Fredrick Douglass Tunnel (Replacement of the Baltimore and Potomac B&P Tunnel)

As for austerity is here to stay, so there will be no money to upgrade the NEC as population along the NEC grows and oil becomes increasingly difficult to produce at the daily rate all the automobiles and airplanes gulp it down over the next 30 years? Think long term, not the next election cycle.

I am thinking long term. The developed and partly developed world are looking at aging populations and reduced economic growth for decades to come. The NEC we have today is more than likely the NEC we will have in 50 years save for some cosmetic changes. Constantly creating pipe dream plans with huge TBM'd downtown super-stations and new high speed rights of way are nothing but make work programmes for planners.

After Maryland rammed through the tax hikes, they then reported they had a financial surplus. A partnership between MD, CSX and the US Govt might be able to spread the cost around enough that it's acceptable.

Maybe Amtrak can set aside the rebuild of Union Station, I mean what good is a shinny new station if the tunnels aren't safe to travel through. Or maybe delay replacing some of these bridges that the PRR built like 4x as strong as they needed to be.

The B&P Tunnel study project is underway and a couple weeks ago they released their preliminary alternatives screening analysis.

They have basically identified two feasible tunnel alternatives: the Great Circle route, a wide, curving route well north of the existing tunnel, first identified in a 2005 study, and a new one that crosses under the existing B&P and otherwise follows Robert Street for half of its route. Both would be deep tunnels bored through the rock. Both would tie into the existing Amtrak line somewhere near West Baltimore station on one end and near Penn Station on the other. All other options (Presstman Street, Hwy 40, etc) were eliminated for a variety of reasons.

My opinion is that both are significant improvements over the current situation with regards to track geometry. The Great Circle alternative has a smooth, gradual curve all the way into Penn Station, but leaves the fairly sharp curve at West Baltimore station. Robert Street significantly eases the curve at West Baltimore but has a sharper curve on approach to Penn Station. Impacts to existing neighborhoods and other transportation facilities would seem to be lower for the Great Circle alternative, but the operationally, the Robert Street alternative would probably result in faster trips due to being 1000 feet shorter and possibly higher average speeds until right before Penn Station, due to reducing the curve at West Baltimore. (Can somebody please tell what the speed limit on the West Baltimore station curve?)

It's nice to see some movement on this tunnel, this is one of the most important improvements on the NEC due to the age of the existing tunnel (which could then be rehabbed after a new tunnel is built.)

Keep looking for the proposed routes and not finding any maps.... Where are they?

Check out the Draft Preliminary Alternatives Screening Report (PDF). Alternative 3 is the Great Circle tunnel, and Alternative 11 is Robert Street North.

This morning's Baltimore Sun has an article summarizing the two options for a new tunnel:

http://www.baltimoresun.com/business/bs ... tml#page=1

This article on the Baltimore tunnels is interesting.

The head of Amtrak questioned whether a continuing study of replacement options for the troubled 140-year-old Baltimore & Potomac Tunnel under West Baltimore is a "waste of time," given what he sees as a national failure to commit adequate funding to major passenger rail projects.

I'm hoping this is more of hyperbole than anything else, but I think he's got a point.

Of course the Cato institute has to chime in:

And if it can't sustain the Northeast Corridor, that should go, too, he said.

"I don't think the federal government should be in the business of subsidizing any transportation, and passenger trains are just a particularly egregious example," he said.

Yeah, it's not like the government hasn't been doing just that since practically day 1.

And seriously do we want all the intercity traffic the NEC carries to be moved to I-95 or the airways? I'm fairly confident the airlines would rather use their gates at the airports for their longer-haul flights, not more commodity level NEC flights.

Again, I think Boardman's starting to get real savvy with the whole social media thing.

Since this appears to be the authoritative B&P tunnel thread, I guess I'll post this here.

The next round of public meetings regarding the B&P tunnel project will be held on June 16th, 2015. Meeting materials are available here.

To me there is only one piece of semi-new information here. They have known for a while that they will need four tracks through Baltimore, and that much is not news. However, if you look at the "Track Requirements" page you will see that they are considering possibly building four new bored tunnels through Baltimore.

So the main takeaway is that they are considering three route alternatives - #2 (Update B&P tunnel), #3 (Great circle), #11 (Roberts Street South), and the four tracks (two pairs of tracks really) would be along one or two of those rotues. The possible combinations would be:
1. 2 tracks B&P + 2 tracks Great Circle
2. 2 tracks B&P + 2 tracks Roberts South
3. 4 tracks Great Circle
4. 4 tracks Roberts South
5. (Theoretically??) 2 tracks Great Circle, 2 tracks Roberts South.

Up until now I had assumed that there would be two new tunnels built and the B&P tunnels would be restored. That option is still on the table, but not a given. If they look at the 142 year old B&P tunnel and find it to be too inadequate (clearances, curvature, grades, ventilation, emergency egress, etc) or too far gone structurally, they might just abandon it.

I would think that an alternative reusing the B&P tunnel would probably be less expensive, but operationally inferior. I don't see much to recommend either the Great Circle or the Roberts South alignment over the other.

Here's a link to the latest study results for the various options.

Personally, it sounds like Option 3A is the best balance of everything.
Option 11A would be my pick if cost were no option.

(the format of the site does suck btw).

Only rebuilding the present B&P would require shutting down the tunnel. 2-1/2 years no traffic ? no way.

I am somewhat disappointed that it appears a station connecting between the Baltimore Metro and these new tunnels is not being considered, although must admit commuter rail->metro connections are not likely to be a "thing" in Baltimore, especially if the planned red line is built.

orulz wrote:I am somewhat disappointed that it appears a station connecting between the Baltimore Metro and these new tunnels is not being considered, although must admit commuter rail->metro connections are not likely to be a "thing" in Baltimore, especially if the planned red line is built.

Do you mean something other than the existing light-rail connection? (I'm not overly familiar with Baltimore's setup, other than having once taken the light rail out to some place remote.)

But in general, I think ANY city should strive to combine its local transit with its rail connections.

Previous, topic on B&P Tunnel speeds: http://railroad.net/forums/viewtopic.php?f=46&t=106009" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

EIS: Baltimore Sun

New West Baltimore rail tunnel could shake homes, displace people, study says

Replacing an antiquated rail tunnel under West Baltimore could displace people in dozens of homes and subject those in hundreds more to noise and vibration during and after construction, a new study says.

Federal and state agencies, in commissioning a draft environmental impact statement, studied a range of possible impacts from three alternate routes. The 142-year-old tunnel constricts train traffic through the city.

Built in 1873, the two-track, 1.4-mile Baltimore & Potomac tunnel is one of the oldest in Amtrak's busy Northeast corridor. More than 21,000 passengers travel it daily on 85 Amtrak trains and 57 MARC commuter trains. Two freight trains also pass through it every day.

Amtrak owns the tunnel and the line that uses it, but the Federal Railroad Administration is working with the Maryland Department of Transportation to study replacing it because it is considered a major hindrance to increasing rail traffic between Washington and Boston.
...
The study focused on three variants of a route that swings north and west of the current tunnel. Sixteen routes and remedies had been proposed, but many of the alternatives were rejected because they did not offer enough benefits or posed bigger potential impacts, state officials said.

The three alternate routes still under review would allow trains to go faster, reducing transit times from about 1 minute, 44 seconds to 2 minutes, 32 seconds.

Somewhat older article: Baltimore Biz Journals

B&P Tunnel plan would cost $4 billion
...
Planners have thrown out a proposal to rebuild the existing two-track, 1.4-mile B&P tunnel that would require disruptive cut-and-cover open excavation through West Baltimore while still not accommodating a goal of four train tracks. They've also nixed a proposal that would have built a four-track network cutting underneath the existing tunnel.

That leaves two plans on the table. The first is maintaining and operating the current tunnel, an option that's still on the books largely so planners have a point of comparison. The second is a network of four single-track tunnels arcing north around the current B&P path.

The exact path of the network is still under study, with three different routes being considered. All would drill into the earth underneath the North Avenue Light Rail station, but they would come back out of the ground at different points in the vicinity of the P. Flanigan and Sons Inc. asphalt plant and Carver Vocational-Technical School in West Baltimore. They would travel distances underground ranging from 1.9 miles to 2.2 miles while averaging a depth of between 130 feet and 140 feet.

The three routes would allow passenger trains to travel at 100 mile per hour to 125 miles per hour, Thorne said. Today trains must slow to 30 miles per hour through the B&P Tunnel.

The proposed tunnel network arcing north would also allow the passage of trains stacked two-high with cargo containers. Baltimore's existing tunnel system is not large enough for such double-stack service, which has become a key issue as the Port of Baltimore tries to increase container traffic.
But simply building the larger tunnels won't be enough to bring double-stack trains to the port. Port freight currently runs through the Howard Street Tunnel, Thorne said. So freight railroads would need to build connections between lines serving the port and Amtrak's Northeast Corridor on which the B&P Tunnel lies....

Jeff: Well the article passes over many of the problems of the old tunnel. But to worry about vibration of trains ? The drainage appears well planned and with a concrete base and the rails on sound attenuation pads the vibration will be minimal . The freight trains vibration can be mitigated by requiring all freight trains to pass over a wheel impact load detector (WILD) before entering the tunnel bores so any failures will be set out. That will require some kind of rip track at either end.
Building the 4 bores may be done all at once or sequentially depending on the logistics of spoil removal and construction materials.