Passenger Trains > Amtrak : Limit PORTAL openings

https://www.northjersey.com/story/news/transportation/2018/12/11/nj-officials-coast-guard-limit-portal-bridge-openings-rush-hour-nj-transit-amtrak/2277269002/

With openings down by more than 90 percent, they could consider just closing the thing permanently.

"Amtrak noted that maritime traffic on the Hackensack River has declined in the past few years. Portal Bridge opened 14 times in 2017 and 15 times in 2018, compared with 210 times in 2015 and 173 times in 2016."

That's quite a drop. Who were the barge customers that left?

Certainly I'm no expert but, is the the need for the proposed fixed higher elevation bridge that great?  Why not replace the current bridge with a newly constructed swing bridge.  Keep the same approaches and alignments.  The bridges on the CT Shoreline were done that way.  Concentrate the funding on getting a new tunnel bore done.  

Do it the Anderson way.

Bustitute.

rkennedy2 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Certainly I'm no expert but, is the the need for
> the proposed fixed higher elevation bridge that
> great?  Why not replace the current bridge with a
> newly constructed swing bridge.  Keep the same
> approaches and alignments.  The bridges on the CT
> Shoreline were done that way.  Concentrate the
> funding on getting a new tunnel bore done.  

Cheaper, maybe yes, maybe no, but the DEIS goes to the trash, and that starts over.

In a previous thread, I believe it was determined the dump upriver is the last water shipper.

Reinauer Fuel and Hess bulk fuels were regular shippers, but I believe both have been gone for a while, as has a stone and gravel receiver.
 

rkennedy2 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Certainly I'm no expert but, is the the need for
> the proposed fixed higher elevation bridge that
> great?  Why not replace the current bridge with a
> newly constructed swing bridge.  Keep the same
> approaches and alignments.  The bridges on the CT
> Shoreline were done that way.  Concentrate the
> funding on getting a new tunnel bore done.  

Why not just close the bridge to all openings and move the single barge customer moving one barge every 4 weeks to either a new site or to using truck or rail?

I know that's way too simple a plan for some on here, but it really makes a lot of sense.  Portal HIgh Bridge was planned back in 2009-2010 for a heavy river traffic environment.  Time to junk the plan and do something sensible budgetarywise.

joemvcnj Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> rkennedy2 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Certainly I'm no expert but, is the the need
> for
> > the proposed fixed higher elevation bridge that
> > great?  Why not replace the current bridge with
> a
> > newly constructed swing bridge.  Keep the same
> > approaches and alignments.  The bridges on the
> CT
> > Shoreline were done that way.  Concentrate the
> > funding on getting a new tunnel bore done.  
>
> Cheaper, maybe yes, maybe no, but the DEIS goes to
> the trash, and that starts over.

You don't need a DEIS to just replace the existing bridge with a new 4 track wide fixed span with 125 mph geometry.

You also don't need a DEIS to retain and widen the right of way in its existing footprint between Swift and the bridge.

So go fight it out with DHS and the Coast Guard, Good luck.

abyler Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> rkennedy2 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Certainly I'm no expert but, is the the need
> for
> > the proposed fixed higher elevation bridge that
> > great?  Why not replace the current bridge with
> a
> > newly constructed swing bridge.  Keep the same
> > approaches and alignments.  The bridges on the
> CT
> > Shoreline were done that way.  Concentrate the
> > funding on getting a new tunnel bore done.  
>
> Why not just close the bridge to all openings and
> move the single barge customer moving one barge
> every 4 weeks to either a new site or to using
> truck or rail?
>
> I know that's way too simple a plan for some on
> here, but it really makes a lot of sense.  Portal
> HIgh Bridge was planned back in 2009-2010 for a
> heavy river traffic environment.  Time to junk
> the plan and do something sensible budgetarywise.


If that was done, there wouldn't be nearly as much money slushing around subject to skimming, payoffs, bribes, overtime...

After all, it IS New Jersey!
>
>
> If that was done, there wouldn't be nearly as much
> money slushing around subject to skimming,
> payoffs, bribes, overtime...

abyler Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Why not just close the bridge to all openings and move the single barge customer moving one barge every 4 weeks to either a new site or to using truck or rail?
>
> I know that's way too simple a plan for some on here, but it really makes a lot of sense.  Portal HIgh Bridge was planned back in 2009-2010 for a
> heavy river traffic environment.  Time to junk the plan and do something sensible budgetarywise.

Agree, but perhaps the way to make this happen is to put the suggestion to the two New Jersey Senators - I don't live in NJ but perhaps some intrepid TO member does; their opinion would carry a lot more weight than a carpetbagging midwesterner's.
But I fear the point made by Duna in an earlier post will be a major obstacle, politically speaking.  

Duna Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> abyler Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > rkennedy2 Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > Certainly I'm no expert but, is the the need
> > for
> > > the proposed fixed higher elevation bridge
> that
> > > great?  Why not replace the current bridge
> with
> > a
> > > newly constructed swing bridge.  Keep the
> same
> > > approaches and alignments.  The bridges on
> the
> > CT
> > > Shoreline were done that way.  Concentrate
> the
> > > funding on getting a new tunnel bore done.  
> >
> > Why not just close the bridge to all openings
> and
> > move the single barge customer moving one barge
> > every 4 weeks to either a new site or to using
> > truck or rail?
> >
> > I know that's way too simple a plan for some on
> > here, but it really makes a lot of sense. 
> Portal
> > HIgh Bridge was planned back in 2009-2010 for a
> > heavy river traffic environment.  Time to junk
> > the plan and do something sensible
> budgetarywise.
>
>
> If that was done, there wouldn't be nearly as much
> money slushing around subject to skimming,
> payoffs, bribes, overtime...

I know, which is a huge political problem to getting the job approved.  Need to make sure the right money goes to the right people.  Secondarily, need to actually build the job.

Moving the dump would seem to have its own issues, but creating a means to move dump waste to south of Portal should not be even a billion dollar job.

Maybe they should build lower profile barges?

Posted from Android

There’s also an environmental dredging project in the river coming in the next few years that would benefit from having barge access, but I suspect it could be done from the  land side if need arose.