|
by DoDo
In Puente AVE, I reviewed various ridership statistics, and also discussed the phenomenon of slow success for new railway services with real bad starts. All my examples were high-speed, but I indicated that there are similar stories for other types of railways, too. Here is one -- one with a really bad start.
The River LINE is a transit service on a railway line along the Delaware River in New Jersey, run by that US state's public transport company NJ Transit. It operates GTW 2/6s, European-standard low-floor articulated diesel multiple units (DMUs) made by Swiss maker Stadler. Due to the higher US structural stiffness requirements, they are categorised as "light rail".
Construction The River LINE was troubled already at project stage. It was originally intended for the other shore, which had a higher population and was more well-off. However, transit opponents (more on this later) organised a successful NIMBY campaign. Most of the 55 km (34 mile) line is single-track. Except for brief sections at both ends, it is a pre-existing railway branchline (in fact, it used to be one of the first railroads in the USA: the Camden & Amboy RR). To avoid accidents, it was agreed to run the "light rail" exclusively by day, and the freight trains exclusively by night.
No tunnels or major bridges, no electrification -- in effect, the project was a simple branchline upgrade. However, in the end, project costs totalled a staggering $1.1 billion (of this, half a billion are secured operational subsidies). I still have no clue how they managed to achieve this level of over-spending -- even if 'consultants' explain two-fifths. For scale, a comparable upgrade, that of the 53 km Haller Willem in Northwestern Germany, cost altogether 55 million (in two phases).
With full ticket prices fixed at $1.1 (even today, it was raised only to $1.35) and projected ridership, it would take centuries for the River LINE to bring back the investment, not to mention operating costs. So financially, it was and remains an unmitigated disaster. Even transit proponents called it a white elephant. But, what about other benefits?
While costs were rising, even the initial ridership estimate was reduced from 9,300 to 5,900 and then 5,700 per workday. But when the line started in 2004, in the first few weeks, ridership was a fraction of even that. As the (Devoid Of) Reason Foundation wrote with satisfaction:
Now the preliminary ridership numbers have been released, and the picture they paint is grimmer still. A scant 1,500 riders are using the line on an average day, which is approximately one-quarter of NJ Transit's own projections. [Nice spin: the author divided actual ridership by two, assuming two-way rides; but the projection was simply for ridership. -DoDo] This is in spite of the fact that fares were cut to the bone ($1.10 per trip -- cheaper than buses) in order to draw in riders. As you'll see, those few proved right. However, let's focus on this article a little more. European readers may not be aware that in the USA, there is a well-developed anti-rail lobby: a network made up of well-financed libertarian think-tanks, corrupt and ideologically anti-public-services politicians, attack groups, and media workers, is always at hand to badmouth every new passenger rail project. The (Devoid of) Reason Foundation is one of the main nodes. The quoted article wasn't just crowing about the initial lack of success -- but asked for the closure of the line:
What has been lost in this whole discussion is the question of whether or not it is wise to continue rail service along the River Line at all. Many seem to feel that South Jersey has no choice but to "make the best of it," as the Courier-Post once editorialized, and should invest even more money into guiding residential development to enhance ridership. Ha! Haha! Except... the triumphant naysayers were a bit too fast in declaring failure.
Below, the evolution of ridership numbers (in passengers per workday) -- and the evolution of media opinion in quotes:
Seems like some more money will be wasted :-)
Urban sprawl is a cancerous development of US origin, but it is not constrained to the USA for some time now. Still, an idea to counter-act it was also born in the USA: transit-oriented development. The theory is that commuter services will generate more dense development (shops, offices, apartment blocks) near stations, and thus also economic growth. At the time the financial disaster of the River LINE became apparent, advocates were already arguing that this externalised benefit should not be ignored:
Fast Track to Nowhere? Two years after opening, new development was indeed emerging:
NJ Transit officials say that the line's success should not be judged by how many riders it carries, but rather how much economic development it sparks along its 34-mile route. Another article from the same time:
Unique Rail
In December 2006, NJ Transit was boasting about it (pdf!):
Joe North, NJ Transit's general manager of light rail operations, says the River LINE's success is all the more impressive if you add in impacts beyond the right-of-way... ...and so it continued since.
Tracks run right through the heart of once pivotal towns. Each River Line journey reveals new nearby buildings spawned by the light rail system, as well as freshly restored old ones. One disembarks among dazzling red Knockout roses, which have grown to a height of more than five feet since the train started to run. There's no wrong side of the tracks along this route. Approaching each town, a riverine Renaissance is palpable. New law offices abut new real estate establishments. River Line Realty signs dot tended lawns before quirky Riverton houses. Every excursion reveals new restaurants, and additions to existing restaurants.
:: :: :: :: :: Check the Train Blogging index page for a (hopefully) complete list of ET diaries and stories related to railways and trains. |
Menu
. Home
. About . Contact . New User Guide . FAQ . ET Editorial Guidelines . Search . Search (Google) Login
|
||||||||||||||||
|
Phoenix on the Delaware | 37 comments (37 topical, 0 editorial, 0 hidden)
Phoenix on the Delaware | 37 comments (37 topical, 0 editorial, 0 hidden)
| ||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||