Confused about developments for Burlington, Camden, and Gloucester County (B-C-G) rail opportunities? You're not alone. Following release of our three-page position paper in January, several NJ-ARP members, as well as other state rail observers, have requested further elaboration of NJ-ARP's position.
Others have asked why NJ-ARP continues to differ - sometimes publicly, and often sharply - with stances taken by the Delaware Valley Association of Railroad Passengers (DVARP), based in Philadelphia. It's not the first time the two groups have disagreed on a given issue. The latest dispute follows (and perhaps results from) a joint DVARP/NJ-ARP effort to address B-C-G matters throughout 1994. The joint effort disintegrated by year's end, in part due to differences of opinion over Burlington County's rail future. Nonetheless, DVARP and NJ-ARP both began 1995 by endorsing modified PATCO technology for the ex-Pennsylvania Gloucester Branch, running from Camden to Glassboro.
NJ-ARP acknowledges continuing ideological differences with DVARP over the B-C-G regional rail future - both in style and in substance. At its most basic, DVARP's B-C-G primary focus appears to be the need for Gloucester County to secure a one-seat modified PATCO ride to Center City Philadelphia. We understand DVARP's penchant to focus on Philadelphia, based on its membership representation there.
NJ-ARP's concern is evident in our name: we represent New Jersey rail riders from all 21 counties (count 'em). Our goal is more ambitious: to maximize transit opportunities for riders in all three New Jersey counties in the B-C-G study, including intrastate options currently not available.
Our information on (and interpretation of) DVARP's approach to B-C-G matters is based on public statements, testimony, its eight-page position paper, and articles published in the Delaware Valley Rail Passenger. But we wish to stress that those wishing to hear DVARP advance (or defend) its own case should contact DVARP itself at (609) 869-0200 or <http://www.dvarp.org> for more information.
Herewith our attempt to define NJ-ARP's basic approach, and our differences with DVARP, where applicable or understood.
(1) NJ-ARP supports modified PATCO for Gloucester County as the preferable alternative. DVARP also supports mod-PATCO for the Gloucester route. DVARP holds that modified PATCO is the only acceptable option, and opposes LRT implementation under any circumstances. NJ-ARP prefers modified PATCO as the preferred alternative-but we refuse to vilify LRT, or declare that the "LRT Wars" are underway with the Whitman Administration.
Despite the fact that we published our position in March 1995, and despite reiterating our position in print several times, NJ-ARP has been accused of supporting LRT as the first choice for this route. That is simply in error. Our apparent crime: we stress that mod-PATCO is "preferable."
At the NARP Region III meeting in Philadelphia in March 1995, DVARP officials informed NJ-ARP it prefers no rail development at all if mod-PATCO is not possible. More than one NJ-ARP member has told NJ-ARP this position appears extreme, not to mention hostile to LRT in general, and urged a more moderate approach.
(2) NJ-ARP supports LRT for Camden and Burlington Counties. NJ-ARP initially believed that light rail transit (LRT) was attracting little if any interest from residents throughout the B-C-G study area. But in 1995, NJ-ARP Directors Greg Bender and Carol Ann Thomas discovered a different reality: substantial support for LRT in Burlington County-and overwhelming clamor for same in Camden County, a zone which somehow keeps being overlooked by "local" rail supporters.
NJ-ARP believes in LRT - and makes no apologies for it. Both DVARP and NJ-ARP agree that PATCO expansion is limited to one additional branch; both have chosen Gloucester County to benefit from that potential. Both groups rejected busway options early on as unacceptable in any B-C-G proposal.
That leaves LRT and diesel multiple unit (DMU) options, and here the differing philosophies between two rail groups clearly emerge. NJ-ARP believes in the flexible, multiple-destination passenger potential of LRT. DVARP advocates a vintage 1950's-era, Center City "commuter rail" pattern using DMUs: inbound rush-hour in the morning, outbound evening rush-hour returns, no midday service at all.
DVARP's DMU service scenario would not serve Camden City, but would provide a "one-seat ride" over the Delair Bridge and over the Northeast Corridor to 30th Street Station and perhaps Suburban Station.
Until January 22, DVARP held that LRT was an unacceptable, "inferior" technology for application anywhere in southern New Jersey. At a hearing of the state Senate Transportation Committee in Trenton that day, however, under strong questioning by Committee Chairman C. William Haines (R-8), DVARP acknowledged that LRT would be plausible for Burlington County communities "up the river," such as Burlington, Delanco, and Bordentown. This route is not part of NJ Transit's Major Investment Study (MIS).
Until January 30, DVARP appeared to have no suggestion for Camden County and Camden City at all. DVARP now advocates a "heritage trolley loop" for Camden, connecting to other modes via transfer at the Rand Transportation Center.
(3) Regardless of modal choice for Gloucester County, NJ-ARP urges an exclusive weather-protected transfer facility under Camden's Rand Transportation Center, to maximize transit options. DVARP now acknowledges this as a necessity for serving Camden City points, if not for Burlington County, even if Gloucester County obtains its "one seat ride" to Philadelphia. To some degree, both groups have found common ground.
DVARP's stance is a begrudging one, however, as it routinely insists that all transfers hurt ridership levels. That depends on perspective. At the most basic level of argument, NJ-ARP agrees that a one-seat ride is a preferable choice. But we also believe an efficient transfer is far preferable to no transit ride at all. The argument is not whether any B-C-G project will garner "fewer riders"; after all, how much less ridership can there be than the present "zero" being served?
NJ-ARP is aware of "bad" transfers - and some very good ones, including Newark-Penn Station's NJT/PATH interface (westbound is especially superb). Like so much else, the issue is not "good or bad" in a vacuum, but rather: what are the options? And can one maximize an opportunity?
DVARP touts the Kearny Connection as an example of New Jersey Transit's commitment to the "one-seat ride" in northern New Jersey, offhandedly suggesting regional discrimination by NJT. That's an unfair charge, and a simplistic argument at best. Kearny will offer more choices to Morris & Essex riders, adding direct service to New York-Penn Station while retaining existing service (with transfers) to downtown Manhattan. (Oh, and incidentally, also maintaining access to the developing Hudson River waterfront.) Everyone wins.
And somehow, DVARP testimony/letters on Kearny keeps overlooking the Secaucus Transfer, barely one mile up the NEC, designed in large measure to foster intrastate ridership. Even if one frowns on transfers, one cannot justly accuse NJ Transit of regional bias.
DVARP compounds the inconsistency by insisting that "north Jersey standards" can't be applied to B-C-G, paradoxically using the Kearny Connection as a desirable model. NJ-ARP believes a blanket rejection of transfers decimates the potential for maximum intrastate travel among the three New Jersey counties (including the existing PATCO line).
Should each New Jersey county get separate-but-equal "one-seat rides" to Philadelphia? Should they otherwise ignore each other? A reasonable view, perhaps, for a Philadelphia-based commuter group, but unacceptable to NJ-ARP, which must represent the interests of all New Jersey riders (and taxpayers).
(4) NJ-ARP long has held that the city of Camden be included in any new rail start. That includes adequate access both to the city's stressed downtown and its rapidly developing waterfront. We believe that Burlington County LRT service should run through the Rand Transportation Center transfer point, to interface with PATCO/mod-PATCO intermodal opportunities-before reaching the Waterfront.
As noted, DVARP now argues for a "heritage trolley" operation, using soon-to-be-retired PCC cars now used by the Newark City Subway. Apparently, "north Jersey standards" are now selectively acceptable to certain southern New Jersey counties - in this case, Camden.
We remain unsure of DVARP's sincerity concerning Camden County. DVARP's January 30 position counters an emphatic declaration, uttered at the January 22 hearing in Trenton, that Gloucester County's rail needs were "unique." A DVARP officer, possibly speaking only as a Gloucester County resident, asserted that Camden City should "not be included as a priority" for any regional rail project. DVARP apparently backed off from this position one week later, as Gloucester and Camden county officials sought consensus on rail matters.
We have trouble understanding why any rail advocacy group - even a Philadelphia-based commuter-oriented concern - actively derided Camden County's role in regional rail until very recently. Camden can and should be included regardless of one's priorities for destinations and especially in light of Camden's clear on-line location. A fixation solely on Philadelphia ignores the need for Camden residents - most likely much more transit-dependent than their Gloucester and Burlington counterparts - to gain access to the two other counties for employment or shopping opportunities.
(5) NJ-ARP believes the state Transportation Trust Fund is the most likely source of financing for any B-C-G project.
Quite honestly, we don't know what DVARP's position on this matter is. NJ-ARP is unaware of any DVARP proposals or reports on other funding alternatives, including any attempts to seek funding from Pennsylvania or Philadelphia sources, or elsewhere in the Delaware Valley.
NJ-ARP has explored potential sources at the federal level and within the Delaware River Port Authority (DRPA), the bi-state parent of PATCO, so far without success. We do know New Jersey Transit would commit funds generated by the State Transportation Trust Fund, which NJ-ARP proudly co-sponsored last year (and which passed with strong voter support).
Both NJ-ARP and DVARP have expressed uneasiness over this prospect of funding any B-C-G project.
(6) NJ-ARP rejects pitting "South Jersey" against "North Jersey." DVARP rejects any "North Jersey" solution to transit problems.
We find "regional" rhetoric misleading at best, more likely counterproductive. Does southern New Jersey need and deserve more rail passenger service? Absolutely. Has it been shortchanged in the past? Undoubtedly. Is it politically clever to alienate northern New Jersey state legislators to make your point (and perhaps lose the project)? We don't think so. We know NJ-ARP can work with legislators throughout the state to redress the imbalance. (We are succeeding in doing just that, for instance, in advancing restored rail service in Cape May County.)
Yet DVARP has specialized in "trash talking" LRT (what's mode got to do with it?) and denigrating northern New Jersey. And it has repeatedly deplored the "LRT Wars" it says are being fostered by the Whitman Administration, criticizing efforts to fast-track an "inferior" technology (LRT) on beleaguered southern New Jersey counties (now exempting Camden, of course).
NJ-ARP is uncomfortable with any purported rail advocacy group so vehemently condemning an entire rail mode, for an entire geographic location, regardless of finances or political circumstance. (NJ-ARP has not condemned all monorails everywhere, even though we opposed its implementation at Newark International Airport.)
At the January 22 Senate Transportation Committee hearing, DVARP testified that any LRT low-floor standard car designed "for Newark and the streets of Hoboken" couldn't possibly work in Gloucester. LRT is successful throughout the U.S.; we fail to see how a political disdain for LRT is equivalent to a physical impossibility. Fact: if modified PATCO can traverse Gloucester County, so can LRT. For modified PATCO is, in fact, "modified LRT" as well.
DVARP also theorizes that if LRT service in Gloucester failed - rejected rightfully and righteously by fastidious Gloucester denizens - the surplus LRT equipment "would be sent north." (Shades of exile to Siberia! Or does that simply mean north to Camden County?) DVARP has not speculated on what might happen to modified PATCO equipment - or where such equipment could possibly go - should mod-PATCO service suffer a similar fate.
This originally appeared in NJ-ARP's Newsletter Report, February 6, 1996. If you have any questions or comments on this issue, please contact NJ-ARP at 1-201-963-8979.