Trains Newswire tonight carries the story about dumping the Dinky..the famed 2.8 mile electrified branch line built by the C&A in 1865 to meet all mainline trains...C&A, PRR, PC, C, AMtrak, NJT...well, it doesn't meet Amtrak trains but they do whisk by the Jct. Christies Crowd of cost cutters aligned with the oil, rubber, and highway lobbies are fighting to rid the world of the Dinky in favor of a private busway. Their project is unfunded and confounded. How long would it take to get a return on investment for the busway when you've already got a paid for right of way, tried and true operation about 150 years old. Can a busway really improve the ride, make it faster, cheaper, run more often (why?) and really be better than what is?,
RIDEWITHMEHENRY is the name for our almost monthly day of riding trains and transit in either the NYCity or Philadelphia areas including all commuter lines, Amtrak, subways, light rail and trolleys, bus and ferries when warranted. No fees, just let us know you want to join the ride and pay your fares. Ask to be on our email list or find us on FB as RIDEWITHMEHENRY (all caps) to get descriptions of each outing.
These things are usually pushed by persons with outside interests who will not be liable for any of the costs and will get to sell an alternative, often inferior product usually at an inflated rate. It's the American way.
The sobering fact in these debates is the staggering cost of rail transit.
Do you mean highway construction, air pollution, fuel used, land usage, purchase cost of an automobile, maintenance cost of an automobile, operating cost of an automobile (including insurance), cost of your labor driving time compared to rail?
henry6 Do you mean highway construction, air pollution, fuel used, land usage, purchase cost of an automobile, maintenance cost of an automobile, operating cost of an automobile (including insurance), cost of your labor driving time compared to rail?
None of the above. Of course, the people who want to shut down the Dinkies and Amtraks of this world are only looking at the avoidable operating costs for the state or local transit authority, much of which are the high labor costs for crews and maintenance people. Buses are cheaper and your costs for an driving an auto etc. cost them nada. It does reflect the very real issue of the high labor costs on passenger rail, both hourly rates and crew sizes, which are going to need to be addressed if any progress is to be made.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
Not none of the above but all the above! The individual taxpayer doesn't realize how much he actually pay in taxes and for the purchase and maintenance and insuring and licensing (for vehicle and self), etc., for the "freedom" of being able to own and drive! And then there is the cost of policing and pollution and health and the drain on one's health from the stress and strain of driving. And what if you received even minimum wage how much would that cost if you hired a driver or were to pay yourself? People think the automobile and driving is free, but it costs as much as building and maintaining a railroad or an airline system. Instead of saying you are paying several billion dollars to build a highway to get you to work or wherever you're going, plus you've got to use your own vehicle, pay your own fuel, provide insurance, pay the cost of cleaning the air pollution, pay for a maintenance gang, pay for a police system, account for your time behind the wheel, and all, --instead, you are led to belive that the highway system of transportation is virtually free for you. It is just not totaled up on one page or with one figure like other forms of transportaion
Most motorists probably know what they paid for their personal vehicle. They also know how much they pay for insurance, maintenance, gasoline, and tolls. Many of them know the fuel taxes that are embedded in their gasoline or diesel. I suspect that few motorists believe that driving is free.
Most motorists probably don't fully know how the nation's roadways (federal and state highways, county roads, and city streets) are funded. They probably know that their fuel taxes are used to fund the nation's roadways; they probably don't know that the fuel taxes are not sufficient to pay all the costs of building and maintaining the roadways. They probably know that most police forces are paid for with state and local taxes, although they probably don't know how much it costs to police the roadways.
Most airline passengers, train riders, and bus takers don't know how much it costs to transport them. They know the fares, to be sure. But I have yet to meet an Amtrak passenger who has even a clue as to the amount of subsidy they receive. The same applies to my acquaintances who ride the Trinity Railway Express.
The impact of personal vehicles on the environment, at least the cost of compensating for it (clean up), and the impact on health, is largely unknown. Oh, there are lots of opinions about the impacts, but there is very little hard data to support them one way or the other.
Costs are important. But cost is not the only variable. Economy, comfort, convenience, privacy, etc. are important variables in choosing a mode of transport, whether it is to get across town or across the country. Most Americans travel by car because of the intangible variables mentioned. And if driving costs more than taking a train or bus, they have demonstrated consistently that they are willing to pay for it. This is not likely to change in most areas. Especially Texas. No matter what those of us who like trains believe!
henry and sam: Of course, you are both right. But I was not talking about the total costs of driving from the viewpoint of the driver, whether direct to him/her or environmental, additional taxes, etc. I was referring to the POV of the transit agency in NJ, that has to pay for the operation of the Dinky. The operating labor expense, including maintenance, for the Dinky (PJ&B) is certainly a lot more than for the number of drivers needed for 1-2 buses + vehicle maintenance.
Don't be too sure there will be that much disparity in the costs...in fact each could be argued as being a better expenditure than the other by the bias factor. I think (i.e., my bias), given the fact that the rail and right of way are already built plus the pollution factor, the Dinky would be the better bet. With the bus you have to demolish what you've got (the 150 year old rail structure) and build something brand new with internal combustion engines would spew a great amout of pollutants. Crew wise, you have a two man crew for the train, one for each bus, so labor shouldn't be a big factor of difference.
The point I'm really trying to make is that people don't see or understand the whole cost of any given transportation mode, especially private automobile because they only know their own out of pocket expenses. The Dinky situation is one where it already exists (and has for over 150 years), it works and works well, and there is no real reason to get rid of it. A busway would take a total new investment and physical structure and would not neccessarily be as cheap and as efficient, nor as pollutant free, as what exists. We again are throwing the baby out with the bathwater and trying to reinvent the wheel. In my humble opinion the statements coming from the bus lobby in this case, are way off base, deceptive and ignorant. It is the highway lobby mantra with no real meat or meaning.
henry: I agree with you. Replacing the Dinky is penny wise and pound foolish, IMO. I am only stating what Christie & Co. would state: namely, a bus, driven by one driver has considerably lower labor expense than the Dinky with both an engineer and conductor, even if all three got the same hourly wage, which they do not. BTW, it is very difficult to find the prevailing wages for NJT, Amtrak and other transit agencies. As these are public, that information should be readily available to the taxpayers.
Christie could care less about the environment, and the 150 year old structure may well need a lot of refurbishing.
The track and the cat and all that stuff are ok. It is the old, worn out MU's that lay down once in a while! NJT's foible is new electric and diesel push pull rather than MU's!
That old MU (was it an MP-54?) was great, at least back in the day when I rode it a few times. Now it would be like riding a museum railway.
Yeah, the only time I got to ride an MP54, too! Today, however, it is one or two Silverliners. Its more a rapid transit line than railroad and is what, 2 miles long? MERRY CHRISTMAS
For my reasoning, the fact that rail transit reveals all the real costs of transportation. People take so much for granted and don't realize the staggering costs of all modes of transportation.
It's just that rail transportation, for whatever reason, exposes these costs for all to see and comment.
.
Let us not say that revelations about rail and rail passenger service are more honest but that it is not clouded by politics and emotions and misconceptions created by huge sums of money poured into lobbying and propaganda machines like the highway and airline modes. We are beginning, though, to see cracks in these stories with increasing air travel costs coupled with mega mergers and with truckers seeking relief from railroad flatcars as labor becomes scarce and fuel cost climb. And the taxpayer is left holding the bag. My prediction is that within the next five years the bag will swing a different way as rail transportation in the US will gain popularity among big business, politicians, and the public as we begin to build a 21st Century class intermodal and integrated transportation system. Like Europe? Like Asia? Maybe. Maybe not. Probably something more American, more our own brand meeting our own needs.
If the passenger loads are as light as implied, it probably makes sense to replace the Princeton Junction Branch with a bus operation. Rail is not the right answer for every situation.
Implied is the operative word here. The oil-gas-cement-asphalt-rubber-conservative business lobby have implied for their own selfish reasons. As I often point out: it is not a matter of running a train but a matter of providing a service. The service, in operation for over 150 years, is to move people from the college town of Princeton, NJ to the mainline NJT trains of the Northeast Corridor at Princeton, Jct. Sometimes the train is crowede, sometimes there is only a crew. But the purpose is to move people not run trains. Despite arguments there has been no concrete proof (used advisely) that abanoning the present system in favor of another system (ie. self guded or private ROW bus) would be any cheaper in the long run nor as pollution free in the pristine air of Princeton as an electric MU!
Okay, how about electric bus, or series hybrid bus, or conventional hybrid bus?
*ducks*
Why? Why build an entirely new concept infrastructure? Why reinvent the wheel. Why fix what isn't broken? Why? Because of political agenda or other type power play by those not benefiting from the present.
CSSHEGEWISCH If the passenger loads are as light as implied, it probably makes sense to replace the Princeton Junction Branch with a bus operation. Rail is not the right answer for every situation.
I respectfully disagree. I firmly believe high-speed, heavily patronized NEC services such as NY-Penn -- Trenton -- Philly and, especially, Princeton Jct. -- Princeton should alt all costs be kept intact. As implied above, we all know how inherently stupid auto drivers are, and by extrapolation, how dumb the local politicians are whom they elect. If these dodos in Princeton no longer desire Dinky service to their benighted burg, then it is up to carriers of the steel-wheel-on-steel-rail torch like us to show them the wrong-headedness of their thinking.
Viva the Dinky!
Many attempts have been made to stop the Dinky over the years. The line to Princeton was designed to serve the University and it has done that very well. However the rest of the region is not served by the Dinky at all. The Office park sprawl in that area could be served by a loop bus. Why doesn't the authorities just advertise and run a bus that serves downtown Princeton and a few of the outlying office and commercial areas and connect everything to the NJT station and see how it performs. If the Dinky is removed, maybe the interlocking at Princeton Junction can be removed which will increase speeds on the mainline. Is Nassau Tower still manned at PJ?? I must agree that a busway is an expensive option that would be based on rideship projections that will probably never be met. If NJT owns the land at the station near the University, I am sure the sale of that land figures heavily in the decision to close the DInky.
I would think efforts should be made to save the Dinky rather than end it. Parking at the PJ NJT station is horrendous. An intermediate station on the Dinky Line, right off of US Route 1, could help alleviate the congestion at PJ station and actually make the line more accessible. That same intermediate station would help serve the office parks that are close by.
At a time when rail routes throughout the country are trying to be resurrected, here in Jersey the powers are trying to close them. Go Figure.
Paul (In Jersey!)
Does anyone have statistics on the ridership on this line? I came across these numbers:
Wikipedia: 267,800 in 2006
trains.org: 46,816 in 2008
I find it hard to believe that there was that much dropoff in ridership in two years, but if so, the "bad guys" may have a good argument. It really hurts to say that.
I like Paul Stanton's idea of expanding the dinky's service to other riders. Increasing patronage can only help justify keeping the service.
By the way, looking at Google Earth and Mapquest, I can't see any connection between the dinky's track and the through tracks. Is it totally isolated?
_____________
"A stranger's just a friend you ain't met yet." --- Dave Gardner
That much of a drop off from 2006 - 267,800 (that number is the same as on the official NJ Transit site) is not credible. NJ Transit indicates Princeton Jct. is its sixth busiest station - 2.685 mil. in 2007. Certainly if Princeton Station was handling 10% of the amount at Junction, it is inconceivable it could suffer a decline of 82% in only one year. Perhaps Trains.org is in error?
A couple of notes about statistics: 1) They are presented and used as a matter of convenenience by the presenter, and 2) about 48.2% are made up on the spot.
The branch does indeed connect to the mainline via a long siding from the Princeton Jct. station east about a half mile or more toward Midway Interlocking. There is also a short sideing off the siding.
The township passed a resolution in favor of retaining the Dinky. The BRT idea is dead, not only due to that but also due to the public expense of converting it to BRT, something that would not perform anywhere near as well, never mind in the snow.
It is amazing how often Americans find the need to reinvent the wheel. And too often they find out too late out how wrong they. I'm glad to hear they finally realized that such a reinvention exercise would be costly and not achieve a better result than what they already invented and used for years..
It has been about 18 years since I last rode the Dinke, the first time in 1950. While there are times when I was one of two or three passengers, there were other times when the two-car train was packed with some people standing. Sure a bus could handle the first situation, but three or four buses would have been required for the second.
It makes sense to expand its usefulness by a mid-line station and parking lot.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.