Hoboken Alternative

The New ARC Hudson River Passenger Rail Tunnels: The Hoboken Alternative December 1, 2009 Prepared by George Haikalis President, Institute for Rational Urban Mobility One Washington Square Village, Suite 5D New York, NY 10012 212-475-3394 [email protected] www.irum.org Why via Hoboken? year time frame in the current plan, before any additional trains can be Routing the new Access to the handled across the Hudson. Region’s Core (ARC) Hudson River passenger rail tunnels by way of Other Important benefits of the Hoboken Terminal – the Hoboken Hoboken Alternative Alternative – allows existing rail infrastructure to be used more Significant environmental gains would productively. When combined with be realized as well. Since the Hoboken “Penn Station First” -- a simpler and Alternative routes trains over existing more direct Penn Station connection in underutilized tracks and bridges Manhattan -- the Hoboken Alternative through the Hackensack holds the promise of reducing Meadowlands, no wetlands would be construction cost of the new tunnels destroyed. A less costly construction and its essential related component -- scheme will greatly reduce the the Portal Bridge Capacity Expansion project’s carbon footprint as well. The project -- by more than $8 billion or route better serves the waterfront, 70% of the total $11.4 billion cost. providing motorists with a more attractive alternative and reducing Even in good times this option merits congestion which is at critical serious consideration, but in light of levels. the growing economic difficulties facing New Jersey and New York it is Routing the new tunnels by way of extremely important to give fair and Hoboken offers significant savings in impartial consideration to credible operating cost, while providing a much options. higher level of rail service to New The simpler construction also results Jersey’s economic engine – the in speeding completion of an massive concentration of commercial operational “first phase”, saving four and residential development on the years or more off the projected eight Jersey City and Hoboken waterfront. Figure One - The Hoboken Alternative 2 The state would gain a much higher additional environmental and return on its valuable waterfront procedural filings, all of the impacts on properties. By converting Hoboken the New Jersey side of the tunnel will Terminal into a “way” station, a simple be experienced on NJ Transit-owned four-track through station could property, eliminating objections form readily handle projected traffic needs nearby property-owners. for passengers boarding or alighting at Environmental stakeholders who are Hoboken. Should more detailed concerned about the Meadowlands studies indicate that greater capacity wetlands can be expected to become is needed, the station could be strong supporters of the change in expanded to six or even eight tracks. route. As a through station, no trains would Background terminate at this location. All of the existing tracks and servicing facilities The Hoboken Alternative was offered at Hoboken Terminal would be by rail advocates in early 2005 after eliminated. Other existing NJ Transit NJ Transit proposed a revised facilities, located inland would be alignment for its tunnels in the used, and expanded if needed. Except summer of 2004. In order to gain for the new station itself, the entire additional depth under the riverbed, Hoboken waterfront terminal could be NJ Transit proposed that instead of sold and re-used as a valuable building its new tunnels parallel to the development site. However, the existing century-old PRR tunnels, they historic train shed and terminal would curve southwest under building should be preserved and Manhattan’s West Side before turning incorporated into new development at west, reaching the New Jersey this site. shoreline in the northern portion of Hoboken. The tunnels would then While a change of direction will require curve northwest reaching a portal in Figure Two – Detailed Plan at Hoboken 3 the vicinity of the existing tunnel Manhattan-bound passengers from portals in North Bergen. The bow in points further west in the state would the tunnel adds approximately 0.3 pre-empt space on trains from miles to the tunnel’s length, compared Manhattan-bound passengers, limiting to a straight-line alignment of the the full use of the Hudson River current tunnels. tunnels. This is a longer term concern. The optimistic forecasts of ridership Since NJ Transit’s new alignment was are unlikely to be realized for many heading toward the Hoboken Terminal years, because of the downturn in the before turning north it occurred to rail economy. Should ridership reach advocates that an alternative of projected levels there are other continuing southwest and then turning options for accommodating West of west at Hoboken terminal was Hudson passengers heading to the feasible, as shown in Figure One. Exchange Place area or Lower Manhattan. These passengers would For the Hoboken Alternative the be better served if they could transfer distance between Penn Station, New to PATH further west, and avoid the York and Penn Station, Newark is the Hoboken Terminal entirely. Plans for a same as the current route via transfer from the Morristown Line to Secaucus. The Hoboken route saves PATH at Harrison, and for an about 0.4 mile over the Secaucus loop extension of PATH to Secaucus were route for Bergen and Rockland County developed in 1962 as part of the destinations and avoids the sharp agreement with the Port Authority to curves, offering the potential for travel acquire the Hudson Tubes. These time savings. plans could be re-examined as part of a future capacity enhancement During the EIS proceedings, the analysis. Mayors of Jersey City and Hoboken and the owner of the largest The second concern was the greater development site adjacent to the length of the underwater segment of Hoboken Terminal -- the Lefrak the tunnels, and whether adequate Organization -- all endorsed the ventilation facilities could be routing through Hoboken. In its constructed. While clearly this issue submittal Jersey City outlined a more must be addressed during the detailed ambitious alignment than the one design effort, it can hardly be called a contained in this report. In the EIS, NJ fatal flaw, since many subaqueous rail Transit criticized Jersey City’s tunnels of much greater length have suggested alignment but made no been constructed around the world. comment on the alignment offered by rail advocates, which was also entered Engineering Feasibility into the record. While a number of options for Two concerns, other than questions connecting existing NJ Transit tracks about alignment details, were raised at Hoboken with the new Hudson by NJ Transit in the EIS process. The River rail tunnels are possible, and first was that in the longer term, should be carefully analyzed by NJ capacity limitations would occur. Transit’s engineering team, this report Waterfront-bound and Lower focuses on what seems to be the most 4 promising scheme -- ramping down long segment of 3% grade in Long from the embankment east of the Island City where the tracks rise from Palisade tunnels, beginning with the the 63rd Street tunnels to meet last highway underpass at Marin existing LIRR tracks on an elevated Boulevard, before reaching the embankment in Sunnyside. For the Hoboken Terminal complex. The Hudson River Hoboken routing both overall plan is shown in Figure Two grade options are feasible. and the accompanying profile is shown in Figure Three. Relatively straightforward cut-and- cover construction is envisioned in Two grade options – 2% and 3% -- Hoboken. The challenge is to descend were considered in this analysis, as from the Marin Boulevard overpass, they were in the track connection plan pass over the Hoboken-bound PATH to Penn Station in Manhattan tunnel and still clear the river bottom described in the February 2007 DEIS. with sufficient cover to permit soft-soil A 3% grade has less impact on the tunnel boring machine construction. riverbed, but is more challenging in The extent to which fill must be placed terms of train performance and in the river bed in Hoboken depends capacity. Modern high-powered on the degree that silting has already electric trains can easily negotiate a occurred around the Hoboken ferry 3% grade. MTA’s LIRR East Side slips and pilings. NJ Transit’s plans to Access Project, now under restore some of the ferry slips for construction, includes a 4,200 foot cross-Hudson service must be Figure Three – Detailed Profile at Hoboken 5 coordinated with the new tunnel tunnels would begin, with a construction. construction shaft for launching the soft soil TBMs toward Manhattan. The existing yards and platforms at Depending on a more detailed design Hoboken Terminal are less than ten analysis and construction scheduling feet above river level. The new plan, the existing Hudson-Bergen light alignment will begin its descent at the rail station might be temporarily Marin Boulevard overpass, the relocated. beginning of the numbering of 1,000 foot intervals shown in the figures. With the new thru station in place all After reaching grade, the lines will of the tracks and train servicing continue to descend in an open cut to facilities would be removed. A new be built in a “bath-tub” design with site plan for redeveloping this valuable adequate drainage. A new four track NJ Transit-owned parcel would be thru station will be constructed just developed. The historic train shed and south of the existing platforms and terminal building would be preserved tracks at Hoboken Terminal. For both and appropriate new uses considered. grade options, the station could be A covered pedestrian path from the open to daylight with natural new station to the existing PATH ventilation, with canopies over the Hoboken Station would be included in platforms. Within the 12-car, 1,000 the new development and a new foot long station a 1% grade would be alignment for the light rail line through maintained.

Load more