Light Rail And Economic Development

Trains Magazine Transit
1

In 2004 New Jersey Transit built the Riverline, a light rail train between Trenton and Camden that runs along the east bank of the Delaware River. It was expensive. When it was built the reason given was for economic development of the land along the line. It was generally agreed that even if rider projections came true (and they have) the line still would not pay for itself our of passenger revenues. Here is an articles that looks at development along the line since it was built in 2004:

http://snjbp.com/node/22361

One interesting aspect of it is that it uses a diesel engine rather than electric power from an overhead wire.

2

Another thing to note about the River Line: NJT didn’t want it but it was forced on them by the legislature!

3

I do recall, Henry, NJT saying there was no transit need for the Riverline. NJT was and is running bus no. 408 and the route parallels the Riverline. However, Riverline fare is set at a one zone bus fare, now $1.50. The bus fare is a lot more.

4

It was an amazing opening reaching passenger loadings way beyond what anyone expected! It is very unique with the diesel vehicles. I can see that it is working for commuters…about 60 minutes Trenton to Camden then a quick jump across the River on PATCO or bus, a lot cheaper and quicker to center city than SEPTA, too. For historicaly minded, and for rail buffs, it is a must ride…along the orginal C&A route from Bordentown, beautiful downtown running is several locations along with a very sylvan setting, then the long gone industrial buildings including the Roebling mill where the cable was made for the likes of the Brooklyn Bridge and the Lackawaxen D&H canal bridge…

5

It is not quicker Trenton to center-city Philadelphia than SEPTA. But it is less expensive, more scenic, more fun, and only minutes longer. It does involve a change, however, at Camden, either to PATCO (additional fare, but still cheaper overall than SEPTA) or to a free-transfer NJT bus.

6

IMHO light rail economic development along a line is almost always too optomistic in the short run but greater in the long run. Dave ( Phoebee Vet ) can certainly tell us how development has come in spurts in Charlotte. Too many things can happen such as a large business closing down or a new one coming into a city. Economic times can hit a recession then a boom can happen. there is a problem of our collective expectations being of the fast food variety. Each location will develop at a different pace.

Atlanta’s MARTA is just now seeing developments along its heavy rail line that is some 30+ years old.

7

I’d say that Midtown Atlanta doesn’t happen at all w/o MARTA. The growth and rejuvenation of Midtown has been rather amazing over the past couple decades.

8

The Riverline is rather interesting. It generally was thought to be “throwing a bone” to South Jersey in order to keep support for the big dollars spent by NJT in the north. It flunked the test needed to qualify for Federal funding, but got funded by NJ anyway.

The original ridership projections were wacky on the high side - 7000 passengers a day. They were revised downward by half. They hit those numbers right off and are now beyond the original “wacky-high” numbers.

It was the first design-build-operate contract for NJT. Bombardier did it all. (and is still doing it?)

It was the first line to use “temporal separation” to allow non-compliant light rail vehicles to mix with freight operations. Whether or not this was a good thing is debatable.

The line was supposed to be extended into the capitol area of Trenton, but has not as yet.

There was to be a companion line from Camden to Glassboro, but it was shouted down by NIMBYs before it even got to the planning stage. Now that the Riverline has been pretty successful the NIMBYs are doing an about face. But, now there is no money.

9

But if one changes from SEPTA to subway, trolley or PATCO when reaching Philadelphia, the RiverLine-PATCO trip might be somehow more attractive.

10

Perhaps! Since there is no way to test the alternative hypothesis, i.e. midtown Atlanta would have developed anyway, there is no way to know for sure the impact of MARTA on the development.

According to the 2010 census, the Atlanta Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area (SMSA) has a population of approximately 5.3 million. The Houston SMSA has a population of approximately 6.1 million whilst the San Antonio SMSA has a population of approximately 2.2 million.

Both of the aforementioned Texas cities have had dynamic downtown growth over the past decade. Both cities rely on buses for public transit, although Houston has a short light rail line. The impact of public transit in both cities is relatively light. Approximately five per cent of the SMSA population use it. The percentages are considerably higher for people living near one of the transit lines (commuter rail, light rail, express bus, etc.)

According to the Texas Transportation Institute, of the 10 worst traffic cities in the United States, as measured by time wasted in traffic jams, LA is number 1. Atlanta is 3 and Houston is 4. DFW, which has the most extensive light and commuter rail systems in the southwest, is Number 6. Like most surveys of this kind, the methodologies for arriving at the conclusion are suspect, but they suggest that public transit is not the robust solution that many people seem to believe.

Commuter rail and light rail are transit solutions. Whether they are the best solution for an area depends on a number of variables. Most importantly, however, it depends on framing the problem correctly, examining all of the potential solutions, and implementing the most effective one(s).

The argument that commuter rail and light rail prompt commercial development along their rights-of-way has merit. However, if the population of a community is growing, people need places to work, live, shop, etc. Transit shifts some of the development location, but the fa

11

You are absolutely right, Don, and extending it would have made it even more successful. The State of New Jersey has many of its offices in and around the Capitol area. Bringing state workers close enough to their work paces so they would not have to take a connecting bus would have been a real incentive for a lot more people to ride the Riverline. There are also organizations connected with the state that have offices close to the capitol area as well as the Federal Courthouse, Trenton City Hall and Mercer County Community College.

12

The ridership numbers were only achieved by rock bottom prices. One wonders how much theyre leaving on the table by forcing a transfer in camden rather than operating over the bridge

13

The River Line to Phila over the bridge would not be the River Line as it would never get to Camden from the north, its marketing and design were not for that purpose…maybe if it came up from Paulsboro it would have merit, but even then with diesel cars instead of electric is cause for concern. Philadelphia area people are accustomed to having to change from subway to trolley or bus to commuter train, more so than New Yorkers, especially Long Islanders! So changing to PATCO is not a factor. Rock bottom prices are what the New York State Legislature and the New York City Council gave to the transit riding public by not allowing Astor to raise his nickle price he set with his first turn of the Century fare until the mid century. The public still rebels holding back a lot of public transit projects over the last 100 years on fare price alone!

14

To my mine the Riverline fare shows what a large and powerful bureaucracy can get away with when it wants to. The Riverline is about 34 miles long. Its fare, $1.50, is the same as a one zone bus fare. On the paralles 409 bus line the fare is several times that much. Of course a great many Riverline riders are people with low incomes but the same can be said of NJT bus riders. Why one group is deserving and the other group is not is a mystery to me.

15

It is also based on the fact that few probably will ride the entire line. I don’t know if that is a true reflection of the passenger counts or not. The several times I’ve ridden seem to be crowded out of Camden then sort of emptying down but building up again upon reaching Trenton.

16

From Camden to Trenton on the parallel bus no. 409 is 7 zones and the adult fare is $4.40. This compares with $1.50 for the same distance on the Riverline. So why should Riverline passengers get free zones after the first zone?

17

As I said, the number who ride the whole length is few. But also it is a different marketing scheme.

18

Henry,

I’m afraid I don’t follow your line of thinking here.

When New Jersey Transit started the agency took over several more local transit agencies. One thing they did was to standardize fares for trains, buses and light rail although for historical reasons Newark Lightrail seems to use bus fares. However, Newark Lightrail does use zones and traveling more zones costs more money. For some reason the Riverline is an exception to fare policy for every other NJT operation in the state. I don’t know why that is or why it should be.

If, as you say, few people ride the whole length of the line I’m sure there are many who ride more than one zone.

John

19

As far as standardizing fare policy. Not really. There are fare differentials from Newark Division to Hoboken Division lines, even MNRR segments. The River Line differs from other lines in that it is an interurban as opposed to a street trolley like both the Hudson and Newark light rail operations. Also I look and see that either Camden or Trenton could be zone one or A arbitrarily which would cause some confusion…the line was forced on NJT and designed politically, so whatever is done is different than an in house transit project. And again, going back to the zone idea, if you look at Camden and Trenton both filling cars outbound and changing the whole passenger population per run at least by 90 or so percent across the trip, then zone fares won’t do any good and the single fare works well for rider and operator. I.E., in effect both Trenton and Camden are zone one and somewhere in the middle is a breakpoint where the zone ends at a virtual location and creates two equal segments. I think a zone fare system would have diminishing returns or confusion…it is treated like a rapid transit subway line rather than a bus. And if it lessens the use of bus, it is an environmental and gridlock panacea for little cost.

20

Well, Henry, you sound like you know something I don’t. What I say is based on my memory of what I read in the newspapers when NJT instituted are zones. They certainly do exist for trains. However, I understand you to mean that on the Newark Divison and the Hoboken division the zones are not equally long. Is that what you do mean?

As far as Metro North segments are concerned, fares within New York State (on the Port Jervis line and the Pascack Valley line) are set by Metro North and not by NJT. Metro North’s fares are lower than NJT’s. NJT reduces its own fares on these lines so that a NJT fare will never exceed the Metro North fare to Suffern. If it didn’t do this New Jersey Commuters from some closer in station would just buy a ticket to Suffern but get off at their closer in station. I assume that would cause problems for NJT.

Your analysis of Riverline fares as a two zone system is fascinating. I’ve never seen statistics on trip distance. I don’t even know if such statistics exist. However, coming from Trenton the second stop is Cass Street. Mercer County Welfare offices are at Cass Street and a lot of people get on and off at that stop. I suppose that a single fare makes for easier operation. However, why limit the charge to only one zone? Wouldn’t at least a single 2 zone charge be more reasonable?