Thanks for the very good news!
I agree with you, Firelock. I'm really suprised that anyone would oppose this. That rail transit pushes up property values is beyond dispute.
Transit-oriented development (TOD in the parlance) has been very successfully used in any number of cities in recent years. TOD requires longterm visioning, significant public and private investment (with an expected fair return on the private side, too), and a committed local government. Because of this, perhaps the most striking examples of success have been reserved for projects in/around both light rail and commuter rail lines. For example, rail transit systems with significant transit-oriented developments can be found in southern California, the San Francisco Bay Area, the Portland area in Oregon, the Seattle area of Washington State, and in the other Washington. In some cases, this has led to even more public and private development.
Big reasons for this are public confidence and financial support of their rail transit systems. People just seem to love their trains. The big public investments in rail projects in turn create an air of permanence. Unlike a bus system, a rail system is not likely to have its public-funded route moved away, or have its service completely discontinued. This, along with public leadership and planning vision gives needed confidence to the private sector, which then may be more willing to listen and join in on the progress. For the private sector, it is about being seen on the right side of the political decision, making a smart investment, and getting a good rate of return.
Well-planned and successful rail transit improvements and transit-oriented development create increased property values, business opportunities, and economic expansion potentially all along the right of way. Where there is success, others often want a piece of the action as well. So in the current stinky economy, where is the significant and required public investment, both financial and political? That circles back to my earlier premise of strong local commitment to move transit forward. It takes vision, leadership, and both a strong backbone and hide, along with impeccable timing and a ton of money. Oh, and throw in a little luck, too.
Finally, a few words on non-rail transit, which often does not fare as well in this scenario. Not entirely, just in a comparative sense. Where is the love for those buses? Where is the financial and political commitment to upgrade bus service and facilities, and then to keep the routes in place? The very flexibility of so-called fixed routes can actually create doubt and work against private investment. After a public hearing, a bus route can be changed, reduced, or even eliminated with a vote of the governing board. Even so, there are numerous examples of significant public transit bus projects in cities large and small; however, the companion private investment often has been a touger sell. This then does not bode well for increasing property values. Bus transit managers may wish to pick this point with particular examples; however, on a comparative basis, and in this writer's opinion and experience, rail transit has an unmistakable, sometimes purely emotional edge.
The amount of private development that has been ginned by light rail is debatable. I am most familiar with Dallas and Austin, both of which have light rail or commuter rail.
Several years ago Dallas Area Rapid Transit (DART) commissioned an economics professor at the University of Texas to study the impact of its light rail system on line development. The professor, who was paid by DART, concluded that the light rail system had a positive impact on private development near the stations, citing the Mockingbird Station area in particular. However, what he did not say is equally impressive.
The most extensive retail, commercial, and residential development in Dallas has been in Up Town, which is just north of downtown Dallas, followed by downtown itself. It is not served directly by the light rail system. It is served by the McKinney Avenue Streetcar Line. Very few people use it to travel downtown. Having lived in Up Town for three years, I was impressed by the large number of residents who drove downtown, although Up Town is approximately a mile to two miles from most downtown locations.
As is true for every major city in the Lone Star state, Dallas is growing for a variety of reasons. It is a stretch to believe that it would not have done so without the light rail line. Had it not been for the light rail lines, the clusters would have looked different, but people need a place to live, shop, and enjoy. It would have happened with or without the light rail line.
What we do know is that DART has invested more than $3.5 billion in the light rail lines. Each passenger gets an average subsidy of $4.23 per ride on a $1.25 ticket.
Austin has the Red Line, which is a commuter rail line from Leander to Austin. To date little if any development has grown up as a result of it.
San Antonio has opted for an improved bus system, including Rapid Bus Technology. The planners there concluded that the cost of light rail is just too much for the benefits. Austin also is opting for more Rapid Bus Technology routes, with the first route planned to open in 2014. It too has been shocked at the cost of rail (commuter and light), although the proposal to build a light rail line from the airport to downtown and on to UT is still alive.
Sam1 ... San Antonio has opted for an improved bus system, including Rapid Bus Technology. The planners there concluded that the cost of light rail is just too much for the benefits. Austin also is opting for more Rapid Bus Technology routes, with the first route planned to open in 2014. It too has been shocked at the cost of rail (commuter and light), although the proposal to build a light rail line from the airport to downtown and on to UT is still alive.
...
While Bus Rapid Transit Technology (BRT) has cost advantages. there must be other advantages to light rail, as San Antonio's transportation authority has said the new BRT will be replaced by light rail in the next 20 years. Of course things could change, and maybe they have already changed from this April article (see sidebar: VIA Metropolitan Transit Authority):
http://www.metro-magazine.com/resources/Images/BRT.pdf
What puzzles me (and the article does not clarify) is how the savings are achieved with a BRT system. In a true rapid transit system you have to acquire a right of way, put down either tracks or a road way and purchase the vehicles. In a light rail system you can operated multiple units hooked together with one engineer. With buses each bus must have a driver. So where is the difference in costs?
I suspect that sometimes savings are achieved because large buses are simply put on roads. Possibly other traffic is prohibited from the bus lanes. This, however, is simply not rapid transit. It is a bus line which at best is somewhat faster than local buses which operate in traffic.
Certainly most cities in the United States are going to opt for bus systems. By far the cheapest way to go is to buy a bus and put it on city streets. Small cities often cannot generate the traffic that a light rail needs to justify itself so buses are the best way to go. But local buses will always run slow. Some additional speed can be achieved with express buses making fewer stops If streets are wide enough you can dedicate lanes to BRT but you still have stop lights and people turning on and off the street in their cars. And often as you get downtown streets are not wide enough for dedicated bus lanes so you are back to a bus in traffic.
But many small cities today are only shadows of their former selves. Traditional amenities that drew past generations down town such as department stores, specialty shops and theaters have moved out and middle class home owners have also fled the cities. Government offices and maybe educational institutions have remained. Do we want to move toward revitalizing our cities or do we want to complete our abandonment them? That is the real decision.
MidlandMike While Bus Rapid Transit Technology (BRT) has cost advantages.
While Bus Rapid Transit Technology (BRT) has cost advantages.
where exactly is there any new technology with BRT? I certainly do not see any ? Sounds like a political invention ?
John WR What puzzles me (and the article does not clarify) is how the savings are achieved with a BRT system. In a true rapid transit system you have to acquire a right of way, put down either tracks or a road way and purchase the vehicles. In a light rail system you can operated multiple units hooked together with one engineer. With buses each bus must have a driver. So where is the difference in costs?
The biggest difference is the capital costs. The estimated per mile cost for Rapid Bus Technology in Austin, which is a growing mid-size city, is roughly $3 million per mile. The lastest estimate for the light rail line from Bergstrom International Airport to the University of Texas via downtown is approximately $48 million per mile. Whether the operating costs of the light rail can recapture the capital costs is debatable.
Upgrading the Austin and Western to accomodate the Red Line commuter line cost approximately $145 million, although some of it, thanks to some doggy accounting, was allocated to freight operations. On top of the capital outlays Capital Metro incurs approximately $9 million a year in operating expenses for the Red Line. Two years ago, when I ran the numbers, the average rider on the Red Line was getting a daily subsidy of nearly $70 per day or $35 per trip. The average daily ridership is approximately 800 passengers or 1,600 trips per day for a metro population base of approximately 1.8 million.
For distances between 20 and 25 miles RBT can compete with light rail. Beyond 25 miles light rail and heavy rail win hands down. RBT is a technological solution that is an optimum fit for some environments, albeit, not all environments.
RBT will include timed stations similar to those found along a light rail line, although they will be spaced closer together. Passengers will enter and exit the bus through front and rear doors. The stations will have displays telling passengers when the next bus will arrive. The drivers will have limited control over traffic lights, thereby enabling them to maintain a quicker schedule than is the case with regular buses.
Apparently the DOT has been shocked at the cost of light rail. As mentioned earlier, the DART light rail system has cost more than $3.5 billion and requires a subsidy of $4.23 per passenger trip. The subsidy for the Trinity Railway Express is $5.54 per passenger trip. The subsidy for regular bus passengers is $5.12 per passenger trip, which is driven in part by the fact that the buses serve low density areas for political reasons, i.e. crosstown runs in Plano attract very few day time passengers, but must be run because of local politics. Given the capital costs, DOT apparently has been pushing RBT as a solution for some environments.
As noted in another posting, San Antonio is moving forward with RBT, with a possible eye to converting it to light rail 20 years down the road. That is an eternity given the financial picture of the United States and most states and cities. Whether it comes about remains to be seen. I probably will be dead in 20 years, so I don't expect to validate the prediction.
blue streak 1 MidlandMike While Bus Rapid Transit Technology (BRT) has cost advantages. where exactly is there any new technology with BRT? I certainly do not see any ? Sounds like a political invention ?
The buses are often long articulated with low floors and electronic fair collection for fast loading. Where they transit city streets, they control traffic signals (They often have their own lanes on outer parts of the routes.) For more info see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bus_rapid_transit
You say that the biggest savings in bus rapid transit (BRT) is savings in capital costs, Sam. Your posts and the Wiki article suggests this is because BRT uses existing capital, our road system, while light rail requires its own right of way.
Certainly using existing resources more efficiently makes a lot of sense. And, since we would have the roads even if we didn't have BRT I suppose allocating capital costs to BRT to the extent that the buses use them is mostly an academic exercise. BRT has a place, and an important place, in the kinds of transit we build. For all of that the only way BRT can be as rapid as rail transit is for the buses to have their on dedicated roadway. If we did that the cost savings would probably be eliminated.
In New Jersey (where I live) New Jersey Transit sells discounted monthly and weekly passes. That takes care of the fare collection problem for most commuters.
In my state at least calculating subsidy on a per passenger basis can be unrealistic. Several years ago New Jersey Transit purchased a railroad right of way and built the Riverline, a light rail system that runs between Trenton and Camden. To encourage people to use it the fare was set at $1.50, equivalent to a one zone bus fare while the bus far for the parallel 409 bus route is $4.40 and in general light rail fares are higher than bus fares. The route was very expensive to build; I don't know what the dollar amount would be if you figured the costs per passenger but they would be high. However, when the route was built NJT make it clear this was a political deal to give south Jersey people something for their tax dollars since most public transit dollars are spent in north jersey and the purpose of it was not to provide transit but rather to increase property values. It has succeeded in doing just that. People can and are now commuting from communities along the line to jobs in New York and Philadelphia with a transfer at either Trenton or Camden to other trains. Poor people also take it because the fare is so low. You can go 34 miles for $1.50, a real bargain. Since there is a parallel bus route the Riverline was never needed for public transit and looking at a per passenger subsidy has no bearing on the reasons the line was built.
Here in New Jersey there is no question that access to rail transit adds to property values. If you read our real estate ads you often see the line "walk to train." Most of our rail lines lose money (the Northeast Corridor line is the one exception) but New Jersey taxpayers support them because they do increase the value of their homes.
PS. I searched NJt's on line information to try to find costs for the Riverline but I could not. I looked in NJT's Annual Report and the current Fact Sheet. About 2.8 million people ride the Riverline each year but I could not find cost information broken out by line.
BRT does run on existing rights-of-way for the most part. Commuter and light rail do likewise.
The Capital Metro Red Line uses a freight railway to get from Leander to Austin. The cost to upgrade the line was in the neighborhood of $5.5 million per mile. All of Dallas Area Rapid Transit's (DART) light rail lines, with the exception of the Orange Line extension to DFW and the tunnel under Central Expressway, was built on existing or abandoned rail lines. And when I was in Charlotte a few years ago, I rode the light rail line in that fair city. It too had been built for the most part along an abandoned rail line.
One can ride all day on the Red Line for $5.25. It too is a real bargain as long as one overlooks the subsidies that are covered by the taxpayers, a very few of whom ride the train.
Sam1BRT does run on existing rights-of-way for the most part. Commuter and light rail do likewise.
If BRT uses existing (rail) rights of way how then are the capital costs for BRT less than those for rail rapid transit? Does it cost 4 million dollars a mile more to build a railroad track than it costs to build a bus road?
John WR ... Certainly using existing resources more efficiently makes a lot of sense. And, since we would have the roads even if we didn't have BRT I suppose allocating capital costs to BRT to the extent that the buses use them is mostly an academic exercise. BRT has a place, and an important place, in the kinds of transit we build. For all of that the only way BRT can be as rapid as rail transit is for the buses to have their on dedicated roadway. If we did that the cost savings would probably be eliminated. ...
BRT often uses dedicated lanes as opposed to separate roadways, which would only be an incremental construction expense. They may even repurpose a planned general expansion lane for BRT instead, thinking it will take a lot of cars off the road. It's easy to see why rubber tire transit is attractive to cash strapped cities. Not good news for railfans.
John WR Sam1BRT does run on existing rights-of-way for the most part. Commuter and light rail do likewise. If BRT uses existing (rail) rights of way how then are the capital costs for BRT less than those for rail rapid transit? Does it cost 4 million dollars a mile more to build a railroad track than it costs to build a bus road?
By existing rights-of-way I mean roadways for buses, for the most part, and railways for light rail and commuter rail.
The cost to implement BRT in Austin includes the cost of the equipment, stations and turn-ins, new traffic signal lights, relocation of underground utility lines, and stripping of lanes for BRT vehicles.
The cost to upgrade the Austin and Western to accommodate the Red Line included the stations, a new signal system, installation of overhead utility lines, implementation of passing tracks or sidings, etc.
The estimated cost of implementing BRT ($3 million per mile on average) was preliminary. The estimated cost to build the proposed light rail line ($47 million per mile on average) is so much higher because most of it would be built from scratch, which amongst other things would require the acquisition of a dedicated right-of-way. The cost to upgrade the Austin and Western ($5.5 million per mile on average) is a known number.
In the Northeast, as well as Chicago and San Francisco, the suburbs developed along existing rail lines, i.e. out the main line from Philadelphia to Villanova, Paoli, etc. For most of the rest of the country the suburbs developed along the highway system. For this reason commuter rail and light rail, with a few exceptions, does not work as well as it does in the Northeast or out of Chicago. In many instances BRT and HOV lanes are a better solution than rail.
Midland Mike has suggested that BRT is a better option for cash strapped cities. City cash is a factor. But another factor, according to several articles, is the federal government, which provides a significant portion of the funding for every major transit system in the United States, is shocked at the price tag of light rail. Apparently it is pushing alternative solutions like BRT.
But the operating costs for BRT is roughly double the cost per passenger mile than LRT, because one person handles more people on LRT than on BRT, because a light rail vehicle can run for 30-50 years before being scrapped and a bus for only 15-20, and because on a per-passenger basis, maintenace of the vehicles is roughly double for buses than for railcars, and although maintenance of track and signals is higher for rail than for roads, it is not that much higher, particularly where freezing and thawing occurs in the north.
daveklepper But the operating costs for BRT is roughly double the cost per passenger mile than LRT, because one person handles more people on LRT than on BRT, because a light rail vehicle can run for 30-50 years before being scrapped and a bus for only 15-20, and because on a per-passenger basis, maintenace of the vehicles is roughly double for buses than for railcars, and although maintenance of track and signals is higher for rail than for roads, it is not that much higher, particularly where freezing and thawing occurs in the north.
Cost figures are frequently cobbled together from theoretical models, i.e. load factors, miles run, etc. What numbers do you have?
BRT is more flexile than rail. If necessary buses can be shifted to new routes to better serve changing population patterns. Pretty hard or at least expensive to move the rail system.
The Austin Red Line follows a rail route that was laid out in the 1890s. It meanders across Williams and Travis counties in a nonsensical pattern. It is one of the reasons very few people use the system. The same is partially true for DART's light rail system. For the most part it runs along rail lines that were laid down more than 100 years ago. As a result, DART carries less than 3 to 5 per cent of the Metroplex population, although it does better in the city.
As the Austin dreamers are coming to realize, building a light rail line from scratch would cost more than $47 million per mile. It will take a lot of operating savings to recapture that investment.
Buses that run on existing roadways are buses, Sam. Yes you can give them electronic gadgets to keep green lights green and put the stops further apart to achieve some time savings but you are still running buses. And clearly, to buy a bunch of buses and put them on existing roads is a lot cheaper than building a new rapid transit system.
To build a true BRT system we would have to give the buses dedicated roadways. If we do that the cost of land will be the same as the cost of land would be for rail transit; there would be no savings.
The issue is do we simply want to put more buses on our roads or do we want to build a rapid transit system for either buses or rail vehicles. Rapid transit will carry many more people and current information suggests it will attract more customers. Buses on roads will be a lot cheaper. Both systems have pluses and minuses.
As you point out, to the extent that US cities were built without public transit in the first place to go back now and put transit in them is going to be expensive. We have built our sprawl and now we are living with the consequences. We are also an aging population. What happens to people who want to live in their homes and are healthy but can no longer drive. Do we tell them that providing them with transportation they can use is just to expensive?
John WR Buses that run on existing roadways are buses, Sam. Yes you can give them electronic gadgets to keep green lights green and put the stops further apart to achieve some time savings but you are still running buses. And clearly, to buy a bunch of buses and put them on existing roads is a lot cheaper than building a new rapid transit system. To build a true BRT system we would have to give the buses dedicated roadways. If we do that the cost of land will be the same as the cost of land would be for rail transit; there would be no savings. The issue is do we simply want to put more buses on our roads or do we want to build a rapid transit system for either buses or rail vehicles. Rapid transit will carry many more people and current information suggests it will attract more customers. Buses on roads will be a lot cheaper. Both systems have pluses and minuses. As you point out, to the extent that US cities were built without public transit in the first place to go back now and put transit in them is going to be expensive. We have built our sprawl and now we are living with the consequences. We are also an aging population. What happens to people who want to live in their homes and are healthy but can no longer drive. Do we tell them that providing them with transportation they can use is just to expensive?
We tell them to use on-demand van services in most parts of the country. If they cannot drive, they probability are mobility impaired, which means that they would not be able to get to a light or commuter rail station. This is the case in Texas, as well as most other areas of the country.
According to the U.S. Department of Transportation Statistics, in 2009 (latest verified numbers), 5.0 per cent of Americans used public transport to get to work. Most of them drove or found an alternative. The percentage using public transport has not changed appreciably since 1989. This is true in Dallas and Austin; the two communities that I am most familiar with. Moreover, use of public transit in Dallas has flatlined at approximately 3 to 5 per cent.
There is not a BRT system in the United States that runs on dedicated rights-of-way. Adelaide and Sydney Australia have systems that run on partially dedicated rights of way. Both systems use former railway or tram rights-of-way.
One of the factors governing the decision as to what type of transit to build is cost and affordability. What is missing from most of the discussions on these forums is any recognition that the United States and its political sub-divisions are in deep debt.
According to the U.S. Treasury and Federal Reserve, the combined federal, state, and local government debt is approximately $19.7 trillion. Moreover, an intermediate scenario estimate of the unfunded liabilities of the United States, including unfunded state pensions, stands at $46 trillion. Moreover, Americans are carrying personal debt, which includes mortgages, revolving consumer, and non-revolving consumer debt, plus student loan debt, of more than $13.6 trillion as per the Federal Reserve.
Before one knocks RBT, which may be a more cost effective solution in many areas of the country, they should tell us how the ideal rail transit systems will be paid for? Where will the money come from? This is the question that the proponents of a light rail system for Austin keep sidestepping.
I would be the last person on earth to knock buses. I have been a bus rider all of my life as well as a train rider. However, I do think we should see things as they are. Buses running on streets are important but they are simply not rapid transit.
What in the world does transit have to do with the fact that we went from a surplus into debt because of the cost of fighting two unnecessary wars?
On demand services shadow transit routes. If there is no transit within walking distance there is no on demand transit.
Many people who cannot drive can use public transit with no difficulty. Consider, for example, a person who suffered a traumatic brain injury in Iraq and now needs to get to the local VA office. Because of the injury he or she cannot get a drivers license but can walk to a bus stop quite well.
The operating costs of rail and bus are available on the APTA website, although it has been several years that I looked at the data, but I doubt there is much change. Of course, operating costs are only part of the issue, there are the capital investment costs as well. And that means that rail should be used in heavily used corridors and buses in medium and lightly used corridors. The choice of separte lanes for transit or sharred lanes with auto traffic is a question that has to be resolved on an individual basis for both rail and bus.
Pittsburgh has both light rail and dedicated sole-purpose busways. It has true bus rapid transit. Buses and light rail share the Mt. Washington transit tunnel. Seatlle's downtown subway (Tunnel with stations) is used by light rail and buses.
I am willing to agree that Austin's light rail was a mistake. Jerusalem's light rail is now handling 90,000 journeys on a typical weekday. During the Succot holiday ridership doubled to 180,000, and the headway was reduced to 4-1/2 minutes, and there was still crowding, with people left at stations. Even if we had more equpment, we could not reduce headway further, because of the need to accommodate interfering road traffic at level crossings. With the spacing of intersections, etc., it would probably not be practical to go from two-car to three-car trains. Jerusalem's light rail line was well planned and is definitely a civic asset.
The right of way downtown is used by store delivery trucks 1-5AM. The number of sidewalk cafes on the main street is five times the number that existed before light rail construction.
Sam1 ............ BRT is more flexile than rail. If necessary buses can be shifted to new routes to better serve changing population patterns. Pretty hard or at least expensive to move the rail system. The Austin Red Line follows a rail route that was laid out in the 1890s. It meanders across Williams and Travis counties in a nonsensical pattern. It is one of the reasons very few people use the system. The same is partially true for DART's light rail system. For the most part it runs along rail lines that were laid down more than 100 years ago. As a result, DART carries less than 3 to 5 per cent of the Metroplex population, although it does better in the city. As the Austin dreamers are coming to realize, building a light rail line from scratch would cost more than $47 million per mile. It will take a lot of operating savings to recapture that investment.
............
Your example from Austin has raised a point that is quite significant. To ease the problem of land acquisition, a number of new light rail lines across the continent have tended to follow available linear routes. These may be abandoned railroad lines, sharing the rail right of way, or expressway medians. Unfortunately they often are not the ideal route to actually serve today's potential riders. If we located our urban expressways in the same way they would be equally impaired in function.
And yes, building light rail is expensive. So is adding extra lanes to an existing expressway.
BRT is often promoted as a preliminary to LRT. I just can't see how the conversion is to take place later since the construction will eliminate any semblance of BRT service for several years. BRT is admittedly more flexible than LRT but that can be a mixed blessing. It will be very tempting to add in occasional detours to "just serve that new commercial center, only two blocks away". All too often the planners never actually use the transit system themselves. And of course anywhere it joins the regular flow the "RT" part of its name gets dropped.
My casual observation is that folks who would never consider using a bus to commute will become regular LRT users. I suspect this is partly due to the more generous passenger compartment dimensions typical of most equipment, especially overhead. Even if you have to stand that extra room above gets added to your personal space.
While it may not be a significant factor in Texas cities, further north where nasty stuff like snow and ice becomes a regular winter occurrence LRT can usually maintain service with minimal delay. Anyone who has driven in a blizzard knows that the same is not true for rubber tired vehicles.
John
Sam1 We tell them to use on-demand van services in most parts of the country. If they cannot drive, they probability are mobility impaired, which means that they would not be able to get to a light or commuter rail station. This is the case in Texas, as well as most other areas of the country. ...........................
...........................
If they cannot drive it may also be because they cannot afford to run a car, or medical reasons such as epilepsy prevent them from getting a driving licence. My own mother, even years after giving up her driving licence (at 75), was more than capable of hiking for several miles in the Rocky Mountains in Banff National Park. They were rough steep trails too.
The closest thing I have experienced to on-demand van services is the the Handi-bus system in my own city, run for the mobility impaired. Fortunately I don't need to depend on it myself, but have had quite a bit of experience through volunteering at a local nursing home. The Handi-bus provides an vital function but is far from ideal. Put in a request, and then the evening before you are given a nominal 20 minute window when the bus can be expected to show up. From time to time it arrives as much as a half hour later. The route can then be circuitous depending on where it may be picking up or dropping off other passengers.
But in any case, whether BRT or LRT, it is appropriate for routes with heavy ridership. Systems like hand-vans serve a completely different role in areas where the majority of people have accepted driving as a necessity in favor of a more spacious, often luxurious, lifestyle. Sometimes they may feed into a regular transit route.
Looks like I'm about to recusitate this thread...
According to North Jersey.com, it looks like the proposed light rail line on the old Erie Northern Branch is going to terminate in Englewood. There's been quite a bit of contention about this over the past few years. The Tenafly NIMBYs have had their day. I think they'll be sorry, if not in the immediate future then in the far future, if and when the line gets built.
See the whole story on www.northjersey.com. "New Jersey Transit scraps light rail proposal in Tenafly..."
As I read the story they will build the light rail. They just won't run it into Tenafly.
Firelock76According to North Jersey.com, it looks like the proposed light rail line on the old Erie Northern Branch is going to terminate in Englewood. There's been quite a bit of contention about this over the past few years. The Tenafly NIMBYs have had their day. I think they'll be sorry, if not in the immediate future then in the far future, if and when the line gets built.
I grew up in Tenafly. The roads going through the center of town are not well-suited for coexistence with light rail.
On the other hand, stopping at Rt. 4 is like building a bridge to nowhere. The plan I remember, from lo! these many years ago, was to terminate at Palisade Avenue.
Englewood Hospital is the logical last stop on the line, for initial construction at least. And that's where it will be ending.
The line can always be extended -- to Tenafly, Closter, even Nyack. But the cost-benefit over bus service just isn't there for those destinations. I'd be happy just to have passenger service back!
(But no LRVs quite live up to RS2s and 3s with Stilwells... ;-}
The cynic in me suggests that the folks in Tenafly will soon insist in a larger park&ride to be provided at someone else's expense for their convenience. And any local NIMBY objecting to expanding that parking lot will be loudly criticized by them. But I don't know the area at all.
cx500The cynic in me suggests that the folks in Tenafly will soon insist in a larger park&ride to be provided at someone else's expense for their convenience.
When New Jersey Transit builds parking facilities it generally charges for parking or lets the local municipality charge for parking. Also, NJT, when it has bus routes in an area, often provides no reasonable connection between its bus routes and rail connections. Thus many people have to drive to the rail terminal if they want to use rail transportation and they have to pay to park.
It is very common to find NJT buses running close to rail stations but not close enough to walk to them.
What wasn't addressed in the article and what I'm curious about is the reaction from the towns NORTH of Tenafly, i.e. Cresskill, Closter, Demarest, et al,
I recall reading a North Jersey,com article several months ago where the folks in the aformentioned towns definately wanted the light rail even if Tenafly didn't. I'm hoping to hear more on this.
Yes Overmod, light rail vehicles definately are NOT RS-2's with an assortment of Stillwells. Neither are they G-15 4-6-0s either!
The roads in Tenafly not suited for co-existance with light rail? I don't know, I'm pretty familiar with Tenafly myself, and they didn't have any problem co-existing with steam powered commuter and freight runs back in my father's time. But of course that was a different world, different traffic patterns, not as many cars, and so on. Folks back then knew Tenafly was a child of the Erie Railroad and were happy to be so.
Oh by the way, there was a Public Service trolley line that ran into Tenafly back in my dad's time as well. It more or less paralelled the Northern Branch. The line was abandoned into Tenafly in 1937.
Firelock76Oh by the way, there was a Public Service trolley line that ran into Tenafly back in my dad's time as well. It more or less paralelled the Northern Branch. The line was abandoned into Tenafly in 1937.
Does a bus run on the same route?
John WR Firelock76Oh by the way, there was a Public Service trolley line that ran into Tenafly back in my dad's time as well. It more or less paralelled the Northern Branch. The line was abandoned into Tenafly in 1937. Does a bus run on the same route?
Lots of them do. At the time I left Englewood in the early Nineties, the NJT 166 and Red & Tan 20 both ran at least half-hourly service EACH along this general route. (The route from Rt. 4 in the south up to Tenafly is now one-way separated, so only the southbound buses are right along the trolley ROW)
I expect that the 66/166 bus was the (happy!) replacement for trolleys. Went straight through the Lincoln Tunnel into Manhattan on a one-seat ride: no trolley can touch that, and even if the 7 line tunnel were put through to NJ it would involve a transfer from the Light Rail to one of those trains.
Interestingly enough, there was an enormous complex of carbarns in Tenafly, just south of Clinton at the corner with County Trust. I believe they were built for trolleys and then converted for use with buses, and all through my early years (when there was still 5x/day or so service on the Northern branch) there was bus activity in there. I find to my disgust that I cannot Google any pictures or discussion of this... I'm sure it's there, and a trolley or bus fan could locate it. Please do, if you know!
At one point, there were a couple of Tenafly institutions that had pictures of the trolleys in service -- the Tenafly Diner and Demarest's Hardware being two. I don't think those pictures are still there, though.
Traces of the trolley ROW still survived from Highwood north to Clinton, in the road structure east of the Erie station, and a couple of other places to the south where the cuts are wide enough for double track. I suspect these have all been long since landscaped beyond all recognition...
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.