weekly. There are numerous mentions of the cancelling of the ARC tunnels by Governor Christie. The vast majority of these are highly critical of Christie and are obviously, to me and others including rail knowledgeable folks, intended to harm Christie in his further political objectives, both nationally and state policy. I am convinced that many of the reporters, editorial boards, etc. as well as individual commenters are well aware of the flaws, but use the general ignorance of the public as a means to further undermine Christie. To most members of the public, there is no knowledge of the difference between flawed ARC and the far superior Amtrak Gateway project.

The technical details of ARC are irrelevant (even if, while ARC was flawed, it was not useless, merely suboptimal). If Christie hadn't simply killed ARC on the excuse of potential for cost overruns and hadn't then redistributed the funding to highway projects - if he had rather called for a redesign or had even rhetorically focused on ARC's technical issues, and tried to hold the funding for a superior design, then there might be some firm ground to stand on, but no. Killing ARC had nothing to do with technical flaws and everything to do with political optics, and politicians are responsible for politics