DOCSLIB.ORG

Attachment C Evaluation of Yard Sites

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Attachment C Evaluation of Yard Sites Attachment C Evaluation of Yard Sites Evaluation of Candidate Yard Sites The ARC DEIS 2025 operating plan identified the need for midday storage for up to 28 trainsets. This midday storage requirement was confirmed during the development of the SDEIS 2030 operating plan. An evaluation of yard sites was conducted during the DEIS. This evaluation considered the ARC project midday storage needs (28 trainsets) as well as future expansion needs, beyond the ARC project, for a total of up to 40-45 trainsets. A description of the sites considered, evaluation criteria, and the results of that evaluation are summarized in the following excerpt from the ARC DEIS Engineering Report, Version 3.0, October 2006. The DEIS evaluated 10 alternatives sites. The Koppers Coke Site in Kearny, New Jersey and Penhorn sites were recommended for further consideration. Penhorn was eliminated because it did not provide sufficient capacity. The following table summarizes the other sites considered and the reasons for their elimination. Site Reason for Elimination 1 - Kingsland Wye Distance from PSNY and site configuration 2 - Rodgers Blvd. Distance from PSNY; track connections to NEC; availability of property; and potential roadway impacts 3 - Penhorn Site constraints and size limitations; impacts to PSE&G properties 4 - Hoboken Yard Limited space available beyond other NJ TRANSIT current and planned uses 6 - NEC West of Portal Bridge Split yard configuration is operationally inefficient; within footprint of proposed new Portal Bridge; encroachment on commercial development 7 - Waverly Yard Distance from PSNY; potential conflicts with Newark Airport Station on NEC; potential conflicts with pending commercial development 8 - Adams Maintenance-of-Way Significant distance from PSNY Base Area 9 - North Bergen Yard Access via existing, busy Conrail freight line; no available capacity on yard site; inefficient track geometry for access 10 - Secaucus Malanka Landfill Site constraints; impacts to PSE&G 1 Evaluation of Candidate Yard Sites Excerpt from ARC DEIS Engineering Report, Version 3.0, October 2006 A. YARD OPTIONS The ARC DEIS initial assumption, based upon the MIS analyses was that a midday train storage yard should be constructed west of the Hudson River to accommodate 28 or more train sets. The New Jersey yard location would allow A.M. peak trains arriving in New York to “deadhead” back to the new yard to lay-over midday, then dead-head back to PSNY for the P.M. peak operation. These movements could possibly be revenue runs as shuttles between Secaucus and PSNY. Several potential New Jersey yard locations were identified as part of this study and the previous MIS study efforts. The 10 potential sites are shown in Table 1. The table highlights the following characteristics: location and site description, distance by rail to PSNY, deadheading route, potential number of 12-car storage tracks available, and a summary of the overall advantages and disadvantages. Review of the site characteristics resulted in the recommendation of two sites for further evaluation: • Site #3 - Penhorn • Site #5 – Koppers Coke The Penhorn site, located adjacent to the proposed Boonton Line Connector, would provide space for approximately 10-14 train sets, depending on how impacts to PSE&G facilities are mitigated. The Koppers Coke site is much larger and would provide space for approximately 28 train sets, with future expansion to store 40 to 45 train sets. However, it is further from PSNY, and is identified as an industrial redevelopment site. Since the Koppers Coke site would be able to accommodate the midday storage needs, it is the only site included in the DEIS. However, development of a yard at the Penhorn site is not precluded by the design. The Koppers Coke property is adjacent to two other properties, Diamond Shamrock and Standard Chlorine, which are included in the proposed yard design. The existing West End Wye connection from NJ TRANSIT’s Main Line and Morris & Essex (M&E) Lines would be reconfigured to support higher speed operations. This would support non-revenue movements to and from the Kearny Yard with minimal impacts to existing M&E operations. Originally, a single-track replacement of the existing Wye Track was proposed but with the number of non-revenue trains in and out of the Kearny Yard, a double-track Wye connection was developed. The proposed West End Wye reconfiguration would also support operation of revenue trains to and from New York via the M&E Lines and West End Interlocking as additional capacity with the existing 2-track Portal Bridge, and under disrupted conditions along the NEC to enhance overall system reliability. 1 Access to the Region’s Core SDEIS TABLE 1: ARC DEIS POTENTIAL NEW JERSEY STORAGE YARD SITES Potential Distance by Storage Location and Rail from Capacity for Recommended Site PSNY Deadheading 12-car for Further Site# Name Description (miles) Route Trains Advantages Disadvantages Study 1 Kingsland Harrison, 8.4 NEC to M&E 10 to 12 Direct access from Long distance from No Wye between I-280 & M&E for A.M. PSNY; adds crew time & M&E Line; just peak westbound train miles. P.M. peak west of storage moves. eastbound from Yard to Kingsland Wye PSNY is opposing westbound peak Midtown Direct flow. To mitigate, need a flyover. Requires speed reduction on NEC westbound to clear main track. Site shape confines yard flexibility. 2 Rodgers Harrison, 9.2 NEC to M&E 20 +/- Direct access to Long distance from No Blvd. between NEC M&E for P.M. PSNY; adds crew time & and M&E, just peak eastbound train miles. A.M. peak west of M&E- moves to PSNY westbound from PSNY to NEC/PATH Yard is opposing split eastbound A.M. peak Midtown Direct flow. To mitigate, needs Flyover. Site is occupied by commercial buildings, streets, PATH Station parking. Potentially impacted by I-280 Interchange Improvements - Alts. 5 or 6 (6/9/04 NJ DOT memo). 2 Evaluation of Candidate Yard Site TABLE 1: ARC DEIS POTENTIAL NEW JERSEY STORAGE YARD SITES (CONTINUED) Potential Distance by Storage Location and Rail from Capacity for Recommended Site PSNY Deadheading 12-car for Further Site# Name Description (miles) Route Trains Advantages Disadvantages Study 3 Penhorn Secaucus, a.k.a. 6.4 NEC to 10 to 14 Closer proximity Requires acquisition of Yes Laurel Hill Boonton Line (Depending to PSNY. PSE&G property. Site Southeast of Connector on Minimal impact constrained by space, NEC, along negotiations on high speed PSE&G facility access Boonton Line with PSE&G) NEC operations. roadways, and ramps to & and including Provides direct from new NJ Turnpike property now access to Secaucus Interchange owned by Hoboken. ramps. Wetlands PSE&G Adjacent to remediation needed. Boonton Line Narrow NJ TRANSIT Connector ROW along north side of construction. track, which passes south under NJ TRANSIT Main Line tracks. Wetlands remediation required. 4 Hoboken Hoboken, within 9.2 NEC to N/A Site owned by NJ Future planned Main- No Yard existing yard Boonton Line TRANSIT. No Bergen Line service limits Connector to new construction increases may preclude Main Line to required. use by ARC related M&E Line services. 3 Access to the Region’s Core SDEIS TABLE 1: ARC DEIS POTENTIAL NEW JERSEY STORAGE YARD SITES (CONTINUED) Potential Distance by Storage Location and Rail from Capacity for Recommended Site PSNY Deadheading 12-car for Further Site# Name Description (miles) Route Trains Advantages Disadvantages Study 5 Kearny Kearny, a.k.a. 7.8 NEC to 30+/- Large mostly Longer distance from Yes Conrail P & H Boonton Line vacant site. Can PSNY; adds crew time & Branch. NW of Connector to accommodate train miles. Hudson Hackensack M&E total train set County may oppose. River/M&E requirements. Brownfield redevelopment Lower Hack being led by HCIA. Bridge. Includes Diamond Shamrock and Standard Chlorine sites. 6 NEC west of N & S of NEC 6.1 Direct access 20, 10 on Direct access to Within footprint of new No Portal Bridge off of NEC each side NEC. Portal Bridge. Wetlands remediation. Stub ended configuration required. Encroaches on commercial development on south side. Split yard configuration is operationally inefficient. 4 Evaluation of Candidate Yard Site TABLE 1: ARC DEIS POTENTIAL NEW JERSEY STORAGE YARD SITES (CONTINUED) Potential Distance by Storage Location and Rail from Capacity for Recommended Site PSNY Deadheading 12-car for Further Site# Name Description (miles) Route Trains Advantages Disadvantages Study 7 Waverly Site of former 10+ Direct access 30 to 40 Direct access to Further from PSNY, No Yard Conrail Yard, off of NEC NEC. Site already requiring either reverse South of Haynes developed for Rail peak direction deadhead Avenue, north & on south side operation thru Newark or south sides of from Newark. Potential NEC conflicts with new Airport/NEC Monorail Station. Crossover moves required, or Flyovers. Possible commercial development pending. 8 Adams North 35+ Direct access 30+/- Direct access to Furthest from PSNY. Not No Maintenance Brunswick off of NEC NEC. Vacant practical for midday of Way Base land, south side of storage to support P.M. Area NEC peak 9 N. Bergen N. Bergen, north Unknown New 0 Close to PSNY. Access via existing busy No Yard of NEC, (connection connection Large site Conrail freight line. Yard accessible from not from NEC to footprint in appears to be fully Conrail designed) Northern existing rail subscribed. Would Northern Branch Branch (not freight facility require sharp curvature proposed) alignment between HR Tunnels and N. Branch, which is not in program 5 Access to the Region’s Core SDEIS TABLE 1: ARC DEIS POTENTIAL NEW JERSEY STORAGE YARD SITES (CONTINUED) Potential Distance by Storage Location and Rail from Capacity for Recommended Site PSNY Deadheading 12-car for Further Site# Name Description (miles) Route Trains Advantages Disadvantages Study 10 Secaucus Along NEC 5 Direct access Some, but Would provide Odd shaped parcel.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • New Jersey Statewide FREIGHT PLAN %FDFNCFS
    New Jersey Statewide FREIGHT PLAN %FDFNCFS Table of CONTENTS Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the Author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the view of the Federal Highway Administration. New Jersey Statewide FREIGHT PLAN Page left blank intentionally. Table of CONTENTS Acknowledgements The New Jersey Department of Transportation’s Division of Multimodal Services thanks the many organizations and individuals for their time and contribution in making this document possible. New Jersey Department of Transportation Nicole Minutoli Paul Truban Genevieve Clifton Himanshu Patel Andrew Ludasi New Jersey Freight Advisory Committee Calvin Edghill, FHWA Keith Skilton, FHWA Anne Strauss-Wieder, NJTPA Jakub Rowinski, NJTPA Ted Dahlburg, DVRPC Mike Ruane, DVRPC Bill Schiavi, SJTPO David Heller, SJTPO Steve Brown, PANYNJ Victoria Farr, PANYNJ Stephanie Molden, PANYNJ Alan Kearns, NJ TRANSIT Steve Mazur, SJTA Rodney Oglesby, CSX Rick Crawford, Norfolk Southern Michael Fesen, Norfolk Southern Jocelyn Hill, Conrail Adam Baginski, Conrail Kelvin MacKavanagh, New Jersey Short Line Railroad Association Brian Hare, Pennsylvania Department of Transportation David Rosenberg, New York State Department of Transportation Consultant Team Jennifer Grenier, WSP Stephen Chiaramonte, WSP Alan Meyers, WSP Carlos Bastida, WSP Joseph Bryan, WSP Sebastian Guerrero, WSP Debbie Hartman, WSP Ruchi Shrivastava, WSP Reed Sibley, WSP Scudder Smith, WSP Scott Parker, Jacobs Engineering Jayne Yost, Jacobs Engineering
    [Show full text]
  • Transit Appendix
    TRANSIT APPENDIX Contains: Future NJ TRANSIT Needs The Port Authority’s Interstate Transportation Role Transit Appendix 1 DRAFT Plan 2045: Connecting North Jersey Draft: Future Transit Needs in the NJTPA Region The following analysis of future transit needs was prepared by NJ TRANSIT to inform the development of Plan 2045: Connecting North Jersey. It will guide the NJTPA’s planning and capital programming activities over the next three decades. The foremost concern in projecting future funding needs is predicated on a fully funded state of good repair program for NJ TRANSIT’s existing public transit system. Addressing ongoing and sustained needs related to rehabilitation and basic systems improvements must also constantly progress in order to maintain a statewide public transit network that is responsive to customer needs. With the need to address a focus on state of good repair as a prerequisite, proposed future expansion projects need to be assessed through a series of physical/operational feasibility, environmental, economic and ridership, fiscal and financial analyses. Ongoing operating and maintenance costs associated with proposed projects are a critical component of analysis, as they have a direct impact on NJ TRANSIT’s annual operating budget. Among the future investment needs being considered for longer term capital funding are the following: Capacity Improvements and Transit Service Expansions Additional Trans-Hudson Public Transit Capacity Various studies are underway to examine ways to increase trans-Hudson bus, rail and ferry capacities. Among the major efforts is the Gateway Program, led by Amtrak, focused on preserving and increasing rail capacity between New Jersey and Manhattan. On a broader level, the Federal Railroad Administration is managing the NEC FUTURE effort examining the future needs of the entire Northeast Corridor from Washington, D.C.
    [Show full text]
  • 2. EXISTING CONDITIONS 2.1 History of Circulation in Jersey City 2.2
    Jersey City Master Plan / Circulation Element 2. EXISTING CONDITIONS As part of the background work in developing this Circulation Element, a detailed assessment of the history of circulation in Jersey City and an inventory of the baseline conditions of the City’s transportation system were prepared. 2.1 History of Circulation in Jersey City Photo Source: Jersey City Division of City Planning Strategically located on the Hudson River and with easy access to Upper New York Bay, the City of Jersey City was an important center for shipping and maritime activity during the peak of the industrial revolution of the early nineteenth century. This status was reinforced when the Morris Canal was completed at Jersey City in 1836, giving the City shared direct linkage with the Delaware River at Phillipsburg and with important inland points, such as Newark and Paterson. Jersey City continued to serve as a transit point between Upper New York Bay and inland points to the west, but as the industrial revolution progressed, new technologies enabled the development of newer, more efficient forms of transport than canals. Consequently, railroads followed and terminals were constructed along the Hudson River waterfront and other points in the City. One example is the historic Central Railroad of New Jersey Terminal, which originally opened in 1864 and is located in what is now Liberty State Park. With terminals located on the Hudson River, it was not long before ideas about a rail linkage to New York City began to evolve. This led to the construction of what is now known as the Port Authority Trans-Hudson (PATH) train, which commenced operations in 1907 after many arduous years of tunneling under the Hudson River.
    [Show full text]
  • Final Scoping Document
    temberMarch 2008 ENT OF TRAN TM SP R OR PA T E A D T . IO .S N U TRANSIT FINAL F E SCOPING D N E IO R T AL RA TR IST ANSIT ADMIN DOCUMENT NORTHERN BRANCH CORRIDOR DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT Sponsored by: U.S. Department of Transportation n Federal Transit Administration n NJ TRANSIT Northern Branch Corridor DEIS Final Scoping Document TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION...................................................................................................................................1 1.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ...................................................................................................................1 1.2 PURPOSE OF THE SCOPING DOCUMENT............................................................................................3 2. STUDY OVERVIEW..............................................................................................................................4 2.1 HISTORY OF PROJECT PLANNING .....................................................................................................4 2.1.1 West Shore Region Study...................................................................................................4 2.1.2 Post West Shore Region Study Developments ..................................................................5 2.2 SIGNIFICANCE OF POST-WEST SHORE REGION STUDY DEVELOPMENTS.............................................7 2.3 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT (EIS) .....................................................................................7 2.4 SCOPING PROCESS
    [Show full text]
  • Rail & Road to Recovery
    RAIL & ROAD TO RECOVERY April 2020 Tri-State Transportation Campaign BlueWaveNJ Clean Water Action Environment New Jersey New Jersey Policy Perspective New Jersey Sierra Club SUMMARY Transit and environmental advocates strongly oppose the New Jersey Turnpike Authority’s unprecedented 2020 Capital Plan, which will direct $16 billion toward road expansion projects. The $24 billion capital plan calls for more than 50 major projects to be undertaken on the New Jersey Turnpike and Garden State Parkway in rolling, five-year increments. Thirteen of these projects will ultimately widen over 100 miles of roadway on the Turnpike and Parkway, and none of the projects would allow for any transit expansion or incorporate a transit component. This proposed capital program directly contradicts the state’s Energy Master Plan, released in January after a year-long process, which aims to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and transition the state to 100% clean energy sources by 2050, with an emphasis on expanding public transportation options and reducing vehicle miles traveled (VMT). In contrast, Rail and Road to Recovery, our alternative capital plan, highlights 27 unfunded mass transit projects totaling over $25.8 billion that would create 1.28 million jobs that should be funded with the $16 billion currently slated for highway expansion. NJTA’s plan also doesn’t take getting the state’s roads and bridges into a state of good repair seriously --36% of the state’s highways are deficient (rough and/or distressed), 529 bridges are structurally deficient and 2,367 are in need of repair. The price tag for unfunded fix-it-first projects is over $10 billion --at least $8.6 billion for bridges and $679 million for just the top 500 state road projects over the next few years, which doesn’t even include needed repairs to the far larger network of local and county roads.
    [Show full text]
  • PLAN 2035 Appendix D
    PLAN 2035 Appendix D Transit Investment Analysis NORTH JERSEY TRANSPORTATION PLANNING AUTHORITY This document is an appendix to Plan 2035, the Regional Transportation Plan for Northern New Jersey. The full document is available at www.NJTPA.org. Plan 2035 was prepared and published by the North Jersey Transportation Planning Authority, Inc. with funding from the Federal Transit Administration and the Federal Highway Administration. The NJTPA is solely responsible for its contents. Correspondence or questions relating to this report may be addressed to: The Executive Director North Jersey Transportation Planning Authority One Newark Center, 17th Floor, Newark, NJ 07102-1982 Telephone: 973-639-8400 Fax: 973-639-1953 Web: www.njtpa.org E-mail: [email protected] Appendix D: Transit Investment Analysis Introduction The northern New Jersey transit network, consisting of rail, bus and ferry facilities, provides a fast and reliable means of moving nearly 1 million travelers each weekday. In doing so it adds a level of flexibility and redundancy to the transportation system that is matched by only a handful of other metropolitan regions across the nation. It is responsible for diverting hundreds of thousands of trips each day from the region's congested highway networks, safeguarding the region's air quality, reducing greenhouse gas emissions, providing essential travel to the disabled and those without cars and contributing to the quality of life enjoyed by the region's residents. While historically the rail system focused on serving Manhattan-bound commuters, increasingly it is providing travel options for reaching destinations within the state like the Jersey Shore, downtown Newark and Hudson River Waterfront.
    [Show full text]
  • Six Trends Report
    Trends & Opportunities How Changes in Ridership, Population, and Employment Should Guide Future Metropolitan Transit Planning July 2013 www.realtransit.org Overview Second Avenue Subway (Phase I) 7 Line Extension East Side Access Fulton Center and World Trade Center Transit Hub The New York metropolitan region is in the midst of $25 billion in capital projects due to be completed before the end of the decade. These projects include the extension of the 7 Line subway to 34th Street, the opening of the first phase of the Second Avenue Subway, the completion of the East Side Access program to bring LIRR trains to Grand Central Terminal, and the construction of the Fulton Center and World Trade Center Transit Hub in Lower Manhattan. As government leaders plan for the next round of capital projects within the metropolitan region, it is imperative that investments target regions and populations that will most benefit from transit improvements both now and in the future. Trends & Opportunities outlines a number of metropolitan transit trends and opportunities to consider when it comes to preparing for our future transportation-based planning. 1 Trends in Metropolitan Transit Rail on the Rise From 2002 to 2012, the New York metropolitan area has seen substantial ridership growth in both local and regional rail systems. In terms of local mass transit rail, the New York Subway system added the greatest number of annual riders since 2002 at 241.4 million, which represented a 17.1% rise in ridership over ten years. Hudson-Bergen Light Rail, however, had the most dramatic gains by percentage, growing 329% since 2002 and gaining over 10 million annual passengers.
    [Show full text]
  • Hudson River Waterfront Transitway System
    Hudson River Waterfront Transitway System JOSEPH MARTIN, S. DAVID PHRANER, AND JoHN D. WILKINs unique transitway has been pro- 75,000 trips made by bus ultimately posed for New Jersey's Hud- will find their way onto the transitway. son River waterfront. A nar- The core of the proposed transitway is row strip of land is being converted the state-of-the-art light rail transit from railroad yards to large-scale (LRT) facility to carry intrawaterfront mixed use development. At 35 million trips. A busway component and land ft2 of commercial floor space and access roadway have been designated 35,000 dwellings, this new develop- to integrate with the LRT. Transitway ment requires a high-capacity transit- design variations include LRT exclu- way. Add to the trips generated by the sive, busway exclusive, transit in new development nearly 200,000 peak street, bus and LRT sharing right-of- period trips (7 to 10 a.m.) passing way, and, in one location, bus and LRT through the waterfront to the Manhat- sharing travel lanes. tan central business district. At least "RECYCLING" IS A POPULAR buzzword in our environmentally aware society. Along the Hudson River waterfront, the term is being applied in two unique ways: recycling waterfront land and recycling the concept of light rail transit (LRT) in support of development. Imagine the opportunities in a strip of land 18 mi long and never more than a mile wide, largely vacant, and 1,000 yd from Manhattan's central business district (CBD). Five years ago, when commercial rentals approached $40/ft2 in Manhattan, one perceptive J.
    [Show full text]
  • Northern Branch of Hudson-Bergen Light Rail
    1 HUDSON-BERGEN LIGHT RAIL TRANSIT TO ENGLEWOOD & TENAFLY STILL “… THE WAY TO GO” GOOD IDEA THEN GOOD IDEA NOW 2 Presented by LIGHT RAIL TRANSIT PANEL Rose Heck, Chairman: Mayor of Hasbrouck Heights, former State Assemblywoman and Chair of the original New Jersey Assembly Bipartisan Light Rail Panel Jack May, Rail Transit Author/Historian Frank Miklos, retired NJT Manager Philip Craig, Railroad and Rail Transit Consultant HUDSON-BERGEN LIGHT RAIL 3 HUDSON-BERGEN LIGHT RAIL New Jersey Transit map showing the existing system and its original plan to extend the line to Ridgefield, Palisades Park, Leonia, Englewood and Tenafly 4 5 HUDSON-BERGEN LIGHT RAIL Opened April 2000 Built in Stages Now 20.2 Miles Long 23 Stations Mostly Grade-Separated but has Street Running Long Tunnel with Deep Union City Station 52 Kinkisharyo LRVs - MU Operation Express Service THE HUDSON-BERGEN LIGHT RAIL LINE SHOWS CONTINUED GROWTH AND SUCCESS 50,000 45,000 40,000 35,000 30,000 25,000 20,000 15,000 10,000 Weekday Passengers 5,000 0 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Year 6 7 HUDSON-BERGEN LIGHT RAIL PATRONAGE BY STATION 6,500 6,000 5,500 5,000 4,500 4,000 Hudson Bergen Light Rail - Ridership Trends 8/07 to 8/08 3,500 3,000 Weekday2,500 Boardings 2,000 August 2007 (38,461) 1,500 August 2008 (44,240) 1,000 500 0 22nd St. 34th St. 45th St. Danforth Richard St. West Side MLK Drive Garfield Ave Liberty P/R Jersey Ave. Marin Blvd.
    [Show full text]
  • It's Time to Think About West Shore Rail
    It’s time to think about West Shore Rail... Residents, political leaders, and transit officials agree there is a dire need for new rail transit on the Hudson River's West Shore. Today many southbound West Shore commuters in both New Jersey and New York are forced to choose between driving to work and unreliable bus transport. As a result, Bergen County is New Jersey's most congested county and rush hour traffic crawls across the George Washington Bridge. Transit officials have proposed restarting passenger service on three existing freight lines (see box). NJ The West Shore Line would run between Hoboken, NJ to Transit is beginning an important study to decide which West Nyack, NY via the Secau- of these new lines will be pursued or pursued first. cus Transfer and the Meadow- lands Sports Complex, with Questions to Consider potential NJ stops in Norwood, Closter, Dumont, Bergenfield, West Englewood, Teaneck, · What new regional travel options would the line Ridgefield Park/Bogota, and a make available? proposed connection to the Hudson Bergen Light Rail at · How many people will use the line? How many either Edgewater or the Vince Lombardi Park & Ride. new transit riders will the line draw? The Northern Branch would · How many auto trips will the line eliminate? run between Hoboken and Tenafly, with potential stops in Which line would do the most to reduce congestion West Englewood, Englewood, in Bergen County? Leonia, Palisades Park, Ridge- field, and a proposed connec- · How much will the line cost? How successful will tion to the Hudson Bergen Light Rail at 69th Street in each line be in winning funds from the Federal North Bergen or Edgewater.
    [Show full text]
  • City of Englewood Position Letter to NJ Transit
    OFFICE OF THE MAYOR CITY HALL ENGLEWOOD, NEW JERSEY 07631 (201) 871-6666 February 21, 2012 Ms. Linda A. Mosch, P.E. Project Director, Northern Branch Corridor EIS Capital Planning & Programs NJTRANSIT One Penn Plaza East Newark, NJ 07105 Dear Ms. Mosch: On behalf of the Englewood Economic Development Commission and my Office, this letter provides the City's official comments concerning the findings of the Northern Branch Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS). This letter, which will be incorporated into a resolution of the City Council, elaborates upon our remarks at the NJ Transit public hearing held on January 26, 2012 in Englewood. The City of Englewood supports restoration of passenger rail service through Englewood via the Northern Branch assuming resolution of concerns addressed below including but not limited to a modification of the Plan to preserve 128 critical on-street parking spaces in the Central Business District. Our support of light rail is expressly contingent upon this modification; we feel it is essential that restoration of passenger rail be sensitive to, and promote, the economic viability and growth of the City's CBD. Assuming a satisfactory resolution to our areas of concern, we believe that a properly planned light rail line through Englewood will enhance the residential, commercial and industrial sectors of our diverse community by providing convenient and reliable transportation links to and from employment and population centers in Hoboken, Jersey City and Manhattan. The City additionally believes that it is critically important that the new light rail line include stops at Route 4, Englewood Town Center and Englewood Hospital.
    [Show full text]
  • Hudson-Bergen Light Rail Transit System Joint Occupancy-Joint Use
    Hudson-Bergen Light Rail Transit System Joint Occupancy-Joint Use Richard F. Hernon, New Jersey Transit Light rail systems share their rights-of-way with most other to the Exit 14C toll plaza on the New Jersey Turnpike modes of ground transportation. The proposed Hudson- Extension. This major junction is referred to as Gateway. Bergen Light Rail Transit System and the planned and po• One branch will extend north from Gateway to the tential joint use and joint occupancies are described. Trans• southern and eastern edges of downtown Jersey City for portation systems and modes that will or could share the about 2.5 km. The branch will then continue 2 km light rail transit route are freight railroads, commuter rail• through easements provided by three Waterfront devel• roads, roadway vehicles, pedestrians, bicycles, and utilities. opers to Hoboken. Upon leaving the easement area, the Methods of accommodating other kinds of transportation alignment will cross New Jersey (NJ) Transit's Hoboken are also discussed. rail yard into the city of Hoboken. In Hoboken the alignment will run 4.6 km on the east side along local roads. Most of the Hoboken alignment follows streets ight rail transit (LRT) can share its operating on the former Hoboken Shore Railroad, much of it on alignment with most other forms of land-based the west edge of the Hudson River. I-J transportation. Many, if not all, light rail systems North of Hoboken the alignment will follow the for• in operation share their alignments with one or more mer Consolidated Rail Corporation (Conrail) River forms of transportation.
    [Show full text]