Portal Bridge DEIS Short Overview and Critique
February 19th 2008 11:19 am
I had an opportunity to read the Portal Bridge DEIS over the weekend. Leaving aside the broader issues of THE Tunnel and its relation to this project etc. and focusing on just this document, here are a few observations and comments. You can view the relevant document at Portal Bridge Alternatives in DEIS. See Figure 3-5 which appears between page 3-9 and page 3-10 of this document for a schematic of the track layout before THE Tunnel related infrastructure is built.
The document is well written and contains an enormous amount of detail. One gathers that in summary the project consists of replacing the current Portal Bridge with two bridges - a Northern Bridge North of the current Portal Bridge that will carry three tracks (tracks 2, 3, 4 the NEC or NYPS tracks) and a Southern Bridge which could be either at the location of the current Portal Bridge or a little South of it, carrying two tracks (tracks 5 and 6, the PSNYE or 34th St station tracks).
The Northern Bridge will be a fixed structure with 50 feet clearance below it. The Southern Bridge will be a lift bridge with 40 feet clearance below it in the lowered position and 50 feet in the raised position. Study suggests that the 40 feet clearance will be enough to limit the need for opening it to less than once a month on an average.
The easiest way to picture this is, after THE Tunnel is built, two tracks coming off of M&E (tracks 5 and 6) will run over the Southern Bridge and then through Secaucus Station and into the new tunnels. The NEC tracks (2 and 3) plus an additional track from Swift interlocking to Portal interlocking (track 4) will run over the Northern Bridge and then through a slightly modified layout at Portal and pretty much the current layout through Secaucus and into the current tunnels.
Track 5 will cross over from the North side of NEC to the South side between Swift and Portal Bridges using either an overpass or an underpass across tracks 2, 3, and 4 of NEC. There will be a crossover from track 6 to 5 and 5 to 2 at Portal.
At a newly configured Swift interlocking there will be crossovers from track 5 to 4 (M&E to NEC Westbound), track 6 to 1 (M&E to NEC Eastbound), track 1 to 6 (NEC to NYPSE/34th St Eastbound with a holding space called track 8). There is no grade separated connection for NYPSE to NEC Westbound which is disturbing. This implies that for example, a Raritan Valley dual mode train originating in NYPSE/34th St will not be able to get onto the NEC track 3 without conflicting with Eastbound traffic on track 6 and 2.
Initially, before THE Tunnel and related expansion of Secaucus is completed, tracks 5 and 6 will end in stub ends at about where Lack interlocking is and any trains using the Southern Bridge will have to get to it over the track 5 to 2 crossover at Portal. Expansion of Secaucus related to THE Tunnel will be to the South of the current station with the addition of two tracks 5 and 6 and either an island platform between them or two side platforms, not clear from the DEIS since this is way outside the scope of the DEIS. Also indicated on the plans is the fact that the Loop at Secaucus will consist of three tracks one connecting into the current stub end where one often sees a protect engine at Secaucus, and the remaining two connecting into tracks 5 and 6 with grade separation thus avoiding all conflicts.
Two tracks from the new Kearny Yard located roughly where the Kopper Coke facility is located now, will connect into track 6 between Swift and the Portal Southern Bridge. There is no grade separated connection to track 5 at this point implying that there will be conflicts between Eastbound trains to NYPSE and Westbound moves out of NYPSE to the yard on track 6. This may not be as big an issue if most Westbound moves to the yard use the Secaucus Loop tracks to get off of track 5 and then enter the yard from the South end near MMC.
All in all the setup proposed appears workable given the context within which it is designed. It is not clear why the seemingly unnecessary major conflict between Westbound NEC trains originating in NYPSE and Eastbound trains on both NEC and NYPSE lines has not been addressed by adding a simple crossover from track 5 to track 4 or 3 at Swift. Additionally for a short distance between Swift and Hudson NEC will still have only two tracks. It seems that adding an extension of track 1 all the way to Swift over a new overpass across the M&E alignment and connecting that into 6, instead of the track 8 connection now proposed would remove that extra point of constriction in the NEC, but it is possible that it is difficult to justify the cost of building an additional overpass at that point.
Bob Scheurle responded on 20 Feb 2008 at 8:46 pm #
Any particular reason they can’t get an extra 10 feet at the southern bridge so it could also be a fixed bridge?
Jishnu Mukerji responded on 21 Feb 2008 at 3:44 pm #
I believe it has to do with the fact that the yard leads from Kearny Yard come in from below and join tracks 5 and 6 which go over the southern bridge which leaves insufficient room for it to climb all the way to 50 feet while staying within the ruling gradient limits. Another factor would be if track 5 crosses tracks 2, 3, and 4 through an underpass. This would of course be a non-issue if it crosses using an overpass, but the latter forces tracks 2, 3 and 4 to dip a little and then rise on a sharper gradient to make the 50 foot northern bridge. This is as I understand it from reading the material and studying the detaild plan and elevation diagrams in the document.
cfmrail responded on 03 Mar 2008 at 8:58 pm #
In thinking about the THE as it has evolved and knowing that many want a direct access to the Grand Central area, I looked at the tunnel as having two alternatives both of which involve through running to either the Long Island and or Metro-North.
1. Connect the THE to Penn Station with all platforms upgraded to have multiple exit points and then connect tracks 1 - 4 to tunnels headed to a combined NJT / LIRR / Metro-north New Haven Region station at Kips Bay where all except Amtrak trains would stop. All trains would be through routed and equipment would be modified to do this. One possible modification would be to add 2 pantograph equipped trailers with motors and third rail shoes to enough M-7 sets to allow through running to the Long Island. While I know the allergy to longer sets this is considered an acceptable number of cars in Europe. This plan would also allow the elimination of the West Side Long Island Rail Road yard.
2. Connect the THE to either Metro-North or the new Long Island tunnel and make the West Side station a 2 track 3 platform station with no connections to the existing Penn Station. Indeed if the real estate interests will pay for it, possible there would be 2 stations, 8th - 10th avenue and 5th - 7th Avenue. If the choice is the LIRR, modify that station to also be a 2 track 3 platform station. The major question is can the tunnel make the turn and go north to the LIRR. Note that 34th street may not be the best cross street under this scenario. If the connection is to the LIRR east side access, the clearances of the East River tunnel may make the design of the pantograph car interesting but it shouldn’t be impossible. This plan would mimic the way the Munich S-Bahn is run and I believe they get at least 30 trains an hour each way. The savings in switches and tunnels because of the elimination of the double levels should reduce the costs as should the elimination of the connection to the existing Penn Station. Similarly, if the tie to the existing GCT is broken, other savings might be available on the East Side access as well. Also there may be some savings by making the dimensions of the new set of tunnels match the LIRR East Side Access tunnels and continuing 3rd rail to west of the Hudson River.
If either plan must have a Bergen County lines connection, it should be either 3rd rail or overhead electrification and not the ludicrous loop proposed but rather a direct one even if it bypasses Secaucus Junction. My preference would be no connection but that may be politically impossible.
Once the design of the new tunnel line is firm, then the Portal Bridge replacement plan can be optimized for it and in fact the design for both projects should be coordinated such that effectively the projects are merged. Whatever design is chosen should make certain that Secaucus Junction allows EASY transfer between trains so that people can transfer early going east if they are going through New York or late if they are coming from New York. This also should allow for good connections to all of the ex-Erie lines through Secaucus Junction.
cfmrail responded on 03 Mar 2008 at 9:34 pm #
In reviewing the actual plan the first thing that hits me is that there seems to be a bias toward doing things the most expensive way possible. Why was a simple 4 track bridge north of the current bridge rejected? The cost of adding one or even two tracks to that bridge must be less than a completely separate bridge. The money would be better spent setting up the junction with the M&E such that the Hoboken to Penn Station Newark is accommodated and that the 4 tracks continue to the south side of the M&E with the outer southbound track being west of the connection to the M&E and outer northbound track being east of it. While not easy, this would give far more benefit than what I have seen in the document. The current set of plans seem to give the least benefit for the most money.