PA kicks in more $$ for T.H.E. Tunnel; Refines fare hike proposal
November 15th 2007 11:04 am
PA giving $1B more to rail tunnel
TOM DAVIS
Bergen RecordThe Port Authority plans to contribute an additional $1 billion toward the construction of a second commuter rail tunnel to Manhattan, an agency spokesman said Wednesday.
Best quotes:
“They’re milking the motorists to pay for the lion’s share of the capital program that helps non-motorists,” said Steve Carrellas, coordinator of the National Motorists Association’s New Jersey chapter.
Democratic Sen. Bob Menendez sent a letter to the agency, asking them to scuttle the PATH fare hike, citing higher energy costs:
“We face unprecedented oil prices, global warming, increasing traffic congestion and some of the worst commutes in the nation,” he wrote. “Now is the time to encourage people to take the train, and a price hike sends the wrong message.”
Joe Versaggi responded on 15 Nov 2007 at 11:26 am #
Goes to show everyone expects a very small FTA contribution to the flawed Tunnel project.
Abolishing EZ Pass discounts during PEAK times (which is not just conventioal rush hours) is also stupid. There is now no incentive for daily commuters to use EZ Pass while most New Jersey tag providers nail you an additional dollar anyway.
Eine Kleine Multi-level responded on 23 Nov 2007 at 3:50 am #
Using online inflation calculators, I determined that it cost the PRR about $2.6 billion in 2007 dollars to build NY Penn Station, including all tunnels (that’s based on a quoted $114 million from a decently-sourced Wikipedia article).
What is the cost up to for THIS Tunnel (pardon the pun) plus associated station (is the Secaucus Loop included in total costs?), between $7.5 billion and $10 billion? Choosing the lower figure, the cost would be $334 million in 1910 dollars, and the higher figure works out to about $446 million.
Therefore, producing this most definitely scaled-down addition to New York Penn, under 34th Street, using modern technology (which would include the vaunted TBMs and computers), is going to cost over three to four times as much as it cost the Pennsylvania Railroad to build the entire Penn Station, including North River and East River tunnels. And that’s in spite of the technological limits of the PRR’s day.
Bob Scheurle responded on 23 Nov 2007 at 6:40 am #
The entire Alternative G, including the connection to Grand Central, was supposed to cost $3 billion in 2000 dollars. That’s $3.6 billion in 2007 dollars. So we’re going to be paying twice as much and getting an awful lot less for it.
Eine Kleine Multi-level responded on 23 Nov 2007 at 5:51 pm #
Looking on the Wayback Machine, I noticed that the MTA’s logo disappeared from Access to the Region’s Core’s website around Fall 2003 and never returned. Was this indicative of the MTA’s withdrawal of financial support for that project?
Also, I’ve read on message boards where people that purport to work for Metro-North claim that the Park Avenue Tunnels have too low of clearance to permit the installation of high-voltage AC overhead wires. (Actually, the claim was that GCT could not handle overhead wires either, which makes me question the veracity of the assertions I have read; the upper level appears to have more than sufficient clearance, and the overhead clearance of the lower level is copious.)
Since Alternative G involved trains from New Jersey exiting via the Park Avenue Tunnels, and it appears that NJT would be less than willing to rebuild their Arrows (in general, but especially have add-ons that would give them the same capabilities as Budd Cosmopolitans and the coming Bombardier M8), and that Metro-North may be reticent to reactivating Grand Central Terminal’s overhead third-rail to accommodate restored electric locomotive operation, I wonder as to the complete facts thereof?
Eine Kleine Multi-level responded on 04 Dec 2007 at 3:36 am #
This seems to answer my own question. Arched section (Park Avenue Tunnel). Flat roof section of Park Avenue underpass. Upper level platforms at GCT. All appear to show plenty of room for catenary wire installation. Of course, photos aren’t necessarily representative of real-world dimensions one hundred percent. Clarification?
Bob Scheurle responded on 04 Dec 2007 at 8:11 am #
The clearance problem is in the 63rd Street tunnel. You’d need some sort of low-profile locomotive to operate in the tunnel.
Eine Kleine Multi-level responded on 07 Dec 2007 at 1:23 am #
Wouldn’t the 63rd Street Tunnel be for the Long Island RR and for subway trains alone, though? Or is the 63rd Street Tunnel creating a clearance problem for the Park Avenue Tunnels in any way? If I’m not mistaken, Alternative G was to have trains exit via the Park Avenue Tunnel; and as things appear, catenary wire would not be a problem, as already mentioned.
Bob Scheurle responded on 07 Dec 2007 at 11:06 am #
I may be getting my ARC alternatives mixed up. There was an alternative that had NJT trains running through the 63rd St tunnel to Sunnyside Yard.