Amtrak Gateway Tunnels

But y tho?

CSX has a functional crossing at Selkirk that dumps directly into the Water Level Route. NS doesn't, so this project would primarily benefit them, but Norfolk hasn't been too vocal about a NY Harbor crossing recently.

It's at least two orders of magnitude cheaper to commission a double-ended ferry long enough for 3 x 30 cars, and it doesn't sound like NY&A handles trains much longer than 30 cars anyway. Use the other two bays for trailers and containers on spine trailers to get around the bridges and tunnels, if there is that much demand.

Do you realize how large a ferry it will take to carry 90 freight cars?
At 60 feet long each on average, 5400 feet of track, that's over a mile of track on the ferry.
From wiki
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Yor ... _Rail,_LLC" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
On September 17, 2014 the Port Authority announced that it was funding a major redevelopment of the Greenville Yard, to include a new ExpressRail container terminal servicing the Global Marine Terminal. The Port Authority will also build two new rail to barge transfer bridges, purchase two new car float barges, each with 18 rail car capacity, and buy four new ultra low emission locomotives. The new facility is expected to become operational in July 2016.

18 railcars per ferry, a far cry from 90.

Yeah a ferry definitely wouldn't cut it.

<COUGH> Gateway Tunnel <COUGH>.

Interesting blast from the past on the cross-hudson study (which I think morphed into the TZB study). You can discuss that here: http://railroad.net/forums/viewtopic.php?f=67&t=31779" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Or here: http://railroad.net/forums/viewtopic.php?f=67&t=1076" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I believe this may be the original study link (the link in the latter thread was superseded perhaps?): http://web.mta.info/mta/planning/whrtas/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The TZB was not always the only option (although it was the logical one). I think there may have been discussion of crossings around Beacon. But I digress, because the point of my post is to get us back on topic <COUGH>

We now return you to our regularly scheduled Gateway discussion....

The NYT has a more detailed piece on the specifics around potential budget cuts, including other avenues that might continue to fund the projects:

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/03/nyre ... front&_r=0" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The U.S. Department of Transportation has withdrawn from the Gateway Program Development Corporation board:

New York Daily News article

Wall Street Journal article (paywalled)

“It is not DOT’s standard practice to serve in such a capacity on other local transportation projects, and DOT’s Trustee has had to recuse from several board actions already,” acting general counsel Judith Kaleta wrote.

....

A spokesman for the Department of Transportation said Sunday that the withdrawal is “consistent with the department’s provision of effective and objective oversight in instances where we provide financial assistance.”

“The decision underscores the department’s commitment to ensuring there is no appearance of prejudice or partiality in favor of these projects ahead of hundreds of other projects nationwide,” the spokesman added.

“The decision to resign from the board should not be misinterpreted as a final decision about the multiple individual projects promoted by the Gateway Development Corporation.”

The WSJ article also says the DOT delayed the release of an expedited DEIS for the tunnel which was supposed to come out last week, but they plan to make an announcement sometime soon. Doesn't sound too encouraging.

“The decision to resign from the board should not be misinterpreted as a final decision about the multiple individual projects promoted by the Gateway Development Corporation.”

This is the key sentence here. If for some reason there's no need for them to stay on the board but the Gateway project itself is not in jeopardy then I don't see a problem here. The Caltrain electrification project was feared to be doomed, but in the end the federal funding was indeed released by the Trump administration so we need not jump to conclusions. If the DOT needs more time for the DEIS that's still better news than "NO FUNDING FOR GATEWAY TUNNELS". The list of infrastructure projects obtained by that newspaper months ago listed Gateway and the MBTA's Green Line Extension as two priority projects. What matters is if Gateway is more "shovel ready" than projects that were in line for funding in 2009 under the Obama administration that never materialized due to how not-far along in the approval process they were.

Sometimes, Mr. Google's AMP can find a knothole in paywalls:
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.wsj.co ... 1499089647" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

DEIS published this morning....

http://www.hudsontunnelproject.com/deis.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

From http://www.nj.com/traffic/index.ssf/201 ... river_home" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The dead ARC project is helping Gateway from beyond the grave. The project recycles a new overpass constructed to carry Routes 1& 9 in North Bergen over the tunnel mouth and the preferred route selected in the DEIS is the former ARC route, said Craig Schulz, an Amtrak spokesman.
"(It's an) important part of why we've been able to expedite (the DEIS)," he said

Where exactly is this overpass? Is it just the one that goes over the existing tracks to the tunnels, or something in a different location?

Jim S
PS. I ignored commenting on the main point of the article, which is reflected in the article title: "Cost of new Hudson River rail tunnels soars by billions". Yawn.

pumpers wrote:I ignored commenting on the main point of the article, which is reflected in the article title: "Cost of new Hudson River rail tunnels soars by billions". Yawn.

Very hard to decide between big yawn and panic. NYC has a proven-awful record* of paying orders of magnitude more for stuff than we find in other old, crowded, cities like London or Paris.

And yet, clearly a lot of the hike is just time. ARC was cancelled in 2009. Hurricane Sandy was 2012, and how much of the 1.7b to rehab the existing tunnels is storm damage, not "soaring" costs. Even just 3 years of 3% inflation is enough to add $1b to a ~10b project.

* East Side Access, 2Av Sub being the obvious examples, as in:
Paris gets 20 miles and 60 stations for its Metro Line 15 for the same 4.5b that NYC gets 2 miles & 4 stations on 2 Ave..a full 10x order-of-magnitude crazy expensiveness that cannot be explained away as "life in the big/old city"
(see Yonah Freemark twitter)

pumpers wrote:

The dead ARC project is helping Gateway from beyond the grave. The project recycles a new overpass constructed to carry Routes 1& 9 in North Bergen over the tunnel mouth and the preferred route selected in the DEIS is the former ARC route, said Craig Schulz, an Amtrak spokesman.
"(It's an) important part of why we've been able to expedite (the DEIS)," he said

Where exactly is this overpass? Is it just the one that goes over the existing tracks to the tunnels, or something in a different location?.

I believe this is the location of the tunnel mouth passing under Route 1/9:
in 2009, before construction: https://goo.gl/maps/iG7boYyUET42" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; (spin around and note the McDonald's and self storage)
In 2012, after construction: https://goo.gl/maps/fqquggah4tj" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; (note that site above tunnel has been cleared)

Here we can see what I take to be the exact spot of the tunnel mouth as of 2016, with the electrical substation on the right and a clear shot to the NEC straight ahead:
https://goo.gl/maps/LPPYCzMqq9R2" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Don31 wrote:DEIS published this morning....

http://www.hudsontunnelproject.com/deis.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Interesting take-aways from the DEIS and the preferred alternative:

• Two tunnels, but they'll have less capacity due to track layout at the A Interlock as it enters in from A Yard, as well as ventilation and safety requirements. To rehab the "North River" Hudson tunnels, they'll have to do one at a time.
• Rehabbed North River tunnels will be of vastly different design.
• Bye Bye A Yard!
• Trains will be able to reach up to track 9.

So where NJT has a bus storage lot,and what looks like a pair of abandoned "construction trailers" is the site
for "Gateway" tunnel mouth?

My 5-min-skim takeaway:

* They picked what has to be the dumbest, slowest, longest routing for the tunnel. It's gonna be slow as heck. Great for capacity... They even admit it'll take longer to build... (can you say 'workfare'?)

* They need to expand the capacity of that turd of a 25hz system? Why not just convert north of Newark to 60Hz already? The existing equipment ain't getting newer... Nor are the excuses for retaining what's there now.

* No consideration of redoing the track layout at Penn? Oh well, the east side isn't THAT much of a bottleneck, right?

Fearless prediction: This takes a heck of a lot longer than the schedule, and doesn't give the capacity improvements everyone hopes for....

The idea's an A+, but the execution is a C...