Northern Branch HBLR (was DMU proposal)

I'm not admonishing you or anyone else at this point. To me, I think the jury is out on offering either mode of transportation on that branch. I have yet to see proof as to which service will be better. While granted, a solution which sends a DMU to a light rail system sounds wierd, what better is the light rail solution with the expense it would supposidely incur? That's the question to ask. Which will be more cost effective in the long run?

I haven't seen numbers that ultimately show which will be better in the long run for serving the transportation needs of that area. While I understand the need, I feel that NJT has to look at all alternatives and ultimately find the best alternative. If it happens to be a DMU which eventually would connect to NYP, then so be it (hopefully it's possible.)

NJ-ARP can only acknowledge that many people haven't crunched the numbers on Northern Valley issues yet; we certainly throw in scads of local, state, and federal officials -- many of them touting the "economical advantages" of DMU for the Northern Branch -- who apparently haven't looked at many numbers at all.

And, NJ-ARP would note, some of them are New Jersey Transit's own numbers, which somehow just never quite made it into public domain (until NJ-ARP got hold of them). Granted, those numbers are "old" now -- but we sure haven't seen any "new" numbers to replace them.

What NJ-ARP has seen is misrepresentation, sometimes approaching legerdermain, on the "advantages" of DMU versus LRT. Uzplayer understandably sticks with the "expense [LRT] would supposedly incur" as a touchstone, a baseline. So would we -- except LRT's projected cost of $100 million for mile isn't "fact" at all -- it certainly isn't set in stone -- while DMU's "cut-rate" costs seem, to be charitable, suspect.

Cost-effectiveness? In NJ-ARP's mind, the difference here is startling. LRT offers the higher frequencies, the greater capacity, the lower operating costs per mile, both in terms of per passenger and in absolute numbers. That leaves New Jersey Transit saying, "Yes, but we're talking 'one-seat ride to Manhattan'" -- without getting into what the true cost of such a project is. Here's a note, though: It sure isn't cheaper than a 10-mile LRT extension.

NJ-ARP believes we're pretty savvy on the merits (and shortfalls) of both modes. We'd respectfully remind people that it was NJ-ARP who co-sponsored the debut of Colorado Railcar's newest product to Bergen County -- so we can't be accused of being "anti-DMU." If NJT were playing the numbers honestly, NJ-ARP might consider DMUs. In our view, NJT is cooking the books -- to a crisp.

And we'd also remind people that NJ-ARP isn't automatically against untried (or "weird") options. The River Line was, after all, the first diesel light rail transit (DLRT) operation initiated in the United States -- with NJ-ARP as a prime champion. With Oceanside-Escondido following suit, and Austin, Texas contemplating the same, it's amazing how few in New Jersey seem to recognize "first-of-its-kind" approaches (in the U.S., at least) when it really happens.

Is there room for debate, then? Of course -- but NJ-ARP would submit that one can focus too much on numbers at the expense of what best serves the citizenry. We won't claim any comprehensive (or even scientific!) canvassing of the Northern Valley population, but some of them have told us what they might like -- if anything at all. Some don't want anything. Some, like uzplayer, say any rail is better than none. But enough wonder why a "one-seat ride to Manhattan" is the end-all/be-all when Tenafly already has that -- by bus. And enough also wonder why New Jersey can't leverage its own intrastate business and commercial centers (such as Jersey City) because that "one-seat-ride" mantra overrides all.

Those people wonder why -- and so do we at NJ-ARP.

There is no doubt that New Jersey has a lot of "firsts" in providing passenger rail-based transportation. River Line Diesel Light Rail being among one of the more notable recent "firsts."

I never said that any service is better then none. What I am saying is as long as it serves the better good of the public, then it's good. Yeah it might seem like a band-aid, but if it can be upgraded later on with little cost, then the alternative is good.

All right, NJ-ARP stands corrected per uzplayer's note that he never advocated a "better than none" approach. We weren't being all that pejorative on the stance -- we ourselves come up to that line quite often.

But we clearly aren't getting our message across re: cost. And on this point, we are adamant: DMU is not a low-cost option, be it the original "shuttle" or the full monte of "one-seat ride to Manhattan." DMU is not cheap. Repeat, is ... not ... cheap ... even to construct. NJT claims it is. NJT is mistaken. And that's before we get to the issues of day- to-day operations, maintenance, and so forth. We see no ambiguity here.

Our apologies to uzplayer, and anyone else, if we appear strident on this matter. But to us, this matters; it's not just theoretical exercise.

One point to be made, and a question to Mr. Bowen.

Point: if NJ transit's record on the River Line is any indication, a DMU train will not be cheap. You can expect a very expensive system, once they've done all the track work and built the (too nice) stations.

Question: Do you really know where everybody's going? There's no doubt that light rail is the preferred option for local transit, but how many people are staying on the Jersey side, and how many going to Manhattan? The further away you get from Hoboken, the more people will be using it as a Manhattan commuter train, and the less for local transit. I think what NJ transit is saying is that with DMU's, you're covering both options, but with light rail only one, or at
least the first one not as well. That is a significant difference, especially when you have to add in the additional costs of light rail.

When one advocates for expanded rail passenger transit as NJ-ARP does, one counts in large measure on "induced" demand -- and not simply as a response to a bad situation growing worse. That is what NJ-ARP pushed for -- hard, vis a vis the River Line -- and that is what we believe is needed for extending an existing system, HBLRT, up the Northern Branch.

As to trainhq's two issues, first the assertion.

We dispute the widespread idea that the River Line is expensive and/or overbuilt. Even counting the debt service involved, the River Line's capital costs weigh in at roughly $29 million per mile. That's not cheap, but it is cheaper than many transportation projects, road or rail.

We understand trainhq is referring to DMU and its potential costs, not the River Line. NJT likely would be advised -- or forced -- to build costly infrastructure for various safety and political reasons regardless of mode. We can live with that -- as long as those strictures are applied evenly to both modes, not just the one NJT doesn't want.

NJ-ARP wishes to repeat that we're not on an anti-DMU tirade here; we like the mode, and we think New Jersey has lots of good places to use DMUs for optimal results. The Northern Branch just isn't one of them.

In any case, cost isn't the only, or even prime, concern for NJ-ARP, on this project or elsewhere, though it obviously must be considered and we're not oblivious to same. We think that, in terms of cost-effectiveness, (HB)LRT wins hands-down.

Trainhq's question to NJ-ARP is a fair one, and we suspect he already knows the answer. As we noted above, no, NJ-ARP has no scientific data sampling of how many Northern Valley residents want to go where. But, apparently unlike New Jersey Transit, we have been asking on an informal but continuous basis.

And NJ-ARP would turn the question around: Does New Jersey Transit have any idea where people would want to go? As a whole (not including New Rail Construction), NJT sure was clueless -- we use the word deliberately -- when it came to the River Line.

The canard continues with the idea (we still struggle to believe this) that DMU somehow serves riders "better" to Manhattan. Yes,
if one truly commits to an incredibly costly upgrade, an upgrade which (we stress to remind all) NJT merely promises with a vague wave of the hand. "One-seat ride" is a great sound bite. NJT fails to mention how much that one-seat ride would cost.

Meanwhile, LRT is labeled "expensive," even though its extension would offer access to Midtown (via ferry) one transfer less than the "DMU intro" offering (which is cheaper). See how it works? We'll give you all you want ... well, someday ... but first we'll build something on the cheap! And you'll love it ... well, sorta. That was tried once with HBLRT before, in the late 1980s. At that time, it was called "interim busway."

We're not buying. There's a significant difference in the current offerings, all right -- and in NJ-ARP's view, a strong one against DMU's use.

And we simply do not accept the idea that HBLRT is or will be used only as a traditional "commuter" line, even in the sacrosanct Bergen County suburbs. "Commuter" thinking is what's hobbling Bergen County to begin with, as county officials somehow still remain stuck in the 1950s -- "we're a suburb, after all" -- when it comes to the county's role in the megalopolis.

Again, we point to the River Line, which in our view has blown all those "suburbs aren't dense enough" canards out of the water. If Burlco people use the River Line for local "on-off" intermediate trips, why shouldn't much denser, much busier Bergen?

trainhq wrote:Do you really know where everybody's going?

My answer to that is YES they do! When I worked at the Bergen County Planning Department over ten years ago, they could tell you exactly where everyone living in Bergen County went to work. It was based on census and employer data. They could also tell how many people commuted into Bergen County to work. They had GIS and forecasting models out the wazoo that could be narrowed down to whatever demographic or muncipality you wanted to search.

Now this didn't show you HOW they got to work. Therein lies the problem. Just because mass transit may be offered it did not mean people would use it. I am sure they would figure XX% would use mass transit, but one percentage point difference could make or break a project.

I am sure NJT uses the same modeling and forecasting for their projects.

Chris

Putting things in perspective and looking into moving the way forward, the question of where people go from those areas is a valid question to ask and one that should be asked. Rather then have these town hall meetings, debates in the forums about which mode would work better, maybe it would be a good idea to actually find out what people in the area think by sending out some sort of survey to some of the effected communities. Doing that will ultimately help to figure out where people go, what mode of transit they take and ultimately, what mode of transit would work best -- DMU or Light Rail...

It might be in the best interest of NJ-ARP to do that.

On another side, have you heard any new developments on the NYSW Passenger Restoration?

Douglas John Bowen wrote:All right, NJ-ARP stands corrected per uzplayer's note that he never advocated a "better than none" approach. We weren't being all that pejorative on the stance -- we ourselves come up to that line quite often.

But we clearly aren't getting our message across re: cost. And on this point, we are adamant: DMU is not a low-cost option, be it the original "shuttle" or the full monte of "one-seat ride to Manhattan." DMU is not cheap. Repeat, is ... not ... cheap ... even to construct. NJT claims it is. NJT is mistaken. And that's before we get to the issues of day- to-day operations, maintenance, and so forth. We see no ambiguity here.

Our apologies to uzplayer, and anyone else, if we appear strident on this matter. But to us, this matters; it's not just theoretical exercise.

trainhq wrote:if NJ transit's record on the River Line is any indication, a DMU train will not be cheap

The River LINE was not executed as a FRA-rail project, but a DBOM light rail project.

Notwithstanding, honesty insofar as the Northern Branch and intent thereof on NJT's part (from the top, that is) is severely lacking, re the "one-seat ride to Manhattan" falsity with a DMU—if DMUs could go to Manhattan, then the CNJ would have gone to NYP in 1967 on what is now the Raritan Valley Line, using RDCs.

Uzplayer makes an excellent suggestion re: a survey or surveys. NJ-ARP wouldn't mind seeing one, or some. Our members in the Northern Valley certainly would respond and reply.

But we're not the proper agent to launch such a vehicle. We're an advocacy group -- a citizens lobby, if one will -- and while we try to operate honestly and in good faith, we'd be the first to acknowledge we have our own views, vision, and agendas.

If one is cynical, one is free to think: "NJ-ARP doesn't really care what folks think." More charitably, one might assume, NJ-ARP isn't driven by "popularity contests" when it comes to rail and transit preferences. Either way, NJ-ARP would retort: Some transit corporations can be accused of similar shortcomings. Regardless, it's not our role to be neutral arbiter.

Then, too, what kind of survey are we talking about? Here on this thread, cjvrr informs us that Bergen County planners have a good idea on who goes where. The question (cjvrr duly notes), is how they get there and back. A survey might add the next layer -- how and where would one like to go? That might -- or might not, we'll freely admit -- address NJ-ARP's concerns over what's the best, most practical, most beneficial way to go.

But we do know already that the issue is more than just "local" in nature. At one New Jersey Transit hearing in Tenafly, a local resident disparaged all rail, claiming (as factual!) that "no one" from Tenafly would bother to use rail to access Hoboken and Jersey City. He went further; he doubted anyone from Tenafly, or Bergen County for that matter, went to those two locales at all, even in autos.

Take it from us: That's news to Hoboken residents, who watch Bergen County residents pour into town nigh on seven days a week. No one would go? No one goes now? Light rail wouldn't, couldn't address part of that demand? Such "local" input would be (and is) automatically rejected by NJ-ARP, who (immodestly) believes it really does know better.

On the contrary, I think NJARP would be the best organization to run the survey. For one, it would identify the transportation habits in a specific area, allowing for recruitment of members. Second, it will give NJ-ARP the data and information it needs to continue the fight to bringing the right transportation options throughout New Jersey.

Douglas John Bowen wrote:Uzplayer makes an excellent suggestion re: a survey or surveys. NJ-ARP wouldn't mind seeing one, or some. Our members in the Northern Valley certainly would respond and reply.

But we're not the proper agent to launch such a vehicle. We're an advocacy group -- a citizens lobby, if one will -- and while we try to operate honestly and in good faith, we'd be the first to acknowledge we have our own views, vision, and agendas.

If one is cynical, one is free to think: "NJ-ARP doesn't really care what folks think." More charitably, one might assume, NJ-ARP isn't driven by "popularity contests" when it comes to rail and transit preferences. Either way, NJ-ARP would retort: Some transit corporations can be accused of similar shortcomings. Regardless, it's not our role to be neutral arbiter.

Then, too, what kind of survey are we talking about? Here on this thread, cjvrr informs us that Bergen County planners have a good idea on who goes where. The question (cjvrr duly notes), is how they get there and back. A survey might add the next layer -- how and where would one like to go? That might -- or might not, we'll freely admit -- address NJ-ARP's concerns over what's the best, most practical, most beneficial way to go.

But we do know already that the issue is more than just "local" in nature. At one New Jersey Transit hearing in Tenafly, a local resident disparaged all rail, claiming (as factual!) that "no one" from Tenafly would bother to use rail to access Hoboken and Jersey City. He went further; he doubted anyone from Tenafly, or Bergen County for that matter, went to those two locales at all, even in autos.

Take it from us: That's news to Hoboken residents, who watch Bergen County residents pour into town nigh on seven days a week. No one would go? No one goes now? Light rail wouldn't, couldn't address part of that demand? Such "local" input would be (and is) automatically rejected by NJ-ARP, who (immodestly) believes it really does know better.

Well, I would have to say that until you guys answer this question, the matter can't be settled one way or the other. I would suggest that NJ transit in particular, could/will hire someone to do a study of this. I think a reasonable answer could be obtained; or at least one that gave a good estimate of the DMU/Light Rail ridership ratio for each option. May the best option win!

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.

I personally like the proposal for DMU's on the Northern Branch.

Can EIS be waived (or abbreviated) for DMU's?

EIS can't be waived, but certainly altered or sped up.

I myself wouldn't like to do the "forced transfer" at North Bergen between LRT and DMU. I never used the Susquehanna Transfer, but I can imagine that it was something like that. 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.