NY Times River Line article

Good article - the most unbelievable stats:

The projected farebox receipts for the River Line - $1.4 million in the first year - fall far below any other new line's revenue. Given $18 million to $19 million in operating and maintenance costs, fares will cover about 7 percent of costs and require a subsidy of just over $8 per trip. When the $48 million debt service is added, the recovery is 2 percent and the subsidy $31 per trip

$31 subsidy PER TRIP!?!?!?! This is unconscionable - how was this ever allowed to be built?? $1 billion to build, over $60 million per year to run, for a measly 5,900 trips per day? Can you say PORK? What a waste, especially with projects like the Cutoff, MOM, West Trenton line, Rahway Valley extension, etc. languishing for lack of funds. It's a damn shame...

That includes the debt. I'd rather think of it as an $8 subsidy, which is still outrageous.

Uh, does anyone know the subsidy for the ACL? It covers something like 20% of costs--after being in service for 20 years. All of NJT's rail lines but the NEC are subsidized heavily. And if NJT added in its capital costs for cars, engines and payments made to Amtrak, even the NEC operates at a loss. Compare apples to apples and maybe you will stop smoking what some of the critics are selling.

The whole point is that NJT has limited funds to spend, and it spent a billion dollars on a light-rail system with no real obvious need. Yes, it will be great for the few people who use it, and it will possibly help out some of the towns it goes through. Still, you'd hope that NJT, with so many projects on the drawing board, would at least attempt to get the best bang for their (our) buck. And not only was this line built at an astronomical cost to New Jersey taxpayers, it is going to cost a fortune (on a per-rider basis) to run.

JLo, you don't agree that this money could have been better spent? Why does a 20-mile light-rail line on an existing ROW through mainly sparsely populated, flat terrain have to cost $1 billion? Wouldn't it have been better to beef-up the bus service to this area, considering traffic along this route is not a major concern?

... continue unabated even after the River Line's opening. One of them is: It goes through a "sparsely populated" area.

Not so. The River Line serves an area that is slightly above the state average in terms of density. And it offers fairly good access (in many cases, non-auto access) to roughly 27 percent of Burlington County's population.

Another erroneous assumption: Not building the River Line translates into building "more needed projects elsewhere." From a political perspective, this is simply false. It sounds logical as a matter of semantical swordplay, and lots of people from the executive director of New Jersey Transit on down have argued this. It doesn't wash.

That's just two points of contention. Others exist (JLo has noted some above). The River Line isn't isolate and alone; it interacts with other lines (be it the struggling Atlantic City Line or the "profitable" Northeast Corridor -- itself another dubious assertion/comparison).

The goal (for NJ-ARP, at least) is to optimize the River Line to enhance New Jersey's rail transit system. It's early, but we're satisfied that we're on our way.

rbenko wrote:Wouldn't it have been better to beef-up the bus service to this area, considering traffic along this route is not a major concern?

Traffic alongside the River Line not a major concern...? I suppose you have not been on US 130 recently, nor I-295. Bus service parallel to the River Line is "beefy" enough, but unlike the River Line cannot bypass the traffic when traffic is non-moving.

The other rail alternative would have been FRA commuter rail, possibly using DMUs, but that would have limited the use of street-running alignment in Camden and necessitated rebuilding the old commuter RR infrastructure that was demolished in Camden, which could have pushed the price higher than the much-touted "almost $1 billion".

Don't think that the River Line covers enough of its costs? Get NJ Transit and Southern NJ Light Rail Group LLC to agree on a fare hike – but you had better make it a modest one if you want to keep up ridership and attract new riders.

And in terms of "covering costs" out of the farebox, what about cities that provide free bus and rail service within their borders, such as Pittsburgh PA has done for many years...? Is that a bigger waste of money than the River Line's apparent capital excesses...?

Don't know about other readers, but the NY Times suddenly becoming the "expert" opinion relating to far-flung projects like the Trenton-Camden LRT and not-yet-existent rail service to the Pocono area of PA makes the paper quite suspect.

"line goes through a 'sparsely populated' area.

Using this argument, only the densest areas of big cities (NYC, Philly) deserve rail transit, the others being "not needed". Using this line, lets' cut off ACL svc entireley, as well as NJCL svc below Long Branch & bustitute that, then eliminate that when people leave that in droves. (I'm being sarcastic)

Also, can anyone tell me how much subsidy per driver is needed for the parallel to the River Line US 130 & I295? Hmmm....nobody mentions that. Maybe we should raise the gas tax in NJ by a dollar or two so these roads can 'pay their way'?

Still SRO on the River Line on weekends last I checked....all leisure riders, too....wasn't I told by Trenton pols - & some Burling County people that NOBODY would ride it?

Constructive critisism is good, even for this service, but the same old tired arguments are really getting old....

The other rail alternative would have been FRA commuter rail, possibly using DMUs, but that would have limited the use of street-running alignment in Camden and necessitated rebuilding the old commuter RR infrastructure that was demolished in Camden, which could have pushed the price higher than the much-touted "almost $1 billion".

At first, I had believed that heavy rail would have been the way to go as opposed to the diesel light rail. However, now that I see the line in operation, and its good amount of patronage, I now believe that light rail was the right choice. There is no way there would have been half hourly service using heavy rail, and no chance of having fifteen minute headways. The light rail is more frequent, and thus more appealing.

Irish Chieftain wrote:
Don't know about other readers, but the NY Times suddenly becoming the "expert" opinion relating to far-flung projects like the Trenton-Camden LRT and not-yet-existent rail service to the Pocono area of PA makes the paper quite suspect.

At least the Times had a reporter on the first River LINE train. Other papers had reporters on the first northbound train from Entertainment Center station, thinking that was the first train.

http://www.subwayspot.com/gallery/album12/04_03_14_06

transit383 wrote: At first, I had believed that heavy rail would have been the way to go as opposed to the diesel light rail. However, now that I see the line in operation, and its good amount of patronage, I now believe that light rail was the right choice. There is no way there would have been half hourly service using heavy rail, and no chance of having fifteen minute headways. The light rail is more frequent, and thus more appealing.

What if it was an extension off of the NEC, either being electrified or even possibly having trains from Camden terminating in Newark Penn or even possibly Hoboken?

This is a bit off topic, but does anyone know if a stations will ever be built at the point where the ACL crosses over the River LINE, one for the LINE and one for the ACL? This may make ridership a tiny bit higher on both, giving a train travel option from Southern Jersey to Northern Jersey and New York.

No plans thus far for a AC Line/River Line transfer station. Such a station would be close to the current Pennsauken P/R...and in fact that P/R station quite possibly ought to have put at that location in order to facilitate a transfer station. Possibly it was NIMBY opposition to same...?

Of course, back in PRR days, there was a junction allowing movement off the AC line westbound onto what is now the "River LINE" northbound (and vice-versa; the PRR's "Nellie Bly" traveled over that route.

matt1168 wrote:What if it was an extension off of the NEC, either being electrified or even possibly having trains from Camden terminating in Newark Penn or even possibly Hoboken?

How many of these trains would you have though? No chance of a train every half hour running through from Camden to Hoboken. I would say maybe (and thats a big maybe there) five or six through trains per day. If there were more trains, I would assume that they would terminate in Trenton just like they do now, but heavy rail would not be run on 30 minute or 15 minute headways. The current operation gives more flexibility with the frequent running times and frequent connections at Trenton to the NEC.

I would say with FRA DMU operation, 15-minute headways would be quite possible. Would save on overhead cost too if transfer platforms at NEC Trenton station were used. BBD should have suggested a changeover to that instead of continuing with the DLRV program once the new FRA regs came in during 1999.

transit383 wrote:

matt1168 wrote:What if it was an extension off of the NEC, either being electrified or even possibly having trains from Camden terminating in Newark Penn or even possibly Hoboken?

How many of these trains would you have though? No chance of a train every half hour running through from Camden to Hoboken. I would say maybe (and thats a big maybe there) five or six through trains per day. If there were more trains, I would assume that they would terminate in Trenton just like they do now, but heavy rail would not be run on 30 minute or 15 minute headways. The current operation gives more flexibility with the frequent running times and frequent connections at Trenton to the NEC.

What if these trains ran on the center from Newark Airport to, let's say, Princeton Jct.? That might've worked out a bit better, as to have through service from NYP/Newark/and the airport to what's currently served by the riverline.