Comments on: Making Links in North Jersey http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2009/05/14/making-links-in-north-jersey/ Thu, 09 Feb 2012 21:43:22 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Cap'n Transit http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2009/05/14/making-links-in-north-jersey/#comment-1262 Cap'n Transit Fri, 22 May 2009 01:53:34 +0000 http://thetransportpolitic.com/?p=2224#comment-1262 If you do electrify a DMU line, as long as you can get enough electric equipment there are plenty of new pilot lines that you could shift the DMUs over to. If you do electrify a DMU line, as long as you can get enough electric equipment there are plenty of new pilot lines that you could shift the DMUs over to.

]]> By: Alon Levy http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2009/05/14/making-links-in-north-jersey/#comment-1261 Alon Levy Fri, 15 May 2009 20:10:50 +0000 http://thetransportpolitic.com/?p=2224#comment-1261 The SIR has a low farebox recovery ratio because it's free, unless you're going to or from St. George. The problem is not high operating costs, but low fares; I'd be all for making SIR commuters pay the same fares as everyone else. And although all mass transit is subsidized in the US, there are degrees of subsidy, ranging from that of the NYC subway and DC Metro to that of the SIR and NJT light rail. I don't agree that DMUs lead to EMUs in the future. There are no plans currently to electrify Riverline, or to build a DMU West Shore Line light rail and electrify in the future. It's the same problem with BRT - it's supposed to be a stepping stone toward electrified rail transit, but in practice it never is. The SIR has a low farebox recovery ratio because it’s free, unless you’re going to or from St. George. The problem is not high operating costs, but low fares; I’d be all for making SIR commuters pay the same fares as everyone else. And although all mass transit is subsidized in the US, there are degrees of subsidy, ranging from that of the NYC subway and DC Metro to that of the SIR and NJT light rail.

I don’t agree that DMUs lead to EMUs in the future. There are no plans currently to electrify Riverline, or to build a DMU West Shore Line light rail and electrify in the future. It’s the same problem with BRT – it’s supposed to be a stepping stone toward electrified rail transit, but in practice it never is.

]]> By: AlexB http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2009/05/14/making-links-in-north-jersey/#comment-1260 AlexB Fri, 15 May 2009 14:08:57 +0000 http://thetransportpolitic.com/?p=2224#comment-1260 Alon - Look at the link I included in my post. http://www.njtransit.com/images/an_cp_proposed_west_shore_map.jpg NJ Transit had intended the West Shore line to be connected to Secaucus via new track through the Meadowlands. About the River Line, isn't this just a discussion about how much we are willing to subsidize mass transit? Doesn't the Staten Island railroad have even less farebox recovery with slightly more ridership than the River Line? Should we tear it up and tell everyone to drive or replace the railway with a busway? Would the farebox ratio be that much better if it were electric? In my opinion, rail transit is always heavily subsidized and has poor service at the beginning, but it leverages denser development and eventually brings about its own solvency and better service I agree that EMUs are better than DMUs, but you have to start somewhere, no? Alon -

Look at the link I included in my post.

http://www.njtransit.com/images/an_cp_proposed_west_shore_map.jpg

NJ Transit had intended the West Shore line to be connected to Secaucus via new track through the Meadowlands.

About the River Line, isn’t this just a discussion about how much we are willing to subsidize mass transit? Doesn’t the Staten Island railroad have even less farebox recovery with slightly more ridership than the River Line? Should we tear it up and tell everyone to drive or replace the railway with a busway? Would the farebox ratio be that much better if it were electric? In my opinion, rail transit is always heavily subsidized and has poor service at the beginning, but it leverages denser development and eventually brings about its own solvency and better service

I agree that EMUs are better than DMUs, but you have to start somewhere, no?

]]> By: Alon Levy http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2009/05/14/making-links-in-north-jersey/#comment-1259 Alon Levy Fri, 15 May 2009 07:18:43 +0000 http://thetransportpolitic.com/?p=2224#comment-1259 Yonah: Riverline gets 9,000 riders a day, but HBLR gets 40,000. In addition, NJT light rail is incredibly expensive, with a farebox recovery ratio of, I believe, about 25% (the commuter rail has a ratio of 67%). They don't break it down by line, but I suspect what pulls the average down is Riverline, since diesel has higher operating costs than electric and the passenger count there is so low. Even if a good DMU could be suited for Bergen-Passaic light rail, it would be hard to find such a DMU. Most light rail vehicles manufactured are electric; finding diesel ones is a pain, which is why NJT is spending so much time and energy on dual-mode locomotives for 25kV AC catenary. Just today a Danish classmate explained to me how Denmark's lack of electrification on its mainlines has created massive delays in train delivery; the new trains were supposed to be delivered by 2004 but are only beginning to be delivered now. Delays happen with EMUs too but not on such a scale. Yonah: Riverline gets 9,000 riders a day, but HBLR gets 40,000. In addition, NJT light rail is incredibly expensive, with a farebox recovery ratio of, I believe, about 25% (the commuter rail has a ratio of 67%). They don’t break it down by line, but I suspect what pulls the average down is Riverline, since diesel has higher operating costs than electric and the passenger count there is so low.

Even if a good DMU could be suited for Bergen-Passaic light rail, it would be hard to find such a DMU. Most light rail vehicles manufactured are electric; finding diesel ones is a pain, which is why NJT is spending so much time and energy on dual-mode locomotives for 25kV AC catenary. Just today a Danish classmate explained to me how Denmark’s lack of electrification on its mainlines has created massive delays in train delivery; the new trains were supposed to be delivered by 2004 but are only beginning to be delivered now. Delays happen with EMUs too but not on such a scale.

]]> By: Ray http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2009/05/14/making-links-in-north-jersey/#comment-1258 Ray Fri, 15 May 2009 00:35:12 +0000 http://thetransportpolitic.com/?p=2224#comment-1258 Rather than a station, another great investment would be connecting the two lines at that very point near Hackensack High School. There is a great deal of public property there that would make it fairly painless. Then NJT could forget about the DMU's entirely and use traditional NJT diesel service. Rather than a station, another great investment would be connecting the two lines at that very point near Hackensack High School. There is a great deal of public property there that would make it fairly painless. Then NJT could forget about the DMU’s entirely and use traditional NJT diesel service.

]]> By: Ray http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2009/05/14/making-links-in-north-jersey/#comment-1257 Ray Fri, 15 May 2009 00:31:15 +0000 http://thetransportpolitic.com/?p=2224#comment-1257 There is another problem with Passaic Bergen; there are stations missing, mostly in Bergen County between Hackensack and the Passaic County Line. Towns have opted out. NJT, The Bergen County Executive and Board of Freeholders need to educated the borough councils that a station stop is smart for property values. Next, I'm I missing something? The Passaic Bergen Line crosses the Pascack Valley line (a bridge) equidistant between Essex Street and Anderson Street Stations immediately adjacent to Hackensack High School. It would be worth studying the potential of a new station and transfer point here. The ride to Hoboken is about 25 minutes to Secaucus about a 15. http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?ie=UTF&msa=0&msid= 103791634371726225094.000469e8785677814b2fb There is another problem with Passaic Bergen; there are stations missing, mostly in Bergen County between Hackensack and the Passaic County Line. Towns have opted out. NJT, The Bergen County Executive and Board of Freeholders need to educated the borough councils that a station stop is smart for property values.

Next, I’m I missing something? The Passaic Bergen Line crosses the Pascack Valley line (a bridge) equidistant between Essex Street and Anderson Street Stations immediately adjacent to Hackensack High School. It would be worth studying the potential of a new station and transfer point here. The ride to Hoboken is about 25 minutes to Secaucus about a 15.

http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?ie=UTF&msa=0&msid=
103791634371726225094.000469e8785677814b2fb

]]> By: Yonah Freemark http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2009/05/14/making-links-in-north-jersey/#comment-1256 Yonah Freemark Thu, 14 May 2009 23:42:50 +0000 http://thetransportpolitic.com/?p=2224#comment-1256 Alon - I'm not sure it's fair to argue that the River Line is "failing." The line - which was built very cheaply and which runs on a single track for much of its right of way - is now attracting <a href="http://www.philly.com/inquirer/local/20090314_River_Line_plans_to_expand.html" rel="nofollow">9,000 riders a day</a>, which isn't huge, but is still pretty good for this. I don't think that DMUs are the best, but they're a cheap start. The fact is that New Jersey is putting in DMUs on lines even as it continues to expand the electric commuter rail system, rebuilds and expands the Newark light rail system, is extending the HBLRT south, and builds a massive new tunnel under the Hudson. The point is that there's a limit to how much can be invested at the same time. (Whether or not this investment makes a future investment in electric LRT or commuter rail on the corridor very unlikely is a slightly different question...) Robert - Theoretically, you could put in the catenary and still use the DMUs on the line as you replaced them with electric LRTs. The opposite would not be true (if for some reason you took out the catenary). Alon -
I’m not sure it’s fair to argue that the River Line is “failing.” The line – which was built very cheaply and which runs on a single track for much of its right of way – is now attracting 9,000 riders a day, which isn’t huge, but is still pretty good for this.

I don’t think that DMUs are the best, but they’re a cheap start. The fact is that New Jersey is putting in DMUs on lines even as it continues to expand the electric commuter rail system, rebuilds and expands the Newark light rail system, is extending the HBLRT south, and builds a massive new tunnel under the Hudson. The point is that there’s a limit to how much can be invested at the same time. (Whether or not this investment makes a future investment in electric LRT or commuter rail on the corridor very unlikely is a slightly different question…)

Robert -
Theoretically, you could put in the catenary and still use the DMUs on the line as you replaced them with electric LRTs. The opposite would not be true (if for some reason you took out the catenary).

]]> By: Robert Jackel http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2009/05/14/making-links-in-north-jersey/#comment-1255 Robert Jackel Thu, 14 May 2009 23:39:19 +0000 http://thetransportpolitic.com/?p=2224#comment-1255 That may be true, but I think you'd still need to get new cars. So, if the DMU becomes popular, it's very hard to switch until you buy enough electric cars to replace. (someone correct me if I'm wrong on this.) That may be true, but I think you’d still need to get new cars. So, if the DMU becomes popular, it’s very hard to switch until you buy enough electric cars to replace. (someone correct me if I’m wrong on this.)

]]> By: Erin http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2009/05/14/making-links-in-north-jersey/#comment-1254 Erin Thu, 14 May 2009 21:22:37 +0000 http://thetransportpolitic.com/?p=2224#comment-1254 What are the prospects for turning these DMU lines into overhead catenary at some future date, though? If getting DMUs on the tracks now can help build ridership, increase revenue and so on, maybe it makes the argument for stringing the more expensive overhead wires stronger down the road. What are the prospects for turning these DMU lines into overhead catenary at some future date, though? If getting DMUs on the tracks now can help build ridership, increase revenue and so on, maybe it makes the argument for stringing the more expensive overhead wires stronger down the road.

]]> By: Robert Jackel http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2009/05/14/making-links-in-north-jersey/#comment-1253 Robert Jackel Thu, 14 May 2009 18:40:16 +0000 http://thetransportpolitic.com/?p=2224#comment-1253 I wonder about New Jersey's enthusiasm for diesel trains. I understand they're cheaper, and maybe much easier to use in tandem with freight. Unfortunately, they smell and wear out, and are really susceptible to the price of gas. I used to work in Camden, near the riverline. The main station smelled of fumes something awful. I live near the trolleys in Philadelphia, and it is much more pleasant. All the same, it's great to see service expansion in New Jersey. I just wish there were expansion on this side of the Delaware as well. I wonder about New Jersey’s enthusiasm for diesel trains. I understand they’re cheaper, and maybe much easier to use in tandem with freight. Unfortunately, they smell and wear out, and are really susceptible to the price of gas. I used to work in Camden, near the riverline. The main station smelled of fumes something awful. I live near the trolleys in Philadelphia, and it is much more pleasant.

All the same, it’s great to see service expansion in New Jersey. I just wish there were expansion on this side of the Delaware as well.

]]>