New Dinky to Nassau Street

Like I said Herzie, why do you mention that LRV needs a bus backup differently from the current heavy rail setup? Are you implying that the heavy rail does not need a bus backup?

The LRV currently favored to replace the Dinky is simple enough to be maintained locally, and a spare half-unit will be waiting in the maintenance depot. In addition, the university's Tiger Transit currently operates a bus to the Junction in redundant, parallel service to NJ Transit's EMU service, previously protected by an NJ Transit bus. Contingent backup service is absolutely no problem whatsoever, period.

As for platform level, why not just go with the simplest solution? The platform at the Junction will be replaced with a low-level platform. All new stations or stops will be low level, fully compatible with the low-floor LRV.

The proposed extended route to Nassau Street will go from the new station around the new Arts Campus just inside the existing roadway on a dedicated ROW and on up University Place in a dedicated lane, now parking, which will be moved to the opposite side of the street when the street becomes one-way.

From a cost standpoint, what would be the respective merits of lowering the platform vs. raising the dinky track to the present platform level? Presumably there would be no point in maintaining the connection with the Corridor, and it would save passengers a few steps.

That was the original concept until it was determined that the raised track would require a pedestrian tunnel to the parking lot. Removal of the high-level platform at the Junction merely requires the installation of a set of steps and some guard rails; all the required ADA ramps are already in place from track level to NEC platform level.

Of course, a primary consideration remains the need for a new Dinky to have easy access to its maintenance facility, beyond the Princeton Junction station at the over-night storage track. That would be difficult with a track elevated to the level of the current platform.

So is this pipe dream now dead and buried for another decade or so?

Dcell wrote:So is this pipe dream now dead and buried for another decade or so?

Hopefully next to jimmy hoffa.

Princeton's Alexander Street/University Place task force is awaiting the report of the consultant URS recommending that the Dinky be converted to light rail and extended to Nassau Street (Princeton's main street) on a dedicated right-of-way. The principal remaining question is whether to use traditional, proven rolling stock or to go with the most innovative technology: an LRV as fast as the current Dinky yet simple enough to be maintained locally at a (mere) million-dollar facility to be constructed at Princeton Junction. With this LRV the Princeton Branch can be operated without subsidy, a singular accomplishment. Stay tuned.

Princeton university's name is mud right now in the town of Princeton for moving the Dinky station away from downtown. If all of this in the end leads to a stop next to downtown Nassau St, it will be viewed as the biggest positive step in Princeton infrastructure in 100 (?) years, and would more than repair any university-town relationship issues. So with such a large positive possible outcome, if the right big players get behind it, I would think this could absolutely happen. JS
PS. Around 20(?) years ago when the Dinky finances were in bad shape, I think the university bailed it out in some way. Does Princeton University actually own the ROW from Princeton Junction to Princeton now, and NJT operates at the pleasure of the university, legally? (I can't imagine that is the case). Or does Princeton just contribute an operating subsidy, or did it just buy the old station area? I forget what the deal was. Someone here must know...

I really wish this ill conceived fodder would fall into a shallow grave and die.

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.

dowlingm wrote: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.

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.

dowlingm wrote: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....

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.