NJT’s 80% versus 58%
December 18th 2007 08:24 pm
It was reported in the Dec. 13, 2007, Star Ledger that “Ridership on trains to and from New York Penn Station grew by 7.1 percent, and they now represent nearly 80 percent of all NJ Transit rail traffic”.
Well, I have a pdf document of NJT’s Quarterly ridership report for 1st Quarter Fiscal Year 2007, which is 3rd Quarter of Calendar Year 2006. (sorry, I don’t have the URL). The analysis includes weekday ridership per line and broken down by major eastern destination or terminal. The percentages of total ridership by line headed to New York Penn Station, the only station in New York City served by NJT, is as follows:
69% Northeast Corridor
54% North Jersey Coast
38% Raritan Valley
64% Morris & Essex
55% Montclair-Boonton
27% Bergen-Main
17% Pascack Valley
Since then, all boats have risen, and the Pascack has off-peak service to Hoboken, but NONE are within striking distance of 80%. The weighted average is 58%, not including the Atlantic City or any of the three Light Rail lines.
Why do the Star Ledger and/or NJ Transit feel the need to state 80%?
Is it their inferiority complex that their name is “New Jersey Transit” and not “Metro West Commuter Railroad”?
Is it propaganda to justify ARC and shelving all new-start rail projects in the state for at least the next 10 years until it is done?
In the most congested state in the union where 90% of its labor force drives to work, that is not a virtue.
Eine Kleine Multi-level responded on 19 Dec 2007 at 7:32 am #
Some people on message boards are fulfilling the role of “useful idiot”, playing up the 80 percent purported figure in an attempt to drum up popular support for THE Tunnel. That would be a desired effect of propaganda, I would say.
Bob Scheurle responded on 19 Dec 2007 at 8:36 am #
I think I found the source of the bamboozlement:
Note the use of the word “new”.
Joe Versaggi responded on 19 Dec 2007 at 9:12 am #
Note the keyword “capacity”. He didn’t say anything about the dual-mode engines that it seems no one can build to spec, having run out the clock on 3 RFP’s now. Nor did he say that PATH carries double the amount of passengers across the Hudson that NJTRO does, and they are not run to capacity.
I have yet to see an analysis on what the effect of an operation with ARC will have on operating costs, fares, and system ridership.
If all these diesel lines get most frequencies extended to Manhattan, more train sets and crews will be needed to maintain even existing frequencies. Then what will happen to Hoboken service and access to the Gold Coast?
Also goes to show how useless New Jersey residents have found NJT for intra-state travel if ridership growth is disproportionately to/from Manhattan.
Bob Scheurle responded on 19 Dec 2007 at 9:56 am #
BINGO!
finsuburbia responded on 19 Dec 2007 at 6:25 pm #
Actually PATH is at capacity and that’s why they are lengthing the platforms for longer trains and upgrading the signaling.
IIRC, it was one RFP extended three times or so. They did get a couple of submissions though.
I don’t understand why you say that this shows that NJ residents find it useless for intrastate travel. Remember, 20% of the growth in ridership for non-NYP travel is still a net gain.
finsuburbia responded on 19 Dec 2007 at 9:54 pm #
Well one problem you are having is that you haven’t looked. According to the ARC DEIS Chapter 10, table 10-9 the total expenses (in thousands) for NJT in Fiscal Year 2025 are projected to be $3,288.8 if it is not built, $3,539.8 if it is, a $251 or 7.6% increase. Farebox revenue is expected to increase $277.2 if the project is built, a net gain of $26.
If you want the ridership impacts, you should look at chapter 3, section 1: Public Transporation.
These things, of course, will change with the release of the SDEIS sometime early next year, but you can’t claim that the studies have not been done/statistics not publically available.
Joe Versaggi responded on 20 Dec 2007 at 7:58 am #
As for PATH, oh really ? Why aren’t the rush hour NWK-WTC trains running at 3 minute intervals as 8 car consists as they were until 9/11/01 ? We have 4 -5 minute intervals with 7 car consists. Also, when they ran the AM rush expresses, those consists were 10 cars, which were cut into 8 cars locals way before 9/11/01. No CBTC signalling system or platform lengthening is required to go back to what we had. What we have is another capacity upgrade to impress politicians and contractors that is not necessary.
ARC studies assume boosts in ridership to a passenger-unfriendly 175 foot deep Bunker station and some diversion off Cruiser buses. This comes from drawing invalid analogies with Midtown Direct to the Bergen/Main/Pascack lines which already have access to the real NYPS for the minority who choose to use it. OTOH, M&E passengers had no access to NYPS prior to the Kearny Connection, and poor bus competition.
It also assumes they will be able to relay 24 trains per hour at the Bunker station. But NJT is far too sluggish, loose, and sloppy an operation to perform like that. They should be able to handle 23 trains per hour now into NYPS (it happens for just one hour) and they can’t even do that.
If they were so sure of themselves, they would not be so afraid of getting a low match from the FTA and having the PA ante up $1B more. FTA is capable of doing better. They have funded 80% of Utah’s commuter rail expansion. That is because they take their ridership projections a lot more seriously.
Yes intra-state ridership grew, but it should have grown in direct proportion to the basis, and been 42% of total, not just 20%.
I do not accept these studies as gospel. I consider history and reality.
finsuburbia responded on 20 Dec 2007 at 9:07 am #
Well Joe, you said you have not seen analysis indicating that they have not been done/were not publically available, which they are. When they are pointed out, you dismiss them anyhow. I don’t think that they are gospel either, but I think that they have more evidence to back them up than Joe Versaggi’s personal opinion. You declare, by assertion, that the design of the station will mean that the ridership figures are invalid. Maybe it is accurate, maybe its not, but the modeling systems tend to be very complex and take a lot of things into account (i.e. time to reach destination including trip to the surface and the value of not having to worry about transfering at Secaucus). Joe Versaggi’s personal opinion, on the other hand, does not have quantitative evidence to back up his claims. How can you complain about not having ridership analysis and then, when presented with just that, dismiss it on a superficial level without any real evidence of his own?
Have you actually read any of the FTA documents? They are a bit difficult to find on their website but their annual report on New Starts listed it as a high priority project. Their main concerns with it were a) The availibility of dual-mode locomotives and b) the financial ability of the state to cover cost overruns with the state of the TTF.
a) I will agree is flaky, but we shall see what happens in the next few months if the proposals are worth anything.
b) With the PA adding more money to the project, none of the local contribution comes from the TTF (originally $500 million came from it). It puts the project on a much firmer financial basis.
The PATH just upped the WTC-NWK peak service to 3-5 minutes intervals.
Why should intrastate ridership increase 42%? There is no reason that I can think of why it should increase proportionally. Can you please explain this to me?
Joe Versaggi responded on 20 Dec 2007 at 10:06 am #
Obviosuly we advocates do not have access to the kind of number-crunching the consultants do for the millions they get paid, whether it be for ARC or MOM or Northern Branch. That does not mean our opinions are invalid, and that we should just rollover and accept capital planning decisions as they go. Except for the RiverLine, for all their millions on studies, NJT has a terrible track-record with projecting ridership. They low-balled MDT, and predicted 22,000 for Secaucus after a year, which I thought at the time ridiculous. They are 2/3rds of that at how-many years ? I’ll go with my personal opinion, thank you.
As for FTA, “high priority” does NOT equal “high monetary match”. LIRR’s ESA is getting no more than 27% and MTA will eat all cost overruns, which have already started. Do not expect to do much better for ARC. “Firmer financial basis” is a code word for when they expect a low FTA contribution, which goes to show what FTA really thinks of the project.
As for PATH, still no 8 car trains, which is 14% of capacity right there, and HOB-WTC service is still down from what it once was. WTC can handle 40 trains per hour. Can’t do much better with CBTC.
As for ridership increase, yes they should increase proportionally.
Are new jobs unique to Manhattan ? Are Jersey roads not congested ?
Does NJT have a poorer market share for intra-state commuting ? Why is that ? Maybe because they take you just 90% of the way and do not undertand intermodalism, which exists in Manhattan but not too many places in New Jersey, to complete your trip.
finsuburbia responded on 20 Dec 2007 at 2:53 pm #
Then why did you ask about ridership numbers if you were just going to dismiss them anyhow?
ARC is the largest request that the FTA has ever received and the FTA rarely funds anything more than 60%. The larger the contribution, the higher likelyhood of receiving funding. In the review, they noted that the ARC project had a 50% contribution and their main concern was about the shaky financial footing of the state’s TTF.
The FTA doesn’t “think” because it’s not a person, its a complex government agency. The agency gave the project a high rating with the main cavaets that I listed. I don’t think you have the divination skills to determine the imaginary “thoughts” of an institution.
Huh? Yeah try getting to most jobs on the train or bus. Most jobs in Midtown and Lower Manhattan are very accessible by transit+walking. Most jobs in NJ are not. If you go to the NJTPA’s website, you can find maps that show job accessiblity within one hour for both transit and driving. There are a lot more available by driving. As someone who commuted intrastate from M/B to NEC west for a few months, there are people who do it, but its very difficult. It was not too bad for me because I was going to a city with a good bus system but most people don’t have that option.
Could it be better? Sure it could, but not without increasing both NJT’s capital and operating budgets substantially. If you are going to complain, do it to your legislators because the ball is more in their court than NJT’s.
Joe Versaggi responded on 20 Dec 2007 at 4:17 pm #
FTA funding for UTA expansion is 80%. NJT wil be lucky to get 33% for ARC. High local match shows desperation for FTA even coming close to 60%. Yes, there is 100% chance they could get 1%, but there is little chance they could get 60% because of the project’s worthiness and ridership projections that are frivolous. Do you see the Feds reducing the 80% match for highways given the shaky nature of the same TTF ? I don’t.
FTA is also a political institution subject to political pressures from the local Congressional delegation that wants a project. Institutions are made up of people that think and have biases, such as pro BRT/anti-LRT. That does not take divine imaginary skills, but continued observations.
It does not require huge capital budgets to coordinate trains with feeder buses. The Wheels program is a joke and a stepchild within the Bus Division, with NJT’s stove pipe management structure preventing meaningful coordination.
finsuburbia responded on 26 Dec 2007 at 6:55 pm #
It has to do with percentages. The TTF is in a condition in which it could only cover 5% of cost overruns for the ARC project whereas it could cover much higher overruns on a cheaper project. This is what the FTA said so it makes your comparison to highways irrelevant.
BRT generally has a lower capital cost than LRT, especially if it can reuse significant amounts of existing highway ROW. Preference for BRT does not indicate bias per se, but rather the result of cost/benefits analysis. For example, the Route 1 corridor could not really be effectively served by LRT due to the low density nature of the pre-existing development. Generally, if you need a lot of branches, BRT is better than LRT. If you are working within an existing rail corridor, LRT is probably your best bet.
OK, well identify in the budget where you will find the money to do this. The existing bus network already connects to the train system and NJT generally pushes for bus shuttles over parking lot expansion. I don’t want to see resources diverted from bus riders, who are largely transit dependent, to pay for shuttles. Unless you can find the money within the existing budget that could be used that will not negative impact service for those who need it, I maintain my position that they need greater funding.
In any case, I think its pointless to argue with you because you will maintain your beliefs no matter what the evidence. We should have just stopped after it was pointed out that the article in question is in error, making your post irrelevant.
Bob Scheurle responded on 26 Dec 2007 at 7:49 pm #
And this would be on what planet?
finsuburbia responded on 26 Dec 2007 at 8:15 pm #
I don’t have the citation off-hand, but I’m working on it.
Joe Versaggi responded on 01 Jan 2008 at 2:14 pm #
A bus passing within a block of a train station does not constitute a “connection”. Go to Portland LRT suburbs and learn what a bus connection is. If you think the anemic 600 bus connects with the NEC because simply it goes to Princeton Jct every 30 to 90 minutes, you haven’t a clue of what you are talking about. You said it yourself - NJ bus riders are transit dependent. That means they are a distinctively separate user base than rail riders.
Route 1 BRT is veiled attempt to kill the Dinky, period. You can sugar coat it with cost/benefit and consultant BS all you want. NJT holds down its speed limit so that it can’t run 3 times per hour and be more useful. They can double track that branch as far as Route 1, and build a satellite parking lot to feed a short-turn Dinky on its own track too. That is what I heard the residents want on West Windsor’s government TV channel – satellite parking with shuttles. The concept is completely foreign to NJT and will do nothing until the BRT study is done. .