ARC Tunnel - Revisited (Again)

I still don't understand how the Gateway tunnels are going to not have to deal with the problems that tripped up ARC....like the bulkhead, like tunneling UNDERGROUND (the North River tunnels are NOT in solid rock, but rather lay on the bottom of the river), like the shallowness of the tunnel if it were to come into PSNY complex, like the Number 7 Line extension, just to name a few....

But yea, lets just forget about all these issues, build a tunnel and throw in some crossovers so all the trains will end up in the existing station! Oh if it was only that easy....

Jtgshu wrote:I still don't understand how the Gateway tunnels are going to not have to deal with the problems that tripped up ARC....like the bulkhead, like tunneling UNDERGROUND (the North River tunnels are NOT in solid rock, but rather lay on the bottom of the river), like the shallowness of the tunnel if it were to come into PSNY complex, like the Number 7 Line extension, just to name a few....

But yea, lets just forget about all these issues, build a tunnel and throw in some crossovers so all the trains will end up in the existing station! Oh if it was only that easy....

A few extra billion dollars (as compared to ARC) will solve everything.

Pardon me if I've asked this before, but starting from the portals at Sunnyside and Bergen respectively, would the railroad be able to bore tunnels and a new deep station (much like that at Grand Central?) I don't know if that profile would have reasonable grades, whether the Second Avenue Subway or one of the aqueducts are in the way, or if the rock is even stable enough to bore. However, that seems like the way to vastly expand NYP without actually expanding NYP's current footprint or funneling more trains into the same mess.

Jtgshu wrote:I still don't understand how the Gateway tunnels are going to not have to deal with the problems that tripped up ARC....like the bulkhead, like tunneling UNDERGROUND (the North River tunnels are NOT in solid rock, but rather lay on the bottom of the river), like the shallowness of the tunnel if it were to come into PSNY complex, like the Number 7 Line extension, just to name a few....

But yea, lets just forget about all these issues, build a tunnel and throw in some crossovers so all the trains will end up in the existing station! Oh if it was only that easy....

According to current thinking, they're going to go through the bulkhead and do cut-and-cover in Manhattan rather than tunneling.

Don31 wrote: According to current thinking, they're going to go through the bulkhead and do cut-and-cover in Manhattan rather than tunneling.

"Cut-and-cover" in Manhattan? In this day and age? All the way from Hudson to 8th avenue? Are you sure? What will happen with the homes and businesses along the way?

Don31 wrote:

Jtgshu wrote:I still don't understand how the Gateway tunnels are going to not have to deal with the problems that tripped up ARC....like the bulkhead, like tunneling UNDERGROUND (the North River tunnels are NOT in solid rock, but rather lay on the bottom of the river), like the shallowness of the tunnel if it were to come into PSNY complex, like the Number 7 Line extension, just to name a few....

But yea, lets just forget about all these issues, build a tunnel and throw in some crossovers so all the trains will end up in the existing station! Oh if it was only that easy....

According to current thinking, they're going to go through the bulkhead and do cut-and-cover in Manhattan rather than tunneling.

HAHAHAHAHAHHA oh thanks Don31, I needed a good laugh - I had a feeling they were heading in that direction....now, THAT should be amusing to watch unfold

Defiant wrote:

Don31 wrote: According to current thinking, they're going to go through the bulkhead and do cut-and-cover in Manhattan rather than tunneling.

"Cut-and-cover" in Manhattan? In this day and age? All the way from Hudson to 8th avenue? Are you sure? What will happen with the homes and businesses along the way?

Yes, I'm sure. They'd need to in order to maintin a reasonable grade into NYPS. From what I remember, there are not too many home within the proposed right of way. All displacements would have to be relocated.

Jtgshu wrote:

Don31 wrote:

Jtgshu wrote:I still don't understand how the Gateway tunnels are going to not have to deal with the problems that tripped up ARC....like the bulkhead, like tunneling UNDERGROUND (the North River tunnels are NOT in solid rock, but rather lay on the bottom of the river), like the shallowness of the tunnel if it were to come into PSNY complex, like the Number 7 Line extension, just to name a few....

But yea, lets just forget about all these issues, build a tunnel and throw in some crossovers so all the trains will end up in the existing station! Oh if it was only that easy....

According to current thinking, they're going to go through the bulkhead and do cut-and-cover in Manhattan rather than tunneling.

HAHAHAHAHAHHA oh thanks Don31, I needed a good laugh - I had a feeling they were heading in that direction....now, THAT should be amusing to watch unfold

Yer welcome JT. Thats what I thought when I first heard about it. The best part will be going through Hudson River Park, which will need approval from the NYS Legislature.

FWIW I don't think the Hudson River Park really exists between W. 29th Street and W. 43rd Street. (See link below) It's superseded by LIRR's West Side Yards and the Javits Center.

http://www.hudsonriverpark.org/explore- ... activities

Is there a link or reference to this plan? Punching a hole through the bulkhead and then using cut-and-cover to reach NYP?

Tommy Meehan wrote:FWIW I don't think the Hudson River Park really exists between W. 29th Street and W. 43rd Street. (See link below) It's superseded by LIRR's West Side Yards and the Javits Center.

http://www.hudsonriverpark.org/explore- ... activities

Is there a link or reference to this plan? Punching a hole through the bulkhead and then using cut-and-cover to reach NYP?

It would come up between 26th and 27th Street, running northeasterly.

No link, just stuff I found out during a meeting.

Thanks Don. Perhaps attitudes are changing. During the reconstruction at the World Trade Center site builders WERE permitted to breach the wall. Only in that part of Manhattan isn't the bulkhead or seawall now inland (thanks to the extensive fill operations that were part of the original World Trade Center)?

I guess the Gateway Project people must think they'll get permission to breach the bulkhead because how else would they get into the PSNY site? Maybe the fiasco that ARC turned into has convinced the powers-that-be to lighten up?

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/25/nyreg ... .html?_r=1

Don31 wrote:

Jtgshu wrote:

Don31 wrote:

Jtgshu wrote:I still don't understand how the Gateway tunnels are going to not have to deal with the problems that tripped up ARC....like the bulkhead, like tunneling UNDERGROUND (the North River tunnels are NOT in solid rock, but rather lay on the bottom of the river), like the shallowness of the tunnel if it were to come into PSNY complex, like the Number 7 Line extension, just to name a few....

But yea, lets just forget about all these issues, build a tunnel and throw in some crossovers so all the trains will end up in the existing station! Oh if it was only that easy....

According to current thinking, they're going to go through the bulkhead and do cut-and-cover in Manhattan rather than tunneling.

HAHAHAHAHAHHA oh thanks Don31, I needed a good laugh - I had a feeling they were heading in that direction....now, THAT should be amusing to watch unfold

Yer welcome JT. Thats what I thought when I first heard about it. The best part will be going through Hudson River Park, which will need approval from the NYS Legislature.

Do the feds need state approval for anything they do? Can the feds use eminent domain against a state? I haven't a clue- that's why i ask.

But if the feds can do such things then the politics get much simper and it's just a matter of logistics. (looking at a satellite view of google maps- I dont see at all how they could do cut and cover diagonally like that without a huge mess and impacting a ton of properties- so not at all sure what they're thinking physically)

michaelk wrote:

Don31 wrote:

Jtgshu wrote:

Don31 wrote:

Jtgshu wrote:I still don't understand how the Gateway tunnels are going to not have to deal with the problems that tripped up ARC....like the bulkhead, like tunneling UNDERGROUND (the North River tunnels are NOT in solid rock, but rather lay on the bottom of the river), like the shallowness of the tunnel if it were to come into PSNY complex, like the Number 7 Line extension, just to name a few....

But yea, lets just forget about all these issues, build a tunnel and throw in some crossovers so all the trains will end up in the existing station! Oh if it was only that easy....

According to current thinking, they're going to go through the bulkhead and do cut-and-cover in Manhattan rather than tunneling.

HAHAHAHAHAHHA oh thanks Don31, I needed a good laugh - I had a feeling they were heading in that direction....now, THAT should be amusing to watch unfold

Yer welcome JT. Thats what I thought when I first heard about it. The best part will be going through Hudson River Park, which will need approval from the NYS Legislature.

Do the feds need state approval for anything they do? Can the feds use eminent domain against a state? I haven't a clue- that's why i ask.

But if the feds can do such things then the politics get much simper and it's just a matter of logistics. (looking at a satellite view of google maps- I dont see at all how they could do cut and cover diagonally like that without a huge mess and impacting a ton of properties- so not at all sure what they're thinking physically)

The Act that created Hudson River Park stipulates that the Legislature approve any alteration to the park. Could the feds use eminent domain? I think so, but the political and PR repercussions would be enormous. And your right, the ROW would impact a ton of properties.

Wouldn't they be going under Hudson River Park? That close to the bulkhead they couldn't even use cut-and-cover, could they? The park is just a sliver between Rt.9A and the Hudson at W.26th Street. See below-

Tommy Meehan wrote:Wouldn't they be going under Hudson River Park? That close to the bulkhead they couldn't even use cut-and-cover, could they? The park is just a sliver between Rt.9A and the Hudson at W.26th Street. See below-

Yep, thats the park. They need to be shallow here to connect into NYPS. Any deeper and the ascending grade would be too steep. That was one of ARC's issues - they went under the bulkhead and park to avoid them, which made a connection with NYPS impossible, hence the deep station. It will definitely be cut-and-cover thru the park.

Don31 wrote: It will definitely be cut-and-cover thru the park.

How can that be? How deep is the Hudson there? It's got to be at least fifteen-twenty feet deep, doesn't it?

Doesn't the bulkhead extend downward an average of eighty feet?

They're going to cut-and-cover under 9A?