Passenger Trains > NJ Transit Awards Record $1.6 billion contract

=20pxThe project will replace the more-than-century-old span over the Hackensack River that is key to passenger rail in the U.S. Northeast. The current bridge is designed to swing open for river traffic, delaying trains for thousands of commuters.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-10-12/nj-transit-awards-record-1-6-billion-to-replace-portal-bridge

This is a very big deal. 

Hooray!

I thought the Portal Bridge, and the tracks on it, are  Amtrak property.  Why is NJT paying for it?

What is the funding source for this?

altoonafn Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> What is the funding source for this?

Your pocket...

JG

Posted from Android

ronald321 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I thought the Portal Bridge, and the tracks on it,
> are  Amtrak property.  Why is NJT paying for it?

Because 80% of the passengers crossing it are NJT,and is a component of the Gateway project. 

https://www.menendez.senate.gov/newsroom/press/menendez-booker-pascrell-payne-malinowski-applaud-signing-of-portal-bridge-federal-funding-agreement

$766.5 million in FTA  CIG funding. 
$57.1 million Federal Highway Administration’s  (CMAQ)
$811 million New Jersey
$261.5 million Amtrak.

 



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 10/13/21 03:45 by joemvcnj.

This is not a bridge, this is a boondoggle.  A high bridge here is just not necessary now, and certainly won't be in five years.

According to a New York Daily News  article on 7/11/21, Amtrak's own records show that from August 2020
  -  the bridge was not opened at all for six months
  -  it was opened seven times in Feb / March, apparently for work involving a replacement bridge -- note it only opened on weekends and nonpeak hours
  -  It was not then opened through June 29
A four track ballasted deck bridge is all that's necessary.

As far as the Corps of Engineers, they are a solvable problem -- they report to the Federal Government.

The only way this could be worse would be if the Chinese were financing it.  Oh, wait, they are.........

SZ

The DHS/Coast Guard would have to agree to shut it down as a navigable waterway. They don't give a rat's ass about DOT or the NEC. If this were to change to a single 4 track span, the entire DEIS process, engineering, and funding would take another 10 years. 

Wow 1.6 Billion. 

Wonder how much of that is for constructing the actual bridge?

joemvcnj Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The DHS/Coast Guard would have to agree to shut it
> down as a navigable waterway.

So did Amtrak / NJT even ASK ?  They might not care about the NEC, but they might care about Congress -- but that's  if both houses and both major parties gave a darn about saving ten years and three billion dollars instead of photos ops and reelection slush funds.  Did you note that Schumer didn't even  realize that the 1.8 billion covered ONLY the North Portal Bridge, and not the South Portal one ?  Why would you even build TWO bridges -- to make it cost twice as much ?

You could build the four track level bridge using the existing impact statements and funding, accept the slight delay for re-engineering , and still get it done ahead of the existing scheme.  The energy savings long term and schedule improvements short term alone justify it.  What do you think Brightline management would have done ?

I had thought until now that only the top political appointees were "understandably inept", but that there were still  good,caring people in upper Amtrak management;  I now no longer feel that way -- from this and other decisions it looks like the entire Amtrak upper bureaucracy is rotten.  It would be better to shut down Amtrak and start over;  giving them more money is not the solution for Amtrak's woes, it's part of the problem.

SZ

Since Amtrak's share is 15% of it, your scapegoating Amtrak is misplaced.

I am not going to play armchair quarterback and say a level 4 track span would not have required the entire process all over again.

Posted from Android

A lot of river north of the bridge that is navigable would be cut off...forever.   I can't see the feds allowing that.   And they were involved in the process.

There was evidence presented that Reinauer now longer runs fuel barges north of the Portal Bridge, and the Bergen County Solid Waste people no longer run barges south from Hackensack.  They were the last users, if my memory serves me.

joemvcnj Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Since Amtrak's share is 15% of it, your
> scapegoating Amtrak is misplaced.

No, Amtrak is ultimately responsible -- the Portal Bridge is theirs, and they are the ones that have been vocal about replacing it.  And as the poster above said, the money all comes out of our pockets, Amtrak's is just on paper the 15% pocket.

Yes, the last commercial traffic, the sludge, to regularly use the river there ceased in 2016.   The idea that there will be future commercial opportunities requiring a drawbridge is at odds with the ongoing and future environmental development of the river above the bridge.  There may have been a case for a high bridge when Amtrak first looked at this years and years ago, and even that's debatable, but not for quite a while.  Having the river declared non-navigable above Portal would be a nice "green" photo op for NJ legislators.......

SZ

Given the issues around "non navigable waters" and the Clean Water Act, the pols may want to give side berth.

They may want federal money to remove the Greenwood Lake Line bridge or update the Upper and Lower Hack bridges etc someday.

Posted from Android

Lackawanna484 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Given the issues around "non navigable waters" and
> the Clean Water Act, the pols may want to give
> side berth.
>
> They may want federal money to remove the
> Greenwood Lake Line bridge or update the Upper and
> Lower Hack bridges etc someday.

Getting non-navigable waters declared is a can or worms best left alone. 

Wouldn't it be worth opening one can, or even two cans, of worms to save THREE BILLION DOLLARS and four years ?  Would it have been a bigger can of worms than getting all the funding necessary for this "half-bridged" solution ?  Did Amtrak ever consider, post-2016, trying this approach ?  I doubt it -- that would require somebody to think, apparently a non-existent commodity at Amtrak.

Ask yourself this question, Joe:  What would Brightline have done ?  And remember, it doesn't look like the Hackensack has any pleasure boaters with their congressmen's phone on their speed dials....

SZ

Steinzeit2 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Wouldn't it be worth opening one can, or even two
> cans, of worms to save THREE BILLION DOLLARS and
> four years ?  Would it have been a bigger can of
> worms than getting all the funding necessary for
> this "half-bridged" solution ?  Did Amtrak ever
> consider, post-2016, trying this approach ?  I
> doubt it -- that would require somebody to think,
> apparently a non-existent commodity at Amtrak.
>
> Ask yourself this question, Joe:  What would
> Brightline have done ?  And remember, it doesn't
> look like the Hackensack has any pleasure boaters
> with their congressmen's phone on their speed
> dials....
>
> SZ

Saving $3 Billion ? Why are you acting like a new, low, 4 track bridge would cost nothing and not require a whole new DEIS, application for federal funds from CMAQ and FTA, likely taking another 10 years ? 

Why don't you ask Amtrak, rather than me, if you think this is so easy ?

I don't care to speculate on what Brightline would have done. 

joemvcnj Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The DHS/Coast Guard would have to agree to shut it
> down as a navigable waterway. They don't give a
> rat's ass about DOT or the NEC. If this were to
> change to a single 4 track span, the entire DEIS
> process, engineering, and funding would take
> another 10 years.

Ask DHS/Coast Gurd how the Bronx River Bridge got closed then. 

The Bronx River bridge on the Hell Gate Route  (?) is a good example.  But, the "navigable waters" issue was a potent weapon in the fight over the Niantic River bridge in Connecticut. That one held up the Boston extension forever.  Having very rich people with yachts who have Congress on speed dial as your opponents can make any contest one sided.

FEC/BrightLine learned this in the fight with Representative Brian Mast (R-FL) when FEC  started screwing around with the St Lucie Draw Bridge.  Zillionaires may not like government interference, but they will bring the full power of the law when their 75 foot yacht is delayed...