Irish Chieftain wrote:If NJT's still insistent on DMU (it'd be the first FRA-spec one they ran since the RDC), then all concerned ought to be equally insistent that Hoboken be the eastern terminus.How about JSQ as an alt. eastern terminus (for what ever its worth)?
Railroad Forums
Northern Branch HBLR (was DMU proposal)
- Discussion related to New Jersey Transit rail and light rail operations.
Moderators: lensovet, Kaback9, nick11a
The numbers seem to make it a mixed bag. One point, it says that ridership would be low for a Northern Branch DMU solution, but transfers would be higher in certain places, or lower in others. Would this mean that the ridership would shift from one line to another or would there be an increase in transfers?
Douglas John Bowen wrote:To uzplayer: We'll have to politely decline. NJ-ARP doesn't have a closetful of paid lobbyists ready to pounce on specific to-do items -- worthy though they may be -- such as surveys. We don't have the staffpower, nor do we have unlimited funds, for such measures in the normal course of events. We're funded by our membership, though we do have a "Paid Staff of One."
To that end, our Bergen County members, including those in Tenafly and nearby, have made clear their preference(s). We are acting accordingly.
To trainhq: We'll agree that the matter won't be settled here on this forum. However, we'd point anyone interested in comparing the numbers that have been made available to http://www.nj-arp.org/hblrt_dmu.gif to get at least a starting point on the "numbers" debate.
No doubt the numbers will be revisited, and other/more studies will follow; in fact, NJ Transit has said just such a thing in public hearings, and it certainly would follow federal guidelines, per standard. But as those numbers are revisited, NJ-ARP will be watching very closely, similar to the way we've watched the numbers ebb and flow for projects like MOM.
BlockLine_4111 wrote:Consider this..... bringing a hypothetical Northern Branch DMU to Hoboken takes the construction of a single connector at West End over mostly railroad owned land. Bringing them to JSQ involves construction of a new connector facing the correct way at CP Marion (through what is now a parking lot, i.e. most likely reclaiming property using eminent domain) and construction of a brand new station at JSQ, and convincing Conrail Shared Assets to part from their railroad between CP Marion and effectively CP Waldo to make room for putting a new station in at JSQ. Given tight budgetary situation which should one prefer? Which of those two do you suppose will take less time and effort?Irish Chieftain wrote:If NJT's still insistent on DMU (it'd be the first FRA-spec one they ran since the RDC), then all concerned ought to be equally insistent that Hoboken be the eastern terminus.How about JSQ as an alt. eastern terminus (for what ever its worth)?
We're not quite sure what uzplayer is trying to distinguish between ridership shifts and transfers -- we're not trying to be snide saying that; we just don't understand.
What we can say is that the chart shows the number of riders transferring between DMU and LRT at either the current HBLRT terminus (or close by) at 50th Street North Bergen -- that in itself is another piece of NJ Transit "unclarity" -- or from DMU to other rail at Secaucus Junction.
Extending Hudson-Bergen Light Rail Transit to Tenafly, by contrast, reduces "in-system" transfers, while at the very least breaking even in the "number-of-seat rides" between Tenafly and midtown Manhattan (or downtown Manhattan, for that matter).
The chart does not show any numbers for the promised "one-seat ride to Midtown," just FYI. So we can't measure or compare projected ridership with that proposed option.
Short of that, though, NJ-ARP believes the chart clearly shows LRT options generate the most ridership. Note even the "two-fork" LRT option to Tenafly and Secaucus -- not often discussed -- does better than DMU alternatives.
What we can say is that the chart shows the number of riders transferring between DMU and LRT at either the current HBLRT terminus (or close by) at 50th Street North Bergen -- that in itself is another piece of NJ Transit "unclarity" -- or from DMU to other rail at Secaucus Junction.
Extending Hudson-Bergen Light Rail Transit to Tenafly, by contrast, reduces "in-system" transfers, while at the very least breaking even in the "number-of-seat rides" between Tenafly and midtown Manhattan (or downtown Manhattan, for that matter).
The chart does not show any numbers for the promised "one-seat ride to Midtown," just FYI. So we can't measure or compare projected ridership with that proposed option.
Short of that, though, NJ-ARP believes the chart clearly shows LRT options generate the most ridership. Note even the "two-fork" LRT option to Tenafly and Secaucus -- not often discussed -- does better than DMU alternatives.
You respond fairly quickly to threads. That's appreciated.
What I am trying to understand is under "Peak Hour Load" there is PSNY and PABT which I am going to assume is Penn Station NY and Port Authority Bus Terminal. Both show that ridership will go down or up depending on the solution... That's what I am trying to figure out.
What I am trying to understand is under "Peak Hour Load" there is PSNY and PABT which I am going to assume is Penn Station NY and Port Authority Bus Terminal. Both show that ridership will go down or up depending on the solution... That's what I am trying to figure out.
Douglas John Bowen wrote:We're not quite sure what uzplayer is trying to distinguish between ridership shifts and transfers -- we're not trying to be snide saying that; we just don't understand.
What we can say is that the chart shows the number of riders transferring between DMU and LRT at either the current HBLRT terminus (or close by) at 50th Street North Bergen -- that in itself is another piece of NJ Transit "unclarity" -- or from DMU to other rail at Secaucus Junction.
Extending Hudson-Bergen Light Rail Transit to Tenafly, by contrast, reduces "in-system" transfers, while at the very least breaking even in the "number-of-seat rides" between Tenafly and midtown Manhattan (or downtown Manhattan, for that matter).
The chart does not show any numbers for the promised "one-seat ride to Midtown," just FYI. So we can't measure or compare projected ridership with that proposed option.
Short of that, though, NJ-ARP believes the chart clearly shows LRT options generate the most ridership. Note even the "two-fork" LRT option to Tenafly and Secaucus -- not often discussed -- does better than DMU alternatives.
Ah, OK. Uzplayer is correct in believing the transfer points listed are in fact the Port Authority Bus Terminal (PABT) and Penn Station-New York (PSNY). And depending on the rail option advanced for the Northern Branch, it estimates the ridership likely to be utilize either destination.
NJ-ARP would note that the numbers for both terminii are negative in all but one instance, and that's rational enough. At least some people on the new train route would (initially) be switching from their current bus ride, and some people headed to Midtown via Northern Branch routings would be opting for ferry or PATH, not Penn Station.
The one net "positive" number set shows up where DMU would run from Tenafly to HBLRT's terminus in North Bergen, then continue on to Secaucus Junction; that proposal is in the third column of the chart.
NJ-ARP would note that the numbers for both terminii are negative in all but one instance, and that's rational enough. At least some people on the new train route would (initially) be switching from their current bus ride, and some people headed to Midtown via Northern Branch routings would be opting for ferry or PATH, not Penn Station.
The one net "positive" number set shows up where DMU would run from Tenafly to HBLRT's terminus in North Bergen, then continue on to Secaucus Junction; that proposal is in the third column of the chart.
So from what it looks like, any of the solutions illustrated will add to the capacity, but at the same time will shift anywhere from about 30-45% of ridership off one mode and onto the other, with LRT being the one that shifts ridership.
If those are rounded numbers (aka millions of riders) then there's one reason why NJT favors DMU. It has less impact on other modes that are established..
If those are rounded numbers (aka millions of riders) then there's one reason why NJT favors DMU. It has less impact on other modes that are established..
Douglas John Bowen wrote:Ah, OK. Uzplayer is correct in believing the transfer points listed are in fact the Port Authority Bus Terminal (PABT) and Penn Station-New York (PSNY). And depending on the rail option advanced for the Northern Branch, it estimates the ridership likely to be utilize either destination.
NJ-ARP would note that the numbers for both terminii are negative in all but one instance, and that's rational enough. At least some people on the new train route would (initially) be switching from their current bus ride, and some people headed to Midtown via Northern Branch routings would be opting for ferry or PATH, not Penn Station.
The one net "positive" number set shows up where DMU would run from Tenafly to HBLRT's terminus in North Bergen, then continue on to Secaucus Junction; that proposal is in the third column of the chart.
NJ-ARP doesn't (can't?) understand how larger numbers of people preferring a given mode (in an initial analysis) constitutes a negative.
Indeed, this is similar to FTA-think, wherein light rail is "bad" because it presumably "steals" riders from existing bus systems. Perhaps New Jersey Transit might buy this from a political point of view. But it's backwards thinking. It smacks of "zero-sum" transit ridership -- a problem that (trust us) New Jersey and New Jersey Transit does not have.
What HBLRT to Tenafly does is free up that existing bus capacity so that even more riders in the Northern Valley can use transit. Indeed, all riders now have a choice -- and quite possibly positive redundancy. How this is bad we cannot see.
Of course, in NJ-ARP's view, the same would apply to DMUs -- it wouldn't be "bad" either, for the same reasons -- added choice and capacity. LRT still wins, in our view, however, because LRT adds more choice (more frequency, even in NJT's skewed analysis) and far more capacity, even on a 1-for-1 frequency ratio.
LRT results nationwide tend to show increased bus ridership on routes linked to light rail, not decreases. In the case of Bergen County, bus capacity is close to the brim in any event, but assuming more could be added for intrastate focus, NJ-ARP doesn't fret for NJT's bus fleet usefulness.
Indeed, this is similar to FTA-think, wherein light rail is "bad" because it presumably "steals" riders from existing bus systems. Perhaps New Jersey Transit might buy this from a political point of view. But it's backwards thinking. It smacks of "zero-sum" transit ridership -- a problem that (trust us) New Jersey and New Jersey Transit does not have.
What HBLRT to Tenafly does is free up that existing bus capacity so that even more riders in the Northern Valley can use transit. Indeed, all riders now have a choice -- and quite possibly positive redundancy. How this is bad we cannot see.
Of course, in NJ-ARP's view, the same would apply to DMUs -- it wouldn't be "bad" either, for the same reasons -- added choice and capacity. LRT still wins, in our view, however, because LRT adds more choice (more frequency, even in NJT's skewed analysis) and far more capacity, even on a 1-for-1 frequency ratio.
LRT results nationwide tend to show increased bus ridership on routes linked to light rail, not decreases. In the case of Bergen County, bus capacity is close to the brim in any event, but assuming more could be added for intrastate focus, NJ-ARP doesn't fret for NJT's bus fleet usefulness.
It shouldn't constitute a negative. But in the view on NJT and the other agencies involved, taking riders away from one line and putting them on another causes problems.
I understand where you are coming from. There needs to be redundancy in the system and additional capacity is needed. If either mode can help, then that's the way we need to go.
I understand where you are coming from. There needs to be redundancy in the system and additional capacity is needed. If either mode can help, then that's the way we need to go.
Douglas John Bowen wrote:NJ-ARP doesn't (can't?) understand how larger numbers of people preferring a given mode (in an initial analysis) constitutes a negative.
Indeed, this is similar to FTA-think, wherein light rail is "bad" because it presumably "steals" riders from existing bus systems. Perhaps New Jersey Transit might buy this from a political point of view. But it's backwards thinking. It smacks of "zero-sum" transit ridership -- a problem that (trust us) New Jersey and New Jersey Transit does not have.
What HBLRT to Tenafly does is free up that existing bus capacity so that even more riders in the Northern Valley can use transit. Indeed, all riders now have a choice -- and quite possibly positive redundancy. How this is bad we cannot see.
Of course, in NJ-ARP's view, the same would apply to DMUs -- it wouldn't be "bad" either, for the same reasons -- added choice and capacity. LRT still wins, in our view, however, because LRT adds more choice (more frequency, even in NJT's skewed analysis) and far more capacity, even on a 1-for-1 frequency ratio.
LRT results nationwide tend to show increased bus ridership on routes linked to light rail, not decreases. In the case of Bergen County, bus capacity is close to the brim in any event, but assuming more could be added for intrastate focus, NJ-ARP doesn't fret for NJT's bus fleet usefulness.
Uzplayer probably has it right: To New Jersey Transit, more riders equals more problems. Yep, that's the philosophy needed to grow the product.
Still, New Jersey Transit itself is in the lead right now arguing for additional service using an additional mode. Up to this point, NJT and NJ-ARP agree. So regardless of which mode is chosen, NJT (and/or we) would be "taking riders away from one line and putting them on another," at least in theory.
It shouldn't matter if -- and we stress this if -- one thinks beyond that "zero-sum" game. That concern may, might, have been something to ponder when NJT was formed in 1979. It has no place in the New Jersey reality of 2006, and in fact has had no weight for nigh on a decade now.
And even NJT, to its credit, is starting to get it, at least where light rail already is proving its mettle. It recently shortened (truncated) the #181 bus line so that it terminates at 48th Street, Union City -- and light rail. The reason? As even the bus division noted, with no shame: LRT gets to Hoboken much, much faster. In turn (NJ-ARP notes in return), NJT gets its #181 bus fleet "freed up" to provide more seats more often to more people. Win-win for both modes; win for NJT; win for the riding public.
Still, New Jersey Transit itself is in the lead right now arguing for additional service using an additional mode. Up to this point, NJT and NJ-ARP agree. So regardless of which mode is chosen, NJT (and/or we) would be "taking riders away from one line and putting them on another," at least in theory.
It shouldn't matter if -- and we stress this if -- one thinks beyond that "zero-sum" game. That concern may, might, have been something to ponder when NJT was formed in 1979. It has no place in the New Jersey reality of 2006, and in fact has had no weight for nigh on a decade now.
And even NJT, to its credit, is starting to get it, at least where light rail already is proving its mettle. It recently shortened (truncated) the #181 bus line so that it terminates at 48th Street, Union City -- and light rail. The reason? As even the bus division noted, with no shame: LRT gets to Hoboken much, much faster. In turn (NJ-ARP notes in return), NJT gets its #181 bus fleet "freed up" to provide more seats more often to more people. Win-win for both modes; win for NJT; win for the riding public.
Bus routes in Eastern Bergen run on several series of road segments that origiated as Indian Trails hundreds of years ago.
All but a few sections carry only two lanes of opposing traffic.
On Washington Ave, in Bergenfield, in the mornings waiting people are often passed by several buses that are fully loaded.
Because of heavy local traffic there is no room to add more buses.
Then there is the "Exprss Bus Lane" to the Lincoln Tunnel which is running almost at capacity. Light rail could free up at least 3000 bus seats each morning.
By the way, the only two highways north of Rt 4 in Eastern Bergen are the PIP and 9w. Both end at the GWB and are not useful for local trips. Their main function is to let Rockland Traffic bypass the towns centers.
All but a few sections carry only two lanes of opposing traffic.
On Washington Ave, in Bergenfield, in the mornings waiting people are often passed by several buses that are fully loaded.
Because of heavy local traffic there is no room to add more buses.
Then there is the "Exprss Bus Lane" to the Lincoln Tunnel which is running almost at capacity. Light rail could free up at least 3000 bus seats each morning.
By the way, the only two highways north of Rt 4 in Eastern Bergen are the PIP and 9w. Both end at the GWB and are not useful for local trips. Their main function is to let Rockland Traffic bypass the towns centers.
Albert F. Cafiero
The right argument for NJT to make would be that they are near capacity on the other modes as the previous poster said.. Freeing up capacity on the other modes and ultimately taking more cars off the road...Something that NY/NJ should be banking for...Especially with recent EPA reports ranking NYC as the #1 worst city for air quality and Northern NJ at a close 4th.
Correct me if i'm wrong... But hasnt the feds banned New Jersey from expanding the roads anymore without expanding mass transit throughout the region? One would assume that since this is the case, that they would fast-track any projects that would relieve congestion -- AKA Northern Branch, Cuttoff, NYSW..
Correct me if i'm wrong... But hasnt the feds banned New Jersey from expanding the roads anymore without expanding mass transit throughout the region? One would assume that since this is the case, that they would fast-track any projects that would relieve congestion -- AKA Northern Branch, Cuttoff, NYSW..
Douglas John Bowen wrote:Uzplayer probably has it right: To New Jersey Transit, more riders equals more problems. Yep, that's the philosophy needed to grow the product.
Still, New Jersey Transit itself is in the lead right now arguing for additional service using an additional mode. Up to this point, NJT and NJ-ARP agree. So regardless of which mode is chosen, NJT (and/or we) would be "taking riders away from one line and putting them on another," at least in theory.
It shouldn't matter if -- and we stress this if -- one thinks beyond that "zero-sum" game. That concern may, might, have been something to ponder when NJT was formed in 1979. It has no place in the New Jersey reality of 2006, and in fact has had no weight for nigh on a decade now.
And even NJT, to its credit, is starting to get it, at least where light rail already is proving its mettle. It recently shortened (truncated) the #181 bus line so that it terminates at 48th Street, Union City -- and light rail. The reason? As even the bus division noted, with no shame: LRT gets to Hoboken much, much faster. In turn (NJ-ARP notes in return), NJT gets its #181 bus fleet "freed up" to provide more seats more often to more people. Win-win for both modes; win for NJT; win for the riding public.
I'm sure that the XBL in to the Lincoln is at 100% capacity, just like NYP. I've certainly been a proponent of LRT for several reasons (forgetting the fact for a moment that we were promised it as MOS-3), although one of the more compelling is to promote from within. With the NY services running at capacity, why not get some more people down to JC, and further build it out? Right now, a Bergen to JC trip would be difficult in any mode, but here we have a method to bring Bergen to JC, giving them a quick ride in. That to me is much more beneficial in the long term to the state, as it gives you the most options. Do you want to take PATH? The Ferry? Buses? It is quick to see that LRT gives you the most choices.
And you have to think that a nice little untapped market is awaiting to be picked given Bergen County's blue laws.
Assuming that LRT is dead (and looking at the proposed FY07 budget NJT would have you believe it is), I'm curious as to why DMU is even being considered. Since NJT is push-pull addicted, why wouldn't they run it just like any other rail line? You already have FRA compliancy, and you can share it with the freight roads.
And you have to think that a nice little untapped market is awaiting to be picked given Bergen County's blue laws.
Assuming that LRT is dead (and looking at the proposed FY07 budget NJT would have you believe it is), I'm curious as to why DMU is even being considered. Since NJT is push-pull addicted, why wouldn't they run it just like any other rail line? You already have FRA compliancy, and you can share it with the freight roads.
Since NJT is push-pull addicted, why wouldn't they run it just like any other rail line?Probably noise and fuel consumption. Besides, if other DMUs can be like the CRC, then you could have push-pull with one powered unit anyway...
Some redundancy with light rail is good. People who can take the light rail likely will, freeing up seats for those that cannot (obviously, the bus does not exactly copy the LRT route), and at present, I bet that some who are only served by bus -- or by only one of a few buses -- wish that the short-haul riders had some other mode to choose. A good example is the 165. It's SRO on weekends, often times. If the Pascack Valley ran, a bunch of those people would be on rail, and the people who are headed off the PVL route would then have seats (and some who presently don't want to deal with the hassle might ride instead of driving).
|=| R. Novosielski |=|
