When a study to build a new mass transit tunnel under the Hudson River was launched in 1995, planners ambitiously envisioned a project that would tackle several New Jersey-New York commuter rail problems unattended for decades.
The study, known as the Access to the Region's Core (ARC), sought ways to overcome the river bottleneck so more NJ Transit trains could reach Pennsylvania Station, ease passenger flows there, build a link to Grand Central Terminal and, in time, develop a regional rail network.
As the study proceeded, however, planners were faced with reality. Uncertain sources of funds. Inconsistent support in New York. Too much existing infrastructure under Manhattan.
After reviewing over 100 alternatives, planners chose the ARC design that will include two single-track tunnels built just south of the existing 100-year-old tunnel. They will curve northeast before boring into Manhattan, running beneath the existing rail yard west of Penn Station to a new "deep cavern" station under 34th Street between 6th and 8th Avenues. The link to Grand Central was dropped from consideration midway through ARC's development.
The scaled-back project disappointed passenger rail advocates who had their own ambitions for ARC. While they applaud how it will more than double, to 48, the number of rush hour trains into Manhattan, they persistently raise several objections in letters to the Federal Transit Administration and to newspapers, in e-mails and at meetings with NJ Transit officials.
John Kilbride, a 33-year railroad employee from New Jersey, expressed concern, for instance, that the new tri-level 34th Street station's platforms that will be 124 to 171 feet below the street will be too deep for passengers to evacuate quickly in an emergency. "Whether a railroad tie, a newspaper fire or something more serious, New Jersey Transit needs to be able to say it could get trainloads of people out quickly," said Kilbride.
He also questioned whether passengers will be able to move quickly from the new station to Penn Station, and vice versa, if equipment or track problems cause NJ Transit to reschedule departures from one terminal to the other.
One previous ARC design had a new NJ Transit station below Penn Station, which would enable all train platforms to be under one roof. But geologists found softer rock formations from an ancient stream bed that would not provide the necessary structural integrity required of new construction.
The new station's much wider platforms and full-width escalators will enable passengers to rise to the street in about the same four to five minutes it now takes at Penn Station, but without the stop-and-go jams of humanity on the old narrow platforms and stairs.
Planners acknowledge that if an emergency forces passengers to go between Tracks 1-5 at Penn Station and the new station, it's a problem, but manageable. In a rare event, NJ Transit will have to use sophisticated signage, issue announcements and e-mail alerts, and deploy staff to give directions.
Anthony Coscia, chairman of the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, the project's co-sponsor, said debate over a project like ARC is understandable. "But we can't unrealistically view any one project as a panacea but part of a long-term strategy of reversing a trend of under-investing in transportation infrastructure," he said.
The tunnel addresses the region's most pressing mass transit problem -- getting more trains into Manhattan, Coscia said. Some of the features sought by rail advocates could be part of a follow-up study. ARC "is only the first project," he said.
New Jersey and the Port Authority have committed $5.7 billion toward the $8.7 billion project. The tunnel got $178 million in federal stimulus money -- among the largest transportation project recipients -- and the railroad is applying for nearly $3 billion more from Washington. Digging will begin this year and the tunnel should be completed in 2017.
Critics ask why tracks in the new tunnel won't connect to Penn Station, noting this would give NJ Transit and Amtrak greater operational flexibility. Both railroads very much wanted this connection.
But planners found they could not repeat in a built-up city what the Pennsylvania Railroad did when it built the existing tunnel 100 years ago by digging a wide trench through the west side of Manhattan. The only solution was to dig deep -- low enough to avoid the historic 90-foot-deep shoreline bulkhead and the New York Subway No. 7 line's extension.
From that depth and in a short distance, trains can't reliably rise to make it into Penn Station. After repeated review, it was concluded a spur from the new tunnel was impossible.
Importantly, though, Amtrak will get two rush-hour slots through the old tunnel from NJ Transit when the new tunnel is on line.
ARC's key unmet goal, passenger advocates say, is not getting commuters to Grand Central and near the high-concentration of good jobs. But the new station is designed so its tracks can be extended east. Deciding exactly where they should go -- directly to the terminal or a new underground one in that vicinity, or just to the east side of Manhattan -- will be a big project unto itself.
"Now that the tunnel project is underway, planning should resume on finding the best way to extend NJ Transit service to the Grand Central area," said Martin Robins, senior fellow at Rutgers University's Alan M. Voorhees Transportation Center.
Beginning in the 1920s, worthy proposals to improve the region's rail system were forsaken for projects to aid the automobile. With the tunnel, Secaucus Transfer and several big New York projects, a dam of rail infrastructure investments has been broken. It's time to maintain that transit planning momentum.
Philip Barbara is an editor with Reuters in Washington.