Sandy Related Repairs to Affect LIRR and Amtrak Service for Years

New Yorkers have been trying to adjust to the new normal of MTA repairs to tunnels that were flooded by the storm surge from Superstorm Sandy. It included a 15-month closure of the Montague tunnel that affected many living in Brooklyn. There have been scattered closures to other tunnels and rerouted service elsewhere in the subway system, but now comes word that Amtrak is about to do its own remediation of the East River tunnels.

These tunnels service not only Amtrak, but LIRR and NJ Transit. They connect Penn Station with Long Island through the Sunnyside Yards and Harold Interlocking. Amtrak has to take two of the tunnels out of service for a year each. This will reduce the service capacity by 25% (1 out of four tunnels will be out of service at any time during the duration of the project that is expected to start next year).

The reconstruction will be similar to the work done on the Montague tunnels. It will include rebuilding the bench walls that include cable conduits for signals and power, plus railbed replacement and other work that can't be done while the tunnel is active.

The MTA and Amtrak were able to get service restored, but have been seeing an increased amount of service disruptions due to corrosion of equipment in the affected tunnels. That's why this full rehabilitation must get done.

But the East River tunnels are the easy part.

Amtrak has said that they must do the same with the Hudson River tunnels.

There are only two tunnels under the Hudson, and each are over 100 years old. They are functionally obsolete and need major rehabilitation, but that work can't be done until additional capacity is added.

After Gov. Christie cancelled the fully funded ARC tunnel project, that left a gaping hole in capacity expansion. Amtrak proposed a better project, Gateway, that would directly link in with NY Penn Station and allow through trains to run and high speed rail once service improvements elsewhere in the system are made.

Gateway is more than a decade away from seeing the light of day due to lack of funding. So New Jersey residents will be suffering with service delays for the foreseeable future.

Now some will point to Christie being short sighted in his cancellation of the project, but it was the right thing to do because NJ Transit has never met a capital project it couldn't complete overbudget and years after the scheduled deadlines. Cost overruns were likely to be in the $1-2 billion range, and even the FTA warned about the cost containment.

Gateway allows more capacity to the entire system - NJ Transit, Amtrak, and LIRR. ARC would have had limited capacity improvements for NJ Transit since the New York terminus was just that - a terminus. There was no place to store additional trains for rush hour, reducing actual customer capacity on the trains that would run to New Jersey.

The fact that we need to get additional capacity to allow for both growth in customer demand and to fix existing infrastructure is well established. What's missing is the lack of support in New York and New Jersey to find the funding for this critical work. That falls on both Gov. Christie and New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo. Both have shown indifference to mass transit and infrastructure beyond a few car-centric projects like the new Tappan Zee bridge in New York and the Pulaski Skyway rehabilitation and NJ Turnpike expansion projects in New Jersey.

This has to change in order to improve the economic competitiveness of the region against other world-class cities.

Gateway Project Gets A Boost

The Gateway Tunnel project, which is being sought by Amtrak as a way to vastly improve high speed rail along the Northeast Corridor by doubling capacity into New York Penn Station under the Hudson River as well as provide New Jersey Transit with increased capacity, got a boost when Amtrak and the federal government signed off on a deal to fund the first phase of the project.

The first 800 foot segment through the West Side of Manhattan secures space for the tunnels where they enter Manhattan under the Hudson Yards that are being developed by the Related Companies will get underway this summer.

In a breakthrough promoted by Sen. Chuck Schumer, work is to start this summer on a Washington-funded, 800-foot-long “box tunnel” right under Related’s Hudson Yards site, where construction has begun on a 900-foot office tower that will be home to Coach, Inc.

Schumer hailed the agreement as “a red-letter day for the future of New York-New Jersey mass transit.” He told The Post, “It means the federal government is finally committed for the first time since ARC was killed to building a new tunnel.”

ARC was the four-track project that New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie axed in 2010 over a cost estimated as high as $15 billion, which would have been largely paid for by the Port Authority.

No firm estimate for Amtrak’s proposed two-track Gateway project was immediately available, but the railroad expects the cost to be mostly borne by the feds.

The box tunnel will not be designed to carry trains immediately, but will serve as a shell for the Manhattan end of the Gateway tunnel Amtrak hopes to build later.

The box will hold the space for a rail link between the future Hudson tunnel and existing tracks at Penn Station — and for the proposed Moynihan Station if it’s ever built.

Although Gateway might not be built for years, the box tunnel — to be built astride a Long Island Rail Road right-of-way — must be built immediately because it will be impossible once Related constructs a deck over the rail yard.

Instead, Related will build the box tunnel this year and next simultaneous with construction of the Coach tower and other elements of the 26-acre site, Schumer said.

Amtrak will pay for the project, estimated to cost from $120 million to $150 million, out of funds it will receive through the Federal Transit Administration, a division of the Department of Transportation.

It's still years away before the full project is funded, let alone built, but this segment guarantees that the space is accessible and able to handle the Amtrak-led project.

The Star Ledger Doesn't Get It On ARC/Gateway Tunnel

The Star Ledger's editorial page doesn't get it when it comes to talking about the ARC tunnel and its successor, the Gateway Project.

It laments the billions that Gov. Chris Christie supposedly left on the table by killing the project because overruns would have been a multibillion dollar hit on New Jersey taxpayers.

Plans for a new rail tunnel between New Jersey and Manhattan took a nasty PR hit in 2010, when Gov. Chris Christie pulled the plug on the ARC tunnel, citing billions in potential cost overruns to the state.

That concern was reasonable, if overblown. But he left billions of federal dollars on the table that we might not get back. And his real motive, it seems, was to grab the money set aside by Gov. Jon Corzine, so that he wouldn’t have to raise the gas tax.

The ARC tunnel would have doubled rail capacity — helping commuters get to high-paying Manhattan jobs and increasing property values in New Jersey. It was set for completion in 2018. But Christie didn’t have a Plan B. A tunnel is still needed, and he isn’t committed to the Gateway plan.

Even that 2025 date will cause hardship. NJ Transit says tweaks — adding double-decker buses, encouraging commuters to use ferries and PATH trains — could wring another decade out of the existing transit system. That gets us to 2022.
After that? Doomsday.

Let's just ignore the fact that Gov. Corzine fast-tracked the ARC project to get it underway before he left office, ignoring the fact that NJ Transit has never been able to contain costs on its infrastructure projects.

The federal government understood this as they estimated the overruns to be anywhere from $1 to $5 billion, and the feds further refused to cover any cost overruns on this interstate project. Had the federal government wanted to keep the project going, it would have ponied up a deal to cover cost overruns. It knew, or had reason to know, that the overruns would be more than what NJ Transit was willing to admit, and there was no way that they would do so. Instead, they let Christie kill the project and touch off the ensuing political finger pointing.

Amtrak is better suited to be the lead agency on the Gateway tunnel project because it assures that the rail connections under Manhattan lead to a high speed rail setup, and not just a tunnel ending without any place to store trains when they are done with the run into Manhattan. The ARC project was ill-conceived and the Gateway tunnel is a far more practical approach to getting new capacity.

That doesn't mean that there aren't capacity issues with the existing infrastructure - there most certainly are.

However, NJ Transit has cut its capacity all while raising fares because it lacks the operating funds to run as many trains and there's no timetable on when those cuts would ever be restored (something that they admitted during a recent customer survey blitz in Hoboken). That means that the supposed 1-seat ride into Manhattan wouldn't happen, or it would mean reduced service to Hoboken - far from an ideal situation.

It's also interesting that New York, which stands to benefit greatly from whatever tunnel project is built, hasn't put up funding to cover its end of the deal. That's another reason why Christie killed the ARC project. ARC's funding structure was disproportionately hitting New Jersey residents, while New York gained benefits without contributing its fair share.

The Gateway project is truly an interstate venture, as it produces a major upgrade to the NEC - an interstate corridor and the only real high speed rail option for the country (the Acela service isn't anywhere near European or Japanese standards, but it's the closest thing that the US has in service). Upgrading the stretch in New Jersey through Queens, New York would shave significant time on a Washington DC to Boston run.

It's a project that has to get done, but the Star Ledger also oversells the benefits to New Jersey. Values cannot be expected to rise without additional service by NJ Transit. If the agency can't increase its operating budget to provide more service, it doesn't matter what kind of capacity is available.

Amtrak's Gateway Tunnel Project Moves Forward As Recriminations Continue Over Cancelled ARC Project

My views on the ill-conceived ARC tunnel project are well known (just check out the label linked below). It was a poorly conceived project that would end up saddling New Jersey taxpayers with cost overruns that the Federal Transit Administration conceded could end up being anywhere from $1 to more than $4 billion over the $8.7 billion budget (which itself was higher than initial $5 billion estimated for the job). NJ Transit claims that they could hold costs to $10 billion simply didn't hold water, not when everyone was expecting it to run much higher considering the initial outlays were already running significantly overbudget.

Following Governor Christie's cancellation, Amtrak came forward with their own project - Gateway - which would not only provide high speed rail access through to New York Penn Station, but would give NJ Transit additional slots. The Gateway project is starting to get funds to do initial planning and design studies underway. While NJ Transit wouldn't necessarily get as many slots under the proposal as in ARC, the benefits greatly outweighed the fact that NJ Transit simply couldn't handle the project as NJ Transit's Jim Weinstein noted.

All that hasn't stopped New Jersey Senator Frank Lautenberg from sniping away at Governor Christie for claiming that New Jersey is suffering from the results of that cancellation at hearings relating to Port Authority fare/toll hikes.

It's partisan politics at its core - and that continued yesterday during hearings Lautenberg held in Congress with the Port Authority on the hot seat. It's interesting that during the hearing that Lautenberg's role as a Port Authority trustee came into focus considering that Lautenberg was busy complaining about fare and toll hikes all while Lautenberg was granted an exemption from tolls because he was a former trustee. That's hypocrisy in motion, and Lautenberg's actions and policy decisions helped form the current financial situation that required significant fare hikes (though the bulk of the fare/toll hikes are resulting from the Port Authority's cost overruns on the misbegotten PATH transit hub at the World Trade Center - the fare/toll hike nearly matches dollar for dollar the cost overruns).

The fact remains that Lautenberg could have prevented the cancellation had he done his job and secured the federal government's obligation to cover cost overruns - or to get New York to join in covering the costs for the project. Instead, he has decided to focus his ire on Governor Christie. It's so much easier to focus on partisan politics than doing the hard work of getting everyone who stands to benefit from the project to contribute - even if the contribution is conditional on covering potential cost overruns (that proponents could argue wouldn't materialize, but which were sufficient to scare off the FTA and federal government from covering them - that really speaks volumes about the nature of the cost overruns expected).

At the same time, Manhattan Borough President Scott Stringer has thrown his own ideas on the table for resurrecting a commuter tax on New Jersey residents who commute and work in Manhattan to fund mass transit projects in New York. He went on to complain about Christie's cancellation of the project, but where was Stringer to call on the City to contribute to the ARC project to keep it running? He was silent.

If the project was as vital as Stringer was saying, where was his voice to call on the City to find a way to fund the project.

It's all well and good to say that you've got a vision for New York City mass transit projects and finding a more stable revenue source, but when you've got the opportunity to get a project done that has been needed for years - and need to address the funding, you're missing in action. This too comes down to politics, which in Stringer's case is firing up the base for a potential run for Mayor to succeed Mike Bloomberg.

NJ Transit Executive Director Jim Weinstein Backs Christie Killing ARC Tunnel Project

NJ Transit was the lead agency on the plan to build the ARC Tunnel. Much has been made over the past two days that Gov. Chris Christie killed the plan and a GAO report seems to suggest that Gov. Christie overstated the cost overruns in killing the plan.

The GAO plan acknowledged not only that there would be cost overruns, but that the FTA had estimated cost overruns exceeding those of NJ Transit - to the tune of anywhere from $1 to $5 billion over the $8.7 billion budget.

Media outlets are playing games with the agreed upon budget for the tunnel. It was set at $8.7 billion, and anything over that figure constitutes an overage. That means reports indicating that the plan would cost $9.8 billion was an overage of $1.1 billion.

Late yesterday, Executive Director of NJ Transit, Jim Weinstein, held a presser and announced that Gov. Christie was right to kill the plan. In fact, he reiterated the reasons to do so for the reasons I've set forth over the past two days.

Let me restate that. The head of the agency leading the construction of the ARC tunnel said the governor was right to kill the plan because of the way that cost overruns would inure to New Jersey taxpayers.

The $9.8 billion project was terminated 18 months ago based on a recommendation from a committee headed by Weinstein.

"It was canceled because we didn’t have the money," Weinstein said after NJ Transit’s monthly board meeting in Newark. "It was a bad deal for New Jersey. The governor made the right decision."

The Access to the Region’s Core tunnel, America’s largest public works project, would have linked Secaucus to a new station deep under West 34th Street in Manhattan.

Christie scrapped the tunnel in October 2010 after he said its pricetag had ballooned to between $11 billion and $14 billion.

However, the independent Government Accountability Office report said the range projected by NJ Transit just two months earlier had a high estimate of no more than $10 billion and that the Federal Transit Administration estimated the project would cost between $9.78 billion and $12.43 billion.

Christie also said New Jersey was responsible for 70 percent of the tunnel costs, but Tuesday’s GAO report determined the state was responsible solely for $1.25 billion — or 14.4 percent of what was then an $8.7 billion project.

Critics contended Christie raided the tunnel money to prop up the state’s nearly bankrupt Transportation Trust Fund — which pays for road and bridge repairs and transit projects — and keep his pledge not to increase the state’s relatively low gasoline tax.

But Weinstein said the tunnel was terminated because New Jersey simply could not afford it.
"While there were differences between the FTA and us on the price, the bottom line is that the exposure wasn’t to the FTA, it wasn’t to the federal government, it was to New Jersey," he said. "And Chris Christie refused to expose New Jersey’s taxpayers to that kind of risk."

Note what happened with the Star Ledger report. They were indicating that the cost for the project had already risen to the top end of the NJ Transit overage and they had barely started construction. It would have been impossible to keep costs contained on the rest of the project when barely 10% of the project had gotten underway.

Cost overruns are invariably inevitable on major construction projects because of unforeseen difficulties during construction such as ground conditions that require additional time or equipment to stabilize the ground or higher costs for materials.

That's why the FTA estimates were not only much more plausible, but were more likely to be an accurate reflection of the true cost for the project.

As to the rest of the expenditures being made by the agency, I've previously noted the importance of increasing commuter capacity and the purchase of bilevel cars addresses that since the bilevel cars offer 20% more capacity as compared to the single level cars in service today. Given the constraints across the NJ Transit rail system, those bilevel cars will allow NJ Transit to offer more seats during peak periods without needing to run additional trains. Alternatively, if conditions permit, it can run additional service utilizing the modernized rail stock.

The purchase of diesel-electric locomotives not only should go ahead, but it would help address fuel costs and pollution at terminals such as Hoboken where idling diesel locomotives spew out particulates and other emissions that foul the air with a haze and contribute to poor air quality.

More Fallout From the GAO Report On ARC Tunnel and More Misleading Editorializations

Charles Stiles seems to think that Gov. Chris Christie was concerned more about the politics of looking like a fiscal conservative than doing the right thing in canceling the ARC tunnel project. He claims that the GAO report bolsters claims that Gov. Christie misled the public about who would be responsible for cost overruns.

The GAO report claims that New Jersey would be on the hook for 17% of the overruns, not 70% as Christie had claims, but let's dig a little deeper, shall we?

The possibility that taxpayers would get “stuck” with the bill seems like a long shot. New Jersey’s share of the project didn’t come from the $32 billion state budget, but from Jersey’s allotment of Port Authority project money, a smaller piece from New Jersey Turnpike toll collections, and from federal transportation dollars that flow through NJ Transit. Those sources would have been the likely targets to pay for overruns, not direct state funds financed by taxpayers through income, sales and corporate taxes.

“They definitely left the impression that it wasn’t the Port Authority, it was the state that was paying the cost of the overruns,’’ said Patrick Murray, a Monmouth University pollster and political analyst.

Overall, the GAO report reminds us of Christie’s aggressive salesmanship skills, his ability to stretch and piece together facts to make a compelling argument, and then using his bully pulpit to sell it or browbeat critics who have the temerity to challenge him.

Who exactly is paying for the cost overruns? NJ Transit, which is a state agency and receives state and federal funding, will have to divert its limited budget to cost overruns, forcing both additional fare hikes and state appropriations that will have to come from New Jersey taxpayers.

Port Authority cost overages will have to likewise be split between fare hikes, toll hikes, and that too falls on New Jersey and other taxpayers who utilize Port Authority facilities such as bridges, tunnels, and PATH system. It means that projects that the Port Authority would have otherwise considered for improvements would have been shelved shelved in order to complete the ARC project even as the Port Authority's budget is already stretched as a result of cost overruns on the PATH transit hub at the World Trade Center.

All the cost overruns would have eventually flowed back to taxpayers, despite which agency was allotted the overrun. Directly or indirectly, the cost overruns would have inured to New Jersey taxpayers and the bottom line from the GAO report and the FTA was that NJ Transit could not hold the line on cost overruns.

NJ Transit has repeatedly shown itself incapable of doing so, and it could not be expected to do so with the most ambitious and complicated project the agency has undertaken since it was established. The last time NJ Transit attempted an ambitious project of this sort, the $80 million budget on the Secaucus Transfer turned into a boondoggle of a $450 million underutilized project that would itself be obsolete and largely sidestepped if the ARC tunnel was completed because there would be no need to transfer between the Main/Bergen/Pascack lines and the NEC because everyone could take a one-seat ride to New York Penn Station.

Meanwhile, others are claiming that the ARC tunnel would have created thousands of jobs and improved the local economy. That is true, to a point. Construction jobs would have been created, but let's not forget that it was the federal government that refused to pick up the cost overruns that led Gov. Christie to kill the project. It was the feds that refused to push New York to pick up its share of the costs. The overruns would have hit New Jersey hardest, even though this was an interstate project. Ray LaHood could have picked up the cost overruns and forced NJ Transit into cost containment methodologies that would have protect New Jersey taxpayers. He didn't. Instead, he left the bulk of the overruns to be picked up through debt financing. That's not a solution. That's a punt into the future when he and other federal, state, and local politicians will be in office to deal with the financial mess left by the project.

And that doesn't even touch on just how ill-conceived the project was because of its terminus in New York and the additional costs that would inure to NJ Transit to operate that facility years and decades into the future.

That's where the Gateway Tunnel comes into play. This proposed project is superior to the ARC in every conceivable manner. It increases thru-traffic by doubling the number of trains that would run into New York Penn Station. It provides high speed rail access. It spreads the costs of construction among all the interested parties, including New York and New Jersey and puts Amtrak as the lead agency. It accomplishes everything that ARC did, without the problems associated with the lack of tail tracks and storage facilities.

The only thing that Gateway lacks is the funding mechanisms in place. That's the only thing that ARC had going for it. New Jersey's Gov. Jon Corzine, Senators Frank Lautenberg and Bob Menendez all managed to get the funding in place for the ill-conceived project, and it's Lautenberg who is whining loudest that the project was killed. He's taking it personally, even though it was he and Menendez who should have been burning up the phone lines to see to it that the federal government and New York pick up the overruns instead of saddling New Jersey taxpayers will the bill.

When Gov. Christie killed the ARC, the funding that was in place reverted to their sources, and that includes monies from the New Jersey transportation trust fund and Port Authority. That enables the Port Authority to go ahead with other vital projects, including raising the Bayonne Bridge for super Panamax shipping traffic to keep the New Jersey ports competitive and bridge and tunnel projects like replacing the stringers on the George Washington Bridge and replacing the helix at the Lincoln tunnel. The Transportation Trust Fund monies will be made available to rebuild deficient roads across the state.

It's not like that the money is going to waste - they're being used to fix and replace existing infrastructure, but it means that new sources have to be devoted to building the new Gateway project.

That's where Lautenberg and the other politicians have to get together and put together a fiscally prudent financial package that gets the project done in a timely and efficient manner.

GAO Report Misleads Over Scrapped ARC Tunnel Numbers

The NY Times is reporting that the General Accountability Office is disputing figures put out by Gov. Chris Christie last year when he killed the ARC tunnel project on the basis of cost overruns that all parties conceded were likely to run $1 billion but potentially up to $5 billion more than the cost estimate.

The report claims:

The report by the Government Accountability Office, to be released this week, found that while Mr. Christie said that state transportation officials had revised cost estimates for the tunnel to at least $11 billion and potentially more than $14 billion, the range of estimates had in fact remained unchanged in the two years before he announced in 2010 that he was shutting down the project. And state transportation officials, the report says, had said the cost would be no more than $10 billion.

Mr. Christie also misstated New Jersey’s share of the costs: he said the state would pay 70 percent of the project; the report found that New Jersey was paying 14.4 percent. And while the governor said that an agreement with the federal government would require the state to pay all cost overruns, the report found that there was no final agreement, and that the federal government had made several offers to share those costs.

That is contradicted by the various reports that came out during the timeframe when Christie was seeking to get the federal government to share cost overruns or to have New York pick up a share.

The federal government's plan for picking up cost overruns was to backstop the plan with New Jersey taking on more debt. It offered to pick up a paltry $350 million in overruns, when New Jersey taxpayers would be on the hook for all overruns over that amount with no chance for reimbursement from the feds or New York. If the Obama Administration was truly interested in pursuing this shovel ready project and to increase mass transit capacity, it could have gotten a deal done by taking on the cost overruns. It chose not to do so because it recognized that bottomless pit of overruns that were beyond its own control. NJ Transit could not be trusted in containing costs.

Federal officials had previously acknowledged that NJ Transit, the lead build agency on the ARC project couldn't contain costs and that costs already expended were significantly over budget. Moreover, I've repeatedly pointed out that NJ Transit can't afford to operate any new facilities - it can barely keep existing facilities fully staffed and maintained. A new facility may look great for photo ops for politicians, but the operating budget has been slashed to the point that service has been cut across both bus and rail schedules.

Then, there's the fact that even the most conservative estimates - the $1 billion in overruns, is subject to revision and that the costs would likely exceed that amount.

The fact is that the ARC project was poorly conceived and that the successor tunnel project, Gateway, is a better conceived project that will accomplish far more than the ARC project ever could.

For starters, Amtrak is the lead build agency, which makes sense for an interstate rail project that anticipates increasing high speed rail connectivity as a result of the project. It would expand Amtrak capacity as well as NJ Transit service into Penn Station. High speed trains would have direct access and be able to bypass bottlenecks into New York, resulting in a significant cost and time savings. The ARC project would have done nothing for high speed rail and would have increased NJ Transit access to the new platforms, but would have significantly increased NJ Transit costs because there was no place for trains once they disembarked passengers. There was no way to store trains at the site, and there was no thru-track access to Sunnyside Yards in Queens, where NJ Transit and Amtrak share space with MTA trains into Penn Station. NJ Transit would have been forced to send empty trains back to some undisclosed location in New Jersey until needed - increasing train congestion without paying customers. That's just idiotic.

In fact, the Port Authority has a similar problem with storage of buses at the Port Authority Bus Terminal. It can't keep buses on site or nearby for the evening rush, so they're sent back into New Jersey to await passengers, and that increases costs to the bus companies, including New Jersey. The ARC project would have resulted in the same problem for NJ Transit.

Costly To Build; Costly To Maintain; And No Way To Pay For All of It

I agree with much of what Benjamin Kabab writes on transit issues, and I don't disagree with his posting about how Amtrak lacks the operational funding to operate the Moynihan transit center for Penn Station in New York City. Money is in place to build out the Farley Post Office as a transit center to replace the decrepit Penn Station beneath Madison Square Garden, but it doesn't actually expand transit capabilities.

Moreover, Amtrak lacks the funds to operate out of the Farley Post Office should it be force to pay rent on the space. That's why Amtrak is asking for rent abatements or other reductions to its costs so that it can take advantage of the space.

Kabab closes with the following:

In a time when transportation money is scarce, the available dollars are being burned on things that look good instead of things that deliver better transportation service. If that seems backwards to you, well, that’s because it is, and until things change, we’ll be left with fancier train stations and no better service than what we already have.

The whole mess points out something that I've riffed upon for years. Politicians love to have ribbon cutting and will push for construction of projects but don't follow through with funding maintenance and operations for mass transit, even though those are key to the long term maintenance of infrastructure and mass transit. This is far from a new problem either. It's a problem that goes back decades and we're still dealing with bad decisions.

This problem is severe in New Jersey, where NJ Transit built the Secaucus Transfer and blew apart its budget, and where it had hoped to build the ARC Tunnel, but was thankfully cancelled by Gov. Christie over cost overruns that would have inured to New Jersey taxpayers. NJ Transit lacks the ability to maintain its current level of service, and as part of the latest round of fare hikes, it cut service. If it couldn't maintain the current level of service even with fare hikes, how would it ever have been able to provide service with the ARC tunnel project? It couldn't and it never could explain how it would maintain the space underneath Herald Square that it was proposing, let alone how it would expand rail service via ARC for Northern New Jersey rail riders when it was busy cutting service for those same riders.

At the same time, NJ Transit and Amtrak have let the Portal Bridge project get wrapped into other projects, even though everyone knows it must be replaced. So it continues to decay and act as a bottleneck on the Northeast Corridor because it can't get rebuilt as a separate project despite funding that should be in place for this critical infrastructure.

Elsewhere, the Port Authority is in the midst of building out its PATH transit hub at the World Trade Center and the MTA is building out the Fulton Street Transit Center and both are over budget and overdue on their construction deadlines as originally proposed by several years.

Building projects that would leave or restore monumental hubs for transit are all well and good, but detract from the nuts and bolts of maintaining and expanding critical infrastructure. Spending $3.4 billion for a PATH hub that was originally expected to run $2.2 billion (and which will expand capacity not one whit over the temporary PATH terminals at the WTC that have been rebuilt twice since the 9/11 attacks at an additional cost of over $500 million) makes little sense except that the Port Authority wanted a designer hub and monumental architecture to accompany the station rebuilding. That's money that could have just as well gone to building a replacement for the Goethals Bridge, better access to LaGuardia Airport, or averted fare/toll hikes on the bridges and tolls. As it is, nearly all of the fare/toll hike can be explained by the cost overrun for the PATH terminal - not any of the ongoing capital construction work being carried out by the Port Authority.

The Fulton Street Transit Hub cleans up a mess of multiple transit lines and connects them in a more rational manner. It also connects the N/R and PATH with the numbered lines for the first time in Lower Manhattan, and that's a vast improvement over the warren of tunnels and connectors that was there previously. However, massive cost overruns and delays have pushed back the completion date time and time again. The station headhouse (the part we see above ground) will look spectacular when it's done, but it again doesn't affect the usability of the station. The costs that could have been saved by scaling back the above-ground portion - then selling off air rights, all while cleaning up the mess underground, could have then been used to rehabilitate stations elsewhere in the system, or used to build out another station on the 7 line extension in Hell's Kitchen that was dropped due to cost concerns.

Mayor Bloomberg Pushing Ahead With 7 Line Expansion To Secaucus

While New York is looking at the replacement of the Tappan Zee bridge and Amtrak is contemplating the Gateway tunnel project, New York City's Mayor Mike Bloomberg is forging ahead with a proposal to expand the 7 Line to Secaucus along much of the right of way that would have been utilized by the cancelled ARC tunnel.

In fact, Gov. Chris Christie, who killed the ARC project, appears to be for the project and is letting Bloomberg take the lead.

The cross-Hudson tunnel would connect to the 7 train, which is being extended from Time Square to a new terminal at 11th Avenue and 34th Street. The current project will be completed in 14 months.
The next steps in the process are a full business plan and environmental-impact study, which have not yet been commissioned.
During his weekly radio appearance on WOR Friday, Bloomberg didn’t reveal his enthusiasm for the project, saying only, “If there’s money for it and it makes sense, I’d certainly support it.”
But yesterday, Bloomberg spokeswoman Julie Wood sounded a more optimistic note: “Since we began exploring this idea, we continue to think it has a lot of potential as a way to cost-effectively improve regional transportation and also create thousands of jobs.”
Officials in the Christie administration and the Port Authority are working with City Hall on the No. 7 concept, but insist that the mayor take the lead.
Christie spokesman Michael Drewniak said yesterday, “We have been intrigued all along by this as a potential alternative.”

A year ago, Bloomberg was reluctant to pony up any dough when Christie killed a New York-New Jersey tunnel project called ARC, or Access to the Region’s Core. That project called for a new tunnel for NJ Transit commuter trains to be built from Secaucus to Herald Square.

Christie said ARC’s design was flawed, and its price tag was no longer reasonable after ballooning to a range of $11 billion to $14 billion -- up from $8.7 billion.

Early estimates say a No. 7 tunnel could be built for less than $10 billion, a sum that would be split among the city, the PA and New Jersey. Officials are also planning to hit up the feds for cash.

Extending the No. 7 to New Jersey would quickly become a key talking point in the mayor’s legacy.

The 7 Line is already being extended to 11th Avenue and 34th Street from Times Square. That segment is likely to go into revenue service in less than 2 years. If the 7 Line ran from Secaucus, a New Jersey commuter could transfer at Secaucus (the first stop) and have a one-seat ride into Queens (including Citifield) for Mets games.

Critics may complain that this doesn't provide the kind of one-seat ride that commuter rail across the Hudson would do, but that's rediculous. The NYC MTA subways operate 24/7/365, and that's far better service than NJ Transit provides. It would be a tremendous increase in cross-Hudson passenger capacity; far in excess of what NJ Transit would ever hope to achieve. Further, it would make true use of the Secaucus boondoggle - turning it into a true first-class transit hub ripe for development in New Jersey. It would mean that commuters would no longer have to go into Manhattan to catch the subway; they could do so from Secaucus and not have to hassle with bridge and tunnel tolls and traffic.

It's a win-win for everyone involved, but for the costs. The MTA is still cash-strapped, and they have other projects on their plate that are oft-delayed, including East Side Access and the 2d Avenue Subway. The debt load by the MTA is particularly concerning, especially since the state and city have raided the MTA coffers and/or reduced commitments for mass transit over the years. More and more of the MTA budget is being used for debt service, rather than capital budget or operating budget purposes. That will require an infusion of money to bring the system onto solid fiscal ground.

Details Emerging About Proposed Tappan Zee Bridge Replacement

Since the Federal government pushed to expedite the Tappan Zee bridge replacement, details have been limited as to what the bridge will look like and what kind of accommodations for mass transit will be included.

The Federal Highway Administration (FHA), which is behind the project, set the budget at $5.2 billion and the bridge will actually be two separate spans north of the current span. The termination points on either shore of the Hudson will be the same but the bridge will take a new alignment. Each new span will have four 12-foot wide lanes plus a full sized shoulder for emergency service/breakdowns. The current span lacks a breakdown lane, which means that any disabled vehicles results in massive traffic jams during rush hour or peak travel times.

To arrive at $5.2 billion, mass transit is not being included. That means no rail connections or bus rapid transit, although federal planners say that the bridge design could include structures designed to allow rail or bus rapid transit to be built at a later date.

The existing span is overcrowded and deteriorating after 56 years of use. Earlier this month, the Obama administration helped jump-start replacement plans for the Tappan Zee Bridge, declaring it eligible for fast-tracked federal approvals.

However, one aspect of the proposal will not be going forward, at least not yet. The mass transit aspects of the new bridge were dropped, which helped trim the cost to $5.2 billion from as much as $21 billion. The document only talks of future mass transit.

Westchester County Executive Rob Astorino thinks that leaving mass transit off the current design is short-sighted. "I am troubled by the proposed design's absence of a mass transit component that would help alleviate congestion," he said. "A new bridge — without a mass transit component — would already be at capacity on the day of its opening."

The plan calls for two separate four-lane spans, separated by a 42-foot gap — which is where a future mass transit component could be included. It would be built just north of the current bridge

The scoping document supersedes all the work done to date on a design that would incorporate mass transit in some form in a Rockland-Westchester transit corridor upgrade that would run to nearly $30 billion if fully built. The bridge component including mass transit was likely to run to $10 billion.

The main criticisms levied at the new expedited proposal is that it provides for no mass transit when the bridge is completed and the promise of building mass transit at a later date is cold comfort for those who have to make the trip at present. I am generally in agreement that mass transit needs to be included in some form, but I don't think heavy commuter rail is needed. The MTA might want to expand its service and connect its east of Hudson and West of Hudson service areas across the replacement bridge, but it has had limited ridership on its existing service (and a significant portion of the Port Jervis branch remains largely out of service due to Irene).

Second Avenue Sagas thinks that the state and federal government are making a mistake by killing the mass transit portion along the lines of the ARC tunnel cancellation by Gov. Chris Christie in New Jersey. In fact, they think that it's an even bigger mistake.

In a way, then, this decision is worse than New Jersey Governor Chris Christie’s move to cancel the ARC Tunnel. There, he simply let the status quo stand. Here, Cuomo and the Feds are on the verge of funding something that will move transit-oriented progress backward in time. Even if the state or D.C. eventually found the money to add transit to the middle of the bridge, a wider roadway already in use won’t move the region forward.
It’s not too late for the Tappan Zee. The public comment period on the scoping document will last another three weeks, and already the public is making its voice heard. Yet, government officials say they had no choice. The money, they say, simply wasn’t there. Yet, New York could probably get away with tearing down the Tappan Zee and building nothing if they spent the $5.2 billion on improving rail service. That’s the 800 pound gorilla in the room.

They can't tear down the bridge, which is a critical component of the NYS Thruway and is a vital north/south connector through New York and a major hub for east-west traffic that seeks to avoid congestion through New York City.

Bus rapid transit makes far more sense since it requires less infrastructure to accomplish and could set the stage for rail to supplant rapid transit in the future. I don't think commuter rail component for the corridor is truly viable when better options would be for the expansion of the Spring Valley line into Rockland that take commuters into NY Penn/Hoboken via Secaucus. It's far more cost-effective than trying to build a completely new route with the hope of building the connectors at a later date. The MTA can barely complete repairs to the Port Jervis line, so where is it coming up with the funds to provide service across the bridge?

At the same time, it shows that the federal govenrment is unresponsive to the needs for mass transit and is unwilling to pay for it; it refused to take on the potential and likely cost overruns on the ARC tunnel that New Jersey taxpayers would have had to endure despite this being an interstate project. The federal DOT refused to budge on backstopping New Jersey on the cost overruns, so Christie killed the project before taxpayers took a huge hit; and the replacement Gateway tunnel proposal is better aligned for high speed rail, NJ Transit gets and cost overruns will be backstopped by the feds rather than New Jersey or New York taxpayers solely.

The feds are looking to spread money around as much as possible, and that means that they aren't funding projects that are truly deserving - such as incorporating the mass transit into the bridge design. Yet, there is a solution here within New York's grasp.

It means having the state pony up the difference to make sure that the federal portion gets utilized while incorporating the transit segment. That will take political capital from Albany and Gov. Cuomo doesn't appear willing to put that kind of money aside for mass transit. Neither is Westchester or Rockland capable of putting up money necessary for transit improvements through their respective counties.

Higher tolls along the NYS Thruway were going to be part of the state's bridge replacement plan, but that should still be incorporated in the project to make sure it gets built with a full-incorporated and built transit component.

Gov. Christie Gets His Way On Ending Sad ARC Chapter

When Governor Chris Christie killed the woeful ARC tunnel project that even boosters of mass transit said was a misbegotten plan that wouldn't relieve congestion and would saddle New Jersey taxpayers with anywhere from $1 to $5 billion in cost overruns, backers of the project slammed Christie for killing a project that was in the works for years and that would supposedly cost the state hundreds of millions of dollars in repayments for federal funds already expended.

Well, Gov. Christie won that fight too. Instead of repaying $271 million, New Jersey will be on the hook for $95 million over five years, and the $1 million spent on legal fees to fight the repayment looks like money well spent.

The fact is that the ARC tunnel was a boondoggle that would have made the Secaucus Junction project look like child's play. NJ Transit has repeatedly shown itself incapable of bringing in projects on time and on schedule - especially larger projects like what was being contemplated.

Moreover, there were huge problems with the design. It wasn't that this was a tunnel to Macy's/Herald Square. It was that the tunnel would not relieve congestion like NJ Transit claimed it would; it would not have access to store trains in Sunnyside Yards, meaning that trains coming into the new terminal access would have to be sent back to New Jersey for storage between rush hours. It was a pitiful design considering all the money spent and it wasn't even the best of the alternatives considered.

Proponents of ARC came back and proposed another alternative, Gateway, which would be built under Amtrak auspices, and that proposal has a whole lot more going for it. For starters, it would bring truly high speed rail access to Manhattan, and increase the amount of NJ Transit trains into Manhattan. It just wouldn't bring as many trains as NJ Transit wished for (but which NJ Transit can't afford to run because the agency simply keeps cutting service because it lacks the capacity and operating budget to do so unless it raises fares). In fact, NJ Transit raised fares and cut service in the last round, and all the talk about a one-seat ride into Manhattan from Northern NJ is just that - talk. It wouldn't happen, and if it did, it would eliminate the need for having built Secaucus Transfer the way they did - for an obscene cost and which draws a fraction of the riders that it was originally intended to do. A one-seat ride would eliminate the reason for most of those using the station at all - to transfer between the Northern New Jersey train lines into NY Penn Station.

ARC Tunnel Was No Panacea To Ongoing NJ Transit and Amtrak Delays

This past week has been a horror show for commuters along the Northeast Corridor and other train lines into New York Penn Station. A supposed minor derailment led to massive delays that lasted more than 24 hours and a further minor derailment in Sunnyside Yards led to additional delays.

Then, this morning signal problems led to still more delays.

All these problems have apparently resurrected calls to build new tunnels into Manhattan or otherwise castigate New Jersey Governor Chris Christie for cancelling the ARC Tunnel project.

I doubt any of these people actually reviewed the ARC tunnel project and knew how the tracks and station were configured.

Had they done so, they would have realized that the new tunnel project would have succumbed to exactly the same kinds of delays. In fact, it would have likely resulted in even greater delays.

ARC would have built 2 single track tunnels to a new station underneath Herald Square that had multiple platforms. That means that all the tracks would have had to funnel into one track for each direction. Considering that the derailment was in the same kind of location - a choke point - a derailment within the ARC tunnel project would have resulted in the same kinds of delays.

Actually, the delays could have been far worse. You see, the ARC tunnel station had no space to store additional trains. At New York Penn Station, out-of-service trains are stored in Sunnyside Yards in Queens. The ARC station had no such facilities or access, meaning that a derailment would have blocked multiple track platforms and once any trains sitting in the station could be moved out, there were no additional trains that could be brought in in a timely fashion. It would have increased delays, and meant that commuters would have to shuffle over to New York Penn Station and hope that NJ Transit could have equipment in place to handle the overflow.

As we've seen, NJ Transit has been incapable of handling overflow situations, even where the track capacity is available. If it doesn't have equipment in the right place at the time, you'd still get the massive delays.

In other words, Gov. Christie was correct to kill the ARC tunnel, which was the wrong answer to a big question - how to get more commuter and high speed trains into New York. The Gateway proposal is a better setup as it increases tunnel capacity into New York Penn directly, along with the Sunnyside Yards. It would enable high speed rail for Amtrak, and better handle delays or breakdowns along the NEC.

Gateway is the solution to the question, not ARC.

NJ Transit Unveils New Diesel/Electric Engines

NJ Transit unveiled its new DMU engines last week, which allow the engine to switch from a diesel mode to an electric mode, depending on whether overhead catenary lines are available.

On the Morris-Essex line, which is electrified in some portions and diesel powered on others, a dual-mode train would allow passengers to get on in Hackettstown and travel into New York Penn Station without having to transfer, said Kevin O' Connor, vice-president and general manager for rail operations.

But users of the Pascack Valley and Main and Bergen lines, which are powered by diesel fuel, will still have to make transfers in Secaucus to electric-powered trains because diesel trains cannot go into the tunnels into New York, NJ Transit spokesman Dan Stessel said.

Ironically, it was the Bergen and Passaic commuters that were originally supposed to benefit when NJ Transit in 2008 purchased the first 26 dual-mode locomotives from Canada-based Bombardier Transit Corporation for an estimated $310 million.

The cost includes design, engineering, manufacturing, training and spare parts, with the option to purchase additional locomotives in the future. In July 2010, NJ Transit purchased an additional nine dual-mode locomotives.

They were originally purchased as part of the agency’s $8.7 billion project to build two new rail tunnels — a plan that included building a direct connection from the Bergen, Main and Pascack Valley lines to the Northeast Corridor lines which feed New York’s Penn Station.

The project, known as ARC, for “Access to the Region’s Core,” would have allowed Bergen and Passaic counties’ commuters to board a dual-mode powered train on the Pascack Valley or Main and Bergen lines, switch to electric power near Secaucus, and then travel directly into New York Penn Station without transferring.

That option died last October when Governor Christie killed the ARC project, citing projections that the project could go as much as $5 billion over budget.

Still, NJ Transit moved forward with the purchase of the locomotives. Stessel said NJ Transit did have the right to cancel the order.

“However, we were pretty far along with design and production; the cost to cancel would be significant,” he said.

“We can use them on the lines in Bergen County,” Stessel said. “Those would be in diesel mode. In the future, if there ever was a project that builds a loop or Amtrak builds the ‘Gateway tunnels’ … this gives you maximum flexibility because wherever you are in the NJ Transit system, you can operate.”

Alfred Doblin of NJ Transit complains about the purchase, and specifically questions why NJ Transit made the purchase when the ostensible purpose for the purchase is no longer there. The trains were purchased in anticipation of the ARC tunnel, but the project was killed by Gov. Chris Christie. NJ Transit went ahead with the purchase anyways.

I disagree with Doblin on the new trains' utility. They can be useful to reduce emissions at terminal stations like Hoboken, where the diesel engines could switch to electric mode and use the overhead wire system to reduce emissions around Hoboken. This is particularly useful because the station and the surrounding area can be overcome by a haze of diesel particulates from the idling diesel locomotives. They may also actually save the agency on energy costs by using less diesel fuel over the life of the locomotives.

Doblin further notes that the trains could be used to help provide a one-seat ride sooner rather than later - if NJ Transit goes ahead and builds the loop connector for the North Jersey rail lines (Bergen/Main/Pascack) into Midtown.

That would not only be possible years ahead of any tunnel expansion project in providing the mythical one-seat ride. However, NJ Transit lacks the capital resources to make that happen - or the operating budget to expand service for North Jersey to add one-seat rides to Manhattan from Northern New Jersey. This has been one of my bones of contention with the ARC project and the Gateway projects - NJ Transit doesn't have the operating budgets to expand its schedule along these routes - and has taken to cutting train service on the Bergen/Main line so unless it simply diverts trains from Hoboken to Midtown, this isn't likely to happen anytime soon (assuming that NJ Transit can shoehorn additional trains into Manhattan through the existing tunnels).

Now, what exactly could NJ Transit have done with the $310 million instead of buying these new locomotives? Well, it could have upgraded station parking at locations where demand is greatest (increasing ridership and improving access). It could have increased the number of stations receiving high level platforms to meet ADA requirements and reduce dwell times at stations due to passengers having to literally climb aboard at the low platforms.

Still, all this boils down to a simple question: was this the best use of limited resources?

If NJ Transit can show that the new locomotives will save money in the long term by using electric power instead of idling on diesel power and can reduce delays and improve overall reliability, then the new purchases may well be worth it. However, knowing how NJ Transit has squandered its limited resources in the past, don't count on seeing a cost savings from this purchase.

No Surprise that FTA Wants NJ To Repay ARC Tunnel Expenditures

It comes as no surprise that the Federal Transit Administration wants to recoup nearly $270 million that New Jersey spent before Gov. Chris Christie killed the ARC tunnel project because it would have exposed the state to billions of dollars in cost overruns.

The same agency that determines that New Jersey was required to pay in the first place is the same agency that determined that their original decision was correct. That's how these things work, but it doesn't mean the fight over the money is over by any stretch.

It ignores that Christie will still end up saving New Jersey taxpayers billions in dollars in exposure to cost overruns - overruns that the federal government refused to cover, even as it acknowledged the potential overruns could exceed their estimates and that NJ Transit was incapable of providing cost containment.

It is also instructive to look across the Hudson River to the Port Authority's PATH Transit hub and see what happens when cost overruns hit hard. That project was initially expected to cost $2.2 billion, and efforts were made to try and keep the cost from going above $2.8 billion. We're now at $3.4 billion and it is expected to eventually cost $3.8 billion. Those are costs that will be passed on to Port Authority customers in one form or another - whether it's higher rents for tenants, higher fares on PATH, or higher tolls at Port Authority bridges and tunnels.

New Jersey needs infrastructure improvements, but it cannot and should not break its bank to do so - and interstate projects should be completed with interstate assistance. That was sorely lacking in the ARC tunnel project, where New York was not putting up any funds - and the feds refused to backstop the cost overruns.

The successor project, the Gateway tunnel has a better arrangement for funding, and New Jersey taxpayers will not be on the hook for the overruns.

So, in the end, New Jersey taxpayers benefit from the killing of the ARC tunnel, Amtrak benefits with a tunnel project that does what the ARC was originally intended to do - expand Amtrak and NJ Transit access to Manhattan along with high speed rail improvements, and provide better access and coordination between the relevant agencies that are to carry out the construction of the project.

It's also instructive that the New Jersey congressional delegation isn't exactly pulling out the stops to get the FTA to back off the repayment - they'd rather see Gov. Christie embarrassed by all this rather than fighting to protect NJ taxpayers from a project that was ill-conceived by Gov. Corzine and which would have saddled NJ Transit with a boondoggle to rival that of the Secaucus Transfer (all while NJ Transit lacks an operating budget to run increased service to boot).

Deadline Day For Florida's High Speed Rail Project

Today's the deadline day to get Florida's high speed rail (HSR) project back on track. Backers of the project say that any cost overruns would be borne by the private sector, eliminating the key concern for GOP Gov. Rick Scott, who also claims that the money would be better used upgrading ports to handle larger ships once the Panama Canal upgrade is completed:

"We have addressed all of the governor's concerns," said Tampa Mayor Pam Iorio. "We have structured this so that if there were cost overruns the private sector would take care if it."

Iorio, along with the mayors of Orlando, Lakeland and Miami, signed an agreement that calls for local authorities to take over the project with the help of the private sector. They presented their plan to Scott Wednesday.

"If there are operational short falls -- private sector. This is a true public-private partnership," Iorio said. "This is what governors all across the country want and we had structured this in such a way that there would not be risk to the Florida taxpayers."

Scott's office did not respond to CNN's request for a comment on the agreement.

Scott has said that he believes there would be a greater long-term benefit to the state if the money were used for other infrastructure projects.

"I want the money for our ports," he said, noting the expansion project now underway at the Panama Canal and the growth of economies in Central and South America. "Put that money into the Florida ports. That's where we want that money spent."

But LaHood said the funds were specifically allocated for high-speed rail and can't be switched to other projects.

Proponents of high-speed rail believe Florida is the ideal location for an inter-city system. The Tampa to Orlando project would be the first leg in a line that advocates hope to extend to Miami and eventually Jacksonville in the north of the state.

If that's the case, then let this project go ahead and see if Florida can get HSR up and running. It would be a tremendous test case to see if the country can get anything approaching HSR.

Meanwhile, funding to get key improvements on Amtrak's Northeast Corridor (NEC) are still lagging - particularly the Portal Bridge project that should be separate from all the discussions about the Gateway Tunnel/ARC project.

The Portal Bridge is a project everyone agrees upon, yet no one in the NJ delegation seems to be able to secure funding - and that includes Sen. Frank Lautenberg whose name adorns the Secaucus Transfer for all of his support of mass transit. Time for him to put up and shut about about his ongoing feuds with Gov. Chris Christie and secure the funding for this project that has been on the drawing boards for years and which all the relevant parties - from Amtrak to NJ Transit to the state and federal authorities - recognize as critical to improving the on-time performance of the NEC and increasing speed on the corridor to reduce travel time between Washington DC and Boston.

UPDATE:
Benjamin Kabab at Second Avenue Sagas takes another crack at trying to figure out how to get a cross-Hudson River tunnel done. His takeaway:

The overarching issue with ARC, Gateway of the 7 line extension is one of local government and expenditures. Who stands to benefit most from the new tunnel — New York businesses who can bring more commuters and tourists into the city or New Jersey residents who will find their commutes quicker and less stressful? Should New Jersey pay for transportation improvements that only incidentally end up in New York or should New York add more to the pot for a tunnel that adds to its economic allure?

The answer to those question is, obviously enough, probably both. To realize a new cross-Hudson rail tunnel, New York will have to add more to the pot, and they likely should. In an age of stretched state budgets though, it’s tough to see where the money will come from, and we may be in for a long wait until the next tunnel breaks ground.

Actually, he leaves out the point that a cross-Hudson tunnel is an interstate venture and Amtrak improvements would vastly improve interstate travel along the NEC. Expanding slots for NJ Transit helps the daily commuters that not only commute into Manhattan for the day, but the reverse commuters who go elsewhere. A 7 line expansion would greatly improve regional transit capabilities since a New Jersey resident would have a 1-seat ride from Secaucus all the way to Flushing, and the related access to more subway lines. It's a project worthy of further study and should be up for federal funding just as surely as the other rail projects.

Christie was right to demand that New York get in the game and pony up more funds to make the tunnel work - the ARC project could have been salvaged had New York come up with the funding to cover overruns, which was a major concern that New Jersey taxpayers would be hit with billions in overruns.

Meanwhile, talk about increasing the New Jersey gas tax to fund mass transit keep ignoring that the state's taxpayers are the most heavily burdened in the nation based on their overall tax burden and that increasing the gas tax would be a further regressive hit on all taxpayers.

Yet, at some point, that gas tax will be raised to cover transportation projects that are absolutely needed and vital to New Jersey infrastructure - both mass transit and highways. There are too many projects that are needed, and which lack the needed funds to happen anytime soon.

UPDATE:
The Florida Supreme Court ruled that Gov. Scott has the authority to cancel the project. With this project all but killed, I can only hope that New Jersey and New York take advantage of the $2.4 billion to get the Portal Bridge project underway, and to get a head start on the Gateway/ARC tunnel project.

High Speed Rail Projects Go Off the Rails

Florida is the latest state to reject federal funds for high speed rail projects since the November elections swept new new administrations in state capitals from Ohio and New Jersey to Florida.

Gov. Rick Scott rejected the $2 billion in federal funds for a high speed rail line between Tampa and Orlando that would follow I-4 and wouldn't require major eminent domain condemnations because the land is already federally owned because he was concerned that Florida would be left holding the bag on cost overruns and then future operating costs for the rail line.

Mr. Scott is the third newly elected Republican governor to turn down a portion of the administration’s national rail system, joining John Kasich of Ohio and Scott Walker of Wisconsin. Each of the three replaced governors who had lobbied for the funds.

Mr. Scott’s move comes a little more than a week after Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. called for spending $53 billion on passenger trains and high-speed rail projects over the next six years as part of the administration’s goal of making high-speed rail accessible to 80 percent of Americans within 25 years.

The 85-mile Tampa-to-Orlando segment, on which trains would travel as fast as 170 miles per hour, was to be the showpiece of that initiative — in part because the government already owned much of the right-of-way along the route, which would allow it to be built relatively quickly, and because the fast-moving train would contrast with slow-moving traffic along Interstate 4.

But critics — including the Republican majority in the House of Representatives, which has questioned the White House’s rail strategy — say the need to link Tampa and Orlando pales in comparison with the need for high-speed rail serving places that have received relatively little in federal economic stimulus funds for transportation projects, including the busy Northeast rail corridor between Washington and Boston.

Mr. Scott said at a news conference in Tallahassee on Wednesday that cost overruns related to the Tampa-to-Orlando line could leave Florida taxpayers stuck with a $3 billion tab. Further, he said that if the state deemed the project too costly after having started construction, it would be required to return the $2.4 billion to the federal government. He also said he believed that estimates of riders and revenue for the rail line were too optimistic, and that state taxpayers would have been left to pay for subsidies to keep the line running because it would be unable to pay for itself.

Mr. Scott said that although one study had projected that three million people would use the Tampa-to-Orlando line annually, only 3.2 million people rode Amtrak’s Acela trains in the Northeast Corridor in 2010, even though the population centers along the Acela route have as many as eight times the population of the area that would be served by the proposed Florida line.

The latter argument may be is a sound one, and brings into question overly rosy revenue/ridership projections to sustain a project even though there isn't nearly the population density to support the ridership projections.

However, that isn't the worst of this situation.

The Florida rejection of high speed rail funds again sets out the failure of the US to present a coherent and fiscally sustainable national high speed rail network and passenger rail system that provides high speed rail on designated corridors that actually make sense.

Forcing states to cover cost overruns makes little sense and doesn't actually force Amtrak or the other agencies involved in the projects take steps to reduce costs and hold down potential overruns. It simply shifts the fiscal burden.

In New Jersey, Gov. Christie killed the ARC project because New Jersey would be saddled with the cost overruns, which New Jersey taxpayers simply can't afford. The federal government refused to step in to cover the overruns or even to get New York to pony up potential funds to cover those potential overruns.

That ARC project has now been superseded with an even more expensive Gateway tunnel project under Amtrak auspices, but there isn't a funding mechanism in place to see it happen.

Now that Florida has relinquished its $2 billion in funding, along with Ohio, those funds should go to build out the Gateway project, or at a minimum, use the necessary funds to build the Portal Bridge replacement, which is a major bottleneck on the Northeast Corridor. That project should go ahead without further delay regardless of whatever stance is taken about the Hudson River tunnel projects and their relative merits.

About The Administration's High Speed Rail Bet

This is far from the first time that a president has offered up promises of a high speed rail network. It's not the first time that President Barack Obama or Vice President Joe Biden have promoted a high speed rail infrastructure package since they took office.

Their latest proposal to spend $53 billion over six years is another symptom of the dysfunctional nature of passenger rail in the US.

The problem is that the money isn't being focused on where it would do the most good or where high speed rail is viable. It's going to where it would garner sufficient support to secure passage.

The Northeast Corridor (NEC) is the starting and end point for high speed rail in the US. It's the only rail in the country that approaches anything resembling high speed rail, and even then, it's sorely limited by decrepit infrastructure and bottlenecks at key locations. Moreover, it wouldn't even pass for high speed rail in other parts of the world, including Japan, Europe, or China.

To bring the NEC up to European or Japanese standards, it would take a massive infusion of funding well beyond the $53 billion proposed for the entire national rail infrastructure.

Why?

Because Amtrak shares rail with commuter trains and freight lines that require much slower service. To build a true high speed rail network, it would require acquiring and building new dedicated high speed rail lines, which are prohibitively expensive in the densely populated NEC.

That's why proposals for high speed rail connecting Las Vegas with coastal California or a central California high speed rail project or Carolina or Florida projects are getting funding - they're cheaper to acquire the necessary rights of way, but they lack the population density to make those projects truly viable.

Yet, the critical infrastructure bottlenecks along the NEC wont get sufficient funding for their replacement. The proposals essentially ignore the NEC needs, even though it's the only Amtrak route that consistently has passenger support and shows signs of being self-supporting.

The Portal Bridge project is as shovel-ready as it gets, and yet it's limping along on the funding trail, and its fate has been linked to the ARC/Gateway tunnel project, even though building a replacement span would allow a 50% increase in speed through the Meadowlands, from 60mph to 90mph, all while improving reliability and eliminating a bottleneck that causes incessant rail congestion, delays, and reliability concerns. That project, by itself is expected to cost nearly $2 billion.

The ARC/Gateway tunnel project would run another $13.5 billion (if not more).

There are similar problems with congestion on the NEC around Baltimore, and additional line issues in Connecticut and outside Boston. Eliminating those bottlenecks and improving infrastructure could significantly cut travel time and make passenger rail an attractive alternative to commuter flights that already clog congested airports that are struggling at or above their rated capacities.

The work on the NEC would solve several problems at once. It would reduce road congestion along the I95 corridor and it would reduce airport congestion that leads to nationwide delays because NYC area airports are struggling at the maximum capacity, often with commuter flights along the NEC.

So, why has the Administration forsaken the NEC? Moreover, it isn't the first time that the Administration has talked about high speed rail and then refused to find the money to make it happen. The Administration refused to come forward with guarantees that the federal government would cover cost overruns on the ARC tunnel, which would allow for increased Amtrak capacity on the NEC. Those cost overruns led to Gov. Christie to kill the $8.7 billion ARC tunnel and then New Jersey Senators Lautenberg and Menendez came out this week with a proposal to spend $13.5 billion to build an Amtrak-led rail tunnel project to Penn Station (that apparently includes the Portal Bridge funding). The federal government continues to send mixed signals, and the Congressional delegations from the NEC need to step forward to demand that the funds go to these critical projects. Their failure to secure funding means that the NEC will limp along - and with it - the nation's best hopes for a truly viable high speed rail network.

Digesting the Politics of the ARC Tunnel Successor's

After Gov. Chris Christie killed the ARC tunnel project that would have put New Jersey taxpayers on the hook for anywhere from $1 to $5 billion in cost overruns and built a tunnel project that wouldn't accomplish anything near as much as its boosters claimed, Democrats Frank Lautenberg and Bob Menendez are hoping to build a tunnel project that would accomplish most everything that the ARC tunnel proponents hoped to achieve, but it will cost.

It's going to cost a minimum of $10 billion and most sources indicate that the cost will be at least $13.5 billion. That's due in part to the alignment of the tunnel to bring trains into a newly expanded cavern adjacent to Penn Station. The tunnel would have access to Penn Station and lead to high speed rail capabilities through New York City. The price tag also apparently includes the $1.8-$1.9 billion Portal Bridge project, which shouldn't have been included in the overall price tag and should have been budgeted separately since that replacement bridge needs to go ahead regardless of what decision is made on the tunnel projects.

Lautenberg and Menendez are pushing an Amtrak solution because it would attempt to cut Christie out of the decision-making process, even though Christie was absolutely right to demand that the federal government and New York pick up additional costs on this interstate project.

NJ Transit and the Port Authority will again be asked to kick in financing to bring the project to fruition, and Gov. Christie can still affect the outcome through his control over those agencies.

Still, no one is asking why this project, which is similar to one of the alternatives under the ARC tunnel design studies is costing so much more than those earliest projections. Lautenberg and Menendez have effective replaced a costly boondoggle with an even more expensive project and still haven't managed to get New York's congressional delegation on board to support jointly requesting and financing the project. That's a huge failure on their part since New York will garner a tremendous benefit while New Jersey continues picking up the costs from the project.

A new tunnel is absolutely essential to the long term growth in the region and rebuilding critical infrastructure. However, the atrocious state budgets on both sides of the Hudson River means that neither New Jersey nor New York can truly afford to put up the funds - either alone or together without significant federal aid. That means getting Congress and the President on board with this project.

You can bet that fiscal hawks in Congress will swarm over the fact that this new iteration of the tunnel plan is even more costly than the canceled ARC tunnel, and they're going to focus on the price tag, rather than the differences in the project that would bring significantly more benefits to mass transit and intercity transportation. Add to the fact that Republicans in Congress dislike Amtrak, and the odds that this project gets off the ground are slim even with the President's backing.

UPDATE:
The Star Ledger gives a cautious thumb's up for the Gateway tunnel proposal, but not without first lambasting Christie for killing the ARC tunnel and using monies that were originally devoted to the ARC tunnel to plug the Transportation Trust Fund shortfall.

I'm not surprised by that reading, but the paper ignores that the New Jersey Senators failed to find the funding to make the ARC tunnel work when Christie noted that NJ taxpayers would be on the hook for all the overruns.

The paper claims that the new proposal will result in fewer trains heading into Manhattan than the ARC tunnel, but that's not entirely accurate either. It would result in more Amtrak high speed trains going into Manhattan along with a smaller contingent of NJ Transit trains than the ARC tunnel provided. The capacity is actually likely to be higher than the ARC tunnel and will link to Sunnyside Yards for storage.

Another consideration is that the Amtrak head, Anthony Coscia, is the former head of the Port Authority, so he knows the political machinations at work in both states.

The paramount question, however, is how and when Amtrak and its partners can obtain the necessary funding to make the project a reality. The reports already indicate that the Gateway tunnel can use the ARC tunnel entrance in New Jersey, so there's more than enough evidence that New Jersey wont have to repay the $271 million for canceling the ARC tunnel, when the engineering and construction work undertaken will be utilized in the new project.

Another question is why everyone continues conflating the Portal Bridge project with the tunnel proposals. They can, and should be, independent projects and while both need to be undertaken, the Portal Bridge project doesn't have the rancorous funding problems that the tunnel has.

Sens. Lautenberg and Menendez Attempt To Resuscitate Trans-Hudson Tunnel Project

After Gov. Chris Christie killed the ARC tunnel project because New Jersey taxpayers would be on the hook for all cost overruns, and it was already estimated to go $1 billion over the $8.7 billion budget, Sen. Frank Lautenberg was among Christie's harshest critics. He complained about how commuters would be harmed by the loss of a key project.

Never mind that Christie was absolutely right to protect taxpayers from a project that would benefit New Jersey and New York, but put the entire risk of overruns on New Jersey while New York contributed no funds to the project. Even federal efforts to keep the project on track amounted to nothing more than additional loan guarantees to cover a portion of cost overruns.

The project, which was originally proposed as a $5 billion project, had already ballooned to $8.7 billion, and the most conservative estimate for overruns was $1 billion beyond that amount. Other estimates could have pushed the New Jersey share to $5 billion.

So, now Lautenberg and Menendez are back touting that they've got another plan to build a trans-Hudson river rail tunnel.

This time, they've got Amtrak on board with the proposal, and it would lead to an expanded Penn Station, rather than a dead-ended annex under Herald Square.

The cost of the project is still huge, and they expectation is that the tunnel will run $10 billion or more, but the issue will be who will cover what costs. With Amtrak involved this time, there will be additional cost sharing, and this proposal shows that the NJ Transit claim that the new tunnels could not be built to Penn Station were nothing but bureaucratic domain protection. It wasn't based on anything but NJ Transit trying to expand its own infrastructure at tremendous cost even though the agency's operating budget is incapable of handling the existing traffic.

The Gateway tunnel would allow 13 additional NJ Transit trains per hour — from 20 to 33 — and eight more Amtrak trains. The ARC project would have allowed 25 extra NJ Transit trains per hour.

"I’m in my late 60s, and I was just hoping and praying I’d see the day when there would be another Hudson River tunnel," New Jersey transportation expert Martin E. Robins said. "My hopes have been rekindled."

Many hurdles will have to be overcome, including finding federal and local funding for a project that could cost upwards of $10 billion. But Amtrak officials say they believe the tunnel fits in well with President Obama’s vision for infrastructure improvements in America and high-speed rail in the Northeast Corridor from Boston to Washington, D.C.
gateway-tunnel-project.jpgView full size

The hope is to have the Gateway tunnel built in a decade.

News of the announcement was first reported today on NJ.com, The Star-Ledger’s real-time news and information site.

Amtrak this week is expected to ask the federal government to fund a $50 million engineering study on the Gateway plan. The project also could benefit from the engineering work done previously for ARC.

Amtrak President and Chief Executive Officer Joseph Boardman, Amtrak board member Anthony Coscia, Lautenberg and Menendez are expected to present the alternative tunnel plans during a news conference at 11 a.m. Monday at the Hilton Newark Penn Station.

Amtrak had intended to build another tunnel to improve capacity in the nation’s most congested rail corridor, but not until 2040. The killing of the ARC tunnel expedited the Gateway tunnel plans.

Citing projected cost overruns that would leave New Jersey taxpayers on the hook, Christie pulled the plug on the nation’s largest public works project on Oct. 27.

Lautenberg immediately began working with Amtrak to revive the trans-Hudson rail tunnel project, which he says will benefit New Jersey’s commuters by giving them transfer-free train rides to prosperous jobs in Manhattan, increase property values along the rail line and put contractors to work.

"New Jersey is facing a transportation crisis," he said. "Our commuters are fed up with train delays that make them late to work and endless traffic that traps them on our highways when they want to be home with their families. When the ARC tunnel was canceled, it was clear to me that we couldn’t just throw up our hands and wait years to find another solution."

New Jersey always rises above challenges, Menendez said in a statement tonight. "While some choose to do nothing and accept delays, the people of New Jersey cannot, will not, and must not wait. We are moving full steam ahead with this strong investment in New Jersey and the region. We are on a path to create good-paying jobs and move people and goods more quickly."

Some transportation officials think the Gateway plan makes more sense than expanding the No. 7 subway line from New York City to Secaucus Junction, an idea floated over the last three months by the staff of New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg. Under Amtrak’s best-case scenario, the No. 7 line would also be extended to Penn Station, between 31st and 33rd streets, two blocks west of the Empire State Building.

Along with the Gateway project would be a plan to raise and replace the decrepit, century-old train Portal Bridge between Kearny and Secaucus over the Hackensack River. The condition of the bridge limits train speeds and the span is so low that it often has to be opened to allow commercial boats to pass under, causing more delays.

When the ARC project was being considered in the 1990s, Amtrak was in a fight for survival with the federal government and couldn’t assist New Jersey. The Gateway tunnel represents a historic change of direction for Amtrak, Robins said.

The $1.3 billion Portal Bridge project should be going ahead regardless of what happens with the tunnel project, because it is one of the worst bottlenecks on the entire Northeast Corridor, and that work isn't contingent on what happens with the tunnel project.

NJ Transit's dealing with an aging infrastructure and an operating budget that can't cover the existing schedule. I have serious doubts over its scheduling claims from North Jersey when there have been a reduction in train service, and debt service on the Secaucus Transfer continues to be a drain all while the proposed tunnel would include a Transfer bypass allowing trains to travel directly into Manhattan from North Jersey. That would severely limit the ridership that would utilize the Transfer unless the existing parking facilities are greatly expanded.

What remains to be seen is who will be paying for what and what the New Jersey share will be. Moreover, the key questions will be whether New York actually ponies up any funds to cover construction costs, and who will bear the risk of cost overruns.

This new project is already starting at a much higher price point, and it's more than double the original ARC tunnel cost projection.

UPDATE:
I wonder if the costs for the new tunnel project are including the Portal Bridge costs, which at last check was a totally separate and distinct project that was scheduled to cost $1.344 billion. Construction is scheduled to begin next year and run through 2017 in building two new bridges and five tracks to handle traffic on the Northeast Corridor as well as reconfigure about 10 miles of track between Newark and Secaucus Transfer to handle high speed rail (80-90 mph, from the current 60 mph limitations). That work has to be done regardless of what happens with the tunnel project, and monies were already set aside by Amtrak, the ARRA of 2009, and other funding sources to get the project underway.

It's notable that there isn't any mention of where the money is coming from under the new proposal, and it's further notable that neither of New York's senators, including Chuck Schumer were around to agree on a joint New York/New Jersey plan to fund the project. That would once again suggest that New York is not going to be putting up monies to get the project done.

There's a further question of how exactly this new proposal (which actually is a step back to the original intent of the ARC tunnel when first proposed) will take the sails out of the study by New York City to extend the 7 Line to Secaucus.

UPDATE:
Reuters is reporting that the cost for the project would be $13.5 billion. That would put it significantly above the costs for the canceled ARC tunnel, and more than double the original cost estimate for the ARC tunnel when first proposed despite being little different from the original design and scope. Even if the $13.5 billion includes the $1.344 billion for the Portal Bridge, we're talking about the upper range from the cost estimates that led Christie to kill the project.

As a reminded, when the ARC tunnel was first proposed years ago, it was seen as a $5 billion project. By the time Christie killed it last year, it was up to $8.7 billion but widely expected to go at least $1 to $5 billion over that budget.

Now, we're looking at a $13.5 billion to achieve the same goal as the original budget and it's riding on the hope that President Obama's Amtrak capital initiatives get adopted.

The one question that seems to be missing from the reporting is how and why this latest attempt to build new capacity is costing so much more than the original project? Those are the unanswered questions that reporters have yet to ask in any critical fashion.

UPDATE:
Digging through the Amtrak Northeast Corridor master plan, Amtrak and NJ Transit believe that as of May 2010 that the cost of the Portal Bridge will cost $1.8 billion (page 29) or $1.9 billion (page 101 overall/page 28 of Part II), which is significantly above the $1.344 billion as per the Portal Bridge site information. There's a further backlog of $214 million to rehabilitate the existing two Hudson River tunnels and rehabilitation of the overhead catenary system and replacing electrical substations would cost another $350 million. That's despite a $453 million infusion of federal stimulus monies. Overall, Amtrak says that they're short $5.2 billion to bring the system into a state of good repair.

New York To Study Extending 7 Line To Secaucus

After Gov. Chris Christie killed the ARC tunnel project and riled the likes of Sen. Chuck Schumer of New York, one of the alternative proposals was that the MTA should extend the 7 line to Secaucus.

Well, the MTA and New York City are going to conduct a study whether it makes sense to do so.

The city hired engineering firm Parsons Brinckerhoff this week to analyze how many riders the line could serve, how they would connect to the NJTransit train hub in Secaucus and - most importantly - how much it would cost.

Their study is due in three months, which Deputy Mayor Robert Steel said will help show government and transportation agencies in the region whether to go forward.

"All of [them] are focused on trying to understand, is this a good alternative?" Steel said. "It's a matter of months, not years."

Other officials in New York and New Jersey are looking at the idea, but haven't put up any cash to make it happen.

It could give New Jersey residents their first direct train line to Grand Central Terminal, as well as to see the Mets or the U.S. Open in Queens.

"City Hall really does want to explore it," said one person involved in the multiagency talks.

"They have an incredibly reluctant MTA partner, and an incredibly wary New Jersey state government," the source cautioned. "[MTA Chairman] Jay Walder doesn't have enough money to finish what they're already doing."

The city is paying $2.1 billion to extend the 7 train to 34th St. and 11th Ave., where it will serve a massive office and housing development planned for the West Side rail yards.

Schumer, along with New Jersey's Sen. Lautenberg have been hypercritical of Christie's shutdown of the ARC tunnel over expected cost overruns that would likely leave New Jersey on the hook for an excess of $1 billion (some estimates put it as high as $5 billion).

Schumer and Lautenberg were unable to find additional funding to cover potential overruns, and the federal DOT could only provide additional loans to cover potential overruns. All they could do was snipe at Christie looking at the state's financial health and seeing that the state could not afford to cover cost overruns that were beyond its control. No one else was willing to step in to cover the overruns, which should be a warning sign that Christie was right to reconsider the project since if the costs could be contained, it should have been easy to convince other entities (the federal government, or New York) to cover potential cost overruns directly.

It's inexcusable on their part to not find the funding or ways to enable New York to pony up the overruns. New York state finances are in shambles as I've repeatedly warned and argued, but a new rail connection was critical to reducing congestion and improving service along the Northeast Corridor. Further, the new tunnels could support additional traffic that could be generated by a link to Stewart Airport in Newburgh. The Port Authority bought the airport in an attempt to reduce congestion at the other area airports but hasn't found a way to integrate it into the long term airport strategy. It needs a high speed rail link to make that a credible option, but no one has the money to make it happen.

That's where the federal stimulus funds should have come into play - using the federal government's funding to build major infrastructure that would help bring relief to the millions of commuters and travelers who rely on an aged and decrepit system.

The 7 line extension would be less costly than the ARC tunnel project, and would bring a more direct routing for commuters looking to get to the East Side of Manhattan and the rest of the City and it's an option worth seriously considering, even if a portion of the ill-conceived Xanadu looks like it will collapse under the strain of the latest snowstorm.

Moreover, the 7 line extension would likely be able to use much of the real estate procured for the ARC tunnel and the engineering expenditures and other work on the tunnel before it was cancelled. That will further reduce the New Jersey tab that it would owe to the federal government for canceling the project.