New Dinky to Nassau Street

[25Hz]

Is there a possibility of extending a light rail option east of PJct to the Forrestal campus? Seems a shame to make it a dead end line at the mainline halt considering the urbanization around PJct but at the same time I suspect there is little appetite to tunnel under the NEC to serve West Windsor.

You can do whatever you want on paper/imagination, it's never going to happen. The station is high level, how do you propose light rail both use princeton junction AND anywhere else, build new platforms? Where is the space for this? The money for acquiring the property? The stringing of overhead traction lines? Substation to power the whole thing? Crossing gates etc? Utility relocation? Road markings & signage? Rolling stock? Storage/maintenance facility? Employees to work in the facility?

This is a dead end idea.

[dowlingm]

Good lord what an overreaction. All I was asking was - were there insurmountable physical obstacles such as the depot planned to be built across the eastern track ends precluding an extension. Any discussion of money etc would be rendered moot if several walls stood in the way.

[25Hz]

Good lord what an overreaction. All I was asking was - were there insurmountable physical obstacles such as the depot planned to be built across the eastern track ends precluding an extension. Any discussion of money etc would be rendered moot if several walls stood in the way.

Over-reaction, you mean listing of the reasons this won't work for the 7th time?

Where is the money and space for high level platforms? Where is the space and money for vehicle storage? Where is the one off high level vehicle order going to come from?

The whole thing is an insurmountable obstacle. The sooner you & Mr, Fisk see this, the sooner you can move on to something like increasing shuttle trips to make it more useful....

[dowlingm]

If dropping the Princeton Jct Dinky platforms is too much to contemplate (and an accessibility challenge for cross-platform transfer), why not simply raise the trackbed on light rail Dinky tracks until it reaches the existing platform height? High platforms are only an issue if you expect high and low platform cars to access the same platform, surely?

Your dogged attachment to a heavy rail EMU shuttle over a technology geared to short distance travel and which will allow the Dinky to serve more of Princeton is puzzling.

[ExCon90]

Two posts from Rodney Fisk on page 6 point out two problems with that.

[dowlingm]

Two posts from Rodney Fisk on page 6 point out two problems with that.

Ah yes, so they do. We'll have to wait for the report to see what's proposed.

[pumpers]

... A new bypass road has been opened to allow reconstruction of the AS/UP intersection into a roundabout with both entrance and exit lanes reduced from three to two. I would argue that the only realistic option at this stage is for an extended rail service to traverse the green space around the new Arts Campus.
...

Anything new from the Princeton Alex St etc Task Force? If not what is the next milestone or meeting or report date?
Second, while I am in favor of your plan, the above statement from October seems to be a show stopper . Why would we ever think Princeton Univ would support it? Has anything changed since October?
JS

[Rodney Fisk]

Let's start with the history question: In 1984 the university purchased the old stations and surrounding property from NJ Transit. The proceeds were dedicated to contributing to Dinky operating subsidy, split over ten years. NJ Transit continues to own the entirety of the Dinky ROW.

On the matter of extending the Dinky to Plainsboro or West Windsor: The only reason for rail transit in an affluent suburban area is to provide relief from a tedious commute; typical mass transit (buses) well serve the transit-dependent. The conclusion is that such an extension to Forrestal would not generate sufficient riders to justify Federal support. The cost to build a flyover--let alone a tunnel--would yield a cost per incremental rider more than the Detroit People Mover. In addition a separate LRV (and crew) would be required for each extension. How else to meet most trains at the NEC?

25Hz seems satisfied with the current EMU operation, if only service could be increased. But it can't! NJTransit's current labor contract limits roundtrips to three per hour. As 25Hz surely realizes, the current Arrow IIIs could easily make five, absent this mandated tradition.

The new station at the university is under construction with high-level platform. When the Dinky is converted to light rail, the track will be raised to platform level with plenty of track for the gradient. The platform at the Junction will be converted to low level by cutting back the existing platform by four feet and building stairs to the higher level. An ADA pathway already exists. There will be no need for any new high-level platforms; therefore, no worries about space or property acquisition or associated cost. One-off high-level LRVs a problem? Every major manufacturer still builds them. (But they were never under consideration anyway.)

LRV storage will be inside the secured maintenance facility to be built over the existing storage yard. Cost of entire facility: $1.2 million. Contract maintenance service readily available to supplement single staff mechanic. No additional grade-crossing protection will be required.

There will be no additional overhead traction lines; any extension beyond the new station will be by power stored in supercapacitors. The existing OHL will be converted to 650vDC with two factory-built substations mounted on poured-concrete plinths. $65,000 each.

Road markings and signage costs will amount to 0.00001 total capital budget. Soap dispensers in the restrooms will be even less.

About the cost of the LRV: The "VLRV" we have specified is modular; two modules connected make up a train. Therefore we only need a single additional module as a spare, whereas all other LRVs would require a fleet of at least two complete vehicles. Total vehicle cost: $6 million, $2 million a module. (A single Bombardier "Flexity" delivers at $5.8 million.)

Now that I've batted away the examples of 25Hz's rigid thinking, I'll get ready for tomorrow's meeting of the task force.

[Rodney Fisk]

About the LRT ROW on green space, the university is obligated by a memorandum of understanding with Princeton Council to that route, or one "mutually agreeable to both parties". PC will stick with that--or a straight shot up to University Place, a route previously precluded but now arguably less intrusive on the new Arts Campus.

[pumpers]

... I'll get ready for tomorrow's meeting of the task force.

good luck, JS

[dowlingm]

Any intermediate stops between PJ and the current terminus, southeast of Brunswick Pike?

If the track is raised at PJ, would it make sense to continue the elevation with a view to grade sep of the inter-car park road just outside the station?

[Rodney Fisk]

Currently no intermediate stops between PJ and university but could be added. Track can't be raised at PJ in that LRV must be able to continue to maintenance/storage depot.

[Rodney Fisk]

The transit task force is still mulling over whether LRT should operate in street or on a dedicated ROW and whether with one LRV or two. Formal presentation before Princeton Council delayed from later this month until September, 27 months behind schedule.

[dowlingm]

Sorry Rodney, managed to misread your earlier post about cutting down the platform.

[Rodney Fisk]

UPDATE: It appears that the Princeton transit task force may consider converting the Dinky to light rail as anticipated but not extending it to Nassau Street, since most trains would have to reverse at the new station in order to make schedule at the NEC. Why not just keep the current Dinky operation with its Arrow IIIs? Answer: To increase service by 66% (from 3 to 5 roundtrips per hour) and reduce operating cost by 75%, saving more than a million bux a year.

What about service into town? A new Dinky "combo" can now meet every train at the Junction from Nassau Street! The only tradeoff would be a cross-platform transfer onto a bi-directional, driverless bus operating on a narrow, paved and dedicated ROW right up into the CBD, all at lower cost than extending the new Dinky--and introducing yet more new technology to the US.

So now we have an LRV shuttling between two stations with high-level platforms, one not even in service yet, and as 25Hz has declared, there are only low-level LRVs being built. I nervously contacted the chief design engineer of our British builder and can happily report that a high-level version of their VLRV has been fully engineered and can be supplied within the same time frame and at the same price.

Cool beans, I say.