The “Dinky” — the two-car train that shuttles passengers on the 2.7 mile line between Princeton and the Northeast Corridor rail line — should be replaced with a $145 million dual purpose light rail line and a bus rapid transit system that can be extended into other areas, a consultant’s report recommended.
The 44-page report by Stantec recommended alternative one, replacement of the existing commuter rail line with a “Transitway” line that is paved for bus operations and has embedded rails for light rail trains that would run between the Northeast Corridor line and Princeton. The bus rapid transit component could run on local streets beyond Princeton and Princeton Junction stations on future extensions to serve surrounding areas.
The concept got a thumbs up from the “Friends of the Dinky Corridor” a group of citizens and officials that support a transformation of the line to meet current demands.
“Thank goodness for NJ Transit thinking ahead. We have a whole lot of new residential development coming to both sides of Route 1,” said Brian Levinson, a Friends representative. “And this, at a time when Dinky ridership has declined and the 40-year-old rail cars are becoming extinct.”
The report estimated that construction of the “transitway” right of way could cost $100 million and add eight stations, two on the existing Dinky line and six more on BRT expansions in West Windsor and Princeton.
Purchase of a fleet of light rail and bus rapid transit vehicles could cost an additional $45 million. An option to build a pedestrian path paralleling the Transitway line could add another $45 million to the total. It also will require construction of a maintenance facility, the report said.
Estimated daily ridership of both the light rail and bus rapid trains is 2,215 people, a slight increase over current ridership. The report recommends advancing the alternative to a future preliminary design phase because it will more be accessible for all travelers, increase ridership and connect to surrounding communities and Princeton University, through BRT extensions of the line.
“While the timing of subsequent study phases is not known at this time, a potential next step would be to conduct more detailed design and environmental studies and documentation,” said Jim Smith, an NJ Transit spokesman..
Benefits of a dual light rail-bus rapid transit line include more frequent service - with service every 6 to 10 minutes, the report said. The Dinky now runs every 30 minutes. About 48% of people who responded to a survey for the report preferred the first option. The study didn’t say how many people took the survey.
“For our group, this is about increasing access and protecting the environment. But it’s also about common sense,” Levinson said, adding the group has a online petition in favor of the Transitway concept. “You get more people into the central business district, with a lot less traffic, if you have real bike, pedestrian and transit options.”
Other alternatives that weren’t recommended included building a light rail line with a parallel bus rapid transit road for $230 million or eliminating rail and building a paved bus rapid transit roadway for $160 million.
Those costs were preliminary, high-level estimates that would be further refined in future study efforts, Smith said.
A “no-build” option that would keep the existing commuter rail line, rebuild the Arrow III cars now serving it and build a parallel bike and pedestrian trail was estimated to cost $37 million. It was the second most popular option in the survey.
The Dinky has lost ridership due to aging trains and relocating the Princeton station “outside of a typical walking distance from Downtown,” the report said.
A fifth option to replace the 45-year-old Arrow rail cars with new single level cars was not considered in the study, said Joe Versaggi, New Jersey Association of Railroad Passengers president.
“The omission is deliberate, using their flawed equipment policies to justify what they want to do, and placating the University,” he said. “All of them have forgotten why the Dinky exists - make dependable train connections with a speedy 5-minute trip.”
Among the issues is that a new light rail line will be no closer to downtown than the current Dinky is and that bus rapid transit will run on local streets and get stuck in traffic, he said. New cost factors include the “new overhead of maintaining a small, isolated fleet of Light Rail cars, work now done at Meadowlands Maintenance Complex,” Versaggi said.
The study examined different options for the right of way, but didn’t identify specific vehicles to be used, Smith said.
“This study focused on potential options for the right of way, including a no-build alternative,” he said. “Vehicle alternatives would be explored in any future study of the preferred alternatives, including the no-build alternative.”
Other advocates are concerned that the report is really a plan to convert the rail line to bus rapid transit and has some unnecessary add-ons, said Sally Jane Gellert, Lackawanna Commuter Coalition chairwoman.
“It is hard to see how light rail and buses could share a single right-of-way,” she said. “A busway is never a substitute for a rail line; too many people who will ride either light or heavy rail have an aversion to buses.”
Renderings in the report show buses that are styled to resemble light rail trains, she said.
“Rail delivers the desired speed and connectivity; light rail and buses do not coëxist all that well,” Gellert said, also questioning the need for a parallel bike and pedestrian path next to the Dinky line.
Please subscribe now and support the local journalism YOU rely on and trust.
Larry Higgs may be reached at lhiggs@njadvancemedia.com.