Connection between HBLRT and Newark/Union County LRT

Before the slate was wiped clean, several posts contained discussion about an underwater tunnel between Bayonne and the Port Newark area.

Sorry if I set all you North Jersey types off, but if it makes sense to connect both LRT systems (and that is a IF in my book), would it not be far cheaper to connect the two systems by way of a bridge which approximates the former CRRNJ from near the Iron Bound section of Newark across the bay to the HBLRT West Side branch terminus. Access to Penn Station (and connection with Newark-Elizabeth LRT) would be accomplished by way of a short tunnel extension east of the station and a new portal.

The one advantage of this connection that I can see is that it would provide intra-state capacity to relieve PATH overcrowding once Lower Manhattan is restored.

Comments?

Some people do want partial restoration of the Newark & New York Railroad over the Hackensack and Passaic Rivers (the bridges, minus draw spans, still exist); but this has been with an eye towards joining the HBLRT and "Newark Rail Link" (not a typo) at EWR instead of Newark's downtown. As for Newark itself, you'll never get a new tunnel portal; what exists is it for now, and the EWR segment of the "Newark Rail Link" will also emerge from that portal currently being worked on for the Penn Station-Broad Street Station segment. (BTW, in case you didn't know, the West Side Avenue branch of the HBLRT is the former CNJ's Newark & New York RR branch, greatly truncated and with the cut that used to go under Jackson Avenue/MLK Drive filled in.)

As for the idea for a tunnel to replace the former CNJ Newark Bay Drawbridge and thus link up the HBLRT with the "Union County Rail Link", that was spoken by Jeffrey Warsh right before his departure from NJT.

(As for "Newark Rail Link" and "Union County Rail Link", those are the new official names for the former Newark-Elizabeth Rail Link per NJ Transit's website of almost a year ago. It's not even set in concrete that the Union County Rail Link will be LRT at all; one factor of this is Cranford and their unwillingness to host LRT, or at least be a terminus for LRT, citing parking concerns among other spoken and unspoken ones.)

Ah yes, sweet reasoning....

Let's relieve PATH of overcrowding...

Since PATH can't seem to make money despite doing a very brisk business, maybe we shouldn't find another route to run taxpayer supported rail cars along. Having competing routes between two points might have made sense back in the day of competition, but now that we have been saddled with this mess, let's just try to make the best of it. Let's not compete with ourselves.

Just a thought.

Note that Bill R. said "intrastate"—that means within NJ and not crossing the Hudson River. The HBLRT would serve points not served by PATH, and that's not redundant.

Also, PATH service to Lower Manhattan has been running since late last year. Didn't notice that comment before; did you not know that, Mr. R?

Irish Chieftain wrote:Also, PATH service to Lower Manhattan has been running since late last year. Didn't notice that comment before; did you not know that, Mr. R?

Yes, I was aware. My reference to Lower Manhattan is with respect to rebuilding the area. Am I incorrect in stating that PATH patronage is only about 50% to 60% of pre 9/11 levels? Even if higher, it is still not back to the same amount.

At some point, the office space in Lower Manhatten will come close, if not exceed, the amout available before 9/11/01. At that point, it is reasonable to assume that PATH will have nearly the same number of passengers as before that day as well. To the extent that the overcrowding on PATH at that future time might be relieved by trying to get intrastate travel onto a regional LRT system, that probably would be a good thing for all.

Looking at one of the routes proposed it would appear that the service would not be redundant. I appear to have spoken too soon.