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.
Showing posts with label Gateway tunnel. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Gateway tunnel. Show all posts
Thursday, October 02, 2014
Tuesday, February 26, 2013
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.
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.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.
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.
Tuesday, July 10, 2012
Amtrak's $151 Billion Northeast Corridor Wishlist, and California's HSR Boondoggle
Let the numbers sink in.
$151 billion.
220 mph high speed rail between Washington DC and Boston, enabling 37 minute trips between Philadelphia and New York City, and 94 minute trips between Boston and New York or New York and Washington DC.
That was the promise once envisioned for the Northeast Corridor (NEC) when Amtrak settled for the Acela service that ended up being less than half that speed. Those kinds of numbers would get me out of my car and head down to DC or Baltimore to catch ballgames on the weekend and would make business travel even more convenient for those all along the NEC.
Now, Amtrak is resurrecting the true high speed rail vision for the Northeast Corridor. It has the potential to be a game changer considering that those trips would be a fraction of the time spent flying between those destinations (not counting the travel time from the airport to the city center or the security checks).
Something has to give on the costs involved. There's no reason why Amtrak's costs to upgrade are anything approaching $335 million a mile for the NEC between Boston and DC. It costs France's SCNF far less to build a mile of new rail, but that has to be tempered by the fact that the Amtrak right of way is seriously constrained because of urban development throughout the NEC and acquisition costs would be far higher in the US. Still, there are ways that Amtrak can and should bring the costs to upgrade the system down.
Still, $151 billion as spread over 30 years is something approaching $5 billion a year - a major infusion of money but not nearly as eye popping. This is investment in infrastructure and it would mean tens of thousands of construction jobs up and down the East Coast. It would mean steelmakers and fabricators would be supplying new rail and equipment. Technology companies would be providing equipment to make the system more reliable. Engineering firms would be generating jobs for those to design and build the network.
In other words, while Amtrak would be spending the money, it would be private enterprises that are generating the jobs and revenues that would have long term benefits to the local and national economy. It would also build a robust backup to the creaking air travel system.
It's also worth noting that California is about ready to delve into a high speed boondoggle of its own where it's proposing to build a high speed rail network not to connect San Francisco with San Diego via Los Angeles, but rather, inland where there's a fraction of the population to support such a network. It was a political decision so that the money could be obtained, not because it made economic sense.
The California HSR project route was decided not because of practicality or revenue, but by which parts of the state would be able to get it to run through their communities, even though it would mean tearing up farmland and requiring condemnation of land (eminent domain). Instead of using a routing that required fewer eminent domain proceedings and a more direct route, they chose the one that had the political backing. So, California will find itself with a HSR that few will end up using, cost more than it should, and everyone will point to it as a reason not to do HSR in the US.
The HSR setup in France and Japan is similar to an airport hub and spoke approach. You build the hubs in the major urban centers, and connect those with HSR. As the system grows, you can expand the HSR to secondary satellite communities and then with urban rail networks. This way, you maximize population density that would take advantage of the HSR, you can achieve travel times that can not only meet but beat air travel (especially considering the time to pass through security, to say nothing of having to travel to an airport that is frequently on the outskirts of the city, not the city center as most rail facilities are located).
Amtrak's Northeast corridor is the opposite approach - it's already a profitable route for Amtrak and if Amtrak could get the system up to speeds approaching HSR found in Europe or Asia, it could not only win commuters away from the airlines, but it would reduce congestion in the air- improving the travel for fliers too since commuter flights between Boston, DC, and New York are a significant cause for delays throughout the US airspace because of congestion at the New York area airports. It's all the more reason to throw support behind the Amtrak plan. It has a path to profitability and generating economic development to say nothing of jobs.
UPDATE:
The Amtrak documentation can be found here. It's a manageable 42 page document, complete with charts, graphs, and how the new right of way would be organized. It would essentially create a 4-track express/local track configuration with the express track capable of handling the HSR.
Capital investment would be phased in - with the section around New York City being key to the overall strategy. That means getting the Gateway/Portal Bridge/Harold Interlocking done is critical to the overall strategy. It also means a significant chunk of the $151 billion is going to the New York metro area for design and construction. Considering that the Portal Bridge is estimated to run $1.3-1.8 billion, while the Gateway Tunnel is another $13-15 billion ($14.7 billion as per page 24). Page 31 addresses the segment costs. Interestingly, rolling stock is the lowest cost of the entire package - $5.2 billion, which makes sense since the infrastructure construction costs are the lion's share of the project.
It also addresses expanding existing capacity - including acquiring 40 additional Acela express passenger cars to lengthen train-sets by 2015 (expanding capacity by 40%). By 2020, Amtrak hopes to acquire new high-speed train sets (doubling service from NYC to DC) as well as complete the Portal Bridge and Harold Interlocking/Sunnyside Yards projects as well as upgrading the power systems through New Jersey.
By 2025, it hopes to get Gateway Tunnel done and to finally get more regularly scheduled Acela trips between NYC and DC and Boston. It's only by 2040 that the full HSR would be realized.
The document also provides new renderings for the Moynihan Station, which would expand Penn Station under the Farley Post Office. It wouldn't expand capacity, but rather rejigger space under the post office and MSG.
What's interesting is that the HSR plan for the NEC would include an entirely new alignment inland from New Rochelle, New York through Providence, Rhode Island. The alignment wouldn't change south of New York City. A newly configured Shoreline Express would cover those cities covered by the current NY to Boston alignment, with regional service supplementing service.
The Amtrak vision also indicates that there would be express and super express service - direct NYC to DC and NYC to DC routings - with no intermediate stops. Other trains would stop at designated city stops.
The Amtrak plans for rolling stock - the locomotives and train sets, would depend greatly on whether the FRA would allow an off-the-shelf solution or needing to build a system from the ground up. Frankly, it would be far cheaper to go with an off-the-shelf system, but that would mean likely buying from a foreign source (think France, Japan, or other European or Asian providers).
$151 billion.
220 mph high speed rail between Washington DC and Boston, enabling 37 minute trips between Philadelphia and New York City, and 94 minute trips between Boston and New York or New York and Washington DC.
That was the promise once envisioned for the Northeast Corridor (NEC) when Amtrak settled for the Acela service that ended up being less than half that speed. Those kinds of numbers would get me out of my car and head down to DC or Baltimore to catch ballgames on the weekend and would make business travel even more convenient for those all along the NEC.
Now, Amtrak is resurrecting the true high speed rail vision for the Northeast Corridor. It has the potential to be a game changer considering that those trips would be a fraction of the time spent flying between those destinations (not counting the travel time from the airport to the city center or the security checks).
Current travel times from New York to Philadelphia on Amtrak's sleek Acela trains are 1 hour, 15 minutes. Travel between New York and Washington currently takes 2 hours, 45 minutes and New York to Boston takes 3 hours, 41 minutes, according to Amtrak's website.There's more than a little to be critical of when discussing Amtrak's record on high speed rail and upgrading its infrastructure. It has consistently lagged behind on its maintenance and upgrades of infrastructure, and while it has moved ahead with bridge replacement projects elsewhere on the NEC, particularly in Connecticut, the three major bottlenecks on the system are in New Jersey - the Portal Bridge, the tunnels into Manhattan, and the Harold Interlocking, which is Sunnyside Queens where LIRR, NJ Transit, and Amtrak trains have to pass through in a coordinated ballet to keep everything resembling a schedule. Those projects would apparently be included in the overall $151 billion approach.
"The NEC (Northeast Corridor) region is America's economic powerhouse and is facing a severe crisis with an aging and congested multi-model transportation network that routinely operates at or near capacity in key segments," Amtrak's President Joe Boardman said in a statement.
The traditionally cash-starved railroad is funded by Congress, where Republicans have been reluctant to finance prior plans to develop high-speed rail in the United States.
Amtrak spokesman Steve Kulm acknowledged a lack of federal support but said there were other funding options.
"You have to have a plan and if you have a plan, the money will follow," Kulm said.
Among the sources was $450 million in funding turned down by the state of Florida for a high-speed rail proposal there that will instead be used for rail improvements in New Jersey.
Starting sometime in the 2020s, the hyper speedy "NextGen" trains will replace Acela trains, which were first introduced in 2000, Kulm said.
The newest Amtrak improvement plan also calls for direct links to airports and listed Newark, Philadelphia, Baltimore and White Plains, New York, as possible candidates for Amtrak service. Some are already served by local commuter rail lines, such as Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority, which connects to the Philadelphia International Airport.
"The vision we will shape with the Northeastern states, Amtrak and all of our stakeholders will outlast the vagaries of politics, budgets and critics," said Joseph Szabo, administrator of the Federal Railroad Administration, which oversees Amtrak, of the 2012 report.
Something has to give on the costs involved. There's no reason why Amtrak's costs to upgrade are anything approaching $335 million a mile for the NEC between Boston and DC. It costs France's SCNF far less to build a mile of new rail, but that has to be tempered by the fact that the Amtrak right of way is seriously constrained because of urban development throughout the NEC and acquisition costs would be far higher in the US. Still, there are ways that Amtrak can and should bring the costs to upgrade the system down.
Still, $151 billion as spread over 30 years is something approaching $5 billion a year - a major infusion of money but not nearly as eye popping. This is investment in infrastructure and it would mean tens of thousands of construction jobs up and down the East Coast. It would mean steelmakers and fabricators would be supplying new rail and equipment. Technology companies would be providing equipment to make the system more reliable. Engineering firms would be generating jobs for those to design and build the network.
In other words, while Amtrak would be spending the money, it would be private enterprises that are generating the jobs and revenues that would have long term benefits to the local and national economy. It would also build a robust backup to the creaking air travel system.
It's also worth noting that California is about ready to delve into a high speed boondoggle of its own where it's proposing to build a high speed rail network not to connect San Francisco with San Diego via Los Angeles, but rather, inland where there's a fraction of the population to support such a network. It was a political decision so that the money could be obtained, not because it made economic sense.
The California HSR project route was decided not because of practicality or revenue, but by which parts of the state would be able to get it to run through their communities, even though it would mean tearing up farmland and requiring condemnation of land (eminent domain). Instead of using a routing that required fewer eminent domain proceedings and a more direct route, they chose the one that had the political backing. So, California will find itself with a HSR that few will end up using, cost more than it should, and everyone will point to it as a reason not to do HSR in the US.
The HSR setup in France and Japan is similar to an airport hub and spoke approach. You build the hubs in the major urban centers, and connect those with HSR. As the system grows, you can expand the HSR to secondary satellite communities and then with urban rail networks. This way, you maximize population density that would take advantage of the HSR, you can achieve travel times that can not only meet but beat air travel (especially considering the time to pass through security, to say nothing of having to travel to an airport that is frequently on the outskirts of the city, not the city center as most rail facilities are located).
Amtrak's Northeast corridor is the opposite approach - it's already a profitable route for Amtrak and if Amtrak could get the system up to speeds approaching HSR found in Europe or Asia, it could not only win commuters away from the airlines, but it would reduce congestion in the air- improving the travel for fliers too since commuter flights between Boston, DC, and New York are a significant cause for delays throughout the US airspace because of congestion at the New York area airports. It's all the more reason to throw support behind the Amtrak plan. It has a path to profitability and generating economic development to say nothing of jobs.
UPDATE:
The Amtrak documentation can be found here. It's a manageable 42 page document, complete with charts, graphs, and how the new right of way would be organized. It would essentially create a 4-track express/local track configuration with the express track capable of handling the HSR.
Capital investment would be phased in - with the section around New York City being key to the overall strategy. That means getting the Gateway/Portal Bridge/Harold Interlocking done is critical to the overall strategy. It also means a significant chunk of the $151 billion is going to the New York metro area for design and construction. Considering that the Portal Bridge is estimated to run $1.3-1.8 billion, while the Gateway Tunnel is another $13-15 billion ($14.7 billion as per page 24). Page 31 addresses the segment costs. Interestingly, rolling stock is the lowest cost of the entire package - $5.2 billion, which makes sense since the infrastructure construction costs are the lion's share of the project.
It also addresses expanding existing capacity - including acquiring 40 additional Acela express passenger cars to lengthen train-sets by 2015 (expanding capacity by 40%). By 2020, Amtrak hopes to acquire new high-speed train sets (doubling service from NYC to DC) as well as complete the Portal Bridge and Harold Interlocking/Sunnyside Yards projects as well as upgrading the power systems through New Jersey.
By 2025, it hopes to get Gateway Tunnel done and to finally get more regularly scheduled Acela trips between NYC and DC and Boston. It's only by 2040 that the full HSR would be realized.
The document also provides new renderings for the Moynihan Station, which would expand Penn Station under the Farley Post Office. It wouldn't expand capacity, but rather rejigger space under the post office and MSG.
What's interesting is that the HSR plan for the NEC would include an entirely new alignment inland from New Rochelle, New York through Providence, Rhode Island. The alignment wouldn't change south of New York City. A newly configured Shoreline Express would cover those cities covered by the current NY to Boston alignment, with regional service supplementing service.
The Amtrak vision also indicates that there would be express and super express service - direct NYC to DC and NYC to DC routings - with no intermediate stops. Other trains would stop at designated city stops.
The Amtrak plans for rolling stock - the locomotives and train sets, would depend greatly on whether the FRA would allow an off-the-shelf solution or needing to build a system from the ground up. Frankly, it would be far cheaper to go with an off-the-shelf system, but that would mean likely buying from a foreign source (think France, Japan, or other European or Asian providers).
Friday, July 06, 2012
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.
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.
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.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.
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.
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.
Friday, April 20, 2012
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.
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.
Tuesday, April 10, 2012
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 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.
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.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.
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.
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.
Wednesday, October 26, 2011
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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.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.
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 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.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.
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.
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.
Monday, October 03, 2011
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.
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.
Friday, August 12, 2011
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.
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.
Monday, May 16, 2011
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.
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.
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.
Monday, May 09, 2011
Transportation Department Announces $2+ Billion In Rail Projects
Once Florida's Governor Rick Scott canceled the high speed rail project, other states scrambled to lay claim for projects in their state.
Today, Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood announced who would receive the funds.
The big winner?
For a change, it was the Northeast Corridor (NEC), including the segment in New Jersey. The NEC will be getting significant upgrades for its overhead catenary power lines from Pennsylvania through New Brunswick, New Jersey and the Portal Bridge will be getting funding:
Regardless of what happens with the tunnel project, everyone agrees that the Portal Bridge must be replaced. It is one of the critical bottlenecks on the NEC. Improving the power infrastructure along the NEC is a major concern to eliminate ongoing issues particularly in the summer when the overhead wires frequently lose power or come down in storms, get entangled in equipment, or otherwise cause delays and congestion throughout the NEC. The overhead power lines are obsolete in many locations and Amtrak has been slowly upgrading those power lines but hasn't had the funds available to complete the job along the entire NEC.
The Portal Bridge is another piece that needs replacement and upgrade, and it should not be tied to other projects that are wound up in political squabbles.
Here's the rundown of all the projects affecting the NEC:
Today, Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood announced who would receive the funds.
The big winner?
For a change, it was the Northeast Corridor (NEC), including the segment in New Jersey. The NEC will be getting significant upgrades for its overhead catenary power lines from Pennsylvania through New Brunswick, New Jersey and the Portal Bridge will be getting funding:
In what the president of Amtrak termed the first step toward getting the Gateway commuter train tunnel from Secaucus to Manhattan, U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood today announced the Northeast Corridor rail line south of New Brunswick is getting $450 million for improvements that will allow speeds up to 160 mph.The Portal Bridge doesn't exactly receive funding under the proposals and it's again being tied with the more politically suspect Gateway Tunnel - which is the successor project to the canceled ARC Tunnel.
Amtrak president Joe Boardman said the money – freed up after Florida rejected federal high-speed rail funds – will increase reliability on the Northeast Corridor, America’s busiest rail corridor.
He said replacing the Depression Era overhead catenary wires and upgrading the power are key components -- along with replacing the century-old Portal Bridge over the Hackensack River – in getting the Gateway Tunnel under the Hudson River.
"This is part of the Gateway project,” Boardman said from New York Penn Station, where the Gateway Tunnel would connect. “This is a critical hurdle.”
Replacing catenary wires and improving the electrification for Amtrak trains between New Brunswick and Morrisville, Pa., will improve reliability for the corridor between Boston and Washington, D.C., officials said.
Sagging or frayed wires are a frequent bane of Northeast Corridor travelers in New Jersey, causing delays and making a difficult commute harder.
Other Northeast Corridor improvements announced today were $22 million toward replacement of a century-old bridge in Maryland and $295 million to alleviate delays for trains coming in and out of Manhattan with new routes that allow Amtrak trains to bypass a busy passenger rail junction in Queens.
Regardless of what happens with the tunnel project, everyone agrees that the Portal Bridge must be replaced. It is one of the critical bottlenecks on the NEC. Improving the power infrastructure along the NEC is a major concern to eliminate ongoing issues particularly in the summer when the overhead wires frequently lose power or come down in storms, get entangled in equipment, or otherwise cause delays and congestion throughout the NEC. The overhead power lines are obsolete in many locations and Amtrak has been slowly upgrading those power lines but hasn't had the funds available to complete the job along the entire NEC.
The Portal Bridge is another piece that needs replacement and upgrade, and it should not be tied to other projects that are wound up in political squabbles.
Here's the rundown of all the projects affecting the NEC:
NORTHEAST CORRIDOR (NEC)The Harold Interlocking is another source of delays, and a bypass would further increase speed on the NEC between New York and Boston.
Amtrak – NEC Power, Signal, Track, Catenary Improvements – $450 million to boost capacity, reliability, and speed in one of the most heavily-traveled sections of the Northeast Corridor, creating a 24-mile segment of track capable of supporting train speeds up to 160-mph.
Maryland – NEC Bridge Replacement – $22 million for engineering and environmental work to replace the century-old Susquehanna River Bridge, which currently causes frequent delays for commuters due to the high volume of critical maintenance.
New York – NEC Harold Interlocking Amtrak Bypass Routes – $295 million to alleviate major delays for trains coming in and out of Manhattan with new routes that allow Amtrak trains to bypass the busiest passenger rail junction in the nation.
Rhode Island – NEC Kingston Track, Platform Improvements – $25 million for design and construction of an additional 1.5 miles of third track in Kingston, RI, so high-speed trains operating at speeds up to 150-mph can pass trains on a high-volume section of the Northeast Corridor.
Rhode Island – NEC Providence Station Improvements – $3 million for preliminary engineering and environmental work to renovate the Providence Station. These upgrades will enhance the passenger experience, keep the station in good working order and improve transit and pedestrian connectivity.
Tuesday, May 03, 2011
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).
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).
Thursday, April 07, 2011
Major Delays Once Again Hit Northeast Corridor; Highlighting Need For Additional Capacity
The moment an Amtrak train became disabled entering one of the two Hudson River tunnels entering Manhattan, the morning rush hour was a lost cause for anyone attempting to commute into Manhattan or even to Hoboken as a result of delays that mounted throughout the NJ Transit and Amtrak operations.
Those delays on the Northeast Corridor were 30-60 minutes (at a minimum), and because NJ Transit was diverting Midtown Direct trains to Hoboken, those who normally commute to Lower Manhattan or Hoboken/Jersey City were also hit with delays due to congestion.
On that latter point, I have to wonder why NJ Transit isn't better prepared to deal with the extra trains. After all, prior to the opening of Secaucus Transfer, Midtown Direct trains used to route into Hoboken and Hoboken could handle the traffic. Now, it appears that the institutional memory of how to deal with the extra trains is gone. It's something that needs to be fixed - and quickly, given that relief on replacing the Portal Bridge and construction of new Amtrak tunnels is still years off.
Speaking of the Portal Bridge project and the Gateway tunnel project, Amtrak has submitted a proposal to claim more than $1 billion to go to replacing the Portal Bridge and begin preliminary study work on the Gateway tunnel project from the more than $2 billion that Florida Gov. Rick Scott rejected when he killed Florida's high speed rail project.
The Gateway project would not increase NJ Transit slots nearly as much as the ARC project would, but that too isn't nearly as bad as it appears considering that NJ Transit simply lacks the operational funds to run more trains as it claims from Northern New Jersey into Manhattan. It can barely afford to operate the number of trains it has at present.
The Portal Bridge replacement should go ahead regardless of what happens elsewhere with the high speed rail money, precisely because it has been in the works for years, and now that the financing is available, it should be carried out immediately to reduce the chances of further overruns and cost increases.
Those delays on the Northeast Corridor were 30-60 minutes (at a minimum), and because NJ Transit was diverting Midtown Direct trains to Hoboken, those who normally commute to Lower Manhattan or Hoboken/Jersey City were also hit with delays due to congestion.
On that latter point, I have to wonder why NJ Transit isn't better prepared to deal with the extra trains. After all, prior to the opening of Secaucus Transfer, Midtown Direct trains used to route into Hoboken and Hoboken could handle the traffic. Now, it appears that the institutional memory of how to deal with the extra trains is gone. It's something that needs to be fixed - and quickly, given that relief on replacing the Portal Bridge and construction of new Amtrak tunnels is still years off.
Speaking of the Portal Bridge project and the Gateway tunnel project, Amtrak has submitted a proposal to claim more than $1 billion to go to replacing the Portal Bridge and begin preliminary study work on the Gateway tunnel project from the more than $2 billion that Florida Gov. Rick Scott rejected when he killed Florida's high speed rail project.
The high-speed rail funds became controversial in some states after the 2010 elections, and Florida’s governor recently scuttled a project that was to receive $2.4 billion.The Record's report ignores that Christie's central argument to killing the ARC project was that the state would have been on the hook for all cost overruns relating to the ARC project, and that would have been at least $1 billion. Taxpayers could have been exposed to up to $5 billion in overruns, and attempts to get New York or the federal government to cover those overruns came to naught. The fact that the federal government refused to cover the overruns showed just how flawed the financing of the project was, especially since it was an interstate project that would benefit Amtrak, New Jersey and New York and improve reliability on the nation's only "high speed" rail corridor - the NEC - by increasing the slots available to Amtrak and NJ Transit.
Under Amtrak’s proposal, New Jersey would have to contribute up to $150 million and Amtrak $570 million toward replacing the Portal Bridge, which connects Kearny and Secaucus and has been in use since 1910.
The movable bridge, which swings open to allow ships to pass, would be replaced with a high-level fixed bridge, removing a bottleneck often blamed for delays on Amtrak and NJ Transit.
Governor Christie approved the state’s commitment in an April 1 letter to DOT Secretary Raymond LaHood.
“The bridge is beyond its useful life, which is reflected in high maintenance costs and frequent failures, and resulting train delays,” Christie said in his letter. “Moreover, this project, which can commence almost immediately, will create approximately 6,000 much-needed jobs.”
Christie, a Republican, had dismissed arguments about job creation benefits last year when he halted construction on a new $8.7 billion NJ Transit tunnel project that his predecessor, Democrat Jon Corzine had begun in 2009.
That project, known as Access to the Region’s Core, had a $2.9 billion federal funding commitment, which New Jersey gave up. The state has also been ordered by LaHood’s department to repay $271 million the federal government had already spent on the project, but New Jersey has hired a Washington law firm to contest the charge.
Amtrak’s application to DOT also seeks $188 million for preliminary engineering and environmental analysis on two new high-speed tunnels, and $50 million for similar work on a new Penn Station South with additional tracks and platforms. This preliminary work is slated to be finished in June 2015.
The Gateway project would not increase NJ Transit slots nearly as much as the ARC project would, but that too isn't nearly as bad as it appears considering that NJ Transit simply lacks the operational funds to run more trains as it claims from Northern New Jersey into Manhattan. It can barely afford to operate the number of trains it has at present.
The Portal Bridge replacement should go ahead regardless of what happens elsewhere with the high speed rail money, precisely because it has been in the works for years, and now that the financing is available, it should be carried out immediately to reduce the chances of further overruns and cost increases.
Friday, March 04, 2011
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:
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:
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.
"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."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.
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.
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?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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)