Amtrak No Longer Considering Taking on the ARC Tunnel Project

    Your photos, videos & PDFs: 

The Record is reporting that  project have met the same fate.

A spokesperson from Amtrak told The Record, "we are no longer interested in this project," late Thursday a day after Governor Christie said Amtrak had considered taking over the tunnel.

Which body would be responsible for costs marred the possible transit giant's recovery of the project, with Amtrak issuing a statement that "As with any potential joint rail project with a commuter rail agency, such a collaboration with NJT would require their commitment to fully fund all costs associated with creating additional commuter train capacity."

Governor Christie only committed to assuming "our part of the cost." Talks broke down soon afterward.

Work began on the tunnel in 2009 under former governor John Corzine, and would have seen two new rail tunnels connect New Jersey with Manhattan and also significantly add capacity to the antiquated infrastructure and crowded tunnels. 

But the governor's office said that the cost overruns made pursuing the project untenable–New Jersey would have been on the hook for billions in overruns and "the state is broke," he said. The federal government has made efforts to reclaim $271 million in grants it put toward the project.

River Edge or Oradell commuters who pick up New Jersey Transit trains on the Pascack Valley Line at Oradell Station, River Edge Station or New Bridge Landing Station need to transfer at Hoboken for the PATH train or Secaucus for New Jersey Transit's Northeast Corridor Line to reach Manhattan, as opposed to the one-seat ride that ARC would have created. According to a study by the Regional Plan Association, ARC would have sliced the round-trip NJ Transit trip from Oradell Station to midtown Manhattan by 15.1 minutes, from 131.8 to 116.7 (a savings of 11 percent). At either River Edge Station or New Bridge Landing Station, the round-trip commute to midtown would have decreased by 15.1 minutes, from 123.8 to 108.7 (a savings of 17 percent), the study says.