Reviving passenger service between West Trenton & Bound Brook

You are correct; projects do have to compete for funding. This is from the TEA-21 website from the FHWA:

The Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century was enacted June 9, 1998 as Public Law 105-178. TEA-21 authorizes the Federal surface transportation programs for highways, highway safety, and transit for the 6-year period 1998-2003. The TEA 21 Restoration Act, enacted July 22, 1998, provided technical corrections to the original law. The material presented on this web site reflects the combined effect of these two laws and refers to this combination as TEA-21.

I'm not sure what exactly it means; hopefully, someone can fill in some blanks on that. Either way, NJT dropped the ball on West Trenton. Here's another reason why and this is from the FTA's own website from FY 2000; mind you, we're in 2007 now.

The New Jersey Transit Corporation (NJ Transit) conducted a study to examine the potential of restoring passenger rail service on an active freight rail line spanning central New Jersey, beginning in Ewing Township located along the Delaware River and traveling northeast to a connection with NJ Transit’s Raritan Valley Line at Bound Brook. The study, which was completed in April 1994, examined the potential station sites and western terminus options along the proposed alignment. In January 1998, NJ Transit began a feasibility assessment, which is scheduled for completion in early 1999. An Environmental Assessment will be conducted depending on the results of the current feasibility study. Through FY 1999, Congress has appropriated $1.49 million in Section 5309 new starts funds for this effort.

Eight years later and still nothing. Wasn't the DEIS done on this already? NJT hasn't updated the information on W. Trenton in two years, that tells me that this isn't going to get done anytime soon. Just curious if they are waiting for the Tunnel Project to start before they start the W. Trenton Line again? The draft EA was supposed to be submitted to the FTA back in 2005 around this time. Its 2007, and not a peep about that. Hopefully with a new Executive Director soon on the horizon, something can get done on this.

Here are the links for the information, per rules of the forum:
Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century
West Trenton Line—NJTransit.com
FTA—Additional Studies and Projects Authorized in TEA-21

You know, I was thinking that. From what I understand, you can run a light rail on heavy rail. Would a light rail be more feasible to run on that route? If you could do a light rail from Bound Brook to West Trenton, that wouldn't be a bad idea either.

Here's an article from a few days ago in the Star-Ledger on the West Trenton Line:

New bypass plan ready for public review in May

Hillsborough project stalled by 20 years of feuding
BY CATHY BUGMAN
Star-Ledger Staff

The public can expect to see and comment on a plan for a Hillsborough bypass in mid-May, nearly 20 years after a long and bitter feud over the project appears to be laid to rest.

More than a dozen officials of Hillsborough and Montgomery, Somerset County and the state Department of Transportation met yesterday in a three-hour closed- door work session to question various aspects of the $110 million project.

Key among them is what is proposed to be an intersection on the bypass at Amwell Road, near where NJ Transit is planning to build a train station.

Reactivation of the old West Trenton rail line -- once a commuter line but now carrying rail cars operated by the CSX freight line -- is anticipated to alleviate traffic congestion in the area and central part of the state, providing motorists with an option to ride the rail line from its proposed pickup spot at the West Trenton station in Ewing to merge into the Bridgewater station near Commerce Bank Ballpark, connecting to the Raritan Valley line.

As part of that plan, an old Belle Mead station in Montgomery would be rehabilitated and a new station would be built in Hopewell Township and Hopewell Borough, according to Jack Kanarek, senior director of project development for NJ Transit.

"We are completing an environmental review process," Kanarek said of the $197 million reactivation plan. "New funding would be needed for design and construction."

In the meantime, plans are moving forward to link the Hillsborough bypass from Route 206 at Old Somerville Road to a point just north of Mountain View Road.

Before that is done, a separate project ahead of it in the financing pipeline is the rebuilding of a sharp-curved bridge on 206 carrying traffic over the CSX line in Montgomery, Somerset County Freeholder Peter Palmer said. Rebuilding that bridge to lessen its curve and realign the Route 206/601 intersection in a way that respects the historic integrity of old Belle Mead is a $17.5 million project ex pected to start in February 2009, which begins July 1, 2008, he said.

That project is forecast to take two years to complete, while the bypass could take approximately four years, officials said.

"Both projects could start at the same time," Montgomery Deputy Mayor Louise Wilson said.

At this point, engineers and planners affiliated with the DOT, Hillsborough and Montgomery will be preparing to present plans to the public in mid-May. No date or location has been set yet.

For the first time since 1988, when plans for the bypass were first proposed, a consensus appears to have been reached on its path. Officials from Montgomery were concerned initially that it would extend into their township to end at Belle Mead-Griggstown Road, cutting through the 1,288-unit housing development.

With the new termination end ing in Hillsborough in the vicinity of where the township and Somerset County have an option to buy 400 acres of the federally owned property for $17.5 million, Hillsborough and Montgomery officials appear to have reached a peaceful solution.

"This is a community victory, a community achievement," Wilson said. "It puts us in a good position to work with Hillsborough on other issues and puts an old, bitter disagreement to bed."

Hillsborough Mayor Anthony Ferrera said the DOT yesterday provided the township with a "good amount" of data relative to schematics and traffic data, mak ing for "another productive meet ing" as a follow-up to the last work session March 6. The next step now will be for township experts, including those of the engineering staff and traffic safety division, to analyze the data and come up with recommendations before the May meeting.

Somerset County Freeholder Jack Ciattarelli and Assemblyman Peter Biondi (R-Somerset), both Hillsborough residents, said they were pleased a consensus had emerged on a long-simmering issue.

It's a small step, but its a big one. Let's see what happens.

Here's the link for the article.

what's the "bypass" they keep referencing?

From what I understand, you can run a light rail on heavy rail

Don't get your terms mixed up. In the USA, light rail and heavy rail refer to trolleys and subway trains respectively, both of which are under the FTA's umbrella and are separate from the FRA, who has separate rules. You cannot run light rail on FRA tracks without a time-share waiver, such as is in force on the "River Line" and on the Newark Subway between Franklin Avenue (Branch Brook Park) and Grove Street.

(The only place that I'm aware of where "light rail" and "heavy rail", per US definitions, run together on the same tracks, is on the Cleveland system, where light rail and "rapid transit" subway-like cars run on the same tracks—this pic shows a "shared" station where the low platforms are for LRV boarding and the high platforms for the rapid transit train boarding.)

Light rail is out of the question for Bound Brook to West Trenton, unless it's on a new ROW. Stations would have to be shared with NJT FRA rail at one end and with SEPTA Regional Rail at the other. Switching modes would not mean that you get out of CSX' terms for re-laying a second track on the RDG right of way (how many tracks were on there originally?—seems to me that there were three or four) or building that flyover that CSX is asking for (since these are commuter trains, CSX is being unreasonable relating to their intransigence over not using the original interlocking configuration, which was quite suitable for B&O and Reading trains that used to run on this route). Light rail would be slower than commuter rail, to boot.

lensovet wrote:what's the "bypass" they keep referencing?

A bypass of Route US-206, as seen in this proposed map.

Similar bypasses have been built in Freehold (NJ-33 Bypass) and Hightstown (NJ-133 Bypass).

That's true, and the article from the Star-Ledger back on Tuesday March 27th, 2007 should go a long way to finally starting the West Trenton Line project. Rehabilitating Belle Mead is a big key.

This view is from 1973

This one is from 2003; you can see how badly Belle Mead has gone downhill.

It hasn't gotten any better... see this photo, from 2006

That actually doesn't look too bad – the main thing I can see is that the second track is gone, which is in fact a problem since CSX is gonna complain and fight NJT…anyway, yeah, at least the building is still there and the area hasn't been built up to the point where no expansion/parking/et cetera is feasible.

Irish Chieftain wrote:Switching modes would not mean that you get out of CSX' terms for re-laying a second track on the RDG right of way (how many tracks were on there originally?—seems to me that there were three or four)

I believe there were originally four tracks from Pennington on up into Manville at the height of traffic. It was the reduced to to three, then two, and then the current single track…with the exception of a passing siding between Skillman and Belle Mead.

That has to suck that the one track is gone and only one remains as well as the Belle Mead Station building has really gone downhill. Hopefully, now with Sarles at the helm of NJT, the West Trenton Line can get the proper funding it needs to get reborn.

It'll come soon like on how the funding finally came in for the work at Newark Broad and the building of Mt Arlington Station came through...when you least expect it and sooner then you think.

The current CSX Trenton Subdivision (former RDG New York Branch) was, for the most part during its heyday, a four-track main line.

I'll be happy if they'll double or triple track the line with one express track. I don't think it could be 4 tracked again.

JLo wrote:Plus, additional trains have to run on the Lehigh Line between Newark and Aldene, a no-no for both NS and CSX absent a payoff in either triple tracking on that segment or double tracking from Potters to Bound Brook.

p.s. Hillsborough is not near West Trenton. About 35 miles apart, I think.

Potter to Bound Brook is in the process of having the double track restored (to be completed by New Year's if they stay on time). It's not quite related to any restoration of West Trenton service, as the passenger trains wouldn't be routed that way anyway.

But it will allow Conrail to stack up the traffic jam of CSX and NS freights more efficiently!

railfan1987 wrote:Maybe they should try going to Pennslyvania to get the extra cash. I'm sure SEPTA would like the idea of an extra Philly-NYC service. BTW, is it feasible to run a RiverLine style train on this route? All they would have to do is purchase extra trains and build the platforms.

Don't hold your breath on that. SEPTA is busy trying to survive with what it has. They're hardly concerned with getting anybody to NYC. Not to mention that SEPTA and Pennsylvania just can't seem to get rail projects past the planning stage (Schuylkill Valley Metro is dead now).

So nope, Pennsylvania won't be any help there. Heck, look at all the political fighting between NJ and PA that went on over the Morrisville yard...