HBLRT - Ninth Street Plans

The NY Times has an article today about conflicts over the Ninth Street station area. The four square block space just east of the station has been assembled by a developer who proposes to build several apartment towers, a shopping space, a garage (!!) and a public rec space.

Other developers and community activists oppose the project. They want, either (1) their own project instead, (2) all public rec space, or (3) nothing. About half the space has already been cleared down to ground, and the rest is likely to be cleared.

People who live on the heights prefer the nothing option, since construction could affect their views. If the apartments are built, several thousand new residents will be added adjacent to a currently underutilized station.

If the apartments are built, several thousand new residents will be added adjacent to a currently underutilized station

That plays right into why Hoboken wanted a western alignment. The Hudson side already has plenty of new development with high tax ratables. Now the west side is going to get into the act.

JLo wrote:That plays right into why Hoboken wanted a western alignment. The Hudson side already has plenty of new development with high tax ratables. Now the west side is going to get into the act.

Yes.

My wife and I parked near the 9th street station two weeks ago, and walked the area. It's obvious several othere industrial properties are in developers' hands (no activity, gates chained shut), so lots of other development is undoubtedly in the cards.

That walk around Hoboken's Ninth Street Station might not have made clear how much development already has taken place within the last three-to-five years.

But it is highly, highly likely that the overwhelming majority of residential buildings viewed by Lackawanna484 and his wife from Ninth Street Station were in fact results (direct or indirect) of HBLRT. The wall of row houses on Madison Avenue, seemingly so permanent as "new(er)" projects creep closer to Ninth Street Station, simply weren't there a very short time ago.

In addition, several mixed-used buildings, while not prompted by HBLRT, certainly have benefited from it.

I'm a resident of the JC heights and I use this station every day.

As to the development of the area, right now almost every square inch of the Northwest Development Zone is spoken for, and will be built in the next 3 to 5 years. This has caused a debate in Hoboken about the lack of planning for open space in this soon-to-be densely settled area. As many as 20,000 new residents may be added to Hoboken in the next 5 years

The lot next to the train station was recently approved by the city council for a 12 story residential/retail development that would wall in the platforms of the train stop and shadow the cliffside for most of the day.

The original proposal from the developer was for 14 stories and the plans showed that parking lots would face the station for the first 3 stories, creating a dangerous and unappealing environment for the station. NJT even wrote a letter to Hoboken expressing concern over the plan.

The plan the city council approved was said to have moved the parking underground, and reshaped the building to have more open space on the lot near the elevator tower. The developer also said 80 percent of the street level units would be commercial, adding to the vitality of the station area.

The lot in question is really tiny, barely the length of the station and 20 yards at its widest, so the proposals for making this lot into a "park" have been misunderstood on both sides of the debate. What it should be called is a 'plaza', and public use of a public square should be considered. Farmers markets and art shows, and many other events could be held there.

If the cost of the property to the city and/or county is too much for its small benefit, then we have to consider what should be built here. The current owner has the right to build a 12 story building, and has applied for multiple variances that the city offers for adding greenspace and low income units. On two adjacent lots the Monroe Center will build 3 towers 12 to 14 stories high, and to the north 900 Monroe has applied for multiple variances for a 14 story high rise as well.

So it seems that Hoboken wants a highrise 'transit village' for the 9th St station. I think that it makes sense to build density near public transit, but that the scale and impact to the existing neighborhood has to be considered. There should also be requirements for estimating impact on local infrastructure, especially transit. Light rail is not a subway, and Manhattan level densities cannot be supported. All of the area to the east and south is 4 to 6 story residential, with narrow streets and no wide avenues. The Monroe Center when finished will have over 1,000 parking spaces, and much of the planned development to the north will also offer similar ratio of parking spaces. Unfortunately Hudson Co. has not reformulated its parking requirements, which work for 1 and 2 family homes, but are insane when applied to high rise buildings in an urban transit environment.

On this site, I think a better compromise is reducing the height to 4-6 stories to give the cliffside a buffer next to the Monroe Center, and commercial office/retail zoning would make a smaller building more profitable.

I'm disappointed to see the developers ignore the brand new master plan Hoboken adopted last year, and instead railroad their own scheme through a city hall that seems to roll from crisis to crisis.

I have to say that my opinion is that they really made a mistake putting the light rail on the west side. Yes, the east side (Hudson River) is already developed, but that is why people who live or work over there really need the light rail. There is so much activity there that the light rail would have been a benefit to everyone.

The west side of Hoboken has always been close to "off limits", it obviously is not the nicest side of town, and frankly I don't see (future development or not) what the point of moving it there was.

One can certainly argue that HBLRT would have offered more benefits, or performed better, or been a bigger positive in some manner if routed through eastern Hoboken and not around the western flank. NJ-ARP appreciates this viewpoint, though we do believe the eastern route offered both lower risk and lower ultimate reward (a "low-beta" option).

But whatever "mistake" it was to opt for the current reality was not New Jersey Transit's making; NJT (once it decided it really wanted LRT, and not an "interim busway" wanted to go east; Hoboken political forces, official, "green," and otherwise, precluded this.

And any "mistake" must be put in the context of the times. Pro-LRT forces could have fought against such an error -- and seen light rail truncated at Hoboken Terminal, or perhaps even lost altogether. High-risk stakes, those.

NJ-ARP would be remiss not to note, however, that some within Hoboken continue to lament the lost opportunity of LRT along the city's waterfront (or close by). These people, too, believe a "mistake" was made.

It's no secret that parking is at a premium on the east side (river side) of Hoboken. I don't think the residents would have accepted street running on Washington street if it meant limiting or endding street parking. Unlike the few (3?) blocks of Essex street, this would be 15 blocks of change on the east side

And in any event, Hoboken Terminal is just not that far away. For people who live at the very northeast end of the city, their rail options are limited. But otherwise, you can, gasp, walk a few blocks to Hoboken Terminal. There's even a nice greenway that you can bike down to get there.

During planning stages an alignment on Washington St. was discussed, briefly. A route on Washington St. would greatly impact the speed of operation as would the River St. -Sinatra Dr. route. There was also the NIMBY factor of the Riverfront route, so strong that the politicans of Hoboken would not even go to light rail planning meetings for fear of someone thinking they supported it.
IMHO the best route was selected. It is private right of way for faster running. It also has increased development in western Hoboken and the Jersey City heights.
Know why the two stations, 2nd and 9th Streets, are where they are?
They are in Jersey City.
Why? Lack of support from Hoboken.

The biggest problem I see with the present alignment is the lack of a through station at Hoboken Terminal requiring a change between the Northern and Southern Divisions.
And - Most of the "Hoboken Terminal" light rail station is in Jersey City.

AndyB wrote:The biggest problem I see with the present alignment is the lack of a through station at Hoboken Terminal requiring a change between the Northern and Southern Divisions.
And - Most of the "Hoboken Terminal" light rail station is in Jersey City.

Any idea if a "through" train from Tonnele Avenue into Jersey City, bypassing Hoboken, is in the works? Once traffic starts to build on the north end, that could knock several minutes off the run.

I have heard that NJT is considering "through service" and the infrastructure was built to provide it. NJT will probably wait to see what the demand looks like. There probably isn't enough demand just from Lincoln Harbor and the 2 Hoboken stops.

JP is correct the "T" junction at 18th.St. Jersey City was built double track with ability to come or go in any direction. Run through LRVs could bypass the stub end Hoboken Terminal Station which is located east of the junction. The alternate would be an agonizingly slow entry, reverse ends and departure from Hoboken Term.

Both Mr. Parkhurst and AndyB are correct; Twenty First Century Rail Corp. does plan through-running LRT operations, bypassing Hoboken Terminal, in the foreseeable future.

Twenty First Century officials tell NJ-ARP they're still contemplating the exact format for such operation -- for example, whether such service would be offered by "every other" train north of Hoboken, or whether Bayonne Flyers would continue north beyond Pavonia/Newport, bypassing Hoboken Terminal.

Any "Bergen Bullet" express service offered on the northern portion of HBLRT would likely operate independently of the Bayonne Flyers, to maintain reliability and flexibility, NJ-ARP is informed, though that could change.

The corporation is anxious and eager to utilize its "Three Roads" layout north of 9th Street Station to demonstrate combined express/local capabilities -- something other LRT operators are only now beginning to consider seriously. (The latest is LA, particularly the Gold Line serving Pasadena, according to a local article published April 17, 2005.)

I do wonder, however, how heavily travelled an express service that bypasses Hoboken Terminal will be. That's not to say that there is no demand for a service from North Hudson (& Bergen?) to office space at Newport, Harborside and Exchange place. But Hoboken Terminal is a major transfer point and destination in and of itself. In terms of the layout and infrastructure, it makes sense to bypass it. In terms of satisfying passenger need, it's problematic.