Railroad Forums 

  • NCS to Broad Street Station ("Newark Light Rail")

  • Discussion related to New Jersey Transit rail and light rail operations.
Discussion related to New Jersey Transit rail and light rail operations.

Moderators: lensovet, Kaback9, nick11a

 #481370  by RVRR 15
 
We offer this because, in the past, Kearny expressed a vague and polite but very discernible "discomfort" with being linked by rail to anything Newark
There's a difference between being linked by road and linked by rail? There are several road arteries that already connect Kearny with Newark, and at least five bus routes (1, 39, 40, 43, 76). That makes Kearny quite accessible from Newark.

 #481377  by SomervilleRailfan
 
RVRR 15 wrote:
We offer this because, in the past, Kearny expressed a vague and polite but very discernible "discomfort" with being linked by rail to anything Newark
There's a difference between being linked by road and linked by rail? There are several road arteries that already connect Kearny with Newark, and at least five bus routes (1, 39, 40, 43, 76). That makes Kearny quite accessible from Newark.
I think the mindset (and I don't know if this is completely true or not) is that cars and buses have to battle street traffic to get to a location so one arrives cranky and tired, while trains just drop you off at the convenient station, refreshed and ready to be "undesirable". :-D

 #481433  by Paul1705
 
If the Meadowlands truly develops into a mixed-use area instead of just being a sports complex, then it might be worthwhile to connect that to northern Essex County (the areas around Franklin Avenue and Grove Street that jamesrileyjr writes about.)

In the meantime, a shorter extension of Newark light rail could be built to Mount Pleasant Avenue and Broadway as he suggests. (The latter location was the site of the Boonton Line's North Newark station.) Possibly this could continue to Arlington if the community supports it.

Regarding those Kearny bus lines: community politics often supports the status quo. If the buses have been there for decades, no one notices who gets on or off. But suggest a new mode of transport, and people sometimes imagine the worst. Actually, it's often a relatively small number who think that way, but they often make the most noise.

 #481962  by psct29
 
One way or another WR Draw would have to be rehabbed or replaced for any kind of service to take place. While I'd love to see it happen (and I'd also love to see LR on the old Erie Newark Branch too)...I think financially the hurdles might be too much to overcome.

 #481997  by jamesrileyjr
 
Regarding those Kearny bus lines: community politics often supports the status quo. If the buses have been there for decades, no one notices who gets on or off. But suggest a new mode of transport, and people sometimes imagine the worst. Actually, it's often a relatively small number who think that way, but they often make the most noise.
Right, but my wife's family lives in the area. That particular stretch of Kearny is marked with the sort of people who would welcome any kind of extra transit solutions to Newark (and I cannot help but laugh about how we're all tap-dancing around saying what we're all thinking). They might not worry so much if it was proposed as the Light Rail to Secaucus Junction or an express line to Secaucus.
To that end, it's NJ-ARP's preference to grow LRT from existing cores, and going west to Montclair and east/north to Clifton remains a long-range interest of ours. Getting to Kearny has been less of a priority, but perhaps we, too, should revisit this, and if diesel shuttle or some other rail option is a better way, well, perhaps ...
Well, Kearny would be but one stop on the line - my ultimate goal is Secaucus Junction (or Transfer, or whatever people want to call it). The rail line to Clifton is definitely an important matter, and one which I wholeheartedly support but this would be in addition to, not instead of, the Clifton/Montclair projects.
In the meantime, a shorter extension of Newark light rail could be built to Mount Pleasant Avenue and Broadway as he suggests. (The latter location was the site of the Boonton Line's North Newark station.) Possibly this could continue to Arlington if the community supports it.
Agreed. One step at a time. Even getting down to Broadway or 21 would be great - this area lends itself very easily to a park-and-ride situation and would definitely reduce congestion along the area roads.
One way or another WR Draw would have to be rehabbed or replaced for any kind of service to take place. While I'd love to see it happen (and I'd also love to see LR on the old Erie Newark Branch too)...I think financially the hurdles might be too much to overcome.
As I indicated before, I don't believe it would need to be replaced completley - rehabilitated, absolutely, but replaced? I don't think so. It supported trains up to about ten years ago (please correct me if I'm wrong on this one) that were a good deal larger and heavier than the LRT cars on any line, and while it may need some parts replaced due to rust damage, I don't think a full replacement would be necessary.

I'm going to wait until the New Year to speak with any Kearny officials. In the meantime, would anyone know who I could contact regarding this at NJ Transit? I'll definitely wait until after speaking with the Kearny-folk to speak with NJT (thanks Doug!); I'm just trying to plan out what to say and who I'd be directing my discussion towards.

 #482015  by Otto Vondrak
 
Could we extend the Newark Light rail along the abandoned right of way to the corner of Glenwood Place and Glenwood Avenue? That would be very convienent for me to visit my friend in East Orange...

 #482047  by oknazevad
 
So I was walking this area last night along the old tracks, and a few things struck me as pretty feasible, and even desirable.

First, an extension of the light rail up the Orange Branch and on to the ex-Boonton/Greenwood Lake trackage would probably be well used. I saw a group of kids who were actually walking the entire length to Kearny from Broadway/Washington Ave! Easy access to the tracks there, because the stairs from the old North Newark Station are still there, and not fenced off.
The platforms were also (mostly) intact as was the foundation of the station house.

If service is put on this line, I'd probably go with an actual Light Rail extension, branching off at Branch Brook Park, if only to avoid requiring a transfer to get downtown. Mount Prospect Ave and Broadway _would_ be logical stations, but I might move the North Newark Station a half block east to allow for the second half of my proposal. Extension into Kearny, while having some ridership potential, as noted above, may not yet be politically feasible.

The second half of my proposal comes from a comment someone made (and I apologize for forgetting whom) about the oddity, if not outright stupidity, that Newark, the state's largest city, and Paterson, the third largest, don't have a direct passenger rail connection. Such a move now requires a transfer at Secaucus, which isn't the worst thing in the world, but is a bit cumbersome considering the size of the cities. Its not like I'm writing about a small place like Hillsdale. (My home town.)

However, trackage does exist in the form of Erie's former Newark Branch. What I'm thinking, is use DMU's to run along the line from the new North Newark Station to Paterson Station. That way, someone could go straight from Patterson to Newark, and transfer to the light rail to get to points of interest throughout Newark.

I just wonder how feasible the Newark-Patterson line would be, as I'm not as familiar with the condition of the right of way.

Is it still continuous, at least north to the junction with the Main Line? (I see the junction everyday driving on the Parkway, btw.)

It's currently single tracked, but are there spots where passing sidings could be built? What about continuing on to Hoboken, which may be needed to sell the line to Nutley.

I know the bridges aren't in great shape.

What else may get in the way of a Paterson to Newark (or even Paterson to Hoboken via Newark) service?

Any thoughts?

 #482301  by Paul1705
 
If you mean DMUs in the sense of what Colorado Rail Car builds, then it might be possible to run them into the existing Paterson station. (There is a track connection between the Newark Branch and the Main Line.)

If you mean Diesel light rail, as on the River Line, then there may be no way into Paterson except by building street trackage. That might be tricky to do, but a credible job was done with a similar situation in Camden.

The Newark branch had passenger service until 1966, but the Newark stop was at Fourth Avenue. I don't know what this looked like, but it was at least a mile away from Penn Station and several blocks from Broad Street Station. I'm guessing that ridership was pretty low there. Any future project would have to have much better connections than that.

 #482351  by oknazevad
 
If you mean DMUs in the sense of what Colorado Rail Car builds, then it might be possible to run them into the existing Paterson station. (There is a track connection between the Newark Branch and the Main Line.)

If you mean Diesel light rail, as on the River Line, then there may be no way into Paterson except by building street trackage. That might be tricky to do, but a credible job was done with a similar situation in Camden.
I meant the Colorado DMUs. From my understanding, there's fewer issues in using them on an active freight line. And I would run them into Paterson station. Not only is there a connection to the Main Line, but Paterson Station has those old stub platforms, perfect for a Paterson to Newark line.

As for RiverLine, Its not bad, but it shows that it was meant to be two separate projects that got squished together. Light rail works best at a more local level, like around Newark or Hudson county. Longer distances, like Trenton to Camden, or Paterson to Newark, need something heavier, with better seats! I don't think my rear has ever recovered from riding the full length of the RiverLine.
The Newark branch had passenger service until 1966, but the Newark stop was at Fourth Avenue. I don't know what this looked like, but it was at least a mile away from Penn Station and several blocks from Broad Street Station. I'm guessing that ridership was pretty low there. Any future project would have to have much better connections than that.
Hence the proposal to have a terminal/transfer to the Newark Light Rail a half-block over from the former North Newark station.
 #482454  by Douglas John Bowen
 
Time for us to object vis a vis the latest light rail canard -- this one being some kind of mileage limit to its effectiveness. We hear this surface from time to time, with the original "LRT limit" once offered as 14 miles from a central hub (or node). This seemed oh-so-sensible until Bi-State Metro (in St. Louis) shockingly ignored the truism, to good results.

So while we're not automatically ready to declare LRT superior to DMU in any service linking Paterson and Newark, we're not ready to throw in the LRT towel either, sore bottoms or otherwise. LRT could indeed work here, and (as offered in the same argument) offer options for lots of local origin/destination pairs besides the end points.

We likewise reject any reconfigured conventional wisdom insisting LRT can serve "only" urban areas such as Newark or the Gold Coast (and for that matter, doesn't Paterson/Newark include ... Newark?). The River Line demonstrates that in spades, in our view; we're not sure what the reference to "squished" is but we think the River Line works real well as a dual-feeder line, with real two-way traffic, that demonstrates LRT's ability to link local areas regardless of "urban" patina.

As for those "uncomfortable" River Line seats: Gee, we've heard good things about them, too. But let's say they're really terrible for the full-length trip. Nothing says such seating is an immutable proposition for future rail lines of any type.

So, please, if one can make a case for DMU being a preferred option for Newark/Paterson, by all means, make it. But make it without the misguided preconceptions weighting down LRT. New Jersey Transit has tried that approach for nigh on two decades and more now, and we at NJ-ARP are getting real good at smashing such nonsense to bits.

A polite reminder that NJ-ARP believes in DMUs and, in fact, co-sponsored the Colorado Railcar demonstration when it appeared on the Susie-Q.
 #482464  by chuchubob
 
Douglas John Bowen wrote:
As for those "uncomfortable" River Line seats: Gee, we've heard good things about them, too. But let's say they're really terrible for the full-length trip. Nothing says such seating is an immutable proposition for future rail lines of any type.
I don't ride the River LINE quite full length, but I frequently ride from Walter Rand or 36th Street to Trenton and back, and I do not find the seats uncomfortable. Of course, I'm young and in good shape (66 years old and only 40 pounds overweight).

 #482526  by bukie2k
 
oknazevad wrote:I just wonder how feasible the Newark-Patterson line would be, as I'm not as familiar with the condition of the right of way.
The ROW itself isn't in all that bad of a condition. NS uses it a time or two a week to service the WAS terminal in Newark. The real problem is the condition of the NIMBYs along the line who don't want the "undesireables" from either end of the line showing up in their towns. I wish there was some sort of commuter service along the Newark Industrial line into Paterson, it would make my commute into town on bad weather days so much easier.

 #482754  by oknazevad
 
My main reason for proposing DMUs for Newark-Paterson is that it seems to me it'd be better able to utilize pre-existing infrastructure.

As Paul noted above, LRT, or DLRT, would have to use street running in Paterson. On the other hand, DMUs, by being FRA-compliant, would be able to run right onto the short stretch of Main Line trackage into Paterson Station, using the old stub ends.

Using existing infrastructure seems a more cost-effective way to get service started. Which is important in a state with a near-broke transportation fund.

As for using LRT for distances greater than 15 miles, I remain unconvinced. St. Louis may be the exception. I do know that I didn't find the ride on the RiverLine great, nor the one in Baltimore, another long system. But that's just me. Your mileage may vary. (Pun fully intended.)
 #482789  by Douglas John Bowen
 
We noted St. Louis shattered the concept of limited LRT reach. Perhaps we should have stated St. Louis was the first to do so. LRT planners today give little credence to any arbitrary mileage limitation.

And well they should. The thread's DMU proponent himself has suggested LRT is good for handling local traffic; that in itself suggests plenty of opportunity for LRT to handle various segments, regardless of total line length. Put differently, it's counterproductive to see LRT as simply serving two terminii. If that were the case, HBLRT loads would all travel between Bayonne's 22nd Street and Hoboken Terminal, or Tonnelle Avenue and West Side Avenue. Ridership patterns show anything but that.

Perhaps one makes "A-to-B" observations because that's what one might do as a railfan checking out a property. Certainly this writer has done that -- but it's important to remember everyday riders use a given system for their own best purposes, and often that does not include covering the system from end to end.

Beyond all that, whatever mode is chosen to link Paterson and Newark, the rail infrastructure, almost assuredly, will be upgraded to the point where "use of existing infrastructure" becomes almost pointless. If one is arguing that (for instance) DMU might need less infrastructure than LRT, then one has a point, to be sure.

But a lower initial capital cost, while perhaps desirable "to get service started," still leaves open the issue of operational costs, something New Jersey also should be concerned about given budget considerations. In other words, advantages do exist for starting up something on the cheap, but those advantages don't always last for long.
Last edited by Douglas John Bowen on Sat Dec 22, 2007 8:59 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 #482794  by Douglas John Bowen
 
Another side note. It's amusing to us at NJ-ARP how lots of folks here either dismiss or snidely swipe at "street running" rail, even though it's on the rise throughout the United States. Paul1705 is a welcome exception; he noted street running can be "tricky" (and he's right), but also noted it's do-able (and it is).

The object, folks, is to move people. If FRA-encased, grade-separated tanks-on-a-rail ... or even just DMU! ... is the best way to move folks in a given area, then by all means let's pursue that. But "street running" isn't any kind of automatic sweeping disqualification for rail deployment anymore.
  • 1
  • 19
  • 20
  • 21
  • 22
  • 23
  • 31