NJ-ARP Hotline #601 available
August 1st 2007 07:35 pm
NJ-ARP Hotline #601 is now online. When you’re finished reading the Hotline, you can come back here and leave your comments in this thread.
8 Responses to “NJ-ARP Hotline #601 available”
« Pascack Valley Line off-peak/weekend service - NJ-ARP Hotline #602 available »
NJ-ARP is not responsible for the posts/comments on this blog.
The opinions expressed in the blog are not necessarily those
of NJ-ARP or its members. By viewing the blog, you agree not
to hold NJ-ARP responsible for any posts/comments, or any
action or omission regarding posts/comments.
LRTADV responded on 03 Aug 2007 at 12:38 pm #
I am sure that land costs alone will push this figure above the $1 Billion mark. You are talking about premium land in the Princeton area, after all.
John 76 responded on 03 Aug 2007 at 7:46 pm #
NJARP argues that that light rail costs along route one can be determined by looking at the cost of the Riverline and BRT would not result in significant savings. But the comparison is mistaken. For the Riverline NJT was able to purchase an existing rail line; for a Route 1 rail line NJT would have to carve out a right of way from much more expensive property and build the line. Costs for a light rail line would certainly be much higher than they were for the River Line.
Even if the higher cost were paid where would the line be placed? Does NJARP have any suggestion?
LRTADV responded on 03 Aug 2007 at 10:47 pm #
If light rail were implemented, one solution would be to elevate the line above what is now a Jersey barrier at the center median. This is similar to the Vancouver Skytrain in B.C. An obvious drawback and cost would be the need to pedestrian bridges to over Route 1 at each station.
ABG responded on 04 Aug 2007 at 9:17 am #
The obvious place for light rail (or even “BRT”) on Route 1 is in a former car lane, either on the side or in the median. This will also have the benefit of calming the road (at least a little bit).
Until someone in the area has the political will and power to take two lanes away from the cars, the Princeton area is screwed.
LRTADV responded on 04 Aug 2007 at 12:32 pm #
I’ll just refer everyone to my post under the Princeton Dinky thread. Most of the traffic on Route 1 is just passing through to get to I-95 or beyond. The rest of the people DRIVE from a suburban community. A small percentage probably take one of the 600 series routes provided by NJT.
LRTADV responded on 04 Aug 2007 at 12:36 pm #
Just to clarify… local people drive from a suburb to a parking lot at a mall or strip center.
Douglas John Bowen responded on 04 Aug 2007 at 1:28 pm #
John 76 is mistaken in his take that “NJARP argues that that light rail costs along route one …” and we’ll take half the responsibility for being unclear on that. But NJ-ARP is NOT pitting BRT costs vs. LRT costs on a “Route 1″ approach for rail.
Put differently, any rail approach we take for the Princeton area will probably avoid U.S. Route 1 itself as much as possible — certainly a “median running” approach is not something we’d eagerly seek.
BRT is being sold as “just like light rail, only cheaper” by the Feds. NJ-ARP, backed by data from Light Rail Now! and other sources, stands by our belief that the quoted statement is wrong on at least two counts.
John 76 responded on 04 Aug 2007 at 7:55 pm #
Douglas John,
Since I am mistaken perhaps you will ge good enough to enlighten me. Where in Mercer County do we build a rail line that will enable residents to get to the Princeton Junction Rail Station and Route 1 work places without driving and also allow people to reverse commute to these same work places along both sides of Route 1?