Teterboro Station fenced off from Hasbrouck Heights

Hawaiitiki wrote:We are debating if NJT should/shouldn't be be worried about trespassing activity.I for one think it is is common human knowledge learned as a child that one does not cross the train tracks away from a crossing as much one doesn't cross the street when the sign says don't walk. I'd like to see how many cases where people win lawsuits when being clipped by trains at cleary unmarked crossing. I gotta imagine not often.

There is no reasonable alternative at this station, and crossing there unless you are both deaf and blind was perfectly safe if you weren't doing it right before a train came or something. You could see the train several minutes away at this location, in both directions. If you want to prevent people from diving in front of the train when they don't have time, that's another problem and is really not preventable unless, like another poster suggested, we have no grade crossings at all. I don't see why we single out Teterboro when this problem is actually worse in, say, Rutherford -- there are two tracks and crossing behind a stopped train can get you hit by a train on the other track. No such risk here.

Sirsonic wrote:I am quite familiar with the layout of Teterboro station, and to my recollection, there wide open access to the station platform from the east (railroad north) side.

And everything a person would want to access, pretty much, is on the west side. The purpose of this organization is to provide transportation. Unless NJT plans to close this station (which I believe it does), this is very much counter to its mission (though it is safety conscious). I suppose it shows safety is really priority #1, above providing transporation.

amtrakowitz wrote:

Head-end View wrote:For that kind of money they could have built a paved pedestrian crossing with gates & lights.

For that kind of money, a pedestrian overpass or tunnel could have been included. Nominal "safe" access to the station without having to directly cross the railroad track.

I don't know for certain, but suspect that such would considered a major renovation to the station and would trigger ADA requirements. That would necessitate elevators on each side of the passageway and a mini-high level platform at minimum. Now potentially into the millions.

The pedestrian overpass at the Bayonne East 33rd Street Station of the Lightrail has the elevator overpass structure to access the park and ride lot. It crosses the remaining former CNJ mainline freight track. Don't know how many freights use it per day, but speeds are low and probably not very many per day.

I think Ryanov hit the nail on the head. If NJT's ultimate goal is to close the station, then erecting the fence so people can't get to the station may be a carefully orchestrated act on their part. Then they can justify closing it, saying that ridership has dropped to record lows. Typical government agency operation.

Head-end View wrote:I think Ryanov hit the nail on the head. If NJT's ultimate goal is to close the station, then erecting the fence so people can't get to the station may be a carefully orchestrated act on their part. Then they can justify closing it, saying that ridership has dropped to record lows. Typical government agency operation.

That was my original feeling as well. I think any crossing for pedestrians will have to be paid for by the local municipality vs NJT.

As far as 34th street HBLR and its overpass.... due to the way HBLR is set up, not only do you have freights there on the east side, but there are a number of deadhead LRV moves that don't stop at the station. Having the overpass allows those moves to get out of the way of revenue trains. There are a few trains per day operated by conrail shared assets operations. Some are very short while others are much longer. The last time i was up there they were in the middle of a track rehab project. The traffic is mostly tank cars that serve the cargo terminal on constable hook, so the line is pretty busy.

Has ridership really suffered at Teterboro because a some people cant trespass anymore? If the 46 overpass is so dangerous why not build a sidewalk, that would be safer and less expensive than a pedestrian crossing. How about the town provides a shuttle for those individuals who walked to the station? No, its better to look the other way while people cross in front of trains (yes, they did that on a regular basis) because this way a handful of people don't have to find a legal way to get to the station. If someone dies, oh well, at least the rest of them still have a convenient commute.

Head-end View wrote:Sirsonic, I can of course understand your concern about tresspassers getting hit by trains, but there is another concept involved in this case at Teterboro Station: the passengers need access to the station platform. Without access to the platform, there will be no passengers for the railroad to transport. It makes no sense to have a railroad station, and then prohibit the public from the local neighborhood from using it.

What he said. It seems the main difference between trespassing and legal crossing is in the former the railroad owner has "thou shall not cross here" and in the latter the railroad owner has said "thou may cross here". No doubt someone is going to bring up the issue of protection devices (lights, gates, etc.) and it may come as a surprise to New Jersey Transit but there are still thousands of places in this country where it is legal to cross railroads but there are no protection devices - I do it five times a week (none of the three crosswalks at my Metra station have protection devices - but we're all smart enough to look before crossing - in the two years I've been commuting, no pedestrian accidents at my station despite two inbound 70mph expresses and an outbound deadhead in the 15 minutes before my train arrives).

In everything, safety needs to be balanced with usability. If safety were the only thing, we'd never leave home each day.

Clearly a fence is needed at Manasquan!

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid ... =1&theater

My point, which seems to be lost, is that there was a problem at Teterboro. Specifically, trespassers were illegally crossing the tracks, often directly in front of trains. NJ Transit acted upon this problem by cutting off illegal access to the tracks from the railroad south side (geographic west). While this is an inconvenience to the trespassers, they were illegally crossing the tracks to begin with. If they wish to establish a legal crossing they should be prepared to pay the costs of doing so. This could consist of a pedestrian crossing or a sidewalk along the nearby roadways and overpass. Its not acceptable for NJT to simply let the problem continue simply because not preventing trespassers from crossing illegally means they can get to the station easier.

I believe only a few, if not any, trains stop at Teterboro on the weekend.

Sirsonic wrote:My point, which seems to be lost, is that there was a problem at Teterboro. Specifically, trespassers were illegally crossing the tracks, often directly in front of trains. NJ Transit acted upon this problem by cutting off illegal access to the tracks from the railroad south side (geographic west). While this is an inconvenience to the trespassers, they were illegally crossing the tracks to begin with. If they wish to establish a legal crossing they should be prepared to pay the costs of doing so. This could consist of a pedestrian crossing or a sidewalk along the nearby roadways and overpass. Its not acceptable for NJT to simply let the problem continue simply because not preventing trespassers from crossing illegally means they can get to the station easier.

The real problem is said trespassers were riders whose only means of accessing the station was trespassing, due to a lack of an adequate way to access the station. I do not know if you are familiar with the area around the station, but all of the residential development is West of the station. East of the station is industrial parks and the airport. By building the fence, NJT has cut off access to the vast majority of Teterboro riders. I feel I need to remind you the purpose of NJT is to carry passengers, not run empty trains. If NJT had a concern about people crossing the tracks unprotected, they should have implemented a solution that still permits access to the station. If you cut off access, you remove the purpose for the station to exist in the first place.

M&Eman wrote:

Sirsonic wrote:My point, which seems to be lost, is that there was a problem at Teterboro. Specifically, trespassers were illegally crossing the tracks, often directly in front of trains. NJ Transit acted upon this problem by cutting off illegal access to the tracks from the railroad south side (geographic west). While this is an inconvenience to the trespassers, they were illegally crossing the tracks to begin with. If they wish to establish a legal crossing they should be prepared to pay the costs of doing so. This could consist of a pedestrian crossing or a sidewalk along the nearby roadways and overpass. Its not acceptable for NJT to simply let the problem continue simply because not preventing trespassers from crossing illegally means they can get to the station easier.

The real problem is said trespassers were riders whose only means of accessing the station was trespassing, due to a lack of an adequate way to access the station. I do not know if you are familiar with the area around the station, but all of the residential development is West of the station. East of the station is industrial parks and the airport. By building the fence, NJT has cut off access to the vast majority of Teterboro riders. I feel I need to remind you the purpose of NJT is to carry passengers, not run empty trains. If NJT had a concern about people crossing the tracks unprotected, they should have implemented a solution that still permits access to the station. If you cut off access, you remove the purpose for the station to exist in the first place.

As Sirsonic pointed out, once NJT determined that a hazardous condition existed at Teterboro, NJT took the quickest action to remediate that hazard. Construction of the fence does not preclude the investigation of other solutions that will accommodate passenger interests. Those other solutions would take far longer to implement than construction of the fence. The fence will not be wasted if other solutions are implemented, the fence will serve to deter circumventing those other solutions. Station passengers and passenger advocates can continue to press for investigation by NJT of ways to accommodate their needs.

This sounds like a classic case of solving the wrong problem. The problem NJ Transit is trying to solve is "trespassers crossing the track" without looking at the root cause of the trespassing (which in this case appears to mean nothing more than crossing at a place where NJ Transit has not given permission to do so) which is probably "no safe way for customers to access the station". NJ Transit should be focused on solving the root problem (access). Fix that and the trespassing problem goes away.

Part of the issue is that who NJ Transit and some of the posters here want to brand as "trespassers" are in fact "customers" who simply can't find a safe and legal way to the station. One reason businesses fail is that they forget that they actually need to serve customers with what they want, not with what the business thinks they should want.

The Romans in ancient times would leave victims of execution on public display as a warning to others who would dare commit the same crimes. Perhaps NJ Transit should adopt a similar policy with trespassing victims in an attempt to ward off potential ROW incursions.

lstone19 wrote:This sounds like a classic case of solving the wrong problem. The problem NJ Transit is trying to solve is "trespassers crossing the track" without looking at the root cause of the trespassing (which in this case appears to mean nothing more than crossing at a place where NJ Transit has not given permission to do so) which is probably "no safe way for customers to access the station". NJ Transit should be focused on solving the root problem (access). Fix that and the trespassing problem goes away.

Part of the issue is that who NJ Transit and some of the posters here want to brand as "trespassers" are in fact "customers" who simply can't find a safe and legal way to the station. One reason businesses fail is that they forget that they actually need to serve customers with what they want, not with what the business thinks they should want.

NJT would be liable in the event of an injury to these trespassers (and they are that, just like a store's customer who goes into the employee only stockroom without permission) once NJT became aware of the situation. The fence is a prudent step in significantly reducing risk of injury and resultant liability. A court would in all probability consider NJT failure to quickly remedy the risk of harm (building the fence) versus delaying making the location safer while implementing a longer lead time remedy as aggravating damages awarded to a plaintiff.

Perhaps NJT is seeking a viable solution to the benefit of the customers, but that would not necessarily be public knowledge at this point. NJT must also perform a cost - benefit analysis, including budget constraints and alternatives on which the money can be spent. Spending limited funds at other locations may well benefit a much larger group of customers to a much greater extent.

Ken W2KB wrote:NJT would be liable in the event of an injury to these trespassers (and they are that, just like a store's customer who goes into the employee only stockroom without permission) once NJT became aware of the situation. The fence is a prudent step in significantly reducing risk of injury and resultant liability. A court would in all probability consider NJT failure to quickly remedy the risk of harm (building the fence) versus delaying making the location safer while implementing a longer lead time remedy as aggravating damages awarded to a plaintiff.

Perhaps NJT is seeking a viable solution to the benefit of the customers, but that would not necessarily be public knowledge at this point. NJT must also perform a cost - benefit analysis, including budget constraints and alternatives on which the money can be spent. Spending limited funds at other locations may well benefit a much larger group of customers to a much greater extent.

I'm pretty sure that "cost-benefit analysis", especially after the fence, is going to land them squarely at "Close Teterboro". Which outside of ~25 people would be a great thing in terms cost savings, flexibility, trip times, etc. I just think the whole idea of passive aggresively "Great Notching" stations and blaming ridership is somewhat cowardly and dishonorable on NJT's part. Be a man NJT, and say "We're closing Teterboro in x months for these x reasons. Find a new station. The End".