The Plan envisions a narrow-gauge streetcar line that runs in a dedicated right-of-way
along Kennedy Boulevard, Journal Square and Bergen A venue. This streetcar system is a
criticai north/south component of a comprehensive transit network designed to service
Journal Square and surounding neighborhoods. A streetcar system wil ensure that new
and existing developments along Kennedy Boulevard and Bergen A venue have
convenient access to the Journal Square Transportation Center and proposed extensions
of the Hudson Bergen Light Rail in the Bergen Arches. The Redevelopment Plan
recommends that a streetcar run from the intersection of John F. Kennedy Boulevard and
Route 139 to Bergen Avenue at McGinley Square (see Map 6). During the development
of a streetcar system, a dedicated bus lane should be implemented along the streetcar
right-of-way. All stops should be permanent and substantial in nature. A transitional bus
along the streetcar route can help establish a riding habit among Journal Square residents
and encourage transit appropriate development along the eventual streetcar corridor. The
streetcar may be extended in the future to service additional neighborhoods as part of a
comprehensive bus rapid transit system for Jersey City.

MDM wrote:
All of those options I see turning JFK blvd. into a traffic hell during the morning and evening rush.

Back in the 1920s, When cars became more numerous, is when the trolleys went into decline. It was the store owners that pushed to get rid of the trolleys. They turned the streets into a traffic nightmare, which affected shoppers ability to reach the store. Another factor was that buses were cheaper to run than the trolley system (upkeep of rails, catenary, etc.).

The trolley got a reprieve in WWII because with the Empire of Japan running wild in the Pacific, there was no rubber available to make tires. Buses had their rubber wheels replaced by steel ones. They then used the trolley tracks. Not many cars on the road due to gas rationing.

The only practical way I see the light rail extended is to elevate the train or tunnel underneath. Both are possible.. assuming the money is there.

On a side note: I would actually support raising the gas tax for transportation if there was some way to keep the legislature and the executive branch from raiding the transportation trust fund for non transportation purposes. It is the raids that have bankrupted the fund.

Wishful_Thinking wrote:
Quote:

nafco wrote:
This is a LRV or PATH Proposal I made for my thesis a few years back that would connect all the west side of JC to SI and potentially the City. Included were street mockups which allowed for street parking on off-peak hours like other major thoroughfares already do. Of course its cost prohibitive but theres no reason the city cant implement a plan like the Select Bus service which runs North-South in Brooklyn with limited stops in an articulated bus. It resembles a light rail at a fraction of the cost. With a dedicated lane, this would improve reliability and speed like it already has proven to in Brooklyn.

Good project - critical to future plans to better integrate JC into the metro area transportation network (if something like this were actually to happen in the near future, I would stay in the Heights instead of planning to move to JSQ) - the lack of a direct rail connection to Manhattan is a huge drawback to the future of the Heights. I'm curious about a few things:
- who was on your review committee? Where there any local stakeholders, or local planning experts?
- how well was your proposal received?
- did you conclude whether the PATH or LRV equipment was the better platform?
- the SI section seems to cut straight across roads and properties - was the premise to use exclusively existing ROWs?

nafco wrote:
This is a LRV or PATH Proposal I made for my thesis a few years back that would connect all the west side of JC to SI and potentially the City. Included were street mockups which allowed for street parking on off-peak hours like other major thoroughfares already do. Of course its cost prohibitive but theres no reason the city cant implement a plan like the Select Bus service which runs North-South in Brooklyn with limited stops in an articulated bus. It resembles a light rail at a fraction of the cost. With a dedicated lane, this would improve reliability and speed like it already has proven to in Brooklyn.

elsquid wrote:
There's another HUGE reason why these things don't get built.

You've already noted that the car culture is an obstacle because it hangs on to virtually free street parking space, and utterly free street driving space, like grim death, leaving little room for any other mode in existing right-of-ways.

But it also saps the demand, real and projected, for mass transit.

The streetcar companies knew they could could win public and governmental approval for building their systems, and could then attract riders, because the inland alternatives were walking or horse carriages. Even when cars came in, at first they were for only the wealthy few and not much competition.

Anyone who wants more mass transit in JC needs to make hard choices to move us at least a little closer to that environment again at the same time. We have to stop shoveling so much public money into subsidizing driving and private car ownership.

We should start by doubling the residential parking permit fee to $30, and signaling that it will go up incrementally in the future. That would begin to recoup some of the true cost of our massive street parking giveaway of prime publicly owned and maintained land.

But it would also help create a bigger constituency for the mass transit projects that the city actually needs, and increasingly will need, as it grows.

MDM wrote:
Probably a similar line why the Longshoreman struck last year when the west coast ports wanted to put in upgrades that would eliminate 40% of the workforce. The unions that work on public projects are dependent on prevail wage laws. What would happen to a company that proposes a new building method that reduces union labor by 75%? If I was the owner, I would be checking under my car for bombs.**

brewster wrote:

Where's the modern engineering thinking to solve this problem facing cities? How about prefab elevated rail, factory built modules of supports, stations and rails delivered and quickly assembled?

weba wrote:

A feasibility study was done examining best routes for Bus Rapid Transit from Bayonne/Greenville to Journal Square. The results found Kennedy Blvd to be the most appropriate thoroughfare for BRT. Not sure what the current status of this project is, but I'm sure it could use further support.

http://www.njtpa.org/planning/subregi ... -boulevard-brt-study.aspx

https://www.facebook.com/Bayonne-Jersey-City-BRT-273211032777631/

elsquid wrote:
There's another HUGE reason why these things don't get built.

You've already noted that the car culture is an obstacle because it hangs on to virtually free street parking space, and utterly free street driving space, like grim death, leaving little room for any other mode in existing right-of-ways.

But it also saps the demand, real and projected, for mass transit.

The streetcar companies knew they could could win public and governmental approval for building their systems, and could then attract riders, because the inland alternatives were walking or horse carriages. Even when cars came in, at first they were for only the wealthy few and not much competition.

Anyone who wants more mass transit in JC needs to make hard choices to move us at least a little closer to that environment again at the same time. We have to stop shoveling so much public money into subsidizing driving and private car ownership.

We should start by doubling the residential parking permit fee to $30, and signaling that it will go up incrementally in the future. That would begin to recoup some of the true cost of our massive street parking giveaway of prime publicly owned and maintained land.

But it would also help create a bigger constituency for the mass transit projects that the city actually needs, and increasingly will need, as it grows.

JCGuys wrote:
Quote:

weba wrote:
Quote:

JCGuys wrote:
Quote:

Dolomiti wrote:
Some type of bus rapid transit is probably a much better idea anyway. More flexible, cheaper, easier to set up, typically incurs less local opposition.

Well, any chance for bus rapid transit then?

A feasibility study was done examining best routes for Bus Rapid Transit from Bayonne/Greenville to Journal Square. The results found Kennedy Blvd to be the most appropriate thoroughfare for BRT. Not sure what the current status of this project is, but I'm sure it could use further support.

http://www.njtpa.org/planning/subregi ... -boulevard-brt-study.aspx

https://www.facebook.com/Bayonne-Jersey-City-BRT-273211032777631/

Thanks for this!!! If light rail is impossible for one reason or another, BRT is the next best thing.

weba wrote:
Quote:

JCGuys wrote:
Quote:

Dolomiti wrote:
Some type of bus rapid transit is probably a much better idea anyway. More flexible, cheaper, easier to set up, typically incurs less local opposition.

Well, any chance for bus rapid transit then?

A feasibility study was done examining best routes for Bus Rapid Transit from Bayonne/Greenville to Journal Square. The results found Kennedy Blvd to be the most appropriate thoroughfare for BRT. Not sure what the current status of this project is, but I'm sure it could use further support.

http://www.njtpa.org/planning/subregi ... -boulevard-brt-study.aspx

https://www.facebook.com/Bayonne-Jersey-City-BRT-273211032777631/

JCGuys wrote:
A hundred years ago streetcar companies were privately owned, turned a profit, and were able to expand and flourish without local or federal tax dollars. It kind of makes you wonder what changed that you can't build a one stop extension without it costing over a billion dollars.

I'm a practical guy when it comes to cost. The Jitney's are profitable. Maybe we should just create JOLs (Jitney Only Lanes) and let them solve our transportation needs.

Seriously, traffic is going to really suck 30 years from now when Journal Square is built out with skyscrapers at heights rivaling those found in Manhattan if no new transit investments are undertaken today.

Isn't this at least one thing we can all agree on?

Quote:

MDM wrote:
Building rail is just so damn expensive (over a billion $ to extend the PATH to EWR!) I don't think it will happen anytime in the near future. I think government on the local level to the federal level is going to hit the wall debt wise in the next few years. There won't be the funds available.

Going into magical thinking mode that the money exists:

There is an abandoned right of way that could extend the light rail to JSQ, or to the Bergen Arches. Possible idea? Allow R-4 development over the Bergen Arches with the stipulation the developers build stations below the building and pay for the rail extension?

The only way I can see extending the rail up Central or Summit ave would be a subway or a skytrain. In another similar thread I did post a pic of the elevated trolley line that extended above the southern part of Central Ave until 1949.

You cold build an elevated line that works it way up to Union City, then follows Paterson Plank Road down to the rail lines that run next to 1&9. You could tie into the existing system from there.

If you have infinite money, there are a lot of possibilities.

JCGuys wrote:
Quote:

Dolomiti wrote:
Some type of bus rapid transit is probably a much better idea anyway. More flexible, cheaper, easier to set up, typically incurs less local opposition.

Well, any chance for bus rapid transit then?

MDM wrote:
Building rail is just so damn expensive (over a billion $ to extend the PATH to EWR!) I don't think it will happen anytime in the near future. I think government on the local level to the federal level is going to hit the wall debt wise in the next few years. There won't be the funds available.

Going into magical thinking mode that the money exists:

There is an abandoned right of way that could extend the light rail to JSQ, or to the Bergen Arches. Possible idea? Allow R-4 development over the Bergen Arches with the stipulation the developers build stations below the building and pay for the rail extension?

The only way I can see extending the rail up Central or Summit ave would be a subway or a skytrain. In another similar thread I did post a pic of the elevated trolley line that extended above the southern part of Central Ave until 1949.

You cold build an elevated line that works it way up to Union City, then follows Paterson Plank Road down to the rail lines that run next to 1&9. You could tie into the existing system from there.

If you have infinite money, there are a lot of possibilities.

jc_dweller wrote:
Quote:

JCGuys wrote:
Quote:

jc_dweller wrote:
nope. Not nearly enough density.

I don't know about this. Jersey City is very high density when compared to most other US cities. There are many cities getting federal grants for streetcars with densities that are far less, like Kansas City!?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KC_Streetcar

Kansas City density: ~1,400 people per square mile
Jersey City density: ~16,700 per square mile

(I was gonna post the density of the zip codes intersecting Kennedy Blvd in Jersey City (07307, 07306, 07304, 07305) with those of Kansas City but why bother, they're all beat by at least tenfold.)

Journal Square is set to become a mini Manhattan once it's fully built out.

This is super misleading. The JC density is what it is because of places like downtown, newport, and the Journal Square area skewing the numbers. The density along Kennedy Blvd., both heading toward Bayonne and heading north to North Bergen, drops off significantly. Does JSQ have the density for Light Rail? Sure, but the corridor itself does not have the density. You have to remember that even where HBLRT goes through less-dense Edgewater its purpose is/was to spur development on the then largely undeveloped waterfront. Kennedy Blvd through the heights is never intended to be developed that way, it is intended to stay low rise, low density, and without that user base, HBLRT will NOT provide the infrastructure. HBLRT isn't even ready to cooperate with the ass-end of downtown (by Cast Iron lofts). My negative opinion of CIL aside, that would merit a rail stop much more than JFK.

I think the suggestion that BRT be considered is a good one.

JCGuys wrote:
Quote:

jc_dweller wrote:
nope. Not nearly enough density.

I don't know about this. Jersey City is very high density when compared to most other US cities. There are many cities getting federal grants for streetcars with densities that are far less, like Kansas City!?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KC_Streetcar

Kansas City density: ~1,400 people per square mile
Jersey City density: ~16,700 per square mile

(I was gonna post the density of the zip codes intersecting Kennedy Blvd in Jersey City (07307, 07306, 07304, 07305) with those of Kansas City but why bother, they're all beat by at least tenfold.)

Journal Square is set to become a mini Manhattan once it's fully built out.

Dolomiti wrote:
Some type of bus rapid transit is probably a much better idea anyway. More flexible, cheaper, easier to set up, typically incurs less local opposition.

Dolomiti wrote:
Some type of bus rapid transit is probably a much better idea anyway. More flexible, cheaper, easier to set up, typically incurs less local opposition.

jc_dweller wrote:
nope. Not nearly enough density.

Dolomiti wrote:
Some type of bus rapid transit is probably a much better idea anyway. More flexible, cheaper, easier to set up, typically incurs less local opposition.