Talk:Bus rapid transit in New Jersey

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Cool article[edit]

Great information here. Excellent research. Numerous references. Impressive project.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 02:18, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

References for possible inclusion in article[edit]

If interested, click on the "show"; they may be helpful; remember to delete the "quote" portions of the references if including it in the article.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 15:37, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Wow, thanks. Will sort thru and see if/how this can be incoporated Djflem (talk) 06:45, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
Extended content

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]

  1. ^ "Bollwage supports construction of new midtown train station by NJ Transit". Suburban News. March 16, 2012. Retrieved May 17, 2012. program to rebuild the Midtown Train Station. ... This project will also assist local and commuter bus services as well as the proposed bus rapid transit route, which will provide a direct transportation link to areas throughout Union County. 
  2. ^ Charles Hack (January 25, 2012). "Hudson freeholders to study express bus service between Jersey City and Bayonne". The Jersey Journal. Retrieved May 17, 2012. Hudson County is set to take one step closer to connecting Journal Square in Jersey City to Bayonne with an express bus service. The Hudson County Board of Freeholders who met for a caucus yesterday afternoon will introduce a resolution at their regular meeting scheduled to start at 6 p.m. tomorrow at the County Annex, 567 Pavonia Ave., to award a $192,000 contract to Newark-based transportation consultants Parsons Brinckerhoff to prepare a Bus Rapid Transit Study for the two cities. 
  3. ^ "Union County Bus Rapid Transit study to be topic of meeting Monday morning". Cranford Chronicle. August 24, 2011. Retrieved May 17, 2012. Elected officials, transportation professionals and the public are invited to the next Raritan Valley Rail Coalition meeting on Monday, Aug. 29, at 8:30 a.m. The featured speaker will be Tom Schulze, senior director, NJ Transit Capital Planning. He will discuss the kickoff of NJ Transit’s Union County Bus Rapid Transit Study, which will examine the feasibility of providing bus rapid transit service connecting Cranford and Garwood to the City of Elizabeth. 
  4. ^ Krystal Knapp (March 12, 2010). "Dinky's days could be numbered". The Times. Retrieved May 17, 2012. PRINCETON BOROUGH — The days of the beloved little train known as the Dinky could be numbered if a proposal to replace the service with a bus is approved. The train that shuttles passengers from downtown Princeton to the Princeton Junction train station could be replaced in the coming years with a rapid bus transit system that runs along the existing train’s right of way. ... The idea for a bus rapid transit system emerged out of conversations among officials from neighboring municipalities, NJ Transit, and the state Department of Transportation on how to tackle growing traffic issues along the Route 1 corridor. Reed said a rapid bus transit system could eventually be expanded to loop through town and make stops along streets including Nassau, Harrison and Witherspoon streets. Other locations could also connect to the bus line as it develops. Reed described a system in which buses would make trips to the Princeton Junction station about every 10 minutes. Riders could pay for fares at automated stands and get on and off the bus easily and efficiently, he said. The buses would run on what is now the Dinky tracks, which would be replaced by a road that would accommodate a two-way bus system and a path for pedestrians and bicyclists.  line feed character in |quote= at position 155 (help)
  5. ^ Krystal Knapp (September 29, 2010). "Princeton planners weigh Dinky train fate". The Times. Retrieved May 17, 2012. PRINCETON BOROUGH — The Regional Planning Board of Princeton will consider a controversial plan tonight to replace the beloved “Dinky” train with several buses dedicated to rail passengers and others. Save the Princeton Dinky supporters, who have more than 7,000 followers on Facebook, are expected to pack the 7:30 p.m. meeting at the township municipal building to voice their opposition to derailing the Dinky, which runs from downtown Princeton to the Northeast Corridor line at Princeton Junction in West Windsor. They will also present a petition to the board in support of keeping the train. Operated by NJ Transit, the little train line was established in 1865 and provides the shortest regularly scheduled commuter rail trip in America at 4 minutes and 47 seconds. The proposal to get rid of the Princeton icon is part of NJ Transit’s larger plan for a regional bus rapid transit system (BRT). Supporters of the BRT plan argue that buses would provide more frequent service to the main train station and could make multiple stops around town. At a packed meeting at the Princeton Public Library Saturday, hosted by the civic group Princeton Future, supporters of the BRT plan described how the system would work and why they think it would be beneficial. 
  6. ^ Brad Plumer (09/08/2011). "Is it a problem that so many Americans don't have cars?". Washington Post. Retrieved May 17, 2012. ... As Adie Tomer finds in this new Brookings report, a significant chunk of the nation manages to go carless — more than 7.5 million households in the top 100 biggest metropolitan areas. The New York-New Jersey-Long Island area alone contains 2 million zero-vehicle households — a whopping 28 percent of the population. Next up is Chicago, with 400,000 zero-vehicle households, or 5 percent of the population. ... That’s why, as Yonah Freemark argues, there may be good reasons for cities to expand existing mass-transit networks. Chicago, for instance, is pursuing the construction of a bus-rapid transit network.  Check date values in: |date= (help)
  7. ^ TIMOTHY GARDNER of Reuters (March 6, 2011). "U.S. Gets a Lesson From Developing Countries on Buses". The New York Times. Retrieved May 17, 2012. WASHINGTON — The lowly bus is getting a makeover that could one day help U.S. workers whiz past traffic to their jobs on time while saving fuel in the country that is the world’s largest oil consumer. For decades, most U.S. commuters have maligned buses as noisy, dirty and much slower than cars in city traffic, since they make many stops. But about 120 cities in developing economies from Colombia to China that have invested in high-technology systems known as bus rapid transit, or B.R.T., have taken the transport mode to a higher level. About 28 million commuters in cities including Bogotá, Mexico City and Jakarta rode B.R.T. lines every workday last year, according to Embarq, a global transport network at the World Resources Institute, an environmental research organization in Washington. B.R.T. systems cut commute times because their buses make express runs to and from the busiest points on dedicated lanes. The buses load from the back and front, and passengers prepay fares at stations. Routes are coordinated with traffic signals and comfortable, protected stations lure new riders. Los Angeles, with its Orange line, and Cleveland, with its HealthLine, have adopted the systems, but they are the only U.S. cities that have developed full-blown B.R.T. lines. New York recently opened a rapid Select Bus Service line in the Bronx and one on the East Side of Manhattan. But transport experts consider those “B.R.T. light” because they lack dedicated lanes and the buses sometimes get stuck behind vehicles that borrow or park in their lanes. U.S. cities are far less dense and polluted than the cities like São Paulo and Beijing that are driving the B.R.T. trend, but even in the United States there is potential for more of these services because they can make maximum use of what most governments do not have enough of — money. “The lesson U.S. cities are learning from ones in other countries is that in order for them to compete economically, in order for their businesses to thrive, they need to have access to a broad pool of labor across metropolitan areas who are not centered in one place,” said Robert Puentes, a fellow for metropolitan policy at the Brookings Institution in Washington. “B.R.T. can help provide that.” 
  8. ^ Ted Mann (March 22, 2012). "Gridlock Sam's Grand Fix: How to Sell the City on Tolls". The Wall Street Journal. Retrieved May 17, 2012. Sam Schwartz, the former New York City traffic commissioner known as “Gridlock Sam,” is on a multi-year crusade to revive a left-for-dead idea: installing new tolls on the East River bridges and across 60th Street, the northern boundary of Manhattan’s business district. ... That funding influx would also enable the city and state to develop new projects, everything from highway widening to new bus-rapid transit roadways. 
  9. ^ "Rail line open house meetings set for Camden, Woodbury, Blackwood and Glassboro". Gloucester County Times. June 03, 2009. Retrieved May 17, 2012. CAMDEN -- Proposals for regional transit will be examined at four open houses scheduled by the Delaware River Port Authority. The proposed plan, endorsed in May by Gov Jon S. Corzine, includes a light rail line from Camden to Glassboro with stations in Gloucester City, Woodbury and Pitman; a Bus Rapid Transit system utilizing Routes 42 and 55; and improving connections with New Jersey Transit's Atlantic City Rail Line.  Check date values in: |date= (help)
  10. ^ KATE GALBRAITH (March 12, 2009). "Fast Buses vs. Light Rail: You Decide". The New York Times. Retrieved May 17, 2012. In thinking about expanding public transport in big cities, light rail and subway extensions usually come to mind first. But “bus rapid transit,” or B.R.T. — a model successfully implemented in cities from Bogota to Los Angeles — is gaining currency. The term refers to modern bus systems that use dedicated bus lanes to get around. Often the buses look sleeker and have more amenities, like automatic glass doors on the stations, than regular city buses. Dennis Hinebaugh, the director of the National Bus Rapid Transit Institute, said in an e-mail message that bus rapid transit is growing more rapidly than in the past. “I would venture to guess that every medium- to large-sized transit system is considering B.R.T. for their system,” he said. Capital costs for bus rapid transit can run far lower than those for light rail (which does not appear to appreciate the competition). In Montgomery County, Maryland, for example, a recent study by the World Resources Institute showed that a rapid bus line would cost less than half what a light rail line would. 
  11. ^ JENNIFER MASCIA (May 14, 2008). "Please Pay Before Boarding the Polka-Dot Psychedelic Buses". The New York Times. Retrieved May 17, 2012. The project — the result of several years of study — draws on several elements of Bus Rapid Transit, a system of bus operating practices used in cities around the world. The system’s main elements include bus stops where passengers pay the fare before boarding; fewer stops and greater distances between stops; dedicated bus lanes with a distinctive color and lettering; direct routes with frequent service that supplements, but does not replace, regular local bus service; and electronic signals that give the buses priority (a few extra seconds) if a traffic signal is about to switch, say, to yellow from green. 
  12. ^ "Light rail line coming to Woodbury". Gloucester County Times. May 12, 2009. Retrieved May 17, 2012. ... A rapid transit line will also be planned to parallel Route 42 in Williamstown with a spur on Route 55 to Route 47, the Delsea Drive. This is planned to be a bus line and will travel from Williamstown Rd. into Philadelphia. 

Suggestion for possible lede sentences[edit]

Bus rapid transit in New Jersey describes activity to bring bus rapid transit to heavily trafficked corridors in the Garden State. Unlike traditional bus lines, bus rapid transit is often characterized by dedicated lanes, buses which load from both front and back, shorter commuting times, limited stops focusing on only the busiest points, prepaid tickets, communication between riders and schedulers using the Internet, coordination between buses and traffic signals for faster movement, and comfortable protected stations to attract more riders. The idea is to streamline carless transportation in urban areas and reduce traffic congestion, and it is part of a growing worldwide effort as a cost-saving alternative to rail transportation.

Just an idea (in case most people don't know what BRT systems are). --Tomwsulcer (talk) 15:36, 17 May 2012 (UTC)--Tomwsulcer (talk) 15:40, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the input. Would like to pick up on this and incorporate somehow. I've tried to keep the lede specific to NJ and describe BRT in general in another paragraph, since BRT is not not specific to the state. Probably a one sentence description of BRT, NJTs choice to use (and why) in the opening would be useful.Djflem (talk) 06:43, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
Well you're doing a great job with this article. I didn't know what Bus rapid transit was before I came upon your article -- like how it differed from regular buses and such -- might be helpful to introduce the topic for people like me who are unfamiliar.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:20, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Problems with the lede paragraph[edit]

The lede paragraph should describe what "Bus rapid transit in New Jersey" -- the subject of the article -- is. What is it? At this writing, the lede sentence assumes the reader knows what BRT is, and launches into a specific aspect of it -- that it is in the early stages of development. This is too specific. It is important for readers to get up to speed on the topic first. Here is the lede paragraph at present:--Tomwsulcer (talk) 11:43, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Bus rapid transit in New Jersey is in the early stages of development, with one system serving Greater Newark. There are also rush-hour exclusive bus lanes (XBL) and bus bypass shoulders (BBS) in use. Under the banner Next Generation Bus[1][2] New Jersey Transit (NJT), the New Jersey Department of Transportation (NJDOT), and the metropolitan planning organizations of New Jersey (MPO) which recommend and authorize transportation projects are undertaking the creation of several additional bus rapid transit (BRT) and BBS systems in the state. In 2011, NJT announced that it would equip its entire bus fleet with devices for real-time locating, thus creating the basis for "next bus" scheduling information at bus shelters.
While I understand your concern the lede is not the place to explain what BRT is, but to address the title of the of the piece, which discusses the application of BRT in NJ, which is specific. It does indeed assume that the reader knows something about BRT, just as any article assumes the reader is somewhat oriented to a subject. (Not every piece about a Broadway show or a type of telephone explains what a Broadway show or a telephone is. An article about a breed of dog doesn't explain the concept dog. If one doesn't know what a Broadway show, telephone or dog is, they need to first learn about it elsewhere.) I have linked the first words of the article, bus rapid transit, so that whomever might need to "get up to speed" can link there. (Another article, Wind power in New Jersey, is handled in the same way.) Generally, a lede is meant to mention topics that will be discussed in the article, with subsections going into detail. There is a paragraph in the overview section which concisely describes BRT, and I believe that is the appropriate place, so the opening remains balanced and fufills its primary function as an introduction. It ends with a general statement that that BRT is increasingly popular alternative to rail as a mass transit alternative being tested in NJ. Thoughts? Djflem (talk) 08:23, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
I disagree. The lead (or lede) paragraph should state: what is it? Why is it notable? The first sentence goes way too fast into a specific about the topic. Assuming readers understand already what bus rapid transit is -- well -- that's extremely problematic -- if readers already know what bus rapid transit is, then why are they reading this article? The idea of Wikipedia is to inform them: what is it? Why is it notable? Tell them. See style guide about the lead paragraph. I read quite a bit and consider myself well-informed; still, when I came upon this article, I did not understand what Bus rapid transit was about. The effect is to turn off your readers. While linking is a good idea, to assume that readers will click on links (most don't, btw) to find out, and then come back to your article -- well, you are more likely to lose most of your readers here; they'll go elsewhere, then forget, and go on to something else. Most of them will be confused. They'll click elsewhere. Trust me; if you would like to build readership, and make this article even better, rework the lede as I suggest. And reasons the article is notable: promises to inexpensively address a growing problem of traffic congestion; possible environmental benefits; may help travelers get places more quickly, etc etc. Another thing -- using the parentheses to show the abbreviation -- such as Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) -- the idea is you do it once, initially, and then from then on, use the initials. Still, this format is clumsy, and asks readers to work harder (ie learn a new set of initials). My advice would be to use the initials only when necessary, and keep repeating the longer format, except when the term is clearly used quite often and is easily memorable.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:44, 10 June 2012 (UTC)--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:45, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
Funny, I was just going to complain that the article goes into way too much definitional detail about bus rapid transit. You do know, Tom, that articles are linked for a reason, and one of those reasons is to provide background information on general concepts so that more specific articles such as this one don't have to spend a great deal of space being redundant. I heartily advocate trimming out some of the definitional material. I also think the article could use some trimming out of material that belongs better elsewhere, such as the section on the Lincoln Tunnel XBL. It is a better fit for the Lincoln Tunnel article, as it's specifically about that tunnel and isn't really BRT. oknazevad (talk) 17:28, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

XBL ≠ BRT[edit]

As I just alluded to in my above comment, the Lincoln Tunnel XBL does not constitute BRT according to the definition used in this article. It is not a single dedicated limited stop bus service but a facility used by every single bus that goes through the Lincoln Tunnel during rush hours. The material doesn't really belong here, but in the appropriate section of the Lincoln Tunnel article. I'm not sure about the GWB stuff either; it's just a bus stop, nothing more. oknazevad (talk) 17:44, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Bus rapid transit in New Jersey. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required on behalf of editors regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification, as with any edit, using the archive tools per instructions below. This message updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 1 May 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:35, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Bus rapid transit in New Jersey. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required on behalf of editors regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification, as with any edit, using the archive tools per instructions below. This message updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 1 May 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:25, 27 July 2017 (UTC)