Gateway Project/New York Penn Station capacity improvement

Advertise with us
Shop deals on ebay
shop deals on amazon
Amtrak Unlimited Discussion Forum

Help Support Amtrak Unlimited Discussion Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
It will be interesting to see what comes up out of the meeting today with Secretary Foxx, Booker, Menendez and Christie.
 
Andrew said:
It will be interesting to see what comes up out of the meeting today with Secretary Foxx, Booker, Menendez and Christie.
Click to expand...
I suspect that all three will tell Secretary Foxx that the federal contribution has to be a grant, not a loan. If some streetcar line in Podunk can get a federal grant, adding tunnel capacity into New York should as well. If I were at that table, my request would be 50% federal and 50% local (states, Port Authority), with overruns shared proportionately. If this is a critical piece of national transportation infrastructure (and it is), then it should be funded as a national project.
 
PRR 60 said:
Andrew said:
It will be interesting to see what comes up out of the meeting today with Secretary Foxx, Booker, Menendez and Christie.
Click to expand...
I suspect that all three will tell Secretary Foxx that the federal contribution has to be a grant, not a loan. If some streetcar line in Podunk can get a federal grant, adding tunnel capacity into New York should as well. If I were at that table, my request would be 50% federal and 50% local (states, Port Authority), with overruns shared proportionately. If this is a critical piece of national transportation infrastructure (and it is), then it should be funded as a national project.
Click to expand...
My position would be that the tunnel is an interstate link, and should therefore get the same federal share that interstate highways get. I don't see why a railroad tunnel should be treated any differently from an interstate highway tunnel if one were to be built. Since the primary traffic through the tunnel is commuter traffic, FTA should be in the mix of funding agencies, just like it was in case of ARC. Of course the Federal Highway Fund running on the empty does not help meet those criteria at all. :(
 
One article that I just saw (and cannot find again) mentioned that just adding two new North River tunnels, and fixing up the old tunnels, wouldn't increase capacity because:

1) There are only two tracks between the tunnels and Newark,

2) NYP is constrained for capacity

So I was wondering what could be done to help increase train throughput in NYP? How about not allowing NJT trains to dwell in the station by running them through to Sunnyside?

Is there something planned to help with this?

jb
 
Who says NJT trains dwell in the station when they arrive on the through tracks, any more than Amtrak trains dwell? They run out to Sunnyside just like Amtrak trains do.

Of course there is no way that NJT trains that arrive into tracks 1 through 4 could run through to Sunnyside. but they are backed out into A yard or deadheaded out back to NJ to make room for more incoming trains during commission hours.

The reason that NYP South is part of the Gateway Plan is primarily in order to provide for additional platform capacity (6 to 8 tracks in the upper level), just like ARC was planning to provide six platform tracks.

Gatreway also includes adding a second pair of tracks from Secaucus to Dock (Newark) effectively quadruple tracking to Newark. However, even if that us delayed as long as quad traacking can be completed Swift that would already provide relief since Midtown Directs branch off there. Also if the Bergen loop is built then additional capacity from Bergen and Main Line would enter the NEC at Secaucus and the lack of four tracks to Newark would not be a problem.
 
Joint statement issued by Senator Booker, Senator Menendez, Governor Christie & Secretary Foxx:

Today, following a meeting in U.S. Senator Cory Booker’s Newark office on the Hudson River Tunnel project , Booker, D-N.J., Gov. Chris Christie, R-N.J., U.S. Secretary of Transportation Anthony Foxx, and U.S. Sen. Robert Menendez, D-N.J., issued the following statement:

“Transit across the Hudson River carries an enormous and increasing share of this region's workforce and economy, and it is clear that something must be done, and done now, as commuters continue to endure serious daily challenges that come with an aging infrastructure.

“We had a substantive and productive meeting today and all of us are committed to working together on a path forward on this critical project. Senator Booker, Senator Menendez, and Governor Christie will work with Secretary Foxx to obtain a substantial Federal grant contribution toward the Hudson River tunnels. In addition to grants, we will also work on other funding and financing options.

“The state of New Jersey supports the Gateway project and is committed to developing a framework with the Federal government to begin it. We all recognize that the only way forward is equitable distribution of funding responsibility and the active participation of all parties. As commuters can attest, we cannot afford further delay.”
Click to expand...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
jimhudson said:
Yep, maybe our grandchildren will actually live to see some actual work starting on this project?
Click to expand...
Call me a crazy optimist, but I see the statement, boilerplate as it is, as a sign of real progress in getting the discussions started on how to fund the Gateway project. The first step is to get all the key political figures in NJ and NY and at least many of the Senators in the NEC states to agree that the project is critical and needs to be built. That appears to have been accomplished which is not a small thing. Amtrak, due in part to the breakdowns, has been successful in finally getting the attention of the political leadership. Now the haggling over funding and political maneuvering to get to get Congress to provide some is underway. It won't be a fast or tidy process.

NJ.com article on the meeting: Christie, feds meet, vow to build new Hudson rail tunnel. With a photo of Christie getting out of his car, remembering where Newark NJ Trenton is.

An excerpt:

Cuomo did not attend Tuesday's meeting but he issued a statement saying he strongly supports the project.

"I am excited by the dialogue, and I am encouraged by the positive statement issued following today's meeting," Cuomo said. "It appears all parties are on the same page: the key to moving forward is obtaining federal grant support for the project."

Officials declined on Tuesday to elaborate on specific financing mechanisms that may be on the table.

"We're looking at a variety of funding options and we're willing to work with regional leaders to expedite them," said Jon Romano, a spokesman for the U.S. Department of Transportation.
Click to expand...
With regards to FTA funding, one possible source might be the MAP-21 Core Capacity Improvement program (or its successor in a new transportation bill). I think many of the proposed Gateway project components would qualify, although I expect it would require substantial matching funds from NJ.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The capacity of NYP will increase only incrementally only as items are completed.

1. New North river tunnels will not in themselves increase capacity.

2. New 2 track north Portal bridge completed.

3. 2 additional tracks from Newark to tunnels is complete.

4. Penn south station is complete

5. One at a time present north river .tunnel is completely refurbished. Second present tunnel is refurbished

6. If old portal swing draw is useable then all the above will except second present tunnel will allow some capacity improvement. Otherwise if swing bridge is not useable then new south portal bridge will be needed.l

7. When all the above completed then can double capacity.

8, A further increase will happen when east river tunnels 5 & 6 are built.

All this is given in the following Gateway info.

See project notes page 8 post # 153
 
Last edited by a moderator:
John Bobinyec said:
Andrew said:
Great presentation on Gateway:

http://nec.amtrak.com/sites/default/files/2015-08-10%20Gateway_NJSenate%20Final.pdf
Click to expand...
That really is a great presentation. It looks like the new south tunnels connect with Penn Station South. Do they also connect with present Penn Station? Also, from the present tunnels, can trains get to Penn Station South?

jb
Click to expand...
Yes, they do through the so called extended I-Ladder tracks. But primarily they are designed to feed the south side of the station, and during rush hours certain subset of trains that are not assigned to reverse service are supposed to head back out to NJ as deadheads. This is necessary since at least in the current phase of plans there is no egress to the east from those platform tracks.

But in effect the station capacity is improved more than just what you get with 6 or 8 more tracks because all of the conflicting moves that take place now to move trains out of tracks 1 through 4 simply disappear as they get out through the new tunnels, leaving the old tunnels to flow free of congestion at A interlocking.
 
jis said:
Who says NJT trains dwell in the station when they arrive on the through tracks, any more than Amtrak trains dwell? They run out to Sunnyside just like Amtrak trains do.

Of course there is no way that NJT trains that arrive into tracks 1 through 4 could run through to Sunnyside. but they are backed out into A yard or deadheaded out back to NJ to make room for more incoming trains during commission hours.

The reason that NYP South is part of the Gateway Plan is primarily in order to provide for additional platform capacity (6 to 8 tracks in the upper level), just like ARC was planning to provide six platform tracks.

Gatreway also includes adding a second pair of tracks from Secaucus to Dock (Newark) effectively quadruple tracking to Newark. However, even if that us delayed as long as quad traacking can be completed Swift that would already provide relief since Midtown Directs branch off there. Also if the Bergen loop is built then additional capacity from Bergen and Main Line would enter the NEC at Secaucus and the lack of four tracks to Newark would not be a problem.
Click to expand...
The lack of four tracks to NWK would only be a problem if there are no disruptions and no additional trains. Currently, this area has seen an additional 18 Raritan Valley trains adding to the congestion....and the Raritan passengers want more.

If they get their wish, I could see this as a problem.
 
Current capacity wouldn't change much if any with the new tunnels, but redundancy will and that's really a huge issue. When a single tunnel is out for any period of time during rush hour, it cripples Penn Station.

Now imagine a tunnel out of service for weeks or months!
 
Study the report carefully. You will see many things have to be completed to get more capacity under the Hudson.

2 new tunnels, then refurbish old tunnels = expect 4 -5 years, 1 new north Portal high bridge, 4 tracking Newark - tunnel's portals, Penn south built. Note report shows Penn south with 2 levels, New south Portal bridge to replace swing bridge which hopefully can remain in service until south high bridge is built.
 
west point said:
Study the report carefully. You will see many things have to be completed to get more capacity under the Hudson.

2 new tunnels, then refurbish old tunnels = expect 4 -5 years, 1 new north Portal high bridge, 4 tracking Newark - tunnel's portals, Penn south built. Note report shows Penn south with 2 levels, New south Portal bridge to replace swing bridge which hopefully can remain in service until south high bridge is built.
Click to expand...
Pretty sure that the existing Portal Bridge will not stay in service after the North Portal Bridge is completed. Once the tracks are cut over to the new high clearance two track bridge, then they can begin to remove the existing Portal swing bridge which is an expensive maintenance nightmare. By removing the old bridge or at a minimum the swing bridge structure, that will eliminate the clearance problem for the waterway and leave space for the South Portal Bridge to go in (if that space is needed).
 
Effectively, two new tunnels would give you three tunnels for a while: The fourth would be out of service for a rebuild for a while...figure 3-4 years of this on the basis of two tunnels needing a rebuild...but you'd get four eventually.

The key is that this would allow a tunnel to be out of service at almost any time for various reasons (anything from maintenance to a broken locomotive); aside from a brief period at the peak of each rush hour, three should suffice. Of course, if you get four tunnels you don't have to keep the train in NYP...depending on your equipment, in the long run you could basically run a train into NYP and then back it straight back out to New Jersey (figure three tracks in, one track out at that point...that's what you get at NYG, at least).
 
With the new North Portal Bridge, what will be the vertical clearance for waterway traffic? Unless the bridge will be "way up there" (like the NJ Turnpike bridges), it looks like part of the plan is a reduction in clearances. If that's true, have the pertinent federal regulations been modified to allow it?

jb
 
John Bobinyec said:
With the new North Portal Bridge, what will be the vertical clearance for waterway traffic? Unless the bridge will be "way up there" (like the NJ Turnpike bridges), it looks like part of the plan is a reduction in clearances. If that's true, have the pertinent federal regulations been modified to allow it?

jb
Click to expand...
Bridge does not have to be way up as high as the Turnpike bridge to meet the regulatory requirements. It has to be just 50' above mean high water mark, and that is the way it is designed. Read the FEIS. Originally the plan was for the north bridge to be 50' clearance fixed structure with 3 tracks and the south bridge to be 45' clearance movable structure with two tracks. A modification was made to make both 50' clearance fixed structures and reduce the number of tracks on the north bridge from 3 to 2, making the two bridges essentially identical, except for location.
 
Back in the day, I worked at West End Tower on the E-L. It's located just east of the Lower Hack drawbridge, which is downstream on the Hackensack river from the Portal Bridge. Occasionally, the Lower Hack (a vertical lift bridge) would have to open up to let a large vessel pass. That bridge has over 100 feet of clearance. So I guess no large vessels go as far upstream as Portal anymore.

jb
 
In the year 2012 Portal had only 28 openings in the entire year, all for barge and tug carrying sewage sludge. Nothing else travels on that river to anywhere inland of Portal anymore. There were talks of simply figuring out another way of moving the sewage sludge and removing the Hackensack from the list of navigable channels above Portal, but the Coast Guard did not want to go that far. All concerned settled for 50' clearance for fixed structures and verified that it is consistent with all laws and regulations currently in force.

I think (but I maybe wrong) that there has always been more traffic through Lower Hack than Portal since as I recall, there is a berth or two for small ships upstream of Lower Hack.

Anyway, this is what Portal North will look like (lloking from the north southwards, you can see the current bridge hidden behind the new bridge):

From%20Turnpike_looking%20SW_2tk-TA_rcl01.JPG


There will be no special speed limit for the new bridge. It will have MAS of 90mph like the rest of the trackage on either side of it.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top