NEC Portal Bridge Thread - Operation, Replacement Etc.

Discussion related to Amtrak also known as the National Railroad Passenger Corp.

Moderators: GirlOnTheTrain, gprimr1, Amtrak67 of America, Tadman

Re: Portal Bridge article

Postby JCGUY » Mon Nov 24, 2014 2:51 pm

I love the look of that design, simply gorgeous. Now, is that a yacht depicted sailing under the bridge? I can just imagine the Sultan of Brunei enjoying a cruise up the Hackensack River in the Kearny/Secaucus area to pass the time between meetings with asset managers on his trips to New York...
JCGUY
 
Posts: 309
Joined: Sun May 13, 2007 7:16 pm

Re: Portal Bridge article

Postby zerovanity59 » Mon Nov 24, 2014 3:47 pm

It looks like a barge. You can see the cargo off to the left of the picture.
zerovanity59
 
Posts: 115
Joined: Tue Aug 12, 2014 3:31 pm

Re: Portal Bridge article

Postby zerovanity59 » Mon Nov 24, 2014 4:15 pm

philipmartin wrote:This article I'm posting the link to says the proposed Portal fixed bridge would be fifty feet above high water. The Pennsy's lift bridges in the area, Dock, Hack and Bay can all go to 135 feet above the water (I've worked them all.)


Yes, the new bridge(s) are to be fixed at 50 feet above high tide. Yes, this will cause a section of the river to not be able to support boats that need 51-135 ft. of air draft.
zerovanity59
 
Posts: 115
Joined: Tue Aug 12, 2014 3:31 pm

Re: Portal Bridge article

Postby JCGUY » Mon Nov 24, 2014 7:39 pm

Good point, it is a barge. Nice looking barge. In the future, even barges will be handsome.
JCGUY
 
Posts: 309
Joined: Sun May 13, 2007 7:16 pm

Re: Portal Bridge article

Postby morris&essex4ever » Tue Nov 25, 2014 4:39 pm

JCGUY wrote:Roughly one billion dollars, design work and permitting done, so it's "shovel ready", four year project, so it's roughly $250mm per year for four years. Gosh, in a 3 trillion annual federal budget or 12 trillion over the 4 years, this is tiny. It would be nice if the local politicians would horse trade to get this fully funded.

This would have been a perfect candidate for stimulus money.
"To cure the British disease with socialism was like trying to cure leukaemia with leeches." Margaret Thatcher
User avatar
morris&essex4ever
 
Posts: 2011
Joined: Fri Apr 02, 2010 10:11 pm
Location: MP 20.5

Re: Portal Bridge article

Postby afiggatt » Tue Nov 25, 2014 6:26 pm

morris&essex4ever wrote:This would have been a perfect candidate for stimulus money.

The Portal bridge replacement received stimulus funds for the EIS and final design. IIRC, Amtrak used some of its 2009 stimulus for the EIS. Then the project received a $38.5 million HSIPR grant award to carry it through the final design. The FInal Design was completed close to 2 years ago and now the project is stalled waiting for $900 million or so to build the new bridge and elevated segments on either side.

BTW, the north Portal bridge is to be a 2 track fixed span bridge. The 3 track configuration option was dropped back in the early stages of the final design.
afiggatt
 
Posts: 1446
Joined: Fri Apr 10, 2009 8:41 am
Location: Sterling, VA

Re: Portal Bridge article

Postby JCGUY » Wed Nov 26, 2014 9:34 am

I'd imagine they'd build the new bridge in such a way as not to require taking the existing one out of service during construction. Current Portal, as the sole river crossing, is a nightmare, but if it could be kept as a reliever to the new span pending a new bridge in connection with Gateway, that wouldn't be so bad. Curious as to whether that's a possibility.
JCGUY
 
Posts: 309
Joined: Sun May 13, 2007 7:16 pm

Re: Portal Bridge article

Postby F-line to Dudley via Park » Wed Nov 26, 2014 10:08 am

The new span would be constructed immediately adjacent to the old one, so it would be in full service during construction. They are not, in any way shape or form, considering keeping the old one afterwards.

For one, the new span's middle piers may be so close to the old bridge's swing section that the swing may have to be permanently closed by the time they sink those new piers. OK if it stays closed for 2 years of heavy construction--reasonable accommodation could be made for that--but you can't permanently leave a swing that's blocked from opening by the new bridge's piers. They'd have to start dismantling the swing the very second the new bridge opens.

Second, the approaches--especially on the marshy eastern side--aren't going to be wide enough to feed 2 adjacent bridges. It'll be temporary re-aligning to stage for the new span's construction, temporary re-aligning to shift tracks onto the new span, then mop-up work. But the wetlands don't permit side-by-side approach tracks to 2 adjacent spans. Additional track capacity in the form of the second identical "Portal South" bridge from the ARC plan--should that be needed later--would be constructed several hundred feet south of the current ROW because that's the only way to EIS for parallel spans through the swamp.

Third...the thing is just shot. You don't need to keep it "until" Gateway, because until Gateway the North River Tunnels are the capacity limiter. A tall 90 MPH fixed Portal Bridge span is a huge capacity increase over the current one, with none of the reliability issues. There's no need to maintain a 'reliever' span when that extra traffic has nowhere to go. And for the money it would take--had you still needed it--to stretch its safe lifespan another 10 years you can put a fair-sized down payment on advancing Gateway. It would be counterproductive to do anything with the old one.


More bridge capacity is not going to be needed until well after Gateway. Portal South isn't even a direct dependency on Gateway. They can get by with just the lone replacement bridge for a number of years after Gateway opens before Portal South becomes prudent to independently fund. Portal South plays more into the super-duper 2040 HSR plan and those capacity needs than it does projected 2030 growth of existing NEC traffic patterns.
F-line to Dudley via Park
 
Posts: 7105
Joined: Fri Mar 11, 2005 7:26 pm
Location: North Cambridge

Re: Portal Bridge article

Postby Woody » Wed Nov 26, 2014 1:52 pm

morris&essex4ever wrote:This would have been a perfect candidate for stimulus money.

Six years ago it was not designed, permitted, or "shovel ready".
Woody
 
Posts: 802
Joined: Sun Dec 16, 2012 5:03 pm

Re: Portal Bridge article

Postby morris&essex4ever » Wed Nov 26, 2014 1:54 pm

Do people really view Portal as an iconic structure that needs to be preserved when and if it goes out of service?
"To cure the British disease with socialism was like trying to cure leukaemia with leeches." Margaret Thatcher
User avatar
morris&essex4ever
 
Posts: 2011
Joined: Fri Apr 02, 2010 10:11 pm
Location: MP 20.5

Re: Portal Bridge article

Postby Gerry6309 » Wed Nov 26, 2014 4:17 pm

PLEASE!!!!

Replace it before it gets permanently stuck open, and shuts down the whole corridor!
Gerry. STM/BSRA

The next stop is Washington. Change for Forest Hills Trains on the Winter St. Platform, and Everett Trains on the Summer St. Platform. This is an Ashmont train, change for Braintree at Columbia.
User avatar
Gerry6309
 
Posts: 1484
Joined: Wed Jun 13, 2007 10:46 pm
Location: Boston

Re: Portal Bridge article

Postby amtrakowitz » Fri Nov 28, 2014 9:03 pm

Woody wrote:Six years ago it was not designed, permitted, or "shovel ready".

The FRA gave a green light back in December 2008. Plenty of designs out there before that.
User avatar
amtrakowitz
 
Posts: 1104
Joined: Mon Nov 24, 2008 6:33 pm

Re: Portal Bridge Thread - Operation, Replacement Etc.

Postby Jeff Smith » Sat Oct 22, 2016 12:01 pm

Site Admin: <Bump> pardon the dust. This should be getting some attention as Gateway moves forward. This thread will pertain to both current operations and replacement.

I'd imagine Portal is probably the most "shovel ready".

NJ.com

SNIPS:

Funding approved for new Hudson rail tunnels. Will tolls go up?
...
The board members approved a resolution that allows the agency to pay debt, principle and interest on federal loans to finance Gateway, Foye said.

The first project to be covered by that agreement is replacing the 106-year-old Portal bridge, which carries the Northeast Corridor line over the Hackensack River in Kearny.

This agreement also provides a framework for financing the entire Gateway Project. It would build two new Hudson River rail tunnels, replace the Portal Bridge, build an annex to Penn Station New York, additional tracks in New Jersey and a loop track at Secaucus to allow four North Jersey NJ Transit lines to have access to New York.

Port Authority and U.S. Department of Transportation officials are currently working on a loan application for the Portal Bridge, Foye said. The cost to replace the bridge with a new two-track bridge is $1.5 billion, he said.
...
Next stop, Willoughby
~Jeff Smith (fka "Sarge") :: RAILROAD.NET Site Administrator
Jeff Smith
Site Admin
 
Posts: 7404
Joined: Tue Nov 07, 2006 9:28 am
Location: MP 67.2 Georgia Southern Railway

Re: NEC Portal Bridge Thread - Operation, Replacement Etc.

Postby Suburban Station » Mon Oct 24, 2016 8:37 am

if only our salaries went up the way publicly funded infrastructure costs went up...it's more than doubled since in less than ten years from 700 million to 1.5 billion
Suburban Station
 
Posts: 3200
Joined: Sun Jul 22, 2007 5:11 pm

Re: NEC Portal Bridge Thread - Operation, Replacement Etc.

Postby Hawaiitiki » Mon Oct 24, 2016 9:19 am

Maybe I'm missing something, but is this article only referring to an "apples to apples" replacement? 2 tracks replaced by 2 tracks? Isn't one of the goals to at the very least triple (hope quadruple) track the distance between the waterfront connection junction and New York Penn? $1.5billion for a two track non-moveable bridge seems insane.
Double Track, Grade Separate, and Electrify America!
Hawaiitiki
 
Posts: 585
Joined: Wed Feb 07, 2007 7:14 pm
Location: Grove Street, Jersey City

PreviousNext

Return to Amtrak

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Google [Bot], Marty Feldner and 5 guests