NY Times bashes River Line

The Times has an article today bashing the River Line. It quoted an expert at Rutgers as saying that the River Line is bankrupting NJT. Nothing really new in the article, but it has a pretty devastating impact. The Times site is free but requires registration. I'll try to poste the link here:
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/13/nyreg ... ersey.html

Though they should not be bashing the line, and it will probably have a pretty large ridership, it did cost MUCH more then it was orrigionally supposed to. I belive I heard somewhere that it was supposed to cost a few 100 million, but the cost went into the BILLIONS. Maybe not bankrupting NJT, but it did cost much more money then it should of, and surely took away some money from other worthy, deserving projects.

As the Times article correctly points out, the River Line project was born out of a political need by the Whitman administration to "grease" an influential supporter - state Senator Haines who wanted this to be his legacy. Is there a "Haines" station on the River Line just like the Sen. Harrison Williams Metropark station?

Is Camden a destination? No. While there are some positive developments occurring, its death preceded center city Philadelphia's death as a job center and it's going to be a long time coming back, if ever, despite such star-studded attractions as the state aquarium . So it's darned hard to justify sinking all of this money into the project. While the same was said of HBLRT, the development of JCY as a thriving job center was already well underway before HBLRT broke ground.

Usually transit projects are undertaken to meet a demand (usually a screaming, long overdue necessity like new North River tunnels, more service and infrastructure improvements on the PVL, etc.) so it's kind of glaring to see a project investment made on hopes that it will be the driver of future development.

And it wasn't like the ROW was endangered as there is existing freight service over portions of the line. And if it was threatened, a rail trail would have been the way to go.

I'd like to see an investigation into who really benefitted from River Line construction (contractors, developers, etc.). I'm sure it would make interesting reading as I stand crammed into the vestibule of my eastbound NEC morning train or struggle through the sea of thousands of Rutgers students trapped in the snarls of Middlesex County traffic.

New Brunswick predicts 5000 to 7500 new daily trips on the soon-to-be-widened Rt. 18 corridor and that probably doesn't include the 3000 to 4000 current student trips between the various New Brunswick campuses on buses and private vehicles right now.

Based on ridership, wherer would you have built a new LRT system first?

Is Camden a destination? No

That is like saying Elizabeth is not a destination. And indeed Trenton is a lot like Camden, but it is a big destination on the NEC.

Camden is and will indeed be a transfer point. There will be quite a few people who may and indeed shall use the PATCO/RiverLINE option for travel between Philadelphia and Trenton versus the SEPTA R7.

Are towns like Pennsauken, Palmyra, Riverton, Riverside, Burlington and Bordentown undeserving of rail service, also?

I wonder what the spin in the newspapers would be if this project were diesel commuter-rail instead, costing as much as the light rail project did or possibly more.

And indeed Trenton is a lot like Camden, but it is a big destination on the NEC.

I can see some need for this, and indeed, Camden has some worthy spots to visit, (though I would still rather prefer a NB area LRT then the SNJLRT) but how can you compare Trenton to Camden? Sure, Trenton doesn't have very low crime, and isn't much better then Camden, but why do you think Trenton is a big destination on the NEC? Because it's NJ's state capital thats why. And lots of people do buissness in Trenton because of, or in relation to that fact.

That is actually irrelevant. Philadelphia and New York are not their respective state capitals. Not every state capital in every state has extensive commuter rail service; even Albany in NY has a mere five or six trains a day, served by Amtrak, and Harrisburg PA sees nowhere near the train service of Philly. Besides, by putting the focus on Trenton and assigning the viability that the NEC attributes to it, that validates the RiverLINE's existence to a greater degree (to wit: The RiverLINE is important because it brings people to Trenton).

On another tack, what makes Hoboken a destination? There is very little to speak of there. Like Camden, it is right across the river from a major metropolitan center. Nonetheless, the old DL&W terminal is still very important to NJT.

Also...could we please not let this turn into a contest between which municipalities should have LRT versus which should not, such as New Brunswick vs. Camden-Trenton. Thanks...

(Shouldn't bashing something in South Jersey be the job of the Philadelphia Inquirer?)

Sorry Irish, I guess I see your point, I just think it did cost to much money.

EDM, good point.

Here's the CourierPost's series on the River Line. They note in the last article that US 130, paralleling the River Line is not heavily used, which makes this "corridor" suspect as a needy area.

Politics vs. Need
http://www.southjerseynews.com/lightrail/m042201a.htm

Transit officials move from government to industry
http://www.southjerseynews.com/lightrail/m042201b.htm

Opponents: NJT avoided public input
http://www.southjerseynews.com/lightrail/m042201c.htm

Few take mass transit, leading to congestion
http://www.southjerseynews.com/lightrail/m042201d.htm

Rail usage doubted
http://www.southjerseynews.com/lightrail/m042301a.htm

Rail nears unknown territory
http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/7750816.htm

1.1 billion in cost and counting with another $750,000 in cover your butt, er... marketing. $32.4 million per mile construction cost. I don't think it would have cost nearly as much to use current diesel push/pull equipment even with re-signalling, grade crossing protection and rail improvement to class 4 (60 mph) or class 5 (80 mph).

And yeah, every area in NJ competes for infrastructure dollars, so it is reasonable to compare the merits of where the money gets spent. That's really the nub of it - where the greatest chances of success in serving market needs lie. I don't think it's on the River Line. Just my opinion.

The Courier-Post always had a biased slant on the River Line, so their "reporting" lacks credibility. Merely a tactic to sell newspapers.

US 130 not heavily used? Evidently they have not traversed it during rush-hour. There are no hours even during the light of day that US 130 does not have moderate to heavy traffic on it. Besides, they are pointing out the wrong road corridors—the ones they should be focusing on are the parallel I-295 and NJ Turnpike.

Fine to suggest using current diesel commuter rail equipment—which I am all for, incidentally—but then you need a terminus in Camden. The old PRR terminal is gone. Building a commuter-rail line to the Tweeter Center, although a worthy endeavor, would up the cost to about the same as spent on the current DLRT River Line, or greater. That cost, though, could be counterbalanced by the advantages of being able to use the NEC station and even the NEC to travel further northward, of course, not to mention being compatible with the AC line should the old connector in Pennsauken be rebuilt. However, either way, I do not see the lack of benefit versus no service at all.

Continuing on the commuter rail tack: I just had a look at the River Line system map (http://www.riverline.com/images/pdf/riv ... ailmap.pdf) and I was wondering if there was enough space to wedge a rail terminal in between the Aquarium and Wiggins Park. I have not been to the area I am thinking of, but I did drive on Mickle Boulevard a while back and it appeared to me that there was enough room for a railroad to continue along its north side to the Waterfront. Not only that, but a better transfer to the Penn's Landing ferryboat would be available, certainly a better one than the current LRT provides. Opinions...? (Also include potential cost for such a project in comments...)

Well I find it disgusting and discuraging that a political pet project like this River Line took precident over the other light rail projects like HBLR,Union County and Newark Light rail Links.

With the amount of cash, manpower and time wasted the HBLR would've been already done and the Newark and Union County links would've been well underway if not finished.

This would be worse if the Cape May Line project is being worked on while MOM, W Trenton and cutoff are left in the cold. The outrage would hit the roof if that happened.

I demand an investigation on why this happned and hope it won't happen again. The HBLR, Newark and Union County light rail systems are more important and will carry more passengers then the River Line.

There was/is an investigation by the State Attorney General, but I doubt anything will ever come of it........

Didn't appear to me that the NY Times was "bashing" the light fail line. Looks more as if they were simply reporting the facts.

My thinking...

• Huge cost savings gained by using tried-and-true, standardized equipment (parts, training, maintenance on the F40PH's and C3/4/5's).
  
  Run 24x7 when demand indicates.
  
  The ability to create a faster, all-Jersey rail route to AC with perhaps only one transfer (Secaucus or Newark) could actually drive passenger traffic for NJT and get those dangerous casino buses off the GSP. If NJT could make the run with limited stops in about 2 hrs. they would definitely get some of the bus business. A casino train? With a cafe/bar car? I'd go for it.
  
  The day that NJT starts running skip-stop trips on the River Line is the day they admit that an average speed of less than 30 mph isn't going to get people out of their cars.