Legislative meetings
May 13th 2007 02:16 pm
There are two transit-related meetings in the State Legislature on Monday, May 14.
In the morning, the Assembly Transportation and Public Works Committee will be meeting at 10 AM in Committee Room 11, 4th Floor of the State House Annex. On the agenda is Assembly Bill No. 391, which directs NJ Transit to study and design bus rapid transit demonstration projects that would work in conjunction with existing light rail services throughout the State. NJ Transit estimates the cost of this proposal to be approximately $5.25 million over three years, but there are currently no funds available.
In the afternoon, the Senate Transportation Committee will be meeting at 1 PM in Committee Room 10, 3rd Floor of the State House Annex. On the agenda is Senate Resolution No. 84, which expresses support for various public transportation projects in Bergen County, namely, the Trans-Hudson Express (THE) Tunnel, the Northern Branch Passenger Rail restoration project, and the implementation of new technologies of diesel-multiple-unit vehicles and dual powered locomotion in providing passenger rail service. The problem with this resolution is that it doesn’t support extending the Hudson-Bergen Light Rail Line on the Northern Branch, which would provide more bang for the buck than DMU according to NJ Transit’s own figures.
NJ-ARP plans to have representatives at both meetings. Frank Miklos will be attending the morning meeting regarding BRT. NJ-ARP Government Affairs Director Rose M. Heck will be attending the afternoon meeting regarding transit projects in Bergen County.
John 76 responded on 14 May 2007 at 1:16 pm #
Among other things Assembly Bill 391 wants NJT to study bus service on “city arterial steets.” It seems to me that sponsors would like to see more commuters ride the bus to the train station where local bus service exists. In other words bues and trains should be linked together to form a transit system instead of having the situation which now exists on some routes here in Mercer County where bus lines do not connect to any rail line at all.
Joe Versaggi responded on 15 May 2007 at 1:46 pm #
The studying of bus service on “city arterial streets” sounds to be nothing more than studying the institution of Madison Avenue-style bus lanes for places like Newark. How exciting.
As for US1 BRT, the closest thing we have is NJT Bus 600, which runs via the Trenton Expressway between Trenton and Quakerbridge Mall and onwards to Plainsboro with detours required to capture sprawl revenue. Having ridden it several times out of Trenton on the PM rush, I have never observed more than 6 passengers on board at any time. The route always gets 40′ buses. Route 605 almost always gets 30′ RTS’s and is often standing-room only.
NJT is clearly clueless about their bus market. No wonder they need a consultant to study what to do in Newark. They don’t even know what to do in Mercer.
John 76 responded on 15 May 2007 at 10:22 pm #
Perhaps, Joe, NJT’s cluelessness is exactly why the Assembly is trying to drag them kicking and screaming into the transit business.
If they tried providing reasonable bus service from Princeton Junction to Route 1 employers they just might pick up some reverse commuters on all those empty trains they have to run in the reverse direction. Reverse commuters’ fares are pure profit, a concept NJT seems not to understand.
Joe Versaggi responded on 16 May 2007 at 9:13 am #
It could be also they don’t want “pure profit” as it would improve their lackluster farebox recovery, thereby triggering a cut in subsidies. Whether they are smart enough to be that devious, or they are just incompetent, I don’t know.