Talk:Newark–Elizabeth Rail Link

Project Status

Is there any up-to-date information about the status of the Newark-Elizabeth Rail Link? My understanding was that the single project was, in fact, split into two new projects, the Newark Rail Link (basically MOS-1 and MOS-2 of NERL) and the Union County Light Rail. See [1]. Darkcore 01:29, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure if they are technically considered separate projects. This website: http://www.unioncountynj.org/econdept/nerl0104.htm and the link you have on NJTransit's site further suggests that it is. It seems to me they are divided because Union County is involved with all of segment three and part of segment 2 and Essex County is involved with the rest. It seems comparable to the separation of the HBLR (the Bergen County section that has yet to be built will be funded separately). Informally and not necessarily to define on here, but in terms of completion: there will seem to be the NCS Extension, the NERL section to the airport, the airport to Elizabeth section, and the future segment to Cranford (or Westfield or Plainfield as noted elsewhere) which will probably come much later because of its depedency on completion of the rest of the line, the funds necessary, changes in station platforms, city and township approval and its effects on the commuter lines on the Raritan Valley Line. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.1.169.102 (talk • contribs)

I've heard that the Elizabeth section (Union County LRT) may go first, ahead of tying in to the NCS system, because (for self-evident political reasons) Union County is much more eager to press ahead than Essex County. Quick googling turns up [2]; I'd like to find something more solid and less hearsay. --CComMack 14:56, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

You mean segment three will come before segment two? Also I'm wondering what the plans for the 2nd segment are. It seems they might use the existing subway tunnel (the main tunnel) because there are no existing tunnels or ramps south of Raymond Blvd. I guess they could do that. They are doing that in Seattle over a much greater distance. The first stop going south from that will supposedly be on market and mulberry and then stops for government center (at mulberry and probably near elm st) and lincoln park/symphony hall (at camp st and mulberry) and presumably they would connect it to the rail tracks there somehow. I'm assuming since its a light rail it will go above ground on mulberry at the gov't center and lincoln park stations (like it is on norfolk and lombardy st), but i'm wondering where the tunnel from penn station will come up. I wonder if it will be right before the station like at NJPAC/Center St and I'm also wondering how they will turn it down market without doing a ton of digging or tunneling in that area. I like the plans for the Seattle Light Rail because they are digging a lot of tunnels and putting some of the stations in the more urban areas below ground.

I'm wondering if we should split this article into two - one on the Union County Light Rail and another on the Newark Rail Link. NJ Transit seems to have adopted this new nomenclature (treating the two parts as separate projects) and it seems as though the Newark Penn to Newark Airport part of the project is mostly speculative. (I don't think the EIS for this part of the project has even been completed/approved yet.) Darkcore 06:12, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I would be happy leaving a small permanent stub here saying "The NERL was a project proposal that eventually evolved into the Union County Light Rail and Newark Rail Link projects", then having descriptions on those pages. Alternately (and this is probably better until the projects are funded,) have Union County LRT and Newark Rail Link be section headings on this page, which can be separated later when there's actual money on the table. --CComMack 21:13, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I started a Union County Light Rail page, which needs some work, but at least there's something up. I linked it from this page as the MOS-3 header, but make an in-text link somewhere else if you want to because people definitely won't see it there. I was also working on the stations on the possible UCLR extension that are on the RVL.

I also started a Newark City Subway Extension page, but I'm not sure a Newark Rail Link page should be started yet as segment two doesn't have a lot of info and won't have a DEIS study or further planning until the NCSE is completed. With more info it might be a good idea, but the three projects are stilled considered part of the long term NERL project

Stations

Should we make separate pages for MOS-1 stations when that part is completed. Although not a lot can be said about them. There can be pictures of them posted and locations as well as what's around them. In the future more could potentially be added. I can get pictures of the stations as they are finished.

Union and Roselle Park stations

There's no planning whatsoever to extend NERL/Union County LRT to either Union or Roselle Park stations, and with good reason. NERL/UCLR is proposed for the ex-Central Railroad of New Jersey (CNJ) right of way only, because there is extra capacity/available land to accomodate it, including physical separation of LRT and FRA-regulated current NJT service. Union and Roselle Park are on the ex-Lehigh Valley Railroad, between Aldene Connection and Hunter Connection, and CSX/Conrail Shared Assets (the owners of the ex-LV line) would go ballistic at the suggestion of increased frequent passenger traffic on that (extremely congested) line. I'm going to remove this speculation from all relevant pages. --CComMack 11:40, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually, a user has been adding speculative information about the Union County LRT being possibly extended from Elizabeth out to Plainfield. I seriously do not see this happening now, or ever. Darkcore 17:22, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, the idea of frequent transit service out to Cranford or Plainfield is an old one; I'm trying to dredge up a link, but the original proposal was a PATH extension (!) via the EWR terminals, then out the CNJ mainline. The proposal has a fair bit of political support such that it refuses to die, but equally so does it have serious technical issues (like physical separation of the FRA-regulated RVL and the FTA-regulated light rail.) The question of whether it's Too Speculative For Wikipedia is an open one, in my opinion; certainly the idea is old enough and widespread enough, at least in its current form, that the fact that the idea/proposal exists is clearly verifiable, but given lack of funding/an EIS so far, it may wind up being vaporware. Again, I think it's an open call. --CComMack 21:40, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

"Actually, a user has been adding speculative information about the Union County LRT being possibly extended from Elizabeth out to Plainfield". "With a possible future extension to either Cranford or Plainfield, NJ" -from lightrailnow.com and several other websites. My intention was not to speculate, but to provide information on the fact that townships and Union County have thrown around the idea of extending the line after the elizabeth-newark airport segment is complete. It might never happen or happen after the Penn Station-Newark airport segment. It does fall under the crystal ball definition I suppose. I was unaware of this until CComMack pointed it out. I'll delete the bits I added back on two of the station sites and on here. Can we keep the list of possible future extension on the Union County Light Rail site or should I delete that too? Sorry I wasn't trying to mess around with those pages, but as I explained to CComMack I thought you deleted that info because it didn't have a source listed. This is a project I was deeply interested in and perhaps I'm adding too much speculative information. I'll try to keep it Wikipedia friendly in the future. I don't know why I posted Union or Roselle Park either. I thought I saw them listed somewhere, but yeah that definitely wouldn't make any sense. Thanks for the info.

Names: NERL, UCLR, NRL, NCSE, etc

The project is no longer referred to as the NERL right, but aren't they still planning on constructing the Union County section and the NRL (segment two) after the NCSE is running? I know there's no timetable for construction of either, but on the NJTransit release about the NRL (that gives likely stations), it says planning would start after the completion of the extension to Broad St. If it is true that all three are still being considered and all segments are run by NJTransit why is there no name for the entire system? Does anyone know? Will it be named the NERL if and when the second segment links the other two? Just curious.

This article from May 31 says that the MOS-2 segment is still a long-term project being planned. It would certainly make traveling to Newark Airport a little easier because people would have options and could go directly to Newark Penn without transfering. Plus it would be cool if there were stations at Gov't Center and Symphony Hall etc to not have to walk in incliment weather because they are pretty far from Penn Station and Military Park. http://www.nj.com/news/ledger/jersey/index.ssf?/base/news-3/1149139954306060.xml&coll=1

I think they should name the second line something in the meantime. I think all the signs on this line are orange. I'm not sure if that is the only way they'll distinguish by names and on maps.

Change name to "Newark Light Rail"

The service up and running, and NJTransit is using the name "Newark Light Rail" for the service (see http://www.njtransit.com/nlr/index.jsp for details). I see no reason that the name of this article should not be changed from Newark-Elizabeth Rail Link to Newark Light Rail, especially given that MOS-2 and -3 seem to be out of the picture. Any thoughts? I will change the name tomorrow unless there is a cogent argument to leave it as is or use some other name. – Alanson

Eh, as I see it, NLR is NCS + extension. NERL is extension + MOS 2 and 3. No? I don't really know though. lensovet 22:18, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Most of this article is highly speculative and unreferenced. I'm not saying that it should be scrapped, but the article, as written, makes it seem as if it will happen at some point in the future. This does not make sense. Darkcore 15:50, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

It's referenced enough. We have links to NJT's project pages, and the NJDOT FY2007 capital program budget contains language mentioning all three MOSs —lensovet–talk – 19:35, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

No, that's not enough. Just being mentioned in some report is not enough for an encyclopedia. There's no information on station sites on those links, and those project sites are horrifically out of date. Darkcore 19:46, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Point taken, though being "horrifically out of date" doesn't really make a source less valid... —lensovet–talk – 02:29, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

It does, if there is a possibility that the project might be drastically different than presented or that it might not even be built at all. Darkcore 13:47, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Right now there are pages for the Newark Light Rail, the Newark-Elizabeth Rail Link, the Union County Light Rail and the Cedar Street Subway. It might be more efficient at this time to remove this page and move pertinent information to the page for the Newark Light Rail. The Cedar Street Subway could be merged with it under a section for past lines. A similar section could be included on the NLR page for future expansion talking about the proposed light rail segment to Newark airport. It does seem like pages and information should be consolidated, updated, and organized in a fashion that's up to date, user friendly and less speculatory. If we did this we'd have NLR and UCLR pages only instead of 4 and the NLR page could be broken down by past lines, current lines (NLR and NCS) and proposed expansion. Just a suggestion. A1%

I agree with this suggestion. Darkcore 17:13, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Names of segments

Someone keeps reverting it back to just say MOS-1, MOS-2, MOS-3 with no links, but since only one has been completed and the other two are not in the work I think its important to mention the three segments, but list them as separate projects for now below with links to the pages on the UCLR and the NLR until the second or third segments come into focus.

Alright, we'll keep it the way it is now. However, the NLR is already linked earlier on in the article... —lensovet–talk – 19:34, 3 August 2006 (UTC)