Railroad Forums 

  • New Dinky to Nassau Street

  • 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

 #1082861  by 25Hz
 
Penns neck was just east of the route 1 bridge. Would be neat to see the stop there again for folks in that area. Maybe put a ped bridge next to the rail bridge for people on the opposite side of the highway.

I will say again. The shuttle as light rail is a non-starter. In fact, i think putting a siding somewhere to allow 2x single car operation would be awesome, especially for students & faculty and others going to and from the university. Not sure if full signaling would be needed for that though.
 #1103974  by pumpers
 
Rodney Fisk wrote:
For a real boondoggle, look to the RiverLINE. It has never raised its fares above its introductory half-fare level, and ridership is just now achieving the level predicted for six months after inauguration. The fare from Trenton to Camden is less than half the fare from Princeton to Princeton Junction on the Dinky! Who makes up the difference?

Private is not necessarily better than public, but competition is always better than monopoly.
The Riverline might be highly subsidized, but I believe it is already a step in your direction. Its operation is contracted to a private operator, with personnel totally separate from regular NJT contracts, etc. I seem to recall some kind of fight about this in the beginining. Someone please correct me or fill in details. Who knows about HBLR, too? JS
I apologize if this has been discussed already earlier in the thread.
 #1104182  by amtrakowitz
 
pumpers wrote:
Rodney Fisk wrote:For a real boondoggle, look to the RiverLINE. It has never raised its fares above its introductory half-fare level, and ridership is just now achieving the level predicted for six months after inauguration. The fare from Trenton to Camden is less than half the fare from Princeton to Princeton Junction on the Dinky! Who makes up the difference?

Private is not necessarily better than public, but competition is always better than monopoly.
The Riverline might be highly subsidized, but I believe it is already a step in your direction. Its operation is contracted to a private operator, with personnel totally separate from regular NJT contracts, etc. I seem to recall some kind of fight about this in the beginning. Someone please correct me or fill in details. Who knows about HBLR, too? JS
I apologize if this has been discussed already earlier in the thread.
HBLR was the first light rail operating under a "DBOM" (design-build-operate-maintain) contract in NJ. River Line is the second. On average, the capital costs of HBLR were about $107 million per mile, and given that most of HBLR is either at grade or built on existing railroad rights of way, I for one have yet to see any justification (the elevated segments between Hoboken and Newport Mall cannot have made costs jump that high, nor even filling in the cut by MLK Drive). River Line's capital costs averaged about $35 millon per mile (also mostly on existing right of way), not rising too much higher than the original estimates in spite of the Rancocas Creek bridge almost hitting the water during reconstruction. The DBOM contracts stipulate the low fares, IIRC. In spite of those fares being low, it is low fare recovery ratio that damages revenue more than the actual fare rate.
 #1121874  by Ken W2KB
 
A plan to reduce the Dinky track by 560 feet in length, moving the station south, farther from the center of town, has been approved.

http://www.nj.com/mercer/index.ssf/2012 ... er_default
 #1126387  by 25Hz
 
Lame.
 #1224610  by Rodney Fisk
 
Time for an UPDATE: Princeton's Alexander Street/University Place Traffic and Transit Task Force is moving into the home stretch.

The transit consultancy URS has evaluated PRT, BRT and LRT as potential replacements for the Dinky and its extension to Nassau Street. PRT has been ruled out and BRT and LRT will continue in evaluation, despite the fact that community resistance to BRT in the recent past was enough to spur the organization of "Save the Dinky" and induce some 200 townsfolk to turn out against NJ Transit's BRT recommendation at a Princeton Council meeting.

The traffic consultancy AECOM has submitted preliminary recommendations that traffic on University Place be one-way north and Alexander Place be one-way south, creating a counter-clockwise circulation from Nassau Street to the new roundabout at AS and UP.

The town has agreed to a dedicated right-of-way up University Place from the old station to Nassau Street. The principal remaining question is how LRT would proceed from the new station around the new Arts Campus to the old station. Additionally whether BRT would proceed to the Junction along the Dinky right-of-way or along Alexander Road--more "bus" than "rapid transit".

A critical remaining charge for the consultants is to determine the effect on both local traffic flow and potential level of transit service of shared vs. segregated rights-of-way. Specifically, what would be the impact of adding some hundred daily trips by a ninety-foot long LRV (half the time with fewer than ten passengers) to the traffic flow along Alexander Street and around University Place to connect with the dedicated light-rail lane up to Nassau Street. And what would be the impact on the new Dinky's goal of meeting virtually all trains at the Junction from being stuck in traffic for a half mile before rejoining the Dinky's existing tracks at the new station.

A new bypass road has been opened to allow reconstruction of the AS/UP intersection into a roundabout with both entrance and exit lanes reduced from three to two. I would argue that the only realistic option at this stage is for an extended rail service to traverse the green space around the new Arts Campus.

As to whether the Dinky should be independently operated, the commissioner of transportation has determined that that decision will rest with NJDOT rather than NJ Transit. The various suits challenging NJ Transit's right to shorten the Dinky tracks from the old to the new station have generally confirmed that right; the one remaining case should be resolved in November.
 #1224660  by lirr42
 
Patrick Boylan wrote:What's PRT?
Personal Rapid Transit, really small pod car things that move on special tracks.
 #1224685  by electricron
 
The existing "Dinky" is rarely longer than 2 Budd Arrow cars, approximately 160 seats with 2+2 seating. A single 2/8 Stadler GTW could provide 175 seats. GTWs can be configured with low or high floors. They can be DMUs or EMUs. Stadler can provide the EMUs that can use either 1.5KvDC or 15 kvAC,16.7 Hz. For street running in Princeton, like in Camden with 40 meter curve radii, it might be better to use two 2/6 River Line GTWs instead to reach 140 seats, using 1.5 KvDC instead of 15 KvAC. I wouldn't want to use 15KvAC over city streets.
For the three miles distance, a 50 mph streetcar would be fast enough. There's no doubt light rail or a streetcar could run easily in any streets. All that would be required is changing the voltage for the existing catenary. With the hybrid streetcar models available for ordering today, you wouldn't even need to add catenary wires over the streets of Princeton. The fact you don't need to run wires, means you will not have to worry as much about underground utilities under the streets as well. All you would have to do to extend the streetcar is to lay tracks. Running Arrow IIIs in the streets of Princeton will be very difficult to accomplish. Limiting transfers should be a goal, using the same train on the city streets and existing railroad corridor to the Junction makes sense. I've recommended three different ways to do it.
 #1224785  by Rodney Fisk
 
The Dinky currently operates with two, double-ended Arrow III's, each capable of independent operation; 238 seats total. Together they consume some $160,000 in propulsion energy each year. Peak load on the Dinky is 80; median load of ten.

There is a variety of equipment on the market more suitable to the Dinky than the DMU's and EMU's that Stadler offers. Generally, an EMU is capable of mainline running and costs nearly double that of a streetcar or LRV; propulsion cost is also about double. A DMU involves twice the complexity of an EMU with much slower acceleration. With the catenary in place, electric seems the way to go, with an LRV as fast as the Dinky, with enough seating and with whole-life cost the principal decision criterion. The most economical ones use less than $20,000 per year electrical power. One has a turning radius of fifty feet. Virtually all are available in hybrid form, with either batteries or supercapacitors. It was never even considered to use overhead wire beyond the new station at the university's arts campus. The catenary would draw 13kV AC from PSE&G and convert it to 750V DC to power the new equipment.
 #1227926  by Rodney Fisk
 
The public meeting on the new Dinky was held on Saturday, and as expected, the consultant showed light rail running in the middle of each single lane to and from the new station to Nassau Street. In that two days earlier the Princeton planning board confirmed wording in the new circulation element of the master plan to "vigorously support the continuation of the Dinky as a rail link to Princeton Junction", it appears that the zombie BRT proposal has been re-entombed. Most of the discussion responded to attendees' suggestions that the Dinky be extended into West Windsor and to Plainsboro, eventually Lawrenceville. Advocates were not dissuaded by a projected initial $900 million price tag to serve perhaps 900 passengers a day.

The main question now is whether it is worth the cost to extend rail service to the town's main street, as opposed to the Dinky terminating where it ends now with a transfer either to a shuttle to Nassau Street or to a mini-BRT traveling around the town.

Does anyone have a handle on the capital cost per mile of laying track in street?
 #1228092  by 25Hz
 
Rodney Fisk wrote:The public meeting on the new Dinky was held on Saturday, and as expected, the consultant showed light rail running in the middle of each single lane to and from the new station to Nassau Street. In that two days earlier the Princeton planning board confirmed wording in the new circulation element of the master plan to "vigorously support the continuation of the Dinky as a rail link to Princeton Junction", it appears that the zombie BRT proposal has been re-entombed. Most of the discussion responded to attendees' suggestions that the Dinky be extended into West Windsor and to Plainsboro, eventually Lawrenceville. Advocates were not dissuaded by a projected initial $900 million price tag to serve perhaps 900 passengers a day.

The main question now is whether it is worth the cost to extend rail service to the town's main street, as opposed to the Dinky terminating where it ends now with a transfer either to a shuttle to Nassau Street or to a mini-BRT traveling around the town.

Does anyone have a handle on the capital cost per mile of laying track in street?
You will find little support for light rail replacement of the shuttle on here, even from me, and i am a huge trolley/trackless trolley advocate.

That said, it depends what needs to be moved in the ground, traffic signal changes, intersection changes, signage etc, but for putting it in a street with nothing around it'd probably be equivalent to ballasted track if not a tad more.
 #1228394  by Rodney Fisk
 
The Dinky has consumed some $30 million in operating subsidy since being taken over by NJ Transit. A new light-rail service, extended to Nassau Street, meeting 13 more trains each day at the Junction, operating without a penny of subsidy, seems like something at least worth considering--except "on here" where you and your personal ilk seem fixated on venerating a wretchedly inefficient mode of transporting customers a mere 2.6 miles.

The extension of the Dinky from the new station around the new Arts Campus will be on standard ballasted track, except using recycled-plastic ties, until entering University Place. The in-street system chosen requires no disruption of subsurface utilities, no changes to existing traffic signals, no intersection with road traffic and and just two new signs, and can be installed in four days, compared with three weeks for ballasted trackwork. And at 20% the cost.

I very much appreciate the challenging feedback from this forum; if I can't provide a convincing response here, then what am I going to say publicly before, say, Princeton Council? And thank goodness, there's usually a bit of positive reinforcement, even encouragement, every now and then.

When I summered in Canada some years ago, current was supplied at 25 Hz; the lights flickered.
  • 1
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 20