Amtrak Gateway Tunnels

>ear in mind that the Dems showed no enthusiasm for the project when they had control.

Actually I think they authorized it when Christie killed the deal by withholding NJ's share of the cost. They will put it back after re-taking the Senate.

and in news today: https://www.nydailynews.com/news/politi ... story.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

CarterB wrote:If Schumer, DiBlasio, Murphy, Booker, et al would cooperate a bit with Trump, perhaps he'd return the favor. Can't really expect Trump to support those who vehemently and verbally attack him at every turn, regardless of merit. I can't blame Trump for ignoring them at this time.

I agree 100%. Read Trump's book "The art of the Deal" This is right out of it.

yeah lets make blackmail part of how we run our government wtf.
lets run Murica as a Banana republic

I understand the political issues around these parts, but at some point the tunnel must be built. The United States does have a problem with overspending on infrastructure, this project in particular appears to be more expensive than London's Crossrail mile for mile. Leaving alone how the second ave subway has costed 2.2 billion per Km whereas Berline's U55 line has costed 250 million per Km, Paris has costed 230M per Km, and Copenhagen has cost 260M per km. Besides, the longer this gets delayed the higher the cost.

But from where I'm sitting, there doesn't appear to be a conversation about knocking the cost down or 'making a deal', there doesn't appear to be anyone talking about how things can be improved. It appears to be Trump holding a grudge against Schumer and for not supporting him and just stonewalling the project. While it may be understandable as to why, at some point progress needs to be made.

DutchRailnut wrote:yeah lets make blackmail part of how we run our government wtf.
lets run Murica as a Banana republic

So, somehow you've missed the last 50 or so years of how our "betters" have run the country?

ChesterValley wrote:Leaving alone how the second ave subway has costed 2.2 billion per Km whereas Berline's U55 line has costed 250 million per Km, Paris has costed 230M per Km, and Copenhagen has cost 260M per km.

Ok, so, assuming 4 miles of tunnel and 2 miles of bridge, we've got 6 miles, then 9.6km total.

At the cost of:
2nd ave subway: ~22 billion
Berlin U55: ~2.4 billion
Paris: ~2.2 billion
Copenhagen: ~2.5 billion

Now, Berlin, Paris and Copenhagen are not cities with slave labor, no unions, no environmental regulations or no history. Or no public opinion (see: Stuttgart 21...). The excuse 'NYC is an expensive place' doesn't hold water.

Let's be honest here: If the construction costs were rational, this thing would be funded. Get it in the realm of reality, and the funding conversation will likely begin and end fast.

TLDR: It's too damn expensive.

ConstanceR46 wrote:I don't think a rail tunnel on our busiest amtrak line into one of the most important cities is exactly local.

Not to be a pessimist, but how long until a tunnel gives and we have to half the trains... or even worse, a train's in a tunnel when it gives.

If one of the two tunnels is closed the number of trains is reduced to 25 percent, not 50 percent, because the remaining track must be used in both directions, with the first train in during a cycle having to wait until the last train out in the cycle clears the single track.

ryanov wrote: I suppose it was never stated that this is a forum for railfans; I frequently have to remind myself. (if you do consider yourself a railfan and yet hold these sorts of opinions, please delete your account)

Mr. Novosielski, I think we both know that this forum is NOT an advocacy forum. We gather here to address both sides of an issue - and very simply, in the case of the Tunnels addressed here, the taxpayer in Lander, WY must wonder why he must pay for that "way out there". We must also not lose sight that this taxpayer is likely part of the incumbent POTUS' "base".

Now what I think would be quite appropriate would be a "toll" assessed on all tickets for transportation using the Tunnels and the Portal bridge. That means Amtrak NEC passengers going through the Tunnels, as well as passengers on the (NJT), PRSL, PRR and DL&W would "pony up". Amtrak passengers on the New Haven, along with those NJT on the CNJ and ERIE, would not.

This is not new; for there was a "bridge toll" built into the fares for use of the NYConnecting RR, resulting in a higher Interline fare than the two "Local" NH and PRR fares.

Also worth noting, Mr. Norman, that voter in Lander has:
-a lingering resentment about how the North Western left town
-a far lower tax rate, and
-100x the US Senate representation as a citizen of Manhattan.

Ken W2KB wrote:

ConstanceR46 wrote:I don't think a rail tunnel on our busiest amtrak line into one of the most important cities is exactly local.

Not to be a pessimist, but how long until a tunnel gives and we have to half the trains... or even worse, a train's in a tunnel when it gives.

If one of the two tunnels is closed the number of trains is reduced to 25 percent, not 50 percent, because the remaining track must be used in both directions, with the first train in during a cycle having to wait until the last train out in the cycle clears the single track.

This depends on how you operate it. If you fleet trains (so, in the peak, give 45 mins of an hour to inbound trains) you can limit the reduction to the 25-30% range.

mtuandrew wrote:Also worth noting, Mr. Norman, that voter in Lander has:
-a lingering resentment about how the North Western left town
-a far lower tax rate, and
-100x the US Senate representation as a citizen of Manhattan.

And let's not forget that Manhattan taxpayers are helping to pay for highway maintenance in Lander. This is why "why should my money be spent on this coastal project" type arguments don't hold water -- the whole point of having a federal government is that we cross subsidize each other for the greater good of the whole.

Regardless of who's traveling where, a disruption of the magnitude we're talking about would have economic effects far beyond the Middle Atlantic States--and by the time the people affected figured it out it would be too late to ameliorate the effects.

ryanov wrote:I'll say one thing for Trump: he's done an incredible job at making people with truly asinine ideas stand out in bright daylight. I honestly never thought I'd see the day where people on this forum or RPA (ex-NARP) sites would be arguing that funding a tunnel that would bifurcate the only high speed railway in the entire country would become a "these coastal elites" issue.

You are 100% incorrect and factually wrong here. The fact that we've shown with numbers that 99% of the tunnel passengers are locals does anywhere say that this is a "coastal elite" issue. This is a false equivalency, a logical fallacy that people often use when they don't have a real argument.

ryanov wrote: I suppose it was never stated that this is a forum for railfans; I frequently have to remind myself. (if you do consider yourself a railfan and yet hold these sorts of opinions, please delete your account)

Again another false equivalency. I can be a railfan and hold these opinions. I can enjoy riding long distance trains while they last and still believe they are a waste of money. I can still get excited about an Acela ride and believe that the critical tunnels are a local issue. You don't make the rules and you don't get to define who a railfan is.

ryanov wrote:Yeah, a trade of a who knows how many billion dollar stupid wall, solving a non-existent problem (see recent illegal immigration stats) and creating all sorts of other real problems (environmental harm, taking people's land on the border, etc.) for a tunnel that is needed to keep the largest economy in the country running. Makes total sense; why not flush billions down the toilet so that we can extract a more reliable commute from the president (who's supposed to be in office serving the entire country, BTW).

Now you're just saying things to say them. Do you have any numbers that show illegal immigration is a non-existent problem? Has there been a problem with illegal takings? Those are both big cans of worms. The environment? Tell me you have numbers that show there aren't far more enviromental problems in New York than the Texas border. As for a reliable commute, we could shut down those tunnels tomorrow and just forget about them and it wouldn't be a big deal in a few years. At one time, Jersey commuter trains only went to Hoboken, and 80% of Amtrak passengers turn over at NYP.

ryanov wrote:Anyway, are you folks under the impression that because people who live here are the primary users of the tunnel that it doesn't matter to the rest of the country? Every dollar I have ever spent in either Boston or Washington, DC -- or Baltimore or Wilmington for that matter, and nearby areas -- has been courtesy of Amtrak. The NEC is not viable without that tunnel, flat out.

Okay, tell you what, let's have the feds pay for a new $40b Union Station in Chicago and LA, see how that goes over. It would fall flat, as does this. Any city over 1m people has a national impact, that doesn't mean they automatically get federal money. You want the tunnel, you pay for it.

I have a new position on this tunnel.

I once hoped we could get a federal deal, but it's clear the NY/NJ folks take the tunnels for granted and also federal funding for granted.

The tunnels were built with private money, they can find local or private money to build new ones. 99% of riders are Jersey commuters. 80%+ of Amtrak passengers turn over at NYP. It's a completely local issue. Let the Jersey commuters and southern NEC folks hop off at Hoboken or Newark and ride path.

Any malarkey about it being "critical to the national economy" is a crock. I could make that argument about corridor and commuter trains going into Boston, Philly, Chicago, DC, Los Angeles, and Seattle. It's a tired line of logic that doesn't hold water.

in that case I will forfeit my farm subsidies , I don't like Brussel sprouts or Broccoli or Edamame