Northern Branch HBLR (was DMU proposal)

Certainly no one shares the frustration over Northern Branch delays more than NJ-ARP might. But all of us might see some movement as January arrives and, from NJ-ARP's point of view if no one else's, we're hopeful that the movement will be positive.

Just as a reminder (admittedly self-serving): We've argued long, loud, and hard for the Northern Branch to be an extension of HBLRT, and that means (for us) electric light rail service north from the current terminus at Tonnele Avenue. We think we've made the case for our modal preference many times over, but we'll see what January brings.

Why in January? whats going to transpire?

A co-worker of mine who is from tenafly and and on there "transportation commitee" said the ED is supposed to make an announcement tomorrow 12/13 regarding the Northern Branch. DEIS is supposed to come out tomorrow or will be announced when it will come out.

Has got to be this sites first update in three years.

http://www.northernbranchcorridor.com/docs.html

http://www.northernbranchcorridor.com/d ... 0Plans.pdf

This page had the most detail that I feel like those on this forum will be interested in. Seems like the line will be mostly double track except for in downtown Tenafy and Englewood.

Some interesting reading so far. closure of 83rd street, massive flyover if im reading it right. Ridgefield station? LOLOLOL, there is no place to put station now, all properties that had been for sale have been bougth and are redeveloped or in construction right now. No idea where they plan on putting a station now. But all the others look good.

anyone know which alignment they are supposed to use for leonia? The had two different maps, one with the parking lot north of fort lee road with the w/b platform there and the e/b on the south side of fort lee road by the county park. Then there's another map showing the entire station on the south side of fort lee road in the county park and along station parkway.

I hope everyone attends to public meetings in January. If the Lackawanna Cutoff project is a model of how this will proceed. 1. It will be at least 1 year(2013) before we get feedback on what takes place in January. 2. It will take another year to find funding and go out to bid. and 3. It may be done in pieces.
Realistically at best we may see Richfield Park by 2015/2016

Steve F45 wrote:Some interesting reading so far. closure of 83rd street, massive flyover if im reading it right. Ridgefield station? LOLOLOL, there is no place to put station now, all properties that had been for sale have been bougth and are redeveloped or in construction right now. No idea where they plan on putting a station now. But all the others look good.

There is room to pull off the Ridgefield Station. The former Northern Branch station is just overgrown near Hendricks Causeway....




(despite the fact that the station site is proposed south of it.)

everything south has been developed. Where they proposed the station is now a strip mall for asian store's. And across where the factory is, looks to be under contruction for new condo's.

Steve F45 wrote:everything south has been developed. Where they proposed the station is now a strip mall for asian store's. And across where the factory is, looks to be under contruction for new condo's.

Then, what's wrong with rebuilding the Ridgefield Station site that is still there, just overgrown?

Does the report discuss trip time? I didn't notice it if it did. Is the idea here to allow Bergen people to hook into the PATH, or is the primary point to facilitate travel within Bergen and from Bergen to Hudson? It strikes me that a Northern Branch/HBLR to PATH trip would be pretty slow. I wonde how that wopuld cmpare with bus service over the GW with a subway transfer, but I didn't notice a comparison in the report.

Spot answers to some questions: At least some of the service from Bergen County (pick your O/D point) and Hudson County is envisioned to be "express" in some nature, at least during the rush, courtesy of Three Roads in the back of Hoboken. One can always argue over implementation, but the physical HBLRT infrastructure is ready to handle such service.

As for Ridgefield, the station site issue outlined here by various folk is indeed interesting, and we're taking notes (thank you for the info!). But given that Ridgefield has been the loudest and most ardent proponent of HBLRT up the Northern Branch -- the northern equivalent of pro-HBLRT champion Bayonne, if one will -- we're pretty sure the municipality will find a way to accommodate LRT somehow.

[Addendum]: Somewhere way, way back on this thread NJ-ARP and others discussed the various markets that HBLRT would serve vis a vis other modal choices (such as DMU shuttle or bus). We'll go over the details again if one wishes, but the general gist was that HBLRT excelled in serving numerous markets, particularly to/from New Jersey's Gold Coast but also for access to and from New York (better ridership than many skeptics believed). As a standalone item, NJ-ARP believes intracounty passenger potential for any HBLRT extension probably isn't the biggest potential ridership draw, but we won't sneer at any such ridership if we can get it!

More imput as we can and, once again, thanks to those who are spotting these smaller but important items!

JCGUY wrote:Does the report discuss trip time? I didn't notice it if it did. Is the idea here to allow Bergen people to hook into the PATH, or is the primary point to facilitate travel within Bergen and from Bergen to Hudson? It strikes me that a Northern Branch/HBLR to PATH trip would be pretty slow. I wonde how that wopuld cmpare with bus service over the GW with a subway transfer, but I didn't notice a comparison in the report.

I still stand by the belief that the primary ridership-driver will be Hoboken/Jersey City commuters as well as local and reverse-commute riders, but there are segments of the NYC market that will use this service.

Anyone who was going to Midtown from the Northern Branch will most likely get off at Port Imperial and catch a ferry there, which would not be a long trip at all. Even with the bus lane, the Lincoln Tunnel can get backed up for commuters at rush hour (especially these local buses that must mix with normal traffic). HBLRT to Port Imperial Ferry would probably compare favorably with the Lincoln Tunnel, and with GWB busses+subway because the A train has more stops in the same stretch of track than HBLRT Tenafly-Weehawken.

There will also be some folks who will ride all the way to Hoboken (hopefully with some express service) and take PATH if they work somewhere downtown. If express service is implemented correctly, this should be faster than having to take a bus through traffic either across the bridge or in the tunnel then taking the A train all the way downtown. So this service will definitely make the commutes of many Northern Valley residents quicker.

Thanks. It would be nice to see some trip time comparisons though. I don't suppose the NEPA statement is the place for that, but presumably someone is or should be thinking on this level. In terms of getting people to Jersey City, an express service would be very helpful. The light rail is just not very fast within Hoboken and Jersey City.

The statement does discuss capacity restrictions on the Lincoln Tunnel XBL. To me that simply avoids the question of why these energies aren't applied to adding a new tunnel tube for buses, ideally with an entry point well west of the helix. The rail to ferry idea makes a lot of sense, but I'd note that now you are talking about a commute consisting of 3 transport modes (assuming no driving to the train!) with a high expense for the ferry. I wonder if the 7 extension will limit the need for the ferry to use connecting buses, assuming people walk or ride over to Javtits land and take the 7 through.