Home ARC Tunnel Amtrak, NJ Transit talks over ARC tunnel dead

Amtrak, NJ Transit talks over ARC tunnel dead

by Benjamin Kabak

This is not a surprising twist, but a disappointing one nonetheless: New Jersey Transit and Amtrak officials failed to come to terms on a tunnel deal that could have saved part or all of the ARC Tunnel. According to the brief statement issued by Amtrak, the hang-up was one of the project’s overall purpose. “We are no longer interested in this project,” Vernae Graham, Amtrak spokeswoman, said. “There were exploratory talks going on with NJ Transit. The talks have stopped. … That was commuter rail, and we are interested in intercity rail projects.”

As recently as Wednesday afternoon, New Jersey officials were optimistic that Amtrak would save the project as the national rail carrier had expressed interest in the NJ Transit plans. The state had been willing to assume its portion of the costs were Amtrak to pick some of the funding, but the demands of intercity high-speed rail and New Jersey Transit’s commuter rail network were at odds. This lost opportunity remains as such.

You may also like

8 comments

Marc Shepherd November 12, 2010 - 5:25 pm

As I recall, ARC was deliberately designed to freeze out Amtrak. That is why the switches that would take trains off of the Northeast Corridor Line were so far away from the Hudson River, on the NJ side. New Jersey Transit wanted something they could control.

It is therefore not surprising that the design turns out not to be suitable for Amtrak’s purposes.

Reply
John November 13, 2010 - 1:49 am

…let alone the dead-end terminal 175 feet beneath 34th Street. That makes the tunnels currently designed feasible for high-speed rail use only if you assume Amtrak has no plans to extend HSR into New England, and I doubt the agency thinks freezing out half of the Northeast Corridor while seeking more federal funding for the project is a really smart idea.

Reply
Alon Levy November 13, 2010 - 3:51 am

The only way Amtrak could use the Penn-Grand Central connection is if the connection were built with high curve radius, which would be much more expensive; even then, the speed restrictions would make the route undesirable. It’s possible at least in principle for trains to run at 100+ mph through the existing tunnels, given trackwork (which new tunnels connection to the existing station would make more straightforward); it’s not possible to do this through a connection with a curve radius of, charitably, 1,000 feet.

Reply
Adirondacker November 14, 2010 - 12:34 am

How many passenger trains, of any variety, are going to pass through Midtown and NOT stop? Make curve radii a little less important doesn’t it?

Reply
Alon Levy November 14, 2010 - 1:33 am

First, the main reason to avoid sharp curves is squeal and flange wear. Second, you’ll be surprised how much time can be lost to poorly configured station throats. Transbay Terminal costs around a minute if I remember correctly.

Anon November 13, 2010 - 11:59 am

Ugh; looks like the project’s cancellation was due to Chris Christie’s wife…http://gothamist.com/2010/11/1.....hudson.php

Reply
chemster November 14, 2010 - 7:29 am

Perhaps I’m just being naive, but wouldn’t it still have been helpful for Amtrak to have the ARC tunnel finished, even if Amtrak trains couldn’t use it directly? Amtrak could still say, once it’s finished, “OK, NJ Transit, you need to have 50% (or whatever) of the trains which, in 2010, were using the existing tunnel use the ARC tunnel”. This would, in turn, free up station/tunnel space for Amtrak, right? I guess it wouldn’t help with high speed trains, but at least Amtrak might have less competition for limited Penn Station resources.

Reply
Alon Levy November 14, 2010 - 6:46 pm

No, you’re right, it would actually be useful. The irony is that from the point of view of good intercity rail, including high-speed rail, the Alt P cavern isn’t a problem.

The problem is that Amtrak has no plans to provide good intercity rail. It likes being able to control and use every piece of new infrastructure, regardless of how useful it is for passengers.

Reply

Leave a Comment