Amtrak Gateway Tunnels

Anyway, rabble-rouser that I'm feeling like today, I created a Whitehouse.gov petition. One of the roles of the federal government has been to facilitate commerce. As a libertarian, I can get behind this project with my sensibilities intact!

https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petiti" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; ... way-tunnel

Check it out. Spread the word.

This weekend I added a link to the petition on the Virginia Assn. of Railway Patrons website (http://www.varprail.org). I also posted the letter that we sent to the Virginia and West Virginia congressional delegations last month. (VARP serves both Virginia and West Virginia.)

Jeff Smith wrote:
What I'm getting at is if the tunnels are to be built beneath the sediment/silt at the bottom of the river, but if the river is of sufficient depth that an immersed tube, assembled in sections to account for the depth profile, sitting on the surface of the river, is sufficiently deep for shipping, why not just "drop" a tube on the river bottom similar to Marmary?
.

A little closer to home, the 63rd st. subway tunnel was (so far as I know) prefabricated and sunk into place. It's a bi-level tunnel, with the present day F subway on top and eventually LIRR to GCT on the lower level. (ESA has been all about connecting the lower level to Harold & new tunnels / cavern in manhattan - under the river was done and waiting, just needs tracks, signal etc). The east river is narrower, and probably not as deep, but the water is basically the same, and the currents are rather strong. It's not easy, but it's not like this has never been done before, not in our own backyard to boot.

On that note... I hope when they do settle on a plan for gateway, they don't just do one or two tracks. When 63rd st tunnel was laid at the river bottom in the 70s, one could argue they didn't 'need' for it to be a bilevel tunnel. Subway and commuter capacity wasn't nearly as bad as it is today. Queens would be a bit worse off now without the added service, and Roosevelt island wouldn't be seeing the development it's getting without the subway stop (large new tech campus, lots of housing).

The unmentioned 9000 gorilla in the room is that hurricane season comes every year... if we get another sandy, these bickering do-nothing politicians are going to start looking bad to even those who aren't paying attention day to day.

Actually the first IRT tunnel between Manhattan and the Bronx, in 1904, was built with a prefab tube. True, the Harlem River is narrower, but the basic technology has been around for at least 110 years or so.

I-90 Ted Williams Tunnel in Boston is a prefab tube made in sections in a shipyard, floated, dropped into a trench, bolted together then lined. Only part of the "Big Dig" project that came in on-time and on-budget. Complaint was that the trench was too shallow & some ship could breach the tunnel...

Cuomo responds to his critics regarding the project in today's NY Times:
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/25/opini ... .html?_r=0" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Moderator Note: added brief, fair-use quote:

I actually want to get the tunnel done, and that starts by overcoming the real obstacles to progress — and the primary obstacle is the federal commitment to fund this project. This federal commitment is both necessary and appropriate because of the huge $20 billion price tag and the fact that this project is a national priority. This tunnel is critical not only to New Jersey and New York but also to Northeast corridor train service through eight states.

Thus, getting the federal government to turn its rhetorical support into actual support is the essential cornerstone. Washington’s only offer so far — of a partial loan — is not a viable financing plan and does nothing to make the project a reality. I am trying to hold the federal government’s feet to the fire and get a meaningful commitment in the form of federal grant dollars so we can actually make progress.

The BIGGEST red flag is the PCB layer in the Hudson River bottom,so a dredge,sink a tunnel section,and then cover,
will require some form of EPA oversight/permitting,may become a nightmare.
Drilling a tunnel bore may be the only option,but with "steeper" grades as the trade off to the PCB cleanup problem.

JoeG wrote:Actually the first IRT tunnel between Manhattan and the Bronx, in 1904, was built with a prefab tube. True, the Harlem River is narrower, but the basic technology has been around for at least 110 years or so.

BandA wrote:I-90 Ted Williams Tunnel in Boston is a prefab tube made in sections in a shipyard, floated, dropped into a trench, bolted together then lined. Only part of the "Big Dig" project that came in on-time and on-budget. Complaint was that the trench was too shallow & some ship could breach the tunnel...

2 more fine examples. Didn't know about either.

Backshophoss wrote:The BIGGEST red flag is the PCB layer in the Hudson River bottom,so a dredge,sink a tunnel section,and then cover,
will require some form of EPA oversight/permitting,may become a nightmare.
Drilling a tunnel bore may be the only option,but with "steeper" grades as the trade off to the PCB cleanup problem.

Knowing nothing about PCB removal, I'm wondering how much is down there and how much it would cost to remove a streak of it cutting across the river.

I like Cuomo's statement today, basically 'it's the feds fault'. So helpful, and insightful... *facepalm*. "It's an 8 state problem"... What 8 states?... I'm having a hard time believing PA, MD, Del are feeling serious economic impact every morning when there are service outages.

On a local level it is laughable how Christie has tortured his state by not working on this issue. One of the biggest reasons that parts of north jersey aren't seeing the complete economic overhaul seen in parts of brooklyn & queens is the lack of speedy access to jobs in manhattan. There's over a dozen east river rail & transit crossings, vs. 3 cross hudson routes.

Perhaps this is by political design though - real estate owners are the top political campaign donors around here, and better access to NJ would mean less demand for housing in many parts of NYC where prices are quadruple what they were just 20 years ago. For someone like Cuomo, it seems his only play is to try to pass the blame on, otherwise his real estate developer backers might not like him.

DogBert wrote:A little closer to home, the 63rd st. subway tunnel was (so far as I know) prefabricated and sunk into place. It's a bi-level tunnel, with the present day F subway on top and eventually LIRR to GCT on the lower level. (ESA has been all about connecting the lower level to Harold & new tunnels / cavern in manhattan - under the river was done and waiting, just needs tracks, signal etc). The east river is narrower, and probably not as deep, but the water is basically the same, and the currents are rather strong. It's not easy, but it's not like this has never been done before, not in our own backyard to boot.

On that note... I hope when they do settle on a plan for gateway, they don't just do one or two tracks. When 63rd st tunnel was laid at the river bottom in the 70s, one could argue they didn't 'need' for it to be a bilevel tunnel. Subway and commuter capacity wasn't nearly as bad as it is today. Queens would be a bit worse off now without the added service, and Roosevelt island wouldn't be seeing the development it's getting without the subway stop (large new tech campus, lots of housing).

The unmentioned 9000 gorilla in the room is that hurricane season comes every year... if we get another sandy, these bickering do-nothing politicians are going to start looking bad to even those who aren't paying attention day to day.

Thanks for mentioning a bilevel tube. It isn't that Amtrak or NJT need four *additional* tubes, but the extra two could be:

• a new pair of Lincoln Tunnels
• a new PATH line, 33rd St - Weehawken - Secaucus/Meadowlands
• an outright replacement for the original two tubes, which could be repurposed
• reserved for a future cross-Manhattan freight line

I'd say that the South-of-Penn states know that their Amtrak service to NYP is what makes their Amtrak service "work"--reducing airport and highway congestion and giving residents access to the NYC economy.

So that includes
- New York (as employer needing NJ talent)
- The Acela 4: PA, NJ, DE, MD,
- DC, which, while not a state, knows how important Acela is
- Virginia, where NYP access is what makes all its trains turn an operating profit and
- North Carolina (where an NYP anchor is what makes the Carolinian and Palmetto loses among the lowest in the State and LD systems, respectively)

Part of letting these Southside states know how much it means would be also letting them know how many LDs and Regionals would be forced to turn at PHL or WAS during 1-tube ops.

And Northside states care too.
- Mass. should be reminded that Acela BOS-PHL is an important check on BOS-PHL airfares
- CT&RI already know that access to EWR Airport and PHL is important to them.

Frankly, DC, Va and NC should feel insulted that they weren't counted when Gateway was described as an "8-State Problem"

mtuandrew wrote:

DogBert wrote:A little closer to home, the 63rd st. subway tunnel was (so far as I know) prefabricated and sunk into place. It's a bi-level tunnel, with the present day F subway on top and eventually LIRR to GCT on the lower level. (ESA has been all about connecting the lower level to Harold & new tunnels / cavern in manhattan - under the river was done and waiting, just needs tracks, signal etc). The east river is narrower, and probably not as deep, but the water is basically the same, and the currents are rather strong. It's not easy, but it's not like this has never been done before, not in our own backyard to boot.

On that note... I hope when they do settle on a plan for gateway, they don't just do one or two tracks. When 63rd st tunnel was laid at the river bottom in the 70s, one could argue they didn't 'need' for it to be a bilevel tunnel. Subway and commuter capacity wasn't nearly as bad as it is today. Queens would be a bit worse off now without the added service, and Roosevelt island wouldn't be seeing the development it's getting without the subway stop (large new tech campus, lots of housing).

The unmentioned 9000 gorilla in the room is that hurricane season comes every year... if we get another sandy, these bickering do-nothing politicians are going to start looking bad to even those who aren't paying attention day to day.

Thanks for mentioning a bilevel tube. It isn't that Amtrak or NJT need four *additional* tubes, but the extra two could be:

• a new pair of Lincoln Tunnels
• a new PATH line, 33rd St - Weehawken - Secaucus/Meadowlands
• an outright replacement for the original two tubes, which could be repurposed
• reserved for a future cross-Manhattan freight line

I think it's going to be hard enough to get 2 tracks across, trying to get more may be snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.

That said, I don't think the original tubes could be repurposed for freight for a variety of reasons. BUT, I believe the new tubes are being designed so they can service the current level AND a future lower "HSR" level. That said, it may make a bit of sense to design a lower level that after hours could run freight to Long Island.

But, I think we're better off getting what we can and if we want a future 7 line to New Jersey, or additional Path, is building those separately.

I think additional auto tunnels is a mistake as there's a growing push to reduce vehicular traffic, especially in lower Manhattan as it is.

Repost as someone just mentioned it, but the link was incorrect. 35 signatures; guess I'm not the rabble-rouser that I used to be! You'd THINK NARP would be all over this?

Jeff Smith wrote:I see your point on NYS using it; my main point still stands.

Anyway, rabble-rouser that I'm feeling like today, I created a Whitehouse.gov petition. One of the roles of the federal government has been to facilitate commerce. As a libertarian, I can get behind this project with my sensibilities intact!

https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petiti ... way-tunnel" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Check it out. Spread the word.

Arlington wrote:I'd say that the South-of-Penn states know that their Amtrak service to NYP is what makes their Amtrak service "work"--reducing airport and highway congestion and giving residents access to the NYC economy.

So that includes
- New York (as employer needing NJ talent)
- The Acela 4: PA, NJ, DE, MD,
- DC, which, while not a state, knows how important Acela is
- Virginia, where NYP access is what makes all its trains turn an operating profit and
- North Carolina (where an NYP anchor is what makes the Carolinian and Palmetto loses among the lowest in the State and LD systems, respectively)

Part of letting these Southside states know how much it means would be also letting them know how many LDs and Regionals would be forced to turn at PHL or WAS during 1-tube ops.

And Northside states care too.
- Mass. should be reminded that Acela BOS-PHL is an important check on BOS-PHL airfares
- CT&RI already know that access to EWR Airport and PHL is important to them.

Frankly, DC, Va and NC should feel insulted that they weren't counted when Gateway was described as an "8-State Problem"

They should. Also, WV should care if it wants increased connections to NYC (a daily Cardinal or a semi-daily Regional), and VT (particularly a certain aspirational Senator from that state) ought to be very interested in keeping the Vermonter's connection to DC. All of a sudden this is a 12 state + DC problem, and 12 Senators and 111 Representatives (including DC's Delegate, the Hon. Eleanor Holmes Norton, who happens to be the ranking member for the Subcommittee on Highways & Transit) ought to be taking a very careful look at Gateway.

Greg Moore wrote:I think it's going to be hard enough to get 2 tracks across, trying to get more may be snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.

That said, I don't think the original tubes could be repurposed for freight for a variety of reasons. BUT, I believe the new tubes are being designed so they can service the current level AND a future lower "HSR" level. That said, it may make a bit of sense to design a lower level that after hours could run freight to Long Island.

But, I think we're better off getting what we can and if we want a future 7 line to New Jersey, or additional Path, is building those separately.

I think additional auto tunnels is a mistake as there's a growing push to reduce vehicular traffic, especially in lower Manhattan as it is.

Agreed on the auto tunnels, though it might be a necessity depending on how the current bridges and tunnels are holding up. That said, I think it makes a lot of sense to build in a transit option - especially if it means PANYNJ and MTA have some incentive to contribute.

I'd like to see a renewed push for the Staten Island Tunnel, with three tubes (SIRR/SIRR/freight) and a connecting Staten Island - Canarsie Hook single freight tunnel, but that's beyond the scope of Gateway. Wouldn't ever be a passenger rail tunnel.

I don't think PATH, but a 7 train Secaucus only extension would be a nice variation as you can get to Times Square, GCT, and a myriad of connections not available at Penn such as LIRR (upon ESA completion), MNRR, and other subways. But is it physically possible as the 7 is built with tail tracks, etc. in that area?

Fold in talk of a 7/AirTrain connection to LGA and you really are getting close to an ARC type project with viable options as opposed to the flawed NJT tunnels to the deep-cavern station. You may also want to consider the potential Secaucus Loop.

Some other discussions:

#7 Subway to NJ/Secaucus (MTA NYC Subway topic)
Gateway Project: Possible WOH Penn Access (Secaucus Loop) (MNRR Topic)
Secaucus Loop (NJT Topic)

As for removing PCBs, here's how GE proceeded upstream http://www.hudsondredging.com/hudson-pc ... performed/ although I imagine some of the PCBs were spread around. Then the sediment gets dumped in a landfill, so the problem isn't solved, only contained.

I would think there would be a limited number of ideal crossings available. I assume the Pennsylvania chose the best crossing. Maybe stacking lower tubes for HSR/freight that someone mentioned is a good idea.

If the states don't want to pay, have Amtrak borrow the money, build it, and increase the fares to cover the cost. But will commuters pay $12 to cross the Hudson? Amtrak riders probably would, NJT folks would pile into buses & PATH?

Otherwise start building ferries or running Amtrak via Selkirk...