Gateway Tunnel

Six years ago, when the Democrats rode a mid-term election sweep into control of the House and Senate. At the time, Chuck Schumer, New York’s then and current senior senator, pledged infrastructure dollars for New York State, and thus, the Second Ave. Subway — and this site — were born.

Over the past six years, a lot has changed, and a lot has stayed the same. We’ve seen megaprojects come and go on and on; we’ve seen the promise of a trans-Hudson rail crossing rise and fall. It’s still a struggle to secure federal (or state) dollars for transit projects, and Schumer is still in the Senate trying to throw his weight around. This time around, he has his eyes on the Gateway Tunnel, an Amtrak project that would be part of a northeast high-speed rail network and could improve train service through New York City.

On Friday, Schumer announced his intentions to push through the Gateway Tunnel with an eye toward a possible groundbreaking as early as 2013. Crain’s New York had more on Schumer’s efforts and how the Hudson Yards development is a motivating factor:

Mr. Schumer said with enough federal funding and all the relevant players on board, the project could break ground as early as the end of 2013. Usually it takes years before work can begin on such a complex, multi-billion dollar effort. “It’s a truly significant project,” Mr. Schumer said at a breakfast forum in midtown Manhattan sponsored by the New York Building Congress. “It’s the kind of big idea that could shape the way New York City looks decades from now.”

Two rail tunnels connect New Jersey and New York, and both are more than 100 years old. The Gateway project was unveiled in February 2011, after New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, citing potential cost overruns, killed the Access to the Region’s Core (ARC) project, which was to include a train tunnel under the Hudson. Congress approved an initial $15 million for Gateway in November 2011 and Mr. Schumer said an additional $20 million was close to being secured. The total project is expected to cost $13-$15 billion and will not be completed before 2020.

A new urgency has been brought to the project, Mr. Schumer said, since Amtrak’s engineers determined that the best place to construct Gateway (which would have one tunnel in each direction) was directly under the Hudson Yards development on Manhattan’s West Side. The Related Companies is expected to break ground on the massive, mixed-use project late this year. Both Related and Long Island Rail Road, the right-of-way property owners underneath Hudson Yards, are supportive of Gateway, he said. “That means we need to build these tunnels now,” the senior senator said. “We can’t wait for the rest of the project to be formulated or nothing will happen.”

There a few items of note happening here. First, Schumer has significant weight in Washington and the ability to push through a project of this magnitude. If the tunnel can be built now and maintained as both an active rail line and a future provision for high-speed rail, then all the better. We need that new rail crossing sooner rather than later.

Second, someone other than a New Jersey representative or politician is finally making noises about a trans-Hudson tunnel. When the ARC Tunnel met its end, New Yorkers were by and large silent. This was New Jersey’s project, and they let New Jersey hash out the fallout. Now, with Amtrak a national — or at least a regional — concern, politicians from both sides of the Hudson can come together to support such a tunnel. It would have been better to pursue such a path originally, but better late than never. Now, we’ll have to see if this tunnel can survive to see the light of day unlike its ARC Tunnel cousin.

Someone will have to fight for the tunnel if Gateway is to become a reality by 2025.

It’s been 20 months since Gov. Chris Christie canceled the ARC Tunnel project, and its replacement has yet to move forward. Billed as a better solution than the deep-cavern terminal underneath Macys, the Gateway Tunnel has been put forward as a key element in any high-speed rail plan as well as a solution to the trans-Hudson bottleneck. Yet, we’re no closer today to seeing the Gateway Tunnel materialize than we were a year ago.

Recently, region transit advocates and Gateway Tunnel proponents have started to open a dialogue on the tunnel. No one denies the need for it, but it will take a great deal of political maneuverings to see it realized. “What should be clear is that nobody, nobody is debating that we need this,” Amtrak board member and former Port Authority Chairman Anthony Coscia said.

So what’s the problem? Why has this project gone nowhere? Money seems to be the answer. Steve Strunsky of The Star-Ledger has more on the effort to draw out support for the tunnel:

What is still far from clear, however, is where the money will come from to fund the Gateway project’s estimated $13 billion to $15 billion cost. Estimates for the ARC project were $9.8 billion to $14 billion when Christie bailed out on it in late 2010, saying New Jersey taxpayers would be unfairly stuck with the tab for overruns. He has not ruled out support for the Gateway plan, which he has said would better serve commuters.

So to boost the general public’s awareness of Gateway, stimulate interest among potential participants and help the project pick up steam in Washington, D.C., Trenton and Albany, proponents hosted what they said was the first forum to bring together representatives of the three rail agencies and others likely to share in its benefits and costs.

Coscia’s remarks capped the morning conference, which was held at the Princeton Club in Manhattan. It was hosted by the Regional Plan Association, a planning and transportation think tank, and the General Contractors Association of New York, whose members stand to work on the Gateway project. “Yes, we’re contractors — we build infrastructure,” said the association’s managing director, Denise Richardson. “But we also live in the region.”

For now, as Strunsky notes, a lot of the same people are bringing up the same talking points they’ve been rehashing for nearly two years. Meanwhile, in the halls of power — in D.C. and Trenton and Albany — a resolute nothing has happened. Outside of a token Senate appropriation, no one has taken the lead on this project from a federal standpoint, and Chris Christie and Andrew Cuomo seem to be engaged in a battle of who can say less when asked for comment on Gateway’s future. “We’ll see where it goes,” New Jersey’s State Transportation Commissioner Jim Simpson said on gaining Christie’s support for the tunnel.

As the days and weeks and months tick away and the ARC Tunnel becomes a distant memory, the Gateway saga reminds me of the point MTA Chairman Joe Lhota made last week. To improve the region’s transportation options and access to the city core, we all will have to learn to work together. Cuomo and Christie will have to join forces, and Washington, DC, will have to be a significant funding partner. That is far, far easier said than done.

At this point, in a major election year, any real progress on Gateway will both be on hold until after November and depend heavily upon the outcomes of the key races. The region’s trans-Hudson rail capacity isn’t going to increase by itself though, and while everyone seems to recognize the need for more tunnels, no one has been willing to do much about it. How utterly disappointing.

New Jersey expects New York to pay for some of the next cross-Hudson tunnel.

When Gov. Chris Christie killed the ARC Tunnel nearly five months ago, one of his biggest complaints concerned the allocation of funds. New Jersey, the primary benefactors of the new tunnel, were expected to add $3 billion of their own money as well as any cost overruns while New York was on the hook for nothing. We could argue over the Port Authority allocations, but the truth of the matter was that New York State would have enjoyed a new tunnel without paying much. It was a valid complaint.

This week, with plans to build either an Amtrak-sponsored Gateway Tunnel or an extension of the 7 line to Secaucus, Christie reiterated his campaign promises. He would support increased transit spending, he said, as long as it’s a good deal for his constituents and as long as New York shoulders some of the costs as well. “I’m ready to invest in mass transit between New Jersey and New York. I’m just not willing to be fleeced for it,” the governor said. “That’s what the ARC was, a fleecing.”

During a transportation summit on Wednesday, Christie emphasized that point. “We have a better project that I know at some point someone will come to us and ask us to contribute to, and we will stand ready to do that,” he said. “But we will do that as partners with the federal government and Amtrak, and we will do that, I am certain, only under the condition that New York City and state contribute as well.”

As he again reiterated his belief that canceling ARC and throwing 20 years of planning out the window was a good idea, he continued: “Do we need another tunnel under the Hudson River for mass-transit? Yes, I’ve never denied that. I am not going to sign on as governor to deals that are bad for the taxpayers of New Jersey; bad deals in terms of the way the project is put together; and bad deals in terms of fairness in the region.”

That’s all well and good, but Christie’s comments, as they often do, raise some points. First, over at Gateway Gab, Jeremy Steinemann is skeptical. Steinemann is concerned about Christie’s decision to prioritize road widening coupled with his unwillingness to raise the gas taxes and says we’ve heard it all before.

Christie’s vocal support of mass-transit but his lack of action bears a resemblance to the rhetoric he displayed in the Gubernatorial election in 2009. His cancelation of the ARC project, for example, came as a surprise after he repeatedly expressed his support of the project as a candidate. What is clear, however, is that Christie will not push a trans-Hudson rail tunnel on his own. The political will must come from NY, NJ and the federal government.

But is Christie wrong in his assertions? Once upon a time, as on Subchatter noted on Thursday, the ARC Oversight Committee — available on this 2003 website snapshot — consisted of officials from New Jersey Transit, the MTA and Port Authority. New York had a say and a stake in the project, but as the decade wore on, New York’s role diminished to essentially nothing. Perhaps we can take comfort in believing that was the project’s fatal flaw, but Christie’s willingness to siphon rail money to roads makes me skeptical.

The overarching issue with ARC, Gateway of the 7 line extension is one of local government and expenditures. Who stands to benefit most from the new tunnel — New York businesses who can bring more commuters and tourists into the city or New Jersey residents who will find their commutes quicker and less stressful? Should New Jersey pay for transportation improvements that only incidentally end up in New York or should New York add more to the pot for a tunnel that adds to its economic allure?

The answer to those question is, obviously enough, probably both. To realize a new cross-Hudson rail tunnel, New York will have to add more to the pot, and they likely should. In an age of stretched state budgets though, it’s tough to see where the money will come from, and we may be in for a long wait until the next tunnel breaks ground.

Who will pay for the proposed Gateway Tunnel? Some politicians are beginning to eye private investment.

By now, it’s hardly a debate that the New York City region needs more cross-Hudson crossings for all sorts of transportation modalities. Rail access into Midtown from New Jersey is woefully inadequate, and further upstate, the Tappan Zee Bridge is sagging under the weight of age and auto traffic. New York and New Jersey have various plans to replace and expand this infrastructure, but who will pay for it?

Most famous of the recent attempts at bridging the waters is the ARC Tunnel. Canceled by New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie over a mixture of purely partisan politics and legitimate concerns that could have been addressed, the tunnel would have increased capacity across the Hudson River for New Jersey commuters. Instead, New Jersey may get an Amtrak-sponsored tunnel ten years down the road if the stars align right.

Today, New Jersey politicians are united in keeping federal money that should have gone to the project. They argue that returning the funds would jeopardize a future project. “While some of us may differ on whether or not the ARC project should have been cancelled,” a letter sent by the state’s Congressional delegation reads, “we are united in our effort to protect New Jersey taxpayers from harm. We are deeply concerned that forcing New Jersey to pay these funds will undermine efforts for a new Trans-Hudson tunnel, and require the State to postpone or cancel other essential, job-creating transit projects throughout the State. This will only exacerbate the State’s transportation and economic challenges, and impose an unfair burden on taxpayers in New Jersey.”

Of course, the ultimate fate of $270 million won’t determine the future of the Gateway Tunnel or any cross-Hudson improvements. Rather, as lawmakers attempt to struggle with the demand for better infrastructure and the inability to pay for any of it, they are turning to the idea of privatization. As an opening salvo, take this story about the Gateway Tunnel. In it, local businesses around the current Penn Station area talk about how thrilled they would be for a new tunnel and a bigger train station to arrive. “It would be tremendous for our business,” one bar owner said.

That’s the argument for privatization simplified and placed in a nutshell. Cities build great public works because the residents benefit, but at the same time, private interests often derive just as much, if not, in economic value from these projects. Second Ave. businesses are suffering today, but in six or seven years, the area will be booming with better access.

North of the city, lawmakers are even more intrigued by privatization. As the state looks to replace the Tappan Zee Bridge, it simply doesn’t have the money. The project will cost just $8.3 billion without rail and bus lanes and over $16 billion with them. “Unless things change very favorably rather quickly, it’s unlikely that either the federal or state government will be able to finance the changes they’re talking about,” New York State Senator Andrea Stewart-Cousins said to the Journal. “I’m not uncomfortable with finding private partners.”

Andrew Grossman talked more about these efforts last week:

More cities and states are turning to private companies to help fund their infrastructure or plug budget gaps. It’s a practice common in Europe and Asia, but one that has been slower to catch on in the U.S. Now, though, the firms that have done those projects are circling American state and local governments.

But private investors ultimately need to make money and want some control over the ability to set tolls. New York officials say some of those deals make them wary. Chicago’s sale of its parking-meter revenue—and the rate increases that resulted—have sparked a political backlash there.

“You don’t want to give the government authority away totally,” said Robert Gottheim, an aide to Rep. Jerry Nadler, a Manhattan Democrat who’s active on transportation issues. “While we are certainly interested in it, the devil’s in the details.”

Those details include a range of possible deals, from the unlikely option of entirely privatizing the bridge to simply contracting with a company to manage the entire construction process. Currently, different pieces of state projects are bid out to different contractors.

If lawmakers can throw a proper carrot to private investors — in the form of toll oversight or worse — private money will flow toward infrastructure. Of course, the state must retain some modicum of control over its infrastructure, and as funds are tight, it’s the right to ask about how these private deals will take shape. Can they lead to better rail access and new bridges without exacting too high a cost on taxpayers? If history is any guide, it’s tough to see just how this will play out across a region straining at its infrastructure seams.

The Gateway Tunnel provides for nine fewer peak-hour trains than ARC did. (Click the image to enlarge.)

When Amtrak and New Jersey’s two Senators announced the Gateway Tunnel this week, Chris Christie, New Jersey’s in-your-face governor, decided to take credit for it. Even though the federal officials intentionally cut Christie out of the initial loop on this project, New Jersey’s chief executive used Gateway as a vindication of his decision to cancel ARC.

“I said: Why don’t we do this? Why doesn’t Amtrak build the tunnel? We were getting it stuck to us by the state of New York and the federal government. And I said, ‘No, no, no. You’re not going to stick it to the state of New Jersey while I’m governor — no chance,'” Christie said yesterday.

Christie, of course, famously canceled the ARC Tunnel when its projected price tag rose from $8 billion to somewhere in the $9-$13 billion range. Despite the fact that the Gateway Tunnel includes a replacement of the Portal Bridge while ARC did not, Christie claims that the $13.5-billion project costs for Amtrak’s tunnel justify his decision. “They told me I made up the cost overruns,” Christie said.

He doesn’t, however, hold a grudge. “As the plans become more clear, if they want New Jersey to become a partner with New York, with the federal government, I’ll consider a fair deal for New Jersey,” he said. A fair deal, of course, would mean that someone else foots the bill for the cost overruns even as New Jersey stands to benefit.

Christie, meanwhile, isn’t the only one claiming victory for himself. Commentary, the neo-Conservative magazine, proclaimed it a victory as well. “While no one in New Jersey is happy about the dismal service offered by New Jersey Transit or the fact that it will be many years before things get better, those who predicted that his tunnel decision would sink Christie were dead wrong,” Jonathan Tobin wrote. “Voters wanted a governor would treat the state treasury as something other than a bottomless piggy bank for bondoggles like the tunnel (whose bloated costs were unhappily reminiscent of plot lines in The Sopranos) when they elected Christie. He stuck to his principles and then forced the rest of the political establishment to follow his lead.”

Never mind the factual inaccuracies or how Christie is taking out the same loans to pay for road repair — much to the chagrin of The Times — the Xanadu Project and an Atlantic City bailout that could have gone toward ARC. If a bunch of folks from New Jersey wants the benefits of a rail tunnel but none of the costs, well, then that’s just what they’re going to attempt to say they got.

Of course, the truth is far from what Christie is promoting, and it’s worth it to revisit how the Gateway is not the ARC Tunnel. As Jeremy Steinemann noted here on Tuesday, the new tunnel is weighted toward interstate travel and not commutes into the city. New Jersey Transit will enjoy nine fewer peak-hour trips through Gateway than through ARC, and it won’t offer a one-seat ride from the Bergen and Passaic Lines. That one-seat ride was one of the key selling points for ARC, and it made that tunnel truly revolutionary.

Ultimately, I can’t say for sure that Christie was or was not vindicated. As with many topics, the truth comes in shades of grey. Christie didn’t try to keep costs down; he didn’t work hard to find funding partners; he’s not being honest with the leftover money; and the new plan doesn’t benefit New Jersey commuters — his constituents — as much as the old. But it seems as though he’s shifted the costs away from his state and has placed the onus on federal policymakers instead. Politically, it’s a win for him even as those who chose him for office would have been better off with ARC.

The Gateway Tunnel could benefit from a White House push to spend billions on high speed rail.

One day after Amtrak and New Jersey’s Senate delegation introduced the Gateway Tunnel, Vice President Joe Biden announced a major six-year, $53-billion investment in high speed rail. Speaking in Philadelphia’s 30th Street Station earlier today, Biden discussed how high-speed rail will help attain President Obama’s goal of winning the future, and while House Republicans who control the purse strings are somewhat skeptical of the reach of the plan, the money could help get the Gateway Tunnel off the ground.

“As President Obama said in his State of the Union, there are key places where we cannot afford to sacrifice as a nation – one of which is infrastructure,” the vice president said. “As a long time Amtrak rider and advocate, I understand the need to invest in a modern rail system that will help connect communities, reduce congestion and create quality, skilled manufacturing jobs that cannot be outsourced. This plan will help us to do that, while also increasing access to convenient high speed rail for more Americans.”

The White House has yet to lay out the specific investments, but it will look to spend in three key areas outlined in its press release. Those include:

• Core Express: These corridors will form the backbone of the national high-speed rail system, with electrified trains traveling on dedicated tracks at speeds of 125-250 mph or higher.
• Regional: Crucial regional corridors with train speeds of 90-125 mph will see increases in trips and reductions in travel times, laying the foundation for future high-speed service.
• Emerging: Trains traveling at up to 90 mph will provide travelers in emerging rail corridors with access to the larger national high-speed and intercity passenger rail network.

Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood, absent from yesterday’s Gateway presser, joined Biden at the podium today. “In America, we pride ourselves on dreaming big and building big,” he said. “This historic investment in America’s high-speed rail network keeps us on track toward economic opportunity and competitiveness in the 21st century. It’s an investment in tomorrow that will create manufacturing, construction, and operations jobs today.”

House Republicans though were quick to raise an eyebrow toward this ambitious plan. John L. Mica, the House Transportation Committee Chair from Florida, is a supporter of high-speed rail, but he prefers to see a targeted investment in the northeast corridor. Selfishly, I’m not opposed to that, but Mica’s rhetoric is a bit over the top. Despite the committee leadership’s best wishes, private investment will likely not lead to a viable high-speed rail network in the northeast or elsewhere.

“This is like giving Bernie Madoff another chance at handling your investment portfolio,” he said said in a statement. “With the first $10.5 billion in Administration rail grants, we found that 1) the Federal Railroad Administration is neither a capable grant agency, nor should it be involved in the selection of projects, 2) what the Administration touted as high-speed rail ended up as embarrassing snail-speed trains to nowhere, and 3) Amtrak hijacked 76 of the 78 projects, most of them costly and some already rejected by state agencies.”

He continued: “Amtrak’s Soviet-style train system is not the way to provide modern and efficient passenger rail service. Rather than focusing on the Northeast Corridor, the most congested corridor in the nation and the only corridor owned by the federal government, the Administration continues to squander limited taxpayer dollars on marginal projects.”

But all of this is just a roundabout way for me to reach the question I asked in the headline: If Mica is willing to support high-speed rail in the northeast, if the White House wants to spend $53 billion over six years and if Amtrak has a viable plan to build a second cross-Hudson tunnel, these political forces should align to see the Gateway Tunnel realized. It might not have the same benefits for commuters as ARC did, but it will help ease rail congestion into and out of New York while opening the way for a high-speed Northeast Corridor. It’s a logical step that will require political cooperation.