NEC Future: HSR "High Line", FRA, Amtrak Infrastructure Plan

Ridgefielder wrote:Sound-hopping routes to one side, the only way you can get out of New York heading northeast is through Westchester County, NY and Fairfield County, CT. Not only are these some of the most densely-populated suburban areas in the United States: they also contain some of the wealthiest towns in the world. The assessed value of the all the property in Greenwich, for instance, is close to $57 BILLION; the annual income at the time of the last census was $5.6 billion- more than that of the population of Cleveland. Never mind the fact that this makes ROW acquisition eye-wateringly expensive

This is exactly why widening the New Haven Line even at just the stations will definitely cost ya. There are just too many properties in close proximity to the ROW that would have listing prices of around $1,000,000 or more that it would cost $$$ just to acquire the land needed. And if that weren't enough you would need to physically change the geography of the ROW in a number of spots, particularly in Greenwich where the NHL literally cuts through hills, rock formations, etc.


It makes the idea of using the Harlem Line as part of the "Inland HSR ROW" less out-of-this-world. Up through White Plains the line was built with 4 tracks in mind (the ROW can easily accommodate 4 tracks almost everywhere) and the only real "bulldozing" would be through downtown Scarsdale. In fact newest bridge construction there has already made 4 tracking an easier prospect. The station would need to be rebuilt akin to Bronxdale and Hartsdale, but compared to trying to modify Larchmont, Mamaroneck, Harrison, Rye, Port Chester, Greenwich, Cos Cob, Riverside, Old Greenwich, Noroton Heights, Darien, Rowayton, South Norwalk.. -need I even go on?- it would be a piece of cake. North of North White Plains service levels are halved and you might not need to use the entire "lower Upper" Harlem to Brewster before branching off to Danbury -where cost of real estate is likely cheaper than southern Westchester/Fairfield- so HSR "intrustion" would be limited there. And if that makes dual mode high speed trains a requirement than so be it. The British Rail Class 373 "Eurostar" and Class 395 "Olympic Javelin" -both dual mode high speed trains- have performed very well FWIW. In the end the cost of having a whole fleet of trains with specs similar to the British Rail Class 373 or Class 395 will be vastly more inexpensive than trying to widen the NHL at one station or another. And it will also not be nearly as daunting as trying to cut through the center of Long Island..


We are talking about building brand new infrastructure for generations to come people. One way or another it's NOT gonna be cheap and it's NOT gonna make everyone happy. But something will have to give at some point down the line.

Literalman says:
New Rochelle: could a grade-separated junction be a duck-under rather than a flyover? . . .

Seems like the main advantage of a duck-under would be if there is not enough room between highway bridges over the tracks to squeeze in a flyover (I don't know if such is the case between New Rochelle Station and the HellGate cutoff). Otherwise, the same amount of extra ROW width would be required to create a new diverging track - say between the two NYC-bound tracks - to be the flyover/under track. Finding this extra width would be tricky between NR Station and the HellGate cutoff, but could probably be done.

Otherwise, the difference would likely be in the amount of disruption involved in the construction while operations continue. At least one track (the local toward NYC) would need to be shifted, and possibly some of the others if under the flyover scenario a support pillar or two were needed to hold up the flyover. I understand track shifting to be something that could be done without a prohibitive amount of disruption. I would also expect that erecting a flyover wan not a deal breaker in that similar kinds of things (i.e. overpasses) are done from time to time. Tunneling under several tracks, however, may be a bit more of a big deal, so the duck-under would probably only be preferable if necessary to deal with too much overhead competition to allow for a flyover.

The ROW immediately east of NR station (toward NH) appears to be quite wide enough to create the additional width for such an extra (flyover) track. However, some of the benefits of the flyover would be given back due to there being a remaining conflict with MN locals needing to access an outbound {from NYC) platform. Hollowing out the space under the street opposite the NR station to create room for at least a new side platform (and moving the existing island platform one track over) would go a long way toward clearing at grade conflicts.

This hollowing out thing could even create one or two extra tracks through this station to provide for smoother operations and possibly allow an HSR corridor to sneak through town.

johndmuller wrote:

Literalman says:
New Rochelle: could a grade-separated junction be a duck-under rather than a flyover? . . .

Seems like the main advantage of a duck-under would be if there is not enough room between highway bridges over the tracks to squeeze in a flyover (I don't know if such is the case between New Rochelle Station and the HellGate cutoff). Otherwise, the same amount of extra ROW width would be required to create a new diverging track - say between the two NYC-bound tracks - to be the flyover/under track. Finding this extra width would be tricky between NR Station and the HellGate cutoff, but could probably be done.

Otherwise, the difference would likely be in the amount of disruption involved in the construction while operations continue. At least one track (the local toward NYC) would need to be shifted, and possibly some of the others if under the flyover scenario a support pillar or two were needed to hold up the flyover. I understand track shifting to be something that could be done without a prohibitive amount of disruption. I would also expect that erecting a flyover wan not a deal breaker in that similar kinds of things (i.e. overpasses) are done from time to time. Tunneling under several tracks, however, may be a bit more of a big deal, so the duck-under would probably only be preferable if necessary to deal with too much overhead competition to allow for a flyover.

The ROW immediately east of NR station (toward NH) appears to be quite wide enough to create the additional width for such an extra (flyover) track. However, some of the benefits of the flyover would be given back due to there being a remaining conflict with MN locals needing to access an outbound {from NYC) platform. Hollowing out the space under the street opposite the NR station to create room for at least a new side platform (and moving the existing island platform one track over) would go a long way toward clearing at grade conflicts.

This hollowing out thing could even create one or two extra tracks through this station to provide for smoother operations and possibly allow an HSR corridor to sneak through town.

The Hell Gate line is elevated on a fill for at least a mile coming into SHELL, and bridges over 4 city streets (including the Boston Post Road) within a half-mile of the junction. There is no way to build a duck-under here without some major disruption to the fabric of downtown New Rochelle. Not to mention the fact that you're close enough to the Sound here that digging far enough down to go under the streets and the New Haven Line probably puts you below sea level.

$16M federal grant will help replace Portal Bridge -- NJ.com

The U.S. Transportation Department is spending $16 million on projects leading to replacing the century-old Portal Bridge, a key rail link along the Northeast Corridor for trains heading between New York and New Jersey.

The money is being awarded under the Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery, or TIGER, program for expenditures such as relocating utilities and building a staging area for construction materials.

The total cost of replacing the Portal Bridge over the Hackensack River in Kearny is estimated at $1 billion. The bridge, which carries 450 Amtrak and NJ Transit trains and 180,000 passengers a day, was built in 1910 and is a major roadblock in the Northeast Corridor. Designs for a new structure were completed in 2013 at a cost of $69 million.

The initial funding will go to build a retaining wall and construction facilities, and to temporarily relocate fiber optic and transmission lines.

The headline is just a tad sunny given how small this grant is compared to the overall cost associated with this project, but it's better than nothing I suppose.

Balerion wrote:The headline is just a tad sunny given how small this grant is compared to the overall cost associated with this project, but it's better than nothing I suppose.

Yeah. If it can get anything going that takes time, it's at least we could get some tangible gain towards the full project... even if it's only prep-work. And it's $16M less that needs to come at a later date, as with a project this expensive, you need to get money over time... there's no way you can get a lump-sum of $1bn.

$16M pays for a lot of 8-hour engineer shifts farting around in AutoCAD. Advancing the design from prelim concept to next engineered step doesn't take a full billion. Or at least it doesn't on non- Port Authority projects.

Given that the grant is covering the building of construction facilities, it would appear that funding for the full project must be pretty close actually. You don't spend money to build construction facilities unless you are going to need to use them in the near future.

The design work is actually already done... or at least is supposed to be. NJ Transit did that.

The $16M is for construction facilities and other various items needed to do the actual construction. The Amtrak request for FY2016 actually had two requests for funds one $50M & other $250M. See Amtrak website - reports - FY 2016 request.
But of course Congress has not appropriated any funds yet.

bleet wrote:The design work is actually already done... or at least is supposed to be. NJ Transit did that.

The final design was completed in 2013 at a net cost of $69 million. The north Portal bridge replacement has been waiting on funding to advance to construction since then.

The total pre-construction project is $20 million, $16 million from the 2015 TIGER grant and $4 million in matching funds. The 2015 TIGER grant list with a one page summary for each grant project was posted on the US DOT website on Thursday (Amtrak and passenger rail did much better this year than in the 2014 grants).

So Amtrak and NJT now have $20 million funded for utility relocation and site prep towards the estimated $940 million cost for the new bridge and the access tracks to the new bridge. 2.1% down, now to line up the remaining 97.9% of the funding.

As noted before the $20M is for preliminary work that must be done before the main construction can start. Once the transportation bill is passed and signed by the president we can then know how much work can be accomplished with its funding. Hopefully enough funds to get the foundations in and pillars raised.

Tier 1 Draft EIS released: http://www.necfuture.com/tier1_eis/deis/default.aspx" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Alternative 1 maintains the role of rail as it is today, with significant increases in the level of rail service as required to keep pace with the growth in population. It enables the NEC to continue to support the transportation needs of the growing region through 2040, but provides little additional capacity to support growth after 2040.

Alternative 2 grows the role of rail, expanding rail service at a rate greater than the proportional growth in regional population and employment. It adds service to new markets in New England and provides modest capacity to support growth beyond 2040.

CONNECTIVITY
▸Connects new travel markets in the Connecticut River Valley
▸Provides Intercity service to T.F. Green Airport in Providence, RI, and Philadelphia International Airport
▸Improves interregional connections by introducing Intercity service at select rail stations
CAPACITY
▸Provides sufficient capacity to accommodate demand at the Hudson River and provides room for growth at other locations post-2040
▸Addresses capacity and speed constraints with a new route adjacent to the NEC between New Haven and Hartford, CT, and Providence, RI; this supplements existing service between New York City and Boston and connects new travel markets
▸Increases capacity for through trips on connecting corridor services south of Washington, D.C., and along the Keystone, Empire, and New-Haven-Hartford-Springfield Corridors
PERFORMANCE
▸Provides five times as much Intercity service and more than doubles peak-hour Regional rail service
▸Top Intercity-Express operating speeds of 160 mph on the majority of the corridor
▸Travel time between Washington, D.C. and Boston reduced by up to 1 hour 5 minutes

Alternative 3 transforms the role of rail. Along with improvements to the existing NEC, a second spine from Washington, D.C., to Boston supports faster trips and serves markets not currently well connected by passenger rail. Rail becomes the dominant mode of travel in the Northeast, with the capacity to support the regional economy well into the future.

CONNECTIVITY
▸Connects new travel markets throughout the NEC with the addition of a second spine and new stations
▸Provides Intercity service to T.F. Green Airport in Providence, RI, and Philadelphia International Airport
▸Improves interregional connections by introducing Intercity service at select rail stations on the existing NEC
CAPACITY
▸Provides excess capacity at all locations along the corridor to accommodate additional off-corridor trips and future growth post-2040
PERFORMANCE
▸Provides six times as much Intercity service and up to three times the amount of peakhour Regional rail service
▸Top Intercity-Express operating speeds of 220 mph on the second spine
▸Travel time between Washington, D.C. and Boston reduced by up to 2 hours 55 minutes
RESILIENCY
▸Inland route options through either Long Island or Connecticut, and Massachusetts assist in reducing service disruptions should a coastal flooding event affect assets along coastal Connecticut and Rhode Island

EFFECTS ON THE BUILT AND NATURAL ENVIRONMENT
Alternative 1: Environmental impacts occur with the addition of two segments in Connecticut and Rhode Island outside of the existing NEC right-of-way, including impacts on land cover, water resources, ecological resources, prime farmlands, and prime timberlands.
Alternative 2: Environmental impacts primarily occur with the addition of a new segment between New Haven and Providence, via Hartford. Much of this area is less developed and key considerations are the effects of acquisitions and displacements in noted environmental justice communities, and impacts on prime timberlands and floodplains.
Alternative 3: Impacts to the built and natural environment occur along the entire length of the additional spine between Washington, D.C., and Boston, MA. A range of effects occur north of New York City, due to variations in routing; impacts include conversion of undeveloped land, acquisition of developed land, impacts on water and ecological resources, and conversion of prime farmland and timberlands.

More-detailed environmental reviews at the Tier 2 (project) level will be needed to identify specific community and resource impacts and benefits, seek public and agency input, and identify mitigation measures, if necessary.

PUBLIC HEARING SCHEDULE
Wednesday, December 9 Boston, MA
Monday, December 14 New Haven, CT
Tuesday, December 15 New York, NY
Wednesday, December 16 Washington, DC
Thursday, December 17 Providence, RI
Monday, January 11 Philadelphia, PA
Tuesday, January 12 Mineola, NY
Wednesday, January 13 Hartford, CT
Thursday, January 14 Baltimore, MD
Tuesday, January 19 Newark, NJ
Wednesday, January 20 Wilmington, DE

You really need to check the Appendix renderings of some of these NEC bypass crayon drawings they slipped in. It's good for 15 minutes rolling around in laughter on the floor.


Soundbite version: Very highly-compensated people thought to be qualified enough to issue a DEIR are unaware that Google Maps has a Terrain view.

"Me fail geology? Unpossible!!!"

Yikes. The bypass OSB-WLY in Alt. 1 is... definitely not respective of the terrain. The Blue Star Highway section of I-95 (Baldwin Bridge to the I-95/I-395 junction) is a 1950-opened date of highway... it has some of the worst up-and-down grades I can think of. There's no way in hell you could ever get a railway following that RoW without some judicious tunneling, which wouldn't be particularly easy to do with an active highway there, especially with it being a highway choke-point for east-west traffic. Though... we've already talked about this.

Alternative 2 in philadelphia makes a lot of sense. Not o ly would it be faster but it would allow delaware trains to make the airport and run real commuter express