by Greg Moore
They're filling in the Long Slip Canal? Makes sense, but sort of sad to lose that piece of history.
Check out QuiCR, Quick, Crowdsourced Responses for businesses.
Moderators: GirlOnTheTrain, nomis, FL9AC, Jeff Smith
The resolution authorizes NJT Executive Director Kevin Corbett and New Jersey Department of Transportation Commissioner and NJT Board Chair Dianne Gutierrez-Scaccetti to execute and deliver the funding agreement with the NJEDA, which will issue up to $600 million in bonds from the state’s Transportation Trust Fund (TTF), to be repaid over a 30-year term. This same funding structure was utilized in 1999 for the construction of NJT’s RiverLINE light rail system.The article claims 10% increase in peak hour passenger capacity. That seems bogus to me -- I thought the tunnels were the limiting factor on the number of trains during peak hour. The only way to increase passenger capacity is to add more cars to the trains that are not 10+ cars already, but the bridge is not stopping them from doing this now -- it is not structurally deficient. The new span will allow speeds to be jacked back up to where they used to be, but that will be mostly reliability and fluidity improvement. Even that will be marginal given that so many NJT trains need to stop at Secaucus.
EuroStar » Thu Jun 14, 2018 8:28 am
I thought the tunnels were the limiting factor on the number of trains during peak hour.Portal Bridge and North River (Hudson) tunnels are both two tracks. Rest of the NEC from NYP to PHI is 3 or 4 track. Portal and tunnels are 100+ years old.
east point wrote:When the north portal bridge is open the present plans are to keep the swing bridge in operation. That will allow slower trains to be passed sooner.Do you have a source for this? I believe that it is not correct.
EuroStar wrote:When we stated present plans , the original north Portal proposal stated that the swing bridge would be removed when the Bridges are both built. As we stated that may have changed but haven't read a revised proposal in several years that changed that plan. If you have other info please cite.east point wrote:When the north portal bridge is open the present plans are to keep the swing bridge in operation. That will allow slower trains to be passed sooner.Do you have a source for this? I believe that it is not correct.
So no, the swing bridge will not be kept and when eventually Portal South is built it will carry two tracks that will go south of the existing 4 at Secaucus. For all that we know they might not even have platform at Secaucus.
east point wrote:When we stated present plans , the original north Portal proposal stated that the swing bridge would be removed when the Bridges are both built. As we stated that may have changed but haven't read a revised proposal in several years that changed that plan. If you have other info please cite.Unfortunately the public sources are limited. The most clear statement that the current bridge is being replaced as opposed to used for enhancing the capacity over the Hackensack River can be found here: https://nec.amtrak.com/project/portal-b ... t-project/. Amtrak clearly states that this is a replacement. They do not state that they intend to remove the existing span once the new one is completed, but even if they leave it in place for some time the intention to not use it is implied. You might be getting confused because way back when in 2008 the two spans were planned to be built simultaneously the intention was to keep the existing bridge in operation until both new spans could be put in use. Some of the confusion might also originate in the fact that the south span was initially designed as a lift bridge. Multiple changes were made since 2008. First in 2010, the south span was changed to a fixed bridge with steeper grades. Then in 2011 the north span was reduced to two tracks. Note that the duck-under for the connection to the Lackawanna lines remains and will be built as part of the north span. The original south span was supposed to be on a new south alignment, however it was never completely designed (as opposed to the north span). With the phased construction, first the north span then the south span, the likelihood that the final design of the south span will revert to the current swing bridge alignment is 100% for all practical purposes. Reusing the existing alignment for the south span was found cheaper back in the 2008 EIS and I know of no reasons why it would not be found cheaper in the future. The 2008 EIS found a new south alignment preferable mainly for its ability to reduce overall construction duration, but that is a moot point with the phased construction. Reusing the alignment will also reduce the environmental impact, the need for mitigation and the need for taking of properties. At this point the only objection to reusing the old alignment is that it makes the two track south bypass of Secaucus Junction that Amtrak wants more difficult, but once cost are reviewed especially the need for environmental remediation of the former landfill, the bypass will likely be scrapped.