"Right up by the high school! 'Almost in Cresskill!'" Bingo!
I'm afraid I can't tell you how the bus ran, I was a little boy when I made the ride with Grandma and that's 50-plus years ago. We need a real Public Service afficionado here, as you said. If memory serves I'm sure we went past Roosevelt Commons. I remember the pond and the HUGE (well, I thought so at the time!) memorial to Teddy Roosevelt.
Here's a bit of Tenafly trivia for you. Right across the street from The House there used to be a freshwater spring on Jefferson Ave. Dad told me it was very popular with the locals, the water tasted great. It disappeared in the 1930's when that side of the road was developed. "Designer Water" before it was cool!
Right up by the high school! "Almost in Cresskill!"
I'd be interested to see exactly how a bus ran on Jefferson, and where it came from. I remember the A&P being on that little stub of Piermont Rd. near Demarest's, which would mean the bus from Jefferson would turn and run down River Edge past Roosevelt Common. But where it would go after that? Over to the carbarns?
Someone who is a Public Service aficionado should tell us what route that bus was.
Hi Overmod! OK, Dad's house, or I should say Grandma's and Grandpa's is on Gordon Avenue just off Jefferson Ave. Slightly remodeled, but still pretty much as it was. Strangely, it's a bit smaller than I remembered it being. Amazing how thw mind plays tricks on you!
Also, and it's been years now, but I belive the Public Service bus ran along Jefferson to the downtown Tenafly area. I remember riding with Grandma once when she went shopping at the A&P.
Oh, I forgot to mention earlier if you go the the Wislew Publications website they have a "slide show" of the Northern Branch. Quite interesting too.
Firelock76 ... I can report to Dad how the town looks and whether the house he was born and grew up in is still there. It is. Thank God, I have some wonderful memories of that house.
... I can report to Dad how the town looks and whether the house he was born and grew up in is still there. It is. Thank God, I have some wonderful memories of that house.
Just for fun -- where IS that house? (Mine was at the top of the hill on Joyce Road. There was a bus that ran along Tenafly Road, at the bottom of the hill... but I cannot remember what number it was...)
I Mapquest'ed a satellite view of Tenafly and where the trolley line was is developed, where it's not it has quite a few trees on it.
Those were put in as part of a massive "urban-renewal" sort of beautification project. I still remember being a bit upset that there was no way the trolley track could be restored after that... Was sometime after commuter service ended on the Northern Branch, but probably in absolute years not that much later. Could be at the end of the Sixties; not later than the early Seventies.
I was wondering about a bus because today many north Jersey buses run on what were once trolley routes.
Hi Overmod! What 'road ran a G-15? Why the old "Weary Erie", that's who! The G-15 was the last of the 4-6-0's puchased by the Erie, built 1903-1904 and rebuilt for suburban service from 1915 through 1924, especially on the Northern Branch. Good locomotives, seven car passenger consists were no trouble for them. The "Suzy-Q" operated them as well. It goes without saying the G-15 was a bit before our time!
I doubt they had a throttle with an idle notch.
By the way if you're interested, the "Images of America" book series has a book about Tenafly. If there's a Barnes and Noble in your area they can order it for you, A fun book, although it pretty much deals with the town pre-1950.
Also, Wislew Publications ( www.wislew.com ) has a DVD called the "Northern Branch in the 21st Century." A very good look at the line, but a little bit long. Hey, that's what "fast-forward" is for!
John WR Firelock76Oh by the way, there was a Public Service trolley line that ran into Tenafly back in my dad's time as well. It more or less paralelled the Northern Branch. The line was abandoned into Tenafly in 1937. Does a bus run on the same route?
Firelock76Oh by the way, there was a Public Service trolley line that ran into Tenafly back in my dad's time as well. It more or less paralelled the Northern Branch. The line was abandoned into Tenafly in 1937.
Does a bus run on the same route?
Well John, looks like Overmod's hit the bus question, which is good 'cause I don't know. I only get to Tenafly once a year when I'm back in North Jersey. My grandparents are buried in Mount Carmel Cemetery so I go for a visit, and so I can report to Dad how the town looks and whether the house he was born and grew up in is still there. It is. Thank God, I have some wonderful memories of that house.
The line, once called the Englewood Line, ran along what was once called Front Street, now called Dean Drive. Trolleys ran every twenty minutes. The line terminated on the east side of the Erie train station. When trolley service was abandoned in 1937 it was replaced with bus service, I'm assuming Public Service buses.
Out of curiosity, what railroad ran a G15 4-6-0? (And did it have a throttle with an idle notch?)
Firelock76The roads in Tenafly not suited for co-existance with light rail? I don't know, I'm pretty familiar with Tenafly myself, and they didn't have any problem co-existing with steam powered commuter and freight runs back in my father's time. But of course that was a different world, different traffic patterns, not as many cars, and so on.
I was actually being a bit specific in that much of the trolley ROW downtown was paved over for additional access roads, and there are a relatively large number of cross streets that are inconvenient to stop on for crossings. In my day, there was one peddler freight each way, although sometimes you'd see a special (and there was one shining moment, around 1975, when I actually caught a meet between a Century 424 or 425 and a U-boat... neither of which was remotely 'normal' power on that branch!) The commuter trains were fairly well-spaced, and there was less road traffic (and perhaps more tolerance for train stoppage) back in the days before the mid-Sixties. You had about 5 of them in the morning, and then about 5 at night... and that was all the trains there were.
Contrast that with the required service on the proposed Light Rail. Every 20 minutes most of the day, both ways? That's got major ouch potential... even before we take up the issue of parking in Tenafly, already congested and not particularly 'adjacent' to where the light rail trains will board. There is no place for a park 'n ride lot anywhere near where the stop would be; there really isn't a good place south of Clinton (as commercial development flanks both sides of the ROW). You might get somewhere if you ran the line north past the scrapyard on the west side, as the land opens out up there, but access is going to be more than a little tortuous. And you still would have the trains all day long blocking the streets...
When the carbarns went down, the land under them was turned into more downtown parking. But that is not likely to become free parking for commuters!
Lots of them do. At the time I left Englewood in the early Nineties, the NJT 166 and Red & Tan 20 both ran at least half-hourly service EACH along this general route. (The route from Rt. 4 in the south up to Tenafly is now one-way separated, so only the southbound buses are right along the trolley ROW)
I expect that the 66/166 bus was the (happy!) replacement for trolleys. Went straight through the Lincoln Tunnel into Manhattan on a one-seat ride: no trolley can touch that, and even if the 7 line tunnel were put through to NJ it would involve a transfer from the Light Rail to one of those trains.
Interestingly enough, there was an enormous complex of carbarns in Tenafly, just south of Clinton at the corner with County Trust. I believe they were built for trolleys and then converted for use with buses, and all through my early years (when there was still 5x/day or so service on the Northern branch) there was bus activity in there. I find to my disgust that I cannot Google any pictures or discussion of this... I'm sure it's there, and a trolley or bus fan could locate it. Please do, if you know!
At one point, there were a couple of Tenafly institutions that had pictures of the trolleys in service -- the Tenafly Diner and Demarest's Hardware being two. I don't think those pictures are still there, though.
Traces of the trolley ROW still survived from Highwood north to Clinton, in the road structure east of the Erie station, and a couple of other places to the south where the cuts are wide enough for double track. I suspect these have all been long since landscaped beyond all recognition...
What wasn't addressed in the article and what I'm curious about is the reaction from the towns NORTH of Tenafly, i.e. Cresskill, Closter, Demarest, et al,
I recall reading a North Jersey,com article several months ago where the folks in the aformentioned towns definately wanted the light rail even if Tenafly didn't. I'm hoping to hear more on this.
Yes Overmod, light rail vehicles definately are NOT RS-2's with an assortment of Stillwells. Neither are they G-15 4-6-0s either!
The roads in Tenafly not suited for co-existance with light rail? I don't know, I'm pretty familiar with Tenafly myself, and they didn't have any problem co-existing with steam powered commuter and freight runs back in my father's time. But of course that was a different world, different traffic patterns, not as many cars, and so on. Folks back then knew Tenafly was a child of the Erie Railroad and were happy to be so.
Oh by the way, there was a Public Service trolley line that ran into Tenafly back in my dad's time as well. It more or less paralelled the Northern Branch. The line was abandoned into Tenafly in 1937.
cx500The cynic in me suggests that the folks in Tenafly will soon insist in a larger park&ride to be provided at someone else's expense for their convenience.
When New Jersey Transit builds parking facilities it generally charges for parking or lets the local municipality charge for parking. Also, NJT, when it has bus routes in an area, often provides no reasonable connection between its bus routes and rail connections. Thus many people have to drive to the rail terminal if they want to use rail transportation and they have to pay to park.
It is very common to find NJT buses running close to rail stations but not close enough to walk to them.
The cynic in me suggests that the folks in Tenafly will soon insist in a larger park&ride to be provided at someone else's expense for their convenience. And any local NIMBY objecting to expanding that parking lot will be loudly criticized by them. But I don't know the area at all.
John
Firelock76According to North Jersey.com, it looks like the proposed light rail line on the old Erie Northern Branch is going to terminate in Englewood. There's been quite a bit of contention about this over the past few years. The Tenafly NIMBYs have had their day. I think they'll be sorry, if not in the immediate future then in the far future, if and when the line gets built.
I grew up in Tenafly. The roads going through the center of town are not well-suited for coexistence with light rail.
On the other hand, stopping at Rt. 4 is like building a bridge to nowhere. The plan I remember, from lo! these many years ago, was to terminate at Palisade Avenue.
Englewood Hospital is the logical last stop on the line, for initial construction at least. And that's where it will be ending.
The line can always be extended -- to Tenafly, Closter, even Nyack. But the cost-benefit over bus service just isn't there for those destinations. I'd be happy just to have passenger service back!
(But no LRVs quite live up to RS2s and 3s with Stilwells... ;-}
As I read the story they will build the light rail. They just won't run it into Tenafly.
Looks like I'm about to recusitate this thread...
According to North Jersey.com, it looks like the proposed light rail line on the old Erie Northern Branch is going to terminate in Englewood. There's been quite a bit of contention about this over the past few years. The Tenafly NIMBYs have had their day. I think they'll be sorry, if not in the immediate future then in the far future, if and when the line gets built.
See the whole story on www.northjersey.com. "New Jersey Transit scraps light rail proposal in Tenafly..."
Sam1 We tell them to use on-demand van services in most parts of the country. If they cannot drive, they probability are mobility impaired, which means that they would not be able to get to a light or commuter rail station. This is the case in Texas, as well as most other areas of the country. ...........................
We tell them to use on-demand van services in most parts of the country. If they cannot drive, they probability are mobility impaired, which means that they would not be able to get to a light or commuter rail station. This is the case in Texas, as well as most other areas of the country.
...........................
If they cannot drive it may also be because they cannot afford to run a car, or medical reasons such as epilepsy prevent them from getting a driving licence. My own mother, even years after giving up her driving licence (at 75), was more than capable of hiking for several miles in the Rocky Mountains in Banff National Park. They were rough steep trails too.
The closest thing I have experienced to on-demand van services is the the Handi-bus system in my own city, run for the mobility impaired. Fortunately I don't need to depend on it myself, but have had quite a bit of experience through volunteering at a local nursing home. The Handi-bus provides an vital function but is far from ideal. Put in a request, and then the evening before you are given a nominal 20 minute window when the bus can be expected to show up. From time to time it arrives as much as a half hour later. The route can then be circuitous depending on where it may be picking up or dropping off other passengers.
But in any case, whether BRT or LRT, it is appropriate for routes with heavy ridership. Systems like hand-vans serve a completely different role in areas where the majority of people have accepted driving as a necessity in favor of a more spacious, often luxurious, lifestyle. Sometimes they may feed into a regular transit route.
Sam1 ............ BRT is more flexile than rail. If necessary buses can be shifted to new routes to better serve changing population patterns. Pretty hard or at least expensive to move the rail system. The Austin Red Line follows a rail route that was laid out in the 1890s. It meanders across Williams and Travis counties in a nonsensical pattern. It is one of the reasons very few people use the system. The same is partially true for DART's light rail system. For the most part it runs along rail lines that were laid down more than 100 years ago. As a result, DART carries less than 3 to 5 per cent of the Metroplex population, although it does better in the city. As the Austin dreamers are coming to realize, building a light rail line from scratch would cost more than $47 million per mile. It will take a lot of operating savings to recapture that investment.
............
BRT is more flexile than rail. If necessary buses can be shifted to new routes to better serve changing population patterns. Pretty hard or at least expensive to move the rail system.
The Austin Red Line follows a rail route that was laid out in the 1890s. It meanders across Williams and Travis counties in a nonsensical pattern. It is one of the reasons very few people use the system. The same is partially true for DART's light rail system. For the most part it runs along rail lines that were laid down more than 100 years ago. As a result, DART carries less than 3 to 5 per cent of the Metroplex population, although it does better in the city.
As the Austin dreamers are coming to realize, building a light rail line from scratch would cost more than $47 million per mile. It will take a lot of operating savings to recapture that investment.
Your example from Austin has raised a point that is quite significant. To ease the problem of land acquisition, a number of new light rail lines across the continent have tended to follow available linear routes. These may be abandoned railroad lines, sharing the rail right of way, or expressway medians. Unfortunately they often are not the ideal route to actually serve today's potential riders. If we located our urban expressways in the same way they would be equally impaired in function.
And yes, building light rail is expensive. So is adding extra lanes to an existing expressway.
BRT is often promoted as a preliminary to LRT. I just can't see how the conversion is to take place later since the construction will eliminate any semblance of BRT service for several years. BRT is admittedly more flexible than LRT but that can be a mixed blessing. It will be very tempting to add in occasional detours to "just serve that new commercial center, only two blocks away". All too often the planners never actually use the transit system themselves. And of course anywhere it joins the regular flow the "RT" part of its name gets dropped.
My casual observation is that folks who would never consider using a bus to commute will become regular LRT users. I suspect this is partly due to the more generous passenger compartment dimensions typical of most equipment, especially overhead. Even if you have to stand that extra room above gets added to your personal space.
While it may not be a significant factor in Texas cities, further north where nasty stuff like snow and ice becomes a regular winter occurrence LRT can usually maintain service with minimal delay. Anyone who has driven in a blizzard knows that the same is not true for rubber tired vehicles.
The operating costs of rail and bus are available on the APTA website, although it has been several years that I looked at the data, but I doubt there is much change. Of course, operating costs are only part of the issue, there are the capital investment costs as well. And that means that rail should be used in heavily used corridors and buses in medium and lightly used corridors. The choice of separte lanes for transit or sharred lanes with auto traffic is a question that has to be resolved on an individual basis for both rail and bus.
Pittsburgh has both light rail and dedicated sole-purpose busways. It has true bus rapid transit. Buses and light rail share the Mt. Washington transit tunnel. Seatlle's downtown subway (Tunnel with stations) is used by light rail and buses.
I am willing to agree that Austin's light rail was a mistake. Jerusalem's light rail is now handling 90,000 journeys on a typical weekday. During the Succot holiday ridership doubled to 180,000, and the headway was reduced to 4-1/2 minutes, and there was still crowding, with people left at stations. Even if we had more equpment, we could not reduce headway further, because of the need to accommodate interfering road traffic at level crossings. With the spacing of intersections, etc., it would probably not be practical to go from two-car to three-car trains. Jerusalem's light rail line was well planned and is definitely a civic asset.
The right of way downtown is used by store delivery trucks 1-5AM. The number of sidewalk cafes on the main street is five times the number that existed before light rail construction.
I would be the last person on earth to knock buses. I have been a bus rider all of my life as well as a train rider. However, I do think we should see things as they are. Buses running on streets are important but they are simply not rapid transit.
What in the world does transit have to do with the fact that we went from a surplus into debt because of the cost of fighting two unnecessary wars?
On demand services shadow transit routes. If there is no transit within walking distance there is no on demand transit.
Many people who cannot drive can use public transit with no difficulty. Consider, for example, a person who suffered a traumatic brain injury in Iraq and now needs to get to the local VA office. Because of the injury he or she cannot get a drivers license but can walk to a bus stop quite well.
John WR Buses that run on existing roadways are buses, Sam. Yes you can give them electronic gadgets to keep green lights green and put the stops further apart to achieve some time savings but you are still running buses. And clearly, to buy a bunch of buses and put them on existing roads is a lot cheaper than building a new rapid transit system. To build a true BRT system we would have to give the buses dedicated roadways. If we do that the cost of land will be the same as the cost of land would be for rail transit; there would be no savings. The issue is do we simply want to put more buses on our roads or do we want to build a rapid transit system for either buses or rail vehicles. Rapid transit will carry many more people and current information suggests it will attract more customers. Buses on roads will be a lot cheaper. Both systems have pluses and minuses. As you point out, to the extent that US cities were built without public transit in the first place to go back now and put transit in them is going to be expensive. We have built our sprawl and now we are living with the consequences. We are also an aging population. What happens to people who want to live in their homes and are healthy but can no longer drive. Do we tell them that providing them with transportation they can use is just to expensive?
Buses that run on existing roadways are buses, Sam. Yes you can give them electronic gadgets to keep green lights green and put the stops further apart to achieve some time savings but you are still running buses. And clearly, to buy a bunch of buses and put them on existing roads is a lot cheaper than building a new rapid transit system.
To build a true BRT system we would have to give the buses dedicated roadways. If we do that the cost of land will be the same as the cost of land would be for rail transit; there would be no savings.
The issue is do we simply want to put more buses on our roads or do we want to build a rapid transit system for either buses or rail vehicles. Rapid transit will carry many more people and current information suggests it will attract more customers. Buses on roads will be a lot cheaper. Both systems have pluses and minuses.
As you point out, to the extent that US cities were built without public transit in the first place to go back now and put transit in them is going to be expensive. We have built our sprawl and now we are living with the consequences. We are also an aging population. What happens to people who want to live in their homes and are healthy but can no longer drive. Do we tell them that providing them with transportation they can use is just to expensive?
According to the U.S. Department of Transportation Statistics, in 2009 (latest verified numbers), 5.0 per cent of Americans used public transport to get to work. Most of them drove or found an alternative. The percentage using public transport has not changed appreciably since 1989. This is true in Dallas and Austin; the two communities that I am most familiar with. Moreover, use of public transit in Dallas has flatlined at approximately 3 to 5 per cent.
There is not a BRT system in the United States that runs on dedicated rights-of-way. Adelaide and Sydney Australia have systems that run on partially dedicated rights of way. Both systems use former railway or tram rights-of-way.
One of the factors governing the decision as to what type of transit to build is cost and affordability. What is missing from most of the discussions on these forums is any recognition that the United States and its political sub-divisions are in deep debt.
According to the U.S. Treasury and Federal Reserve, the combined federal, state, and local government debt is approximately $19.7 trillion. Moreover, an intermediate scenario estimate of the unfunded liabilities of the United States, including unfunded state pensions, stands at $46 trillion. Moreover, Americans are carrying personal debt, which includes mortgages, revolving consumer, and non-revolving consumer debt, plus student loan debt, of more than $13.6 trillion as per the Federal Reserve.
Before one knocks RBT, which may be a more cost effective solution in many areas of the country, they should tell us how the ideal rail transit systems will be paid for? Where will the money come from? This is the question that the proponents of a light rail system for Austin keep sidestepping.
daveklepper But the operating costs for BRT is roughly double the cost per passenger mile than LRT, because one person handles more people on LRT than on BRT, because a light rail vehicle can run for 30-50 years before being scrapped and a bus for only 15-20, and because on a per-passenger basis, maintenace of the vehicles is roughly double for buses than for railcars, and although maintenance of track and signals is higher for rail than for roads, it is not that much higher, particularly where freezing and thawing occurs in the north.
But the operating costs for BRT is roughly double the cost per passenger mile than LRT, because one person handles more people on LRT than on BRT, because a light rail vehicle can run for 30-50 years before being scrapped and a bus for only 15-20, and because on a per-passenger basis, maintenace of the vehicles is roughly double for buses than for railcars, and although maintenance of track and signals is higher for rail than for roads, it is not that much higher, particularly where freezing and thawing occurs in the north.
Cost figures are frequently cobbled together from theoretical models, i.e. load factors, miles run, etc. What numbers do you have?
John WR Sam1BRT does run on existing rights-of-way for the most part. Commuter and light rail do likewise. If BRT uses existing (rail) rights of way how then are the capital costs for BRT less than those for rail rapid transit? Does it cost 4 million dollars a mile more to build a railroad track than it costs to build a bus road?
Sam1BRT does run on existing rights-of-way for the most part. Commuter and light rail do likewise.
If BRT uses existing (rail) rights of way how then are the capital costs for BRT less than those for rail rapid transit? Does it cost 4 million dollars a mile more to build a railroad track than it costs to build a bus road?
By existing rights-of-way I mean roadways for buses, for the most part, and railways for light rail and commuter rail.
The cost to implement BRT in Austin includes the cost of the equipment, stations and turn-ins, new traffic signal lights, relocation of underground utility lines, and stripping of lanes for BRT vehicles.
The cost to upgrade the Austin and Western to accommodate the Red Line included the stations, a new signal system, installation of overhead utility lines, implementation of passing tracks or sidings, etc.
The estimated cost of implementing BRT ($3 million per mile on average) was preliminary. The estimated cost to build the proposed light rail line ($47 million per mile on average) is so much higher because most of it would be built from scratch, which amongst other things would require the acquisition of a dedicated right-of-way. The cost to upgrade the Austin and Western ($5.5 million per mile on average) is a known number.
In the Northeast, as well as Chicago and San Francisco, the suburbs developed along existing rail lines, i.e. out the main line from Philadelphia to Villanova, Paoli, etc. For most of the rest of the country the suburbs developed along the highway system. For this reason commuter rail and light rail, with a few exceptions, does not work as well as it does in the Northeast or out of Chicago. In many instances BRT and HOV lanes are a better solution than rail.
Midland Mike has suggested that BRT is a better option for cash strapped cities. City cash is a factor. But another factor, according to several articles, is the federal government, which provides a significant portion of the funding for every major transit system in the United States, is shocked at the price tag of light rail. Apparently it is pushing alternative solutions like BRT.
John WR ... Certainly using existing resources more efficiently makes a lot of sense. And, since we would have the roads even if we didn't have BRT I suppose allocating capital costs to BRT to the extent that the buses use them is mostly an academic exercise. BRT has a place, and an important place, in the kinds of transit we build. For all of that the only way BRT can be as rapid as rail transit is for the buses to have their on dedicated roadway. If we did that the cost savings would probably be eliminated. ...
...
Certainly using existing resources more efficiently makes a lot of sense. And, since we would have the roads even if we didn't have BRT I suppose allocating capital costs to BRT to the extent that the buses use them is mostly an academic exercise. BRT has a place, and an important place, in the kinds of transit we build. For all of that the only way BRT can be as rapid as rail transit is for the buses to have their on dedicated roadway. If we did that the cost savings would probably be eliminated.
BRT often uses dedicated lanes as opposed to separate roadways, which would only be an incremental construction expense. They may even repurpose a planned general expansion lane for BRT instead, thinking it will take a lot of cars off the road. It's easy to see why rubber tire transit is attractive to cash strapped cities. Not good news for railfans.
BRT does run on existing rights-of-way for the most part. Commuter and light rail do likewise.
The Capital Metro Red Line uses a freight railway to get from Leander to Austin. The cost to upgrade the line was in the neighborhood of $5.5 million per mile. All of Dallas Area Rapid Transit's (DART) light rail lines, with the exception of the Orange Line extension to DFW and the tunnel under Central Expressway, was built on existing or abandoned rail lines. And when I was in Charlotte a few years ago, I rode the light rail line in that fair city. It too had been built for the most part along an abandoned rail line.
One can ride all day on the Red Line for $5.25. It too is a real bargain as long as one overlooks the subsidies that are covered by the taxpayers, a very few of whom ride the train.
You say that the biggest savings in bus rapid transit (BRT) is savings in capital costs, Sam. Your posts and the Wiki article suggests this is because BRT uses existing capital, our road system, while light rail requires its own right of way.
In New Jersey (where I live) New Jersey Transit sells discounted monthly and weekly passes. That takes care of the fare collection problem for most commuters.
In my state at least calculating subsidy on a per passenger basis can be unrealistic. Several years ago New Jersey Transit purchased a railroad right of way and built the Riverline, a light rail system that runs between Trenton and Camden. To encourage people to use it the fare was set at $1.50, equivalent to a one zone bus fare while the bus far for the parallel 409 bus route is $4.40 and in general light rail fares are higher than bus fares. The route was very expensive to build; I don't know what the dollar amount would be if you figured the costs per passenger but they would be high. However, when the route was built NJT make it clear this was a political deal to give south Jersey people something for their tax dollars since most public transit dollars are spent in north jersey and the purpose of it was not to provide transit but rather to increase property values. It has succeeded in doing just that. People can and are now commuting from communities along the line to jobs in New York and Philadelphia with a transfer at either Trenton or Camden to other trains. Poor people also take it because the fare is so low. You can go 34 miles for $1.50, a real bargain. Since there is a parallel bus route the Riverline was never needed for public transit and looking at a per passenger subsidy has no bearing on the reasons the line was built.
Here in New Jersey there is no question that access to rail transit adds to property values. If you read our real estate ads you often see the line "walk to train." Most of our rail lines lose money (the Northeast Corridor line is the one exception) but New Jersey taxpayers support them because they do increase the value of their homes.
PS. I searched NJt's on line information to try to find costs for the Riverline but I could not. I looked in NJT's Annual Report and the current Fact Sheet. About 2.8 million people ride the Riverline each year but I could not find cost information broken out by line.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.