All Things Portal Bridge: Amtrak and NJT Status and Replacement Discussion

25Hz wrote:

jlr3266 wrote:

25Hz wrote:

morris&essex4ever wrote:Surely the 2017 date will be pushed back for the completion of the new bridge(s),

In theory only the deck will (2 tracks vs 3) be different, so in theory they could build the same piers without impact to the timeline. They could just build the wider span and add a track later as well.

I think they will want to see where the gateway plan goes first. That i can see holding things up. They would need another bridge with 2 tracks for that project. If the existing portal bridge is removed that would allow the current routing of the ROW to be used for the second bridge.

So, we may still see 3 tracks on a high span and 2 on the gateway/ARC span as the original plan called for.. in theory. I still think NJ needs to pick up part of the tab for this, as they will see the most benefit.

Well, I clearly wasted my time going to engineering school.

Hah. Just saying that the project being pushed back would be for other reasons, such as designing different piers, which I am pretty sure they wouldn't have to, but it is the railroad so who knows.

they wouldn't have to but they likely will.

How often do you see infrastructure built with the future in mind? How many road bridges to you cross a day and how many have a "spare lane for the future'? It does happen at times that bridges get built for future lanes but it's not exactly regular. Often times the real world kicks in and budgets are factored in and a bridge is built and 5 years later you say to yourself "boy wasn't it dumb to built this with only X lanes". It's even less likely when there isn't a realistic possibility of related required project being completed in a reasonable amount of time.

it's not uncommon to hear an engineer say something like "anyone can built an over engineered bridge to last forever, but a good engineer builds the right bridge to last a very long time"

Building the "over engineered" bridge wastes your money and resources. So I wouldn't bet that they will be building a 3 track bridge (or even it's footings) and only putting 2 tracks on it. I'd guess they'll spend a small fortune to re-engineer the existing plans down to 2 tracks so they can save a medium sized fortune it would cost to built the additional bits in advance for a 3rd track. There's a valid argument to be made if that's the best use of time and money but there's an equally valid argument to be made that it's best to save part of that medium fortune so that they can use the money elsewhere in other critically deficient areas (for example the flood doors you have mentioned as being critically important in other threads). When/if the additional tracks under the river ever get built then they can figure out how to find the money to built the needed additional tracks at the portal crossing.

The new Goethals Bridge is being designed to accommodate future light rail.

Don31 wrote:The new Goethals Bridge is being designed to accommodate future light rail.

good point (although I think I've mostly read "future transit service such as light rail or bus"- so likely just to be a bus lane that flips directions with the rush traffic). I also believe the Bayonne Bridge was also originally built (in another era) with provisions to add rail (but sadly apparently now will be rebuilt to remove that possibility).

Another NJT example of building infrastructure for the future would be that secaucus junction footings were built to hold an office building above it. (part of the deal I think with Allied to get the land though)

And a bigger footprint example might be the NJ Turnpike outer roadway when added from New Brunswick to "the merge" appears to have been built with all the bridges made to easily add another lane. (and paid for with toll money back when the Turnpike Authorit was flush and spent money like water)

Still I don't think it happens very often. (for example the high level platforms recently built along the RVL all appear to incroach on any possibility of adding an express track in the future)

And considering that they will need to built a second bridge portal replacement alongside when/if additional tunnels are ever built it seems even less likely to bother building now for provisions for another track- they already figure they would need a second bridge with any tunnel project so why not just include the other track then rather than tie up money for several years for some potential future need.

I wouldn't call adding space for more track overbuilding, in the sense that additional trackage in that area is currently contemplated and needed. It's hardly speculative. If you have are buying a house in contemplation of having kids, you'd buy with extra bedrooms. It's another story if you are buying a house and have no present intention of ever having kids and buy a 6 bedroom spread.

michaelk wrote:

And a bigger footprint example might be the NJ Turnpike outer roadway when added from New Brunswick to "the merge" appears to have been built with all the bridges made to easily add another lane.

Thats exactly whats going on. During the last widening program (late 80s) the segment between 8A and 9 was initially designed for 3 lanes in each direction, but then the traffic numbers were revised and didn't support the building of 3 lanes, so they only built 2. An agreement was reached with NJDOT (although I can't remember how they got involved) and everything was left in place for 3 lanes (grading, drainage, etc., etc.) with the intent of someday in the future using it. In the current widening program thats exactly what will happen. One of the last construction packages will entail paving and striping this section for that third lane.

JCGUY wrote:I wouldn't call adding space for more track overbuilding, in the sense that additional trackage in that area is currently contemplated and needed. It's hardly speculative. If you have are buying a house in contemplation of having kids, you'd buy with extra bedrooms. It's another story if you are buying a house and have no present intention of ever having kids and buy a 6 bedroom spread.

the additional trackage sure is contemplated and needed. But so is a new pair of tunnels- and how has that worked out for us? So I just figure it would be speculative that it would get paid for at any point.

If it was a slam dunk they would have just grabbed the plans for a 3 track bridge and been working on that along with adding that third track.

To be clear- I've posted that i'd guess a 3rd track from Newark to the bridge and including the bridge seemed to make sense to me that it would cut down the distance of double track to basically just the tunnel and a little bit on this side. And I figured that made sense. But those much more knowledgable than I said it pretty much just doesn't matter until the tunnels get built. Which seems to make sense with NJT deciding only to pursue a double track bridge at this time.

I'd love for it to be 3 tracks- think it makes sense. But i just don't think it's likely under the current finance constraints the NJT, the state, the federal government and the whole country are in.

Anyway- I guess we'll know when it gets built (or when something official comes along)- at this point we're all just guessing.

Yes, we are just guessing (myself included), but also hoping for the outcome to not be another half-assed compromise to appease whomever. Transportation has become far too much a political volley ball. Very irresponsible if you ask me. We keep running things in this country like the next 2 generations will have all the answers somehow, vs getting off our butts and doing things the right way from the get go. Good enough isn't good enough anymore. We need and deserve better.

I'm just hoping something gets done before Portal gets so decrepit that it drops into the Hackensack on its own.

beanbag wrote:I'm just hoping something gets done before Portal gets so decrepit that it drops into the Hackensack on its own.

Only way that'd happen is if the slew ring broke.

This new report from the NEC Commission has a page on Portal:
http://www.nec-commission.com/critical- ... ture-needs

Also, the report can be ready project-by-project on the interactive map:
http://www.nec-commission.com/interacti ... ture-needs

jumsmuj wrote:This new report from the NEC Commission has a page on Portal:
http://www.nec-commission.com/critical- ... ture-needs

Also, the report can be ready project-by-project on the interactive map:
http://www.nec-commission.com/interacti ... ture-needs

thanks for the link

interesting way they worded things on the map overviews (I didn't read the main report link yet). Has the sawtooth and related bridges (4 that are not the portal bridge) and 4 tracking from Newark to the tunnels listed (at 350 million for the bridges with wording to indicate they WILL be built for 4 tracks + and 1.2 billion for adding the other 2 tracks.)

also says the new NJT portal bridge will be 2 tracks (but it COULD always be built to accommodate 3 at a future point). BUT the big thing that pops out at me is the wording seems to indicate that they will keep the existing portal bridge until they built the new bridge:

"Two new bridges are planned or proposed to replace the existing Portal Bridge. The first new bridge, Portal North, is already in the final phase of design.
...
A second new bridge, Portal South, is proposed by Amtrak to complement Portal North and to enable Amtrak and NJ TRANSIT to decommission the existing unreliable Portal Bridge."

makes sense to me- might as well ride it till it dies- lol.

edit: main report is basically the same exact thing. Reading some more says the second portal bridge is related to adding the 3rd and 4th tracks from newark to NYP.

Again- nothing really to change any speculation but some interesting tidbits non the less.

(BTW- not directly related but i was reading some archived newspapers from the 1940's- 1960's the other day- one of the interesting things to me was that many of editorial cartoons from all 3 decades basically could have been in today's paper. It was like Billy Joel and 'we didn't start the fire'. I do honestly believe that financially the country is in the worst place it's been forever and if the numbnuts in washington dont fix it we're doomed. But here's the funny thing- there's editorials from throughout that period that basically said the same thing. So who knows maybe it's not as bad as it seems...)

Most of the PRR's infrastructure was built to last and it seems like we're getting every last bit out of Portal before it gets demolished for better or for worse.

What is the status of the new Portal Bridge and second Portal Bridge Construction?

Unless you have something to add, this is the latest update, conveniently located in the PORTAL Bridge? thread. NJT has taken the lead on this project so the discussion is mainly held in their forum.

Amtrak received a HSIPR grant to pay for the final design phase of the North Portal bridge. The final design is reportedly completed, Amtrak is seeking funding to start on construction. Two years ago, when the Florida HSR funds were to be reallocated, Amtrak was looking for $720 million to build the north Portal bridge; NJ had agreed to contribute $150 million, Amtrak requested $570 million in HSIPR funding. Didn't get it.

Checking the new FY2013-2017 Five Year Financial Plan, the North Portal bridge construction is now a $900 million, 5 year construction program. If NJ is still willing to contribute $150 million, Amtrak has to line up $750 million total in funding. Besides Congress, Amtrak may be talking to the Port Authority to contribute something, ask the FRA for some unused HSIPR funds, or ask for donations for the north Portal bridge project on the net. Amtrak may have to be creative to piece together the funding package to built the north bridge in the next 2 years.

The South portal bridge is not designed nor funded. The south bridge is directly tied to building the two new tunnels under the Hudson. Getting the funding in place for the bridge and tunnel portion of the Gateway project to provide 4 tracks between NYP and Newark from all the players is going to be a drawn out challenging process.