informis
/
textfiles
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull Requests Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity
textfiles/magazines/DELAWARERAIL/dvrp9412.txt

1320 lines
68 KiB
Plaintext
Raw Blame History

This file contains invisible Unicode characters

This file contains invisible Unicode characters that are indistinguishable to humans but may be processed differently by a computer. If you think that this is intentional, you can safely ignore this warning. Use the Escape button to reveal them.

The Delaware Valley Rail Passenger
December 1994
Vol. XII, No. 12
ISSN 1073-6859
Published by the Delaware Valley Association of Railroad Passengers in the
interest of continued, improved, and expanded rail service for the present and
potential railroad and rail transit passengers of southeastern Pennsylvania,
southern New Jersey, and nearby areas.
For more information about DVARP and good rail service, please contact us:
P.O. Box 7505, Philadelphia, PA 19101 215-222-3373
NEW E-MAIL ADDRESS
<dvarp@libertynet.org>
The electronic edition is produced as a public service to the network
community. It is archived on the CUNYVM Listserver in the RAILNEWS
directory. An index of back issues is available by sending INDEX RAILNEWS to
LISTSERV@CUNYVM. Thanks to Geert K. Marien (GKMQC@CUNYVM) for maintaining
this archive! If you have comments or questions, contact us, not Geert!
The DVRP is also archived on these FTP servers
ftp://wuarchive.wustl.edu/graphics/trains/text or graphics/trains/incoming
ftp://hipp.etsu.edu/pub/railroad/dvarp (Thanks to Bob Weir)
Coming soon: recent issues will be available on WWW
see home page opening soon--http:///libertynet.org/~dvarp/dvarp.html
Volumes X (1992) and XI (1993) are on floppy disk for $4.00 each from DVARP.
We hope you consider joining DVARP; your financial support makes possible
this newsletter and our many other activities on behalf of rail and transit
passengers. Annual dues for 1995 are $16.00. see the coupon at ##R.
Contents copyright (C) 1994 DVARP, except photos (C) 1994 credited
photographers
Acting Editor: Chuck Bode Online Liason: Matthew Mitchell
For other DVARP officers and committee chairs, find ##Q
Opinions expressed in The Delaware Valley Rail Passenger are not necessarily
those of DVARP or its members. We welcome your comments: call 215-222-3373
contents:
use the search function of your word processor to find articles
##A SEPTA Proposes Fare Increase
##B SEPTA Service Standards Progress
##C Turmoil at the Top: Seven Key SEPTA Managers Out
##D Northeast Transit Plans Presented
##E Newtown Line Saga Continues
##F Reinventing Amtrak: The Other Shoe Drops
##G Red Rose Transit Authority News
##H Elmwood Depot Open House
##I Customer Service Volunteer Initiative - One Month On
##J Rails and Trails by James S. Morgan
##K Center City Commutation Trends
##L Commuter Rail Still Not Considered in Northeast Transit Plans
##M Quote of the month
##N Fare Giveaways Would Hurt Commuters
##O Letters To The Editor
##P DVARP Internal News
DVARP Position on the Fare Increase
DVARP Election
Candidacy Statements for DVARP Board Election:
##Q DVARP Phone & Voice-mail Directory
##R DVARP Membership Coupon
News Reports
##A SEPTA Proposes Fare Increase
The recent federal/state elections seem to have been the
last straw. When the FY95 budget was proposed, there was
an unfunded gap to be covered later. Despite a vigorous
petition drive by DVARP, Harrisburg failed to fund the gap.
Congress and the President subsequently reduced federal
operating funds. SEPTA remained mum on what was being
done--no big panic like before. Could they have been hoping
for favorable election results to spare passengers? Ten days
after the election, SEPTA published many details of a fare
increase intended to increase revenue by 7%, covering 25%
of the gap.
Various interesting concepts are proposed along with
increasing fares. For passengers using passes zone one
would become part of the City zone--which for pass
passengers would include RRD zone 1, but passengers using
tokens, cash, and tickets would still have to pay full zone one
fares. TransPasses and TrailPasses would also include
"anywhere" status on weekends and holidays.
A change long advocated by DVARP would increase
RRD ticket validity from 120 to 180 days, except when
tickets are changed as to color and/or design as well as price.
The Daypass would become good for one ride to any
RRD station, rather than the present Airport trip limitation.
Employers joining the Compass program in the future would
be required to match the 5% discount--presumably resulting
in a 10% discount to the passenger-employee. RRD zone 1-5
fares would increasee 25 or 50 cents each. Peak and off-
peak are "price-unified" for zone 6--the all-day one-way fare
becomes $5.00, with a $9.50 roundtrip fare to Trenton. The
three intermediate RRD fares become two: $2.25 for 1 or 2
zones and $2.75 for more than 2 zones. The TransPass
would no longer be good for a $1.00 on peak RRD fares
The 40 cent Route C premimum would be eliminated.
Charter rates would increase 15%. A "standard promotional"
fare for implementation "as needed" would be $3.00 RRD round
trip and $11.00 family along with a 50 cent children's fare on
transit divisions.
Some proposed changes which can be tabulated include:
Instrument Current Proposed Increase
Token $1.05 $1.15 9.52%
Weekly TransPass $16.00 $17.25 7.81%
Monthly TransPass $58.00 $64.00 10.34%
Transfer $0.40 $0.50 25.00%
Zone fare $0.40 $0.50 25.00%
Route C Premium $0.40 0 -100.00%
PATCO Joint Fare $1.60 $1.80 12.50%
Weekly Zone 2 Pass $23.00 $24.50 6.52%
Weekly Zone 3 Pass $28.00 $30.00 7.14%
Weekly Zone 4 Pass $32.00 $34.50 7.81%
Wk Anywhere Pass $37.00 $40.00 8.11%
Monthly Z 2 Pass $86.00 $91.50 6.40%
Monthly Z 3 Pass $102.00 $109.50 7.35%
Monthly Z 4 Pass $117.00 $126.00 7.69%
Monthly Z5/6 Pass $132.00 $142.00 7.58%
Cross-County Pass $69.00 $75.00 8.70%
Monthly Intermediate Pass $43.00 $49.00 13.95%
RRD 1-2 zone intermediate $2.00 $2.25 12.50%
RRD 3 zone intermediate $2.50 $2.75 10.00%
RRD 4+ zone intermediate $3.00 $2.75 -8.33%
An area of continuing difficulty is proposed for change. The RRD extension
of journey is revised. As stated in the tariff: "Passengers wishing to
travel to a zone beyond the limits of the zone of their fare instrument
will be charged the intermediate one-way fare between the zone on the
boarding instrument and the destination zone. (TransPass riders travelling
beyond zone 1 Regional Rail stations will be charged the intermediate one-
way fare betweem zone 1 and the destination zone.)
There tariffs make a one-half inch stack of paper. We are unable to
condense all the changes into the DVRP. Interested members are encouraged
to study the tariffs and attend the hearings. Five hearings are scheduled.
Dec. 19, 1pm at Bucks Co. Court
House, Doylestown;
Dec. 19, 6pm at Montgomery Co. Court House, Norristown;
Dec. 20, 1pm at West Chester Area Senior Center, 325 W. Market St., West
Chester;
Dec. 20, 6pm at Delaware County Court House Administrative Building; and
Dec. 21, 10am to 2pm and 5pm to 7pm at Benjamin Franklin House Ballroom,
9th & Chestnut Sts., Philadelphia.
##B SEPTA Service Standards Progress
The Service Standards Committee has issued a revised draft standard
following public input last August (refer to DVRP 8/94 for details of the
initial proposal.) In addition to the revised standard, a ten page report
was issued November 16 detailing how
the Committee evaluated the public input. Many recommended changes were
incorporated into the revised draft.
As recommended by DVARP the service coverage standard was modified to
include a minimum service frequency of 30 minutes for areas to be
considered served or well served. The transit stop spacing standard was
modified to allow for certain local
conditions and to exempt express routes and routes on limited access
highways--again DVARP recommendations.
Several changes were made to the route performance standard. The factor
used to determine maximum acceptable subsidy will be reviewed annually. A
unit cost table has been added and the route table reformatted. These
changes were proposed by
DVARP. Other changes include exempting routes subsidized by sources
outside of regular funding. Route 27 between Barren Hill and Plymouth
Meeting is in this category. The marketing effort for poorly performing
routes was amended to include community
involvement.
The on-time standard remains limited to the MFSE/BSS lines. However,
SEPTA revealed that an automated vehicle location system is being
considered. If that system is implemented, an on-time standard would be
established for other CTD routes.
Several changes were made to the service standards process portion of the
document. Most importantly, the section was reorganized to clarify the
several processes. If the process changes, a public meeting on the changes
has been added--another DVARP
recommendation. The Citizen's Advisory Committee has been specifically
included in the process. Provision has been made to implement changes with
either the summer or the fall schedule change, and to extend the evaluation
period beyond one year if necessary.
Finally, the points used to evaluate changes have been revised in line with
public suggestions.
DVARP had made numerous other recommendations, including adding standards
for factors important to passengers such as availability of fare
instruments for purchase and availability of seats on off-peak trips. The
report indicated that many proposed
changes were rejected because this is a first-time effort for SEPTA.
A public meeting to discuss the changes was held November 30. There was
less than two weeks notice for the meeting, but SEPTA sent an invitation, a
revised draft, and a copy of the report to everyone who registered at the
August hearings. Everyone
present at the meeting agreed that the service standards process has worked
well. Only a few minor adjustments were recommended at the meeting.
The changes made to the draft standard all appear to be improvements
based on the public input at the hearings. This is a good omen. As
passengers we can be encouraged that SEPTA is trying to listen to us. CB
##C Turmoil at the Top: Seven Key SEPTA Managers Out
by Matthew Mitchell
In an unprecedented upheaval at SEPTA headquarters, seven top staffers, six
of them at Assistant General Manager level, have either resigned or been
suspended from their positions. Treasurer Feather Houstoun, Railroad AGM
Jim Palmer, Subway AGM Judith
Pierce, and Public Relations chief Rick Wooten have all quit SEPTA for
varying reasons, while Purchasing AGM John Prader, Planning and Development
AGM Carol Lavoritano, and Special Services director Robert Coressel have
been suspended with pay
during an investigation into the handling of payments on paratransit
contracts.
The changes eclipse the management shakeup of 1991, in which several of
General Manager Lou Gambaccini's lieutenants were reassigned, and are the
biggest bombshell at SEPTA HQ since the abrupt resignation of Bill Stead.
Several individuals who were
once seen as potential successors to Gambaccini when his contract runs out
in 1997 are now out of the company, and a scramble to reestablish the
pecking order is likely to ensue. Deputy General Manager Howard Roberts
appears to have consolidated his
position as Gambaccini's number one subordinate.
Feather Houstoun, a trusted partner of Gambaccini's, was lured from New
Jersey early in the Gambaccini administration. She left to take another
job which has not been disclosed. (One rumor has her going back into
government; either with the new Republican
majority in Congress or for Governor Whitman in New Jersey) Houstoun
played an under-appreciated role in the job of rebuilding SEPTA's fiscal
foundation. Judith Pierce, who worked her way through the ranks, leaves to
take charge of the Los Angeles
rapid transit system.
It was widely reported that Wooten left SEPTA over philosophical
differences with Gambaccini. Wooten's public relations tasks took many
forms, from the campaign to build political support for SEPTA to the
rebuilding of railroad ridership after the RailWorks(R)
construction shutdowns. His immediate future is not known, nor is that of
Palmer, who was a controversial figure in SEPTA's Railroad Division ever
since coming to the job from the Frankford Elevated Reconstruction Project.
Sources say Palmer was under
pressure to resign.
Three More Suspended
Prader, Lavoritano, and Coressel are under investigation for their roles in
a scandal over advance payments to SEPTA contractors. They are not accused
of any wrongdoing as yet; initial signs are than none of them benefitted
personally from the arrangement.
It is alleged that the three approved payments to private paratransit
contractors in advance of their performing the work called for. The
shared-ride program for senior citizens has had a troubled history, both
before and after its takeover by SEPTA. It may
be that these payments were made to ensure that the carriers wouldn't fail
financially and leave the program's customers without transportation, but a
final analysis must wait until the investigation is completed. The
suspensions make clear Gambaccini's concern
about the situation. While some politicians called for the three staffers
to be suspended without pay, the decision was defended as a recognition
that no one had proven any wrongdoing yet, and a concession to the
fragility of SEPTA's credibility.
There is precedent for this in the investigation of the procurement of
commuter rail cars from Bombardier during the Gould administration at
SEPTA. Improprieties in acceptance of gifts and an airplane ride were at
issue there, but when completed, Pennsylvania
Auditor General Don Bailey's report found that the only regret should have
been that SEPTA did not exercise the option clause in the contract.
We have only limited information of new personnel and assignments. Mike
Burns from Wayne Junction Shop, and recently from MBTA Boston, now heads
Regional Railroad Division. Kim Scott Heinle has been promoted to AGM.
Cecil Bond is now
responsible for budgets. Juan M. Torres is Acting AGM, Subway/Elevated
Division. The reorganization appears to have extended several levels down
in some divisions.
##D Northeast Transit Plans Presented
by Matthew Mitchell
Consultants working for the Philadelphia City Planning Commission held
two informational meetings last month to inform Northeast Philadelphia
residents about the various options for rapid transit or light rail service
expansions in their community. Turnout
of interested citizens was good, and the consultants were well-prepared to
respond to their concerns.
Seven options are presently in the study, which has now reached the
preliminary concept stage, where routes are selected and costs and
ridership estimated. Six of the options involve extensions of the Market-
Frankford or Broad Street subway-elevated
lines; the seventh is an independent light rail line originally proposed by
SEPTA in 1992.
Two routing options have been targeted in the Northeast: Roosevelt
Boulevard, which has long been seen as a candidate for a transit line, and
a Bustleton Avenue route which would link up with the right of way of
Conrail's Trenton Line, once the Reading's
New York Short Line. On the Boulevard, both subway and elevated alignments
have been considered. The capital cost of the project depends heavily on
the choice of alignment, but projected ridership is remarkably consistent
for all the plans except the light
rail line.
Tunneling is more expensive than building an elevated structure, but the
per-mile costs of both types of right-of-way are very high. Therefore, the
Broad Street Subway extension under the Boulevard is the most costly
choice, at an estimated $2.2 billion.
The Subway extension over the Bustleton Ave./NYSL route is almost as
expensive. The Market-Frankford elevated extension is the cheapest
alternative, at $800 million. The other three rapid transit options are
all in the vicinity of $1.3 billion.
The consultants used SEPTA figures for costs and ridership of the light
rail option, so they might not be directly comparable to the other numbers,
but it was estimated to cost $545 million and attract 36,000 daily riders,
compared to the 64,000 to 73,000 estimated
to use the transit options. Most of these passengers already use SEPTA:
most taking long bus rides to catch the El at Frankford Terminal.
Estimates of new ridership range from 8,000 to 11,000. But the benefit to
existing riders and the entire Northeast should
not be ignored. Bus riders would save a lot of time with a one-seat rail
trip to Center City: twenty minutes each way or more. Traffic congestion,
traffic danger, noise, and pollution would be reduced for all Northeast
residents; and jobs would stay in Philadelphia
rather than shifting to the suburbs our out of the region entirely. There
are plenty of good reasons for supporting expanded rail service in this
part of Philadelphia.
The light rail route would follow the New York Short Line from the
Woodhaven Road terminus, then stay on the Conrail/SEPTA route nearly to
Fern Rock. Rather than connecting to any existing transit route, the line
would use the former freight tracks
along American Street, part of which are grade-separated. The trolleys
would then continue on-street to Center City.
The study was performed and presented at the meetings by: Andrew Lenton
and Barbara Kaplan of the City Planning Commission; James Krse, Alan Urek,
and Sheri Sansone of Kise, Franks, and Straw; and Ken Korack and Clare
Epsteen of Transportation Resources Associates.
##E Newtown Line Saga Continues
Following the recent collapse of privatization efforts, SEPTA has begun
considering operating the line itself. The idea was reported in three
recent Bucks County Courier Times articles. SEPTA has asked the DVRPC to
evaluate two proposals.
One proposal would use the former route with apparently minimal repairs--
limiting speed to only 30mph! Travel time is estimated at 71 minutes from
Newtown, about 11 minutes slower than the last through service in the
1970s.
The other would bring trains from Newtown to about County Line station
where a connection would be built to the Conrail Trenton Cutoff right-of-
way. A new 50 mph track would be added on the Conrail r/w as far as the R2
line near Fulmor. The articles were unclear, but apparently passengers
would be expected to transfer to R2 trains to continue to Center City.
Cost of this option is $32 million.
The DVRPC evaluation results are expected in January. Funding is
unclear. Bucks and Montgomery Counties seem expected to pay 25% of the
cost between them. The rest comes from SEPTA. Exactly where broke SEPTA
has $24 million hiding is a mystery, especially after the recent election
results in both Harrisburg and Washington.
The newspaper credits Deputy General Manager Howard Roberts with the new
initiative. No service is proposed in Montgomery county, apparently to
avoid any opposition. The new track plan also leaves the r/w in Montgomery
County available for use as a trail. Interestingly, the paper describes
this as a "congested area of Montgomery County". However, because the plan
reduces the number of Bucks County residents driving in Montgomery County
there is a possibility of financial support from Montgomery
County. The Courier Times supports the initiative calling it win-win.
(Thanks to M. J. Donovan for the clippings.) CB
##F Reinventing Amtrak: The Other Shoe Drops
by Matthew Mitchell and Don Nigro
After eleven months of the Tom Downs era at Amtrak, the honeymoon is over.
Numerous sources, including internal Amtrak documents and reports by NARP
and other passenger organizations, all point to drastic retrenchments in
staffing and service at the National Railroad Passenger Corporation.
Severance offers were made to nearly every management employee in hopes of
shrinking the rolls by 1,500 or one-fourth of the total; the pace of
scrapping of old rolling stock has picked up, and a meeting on the 12th
and 13th of this month is expected to result in the elimination of several
Amtrak services.
Amtrak has taken a financial beating in 1994, resulting from the continued
economic slump. Ridership has slipped, while the need to remain
competitive with the airlines (which have been engaging in cut-throat fare
wars) has hurt revenue per passenger-mile. Bad publicity resulting from
the Sunset Limited catastrophe and other accidents has caused additional
losses.
With working capital depleted by the poor short-term results, and Downs
refusing to go back to past strategies of deferring maintenance and
reducing the quality of service, reducing costs appears to be the only
solution. While hoping for a modest increase
in Federal funding, an escape with only minimal cuts from the budget axe is
a more realistic objective in Washington. The measures Downs is taking
will have to be drastic.
Elimination of 1,500 administrative jobs is unlikely to solve the problem
alone. Cuts in service are almost inevitable; and the Philadelphia-
Harrisburg "Keystone Service" may possibly go. If so, the Harrisburg
trains could get a reprieve from the Pennsylvania state government, but
that is far from assured. DVARP is lobbying to finally put the
Philadelphia-Harrisburg Keystone trains on a secure footing by having the
state take full responsibility for them and contract them out to SEPTA or a
private operator. Meanwhile, NARP is taking steps to preserve Amtrak's
Federal appropriation in the face of new congressional efforts to cut
spending.
##G Red Rose Transit Authority News
Need a unique present. RRTA of Lancaster County, Pa., sells gift
certificates for ten trip tickets and monthly passes. They even mail them
in a holiday card.
Captain Planet visited the Information Center October 15, encouraging use
of public transportation. 300 planeteers came to the event.
RRTA expected to carry its 40 millionth passenger during November. The
lucky passengers will receive a year's free transit on RRTA and several
gift certificates.
Bus stop signs are coming--75% of the stops have received signs to date.
The new federal transit funding cuts reduced operating funds 11.5%
causing RRTA to curtail service expansion and instead plan cutbacks.
(Thanks to RRTA for the info.) CB
##H Elmwood Depot Open House
October 2 was open house at Elmwood Depot, a birthday party for
streetcars. This is one of a series of events the Light Rail Division is
having throughout the year to build community relations. The entire depot
was open for inspection and photography.
The rail grinder for light rail track was on display. LRV 9111 was
returned from Germantown Depot and PCC 2701 was sent to Penns Landing,
presenting an opportunity to see how streetcars are trucked around town
where there is no track. A PCC made
several trips out Island Avenue bringing back memories for many. The crew
room was turned into a display and model railroad room for the day.
Outside, employees turned chief sold hot dogs and hamburgers. With good
weather everyone observed was
having a good time. Another well done event. CB
##I Customer Service Volunteer Initiative - One Month On
After filling out forms for a month we can report both good and bad
news. First the bad. A good look at public transportation finds a general
mess. Nearly every SEPTA vehicle has many windows badly scratched with
graffiti. Stations are becoming graffiti targets again, with SEPTA taking
a week or more to paint it out. The buses and streetcars are generally
long overdue for painting and window cleaning. Destination signs and
engine compartment doors are broken. Stations fill with trash despite
porters cleaning several times a day. Homeless are often in the stations.
Rail cars and buses alike rock and bump as they move--filling out the forms
on a moving vehicle is a challenge.
Thus discouraged, we took our supply of forms to "comparison shop" PATCO,
the area's premier transit service. Whoops. Perceptions are everything.
Actually taking time to look--same as at SEPTA--found graffiti at
Collingswood station and flapping interior trim in the car. Eight Street
Station is dim and grimy. In summary, funding shortfalls seem well on the
way to returning SEPTA--and its peers-- to the bad old days of a few years
ago.
Well, there is one difference. Back then there seemed to be nothing to
do about the problem. Now action is taken. Shortly after sending in forms
about dirty windows, we noticed some clean windows--somebody actually read
the forms and took action.
Light Rail Division was first to get back with a response. They washed
the interior sides of all the LRV windows. Now passengers can see out
again. In addition Light Rail Division is putting effort into getting
schedules on the cars, making announcements, and security. Subway/elevated
has painted out all the graffiti we reported. Just carefully inspecting
stations has resulted in employees suddenly appearing in vigorous action--
could it be reporting on what they are doing causes productivity to
increase? CB
##J Rails and Trails by James S. Morgan
When Don Nigro asked if I would be interested in representing DVARP at
the Open House to be held at Parvin State Park near Elmer, New Jersey on
September 24 regarding the proposal to convert the so-called Bridgeton
Secondary Route into a trail,
I jumped at the chance. I have long wished to evaluate a Rails to Trails
operation first hand. My conclusion from the experience is generally that
DVARP should assess Rails to Trails projects on a case by case basis.
DVARP should remain neutral with regard
to the Bridgeton trail proposal. Our organization should seek to assess
and encourage the interest residents along the line have manifested toward
a return of rail service.
The Bridgeton Secondary Route is the original West Jersey line from
Bridgeton to Camden surveyed in 1853 and completed in 1861. The line
transported primarily glass and agricultural goods. Note that much of the
glass traffic came from two factories
in Elmer. The Central Railway of New Jersey hauled most of the bottles
from the giant Owens-Illinois plant number 14 in Bridgeton until the plant
switched to shipping by truck in 1955. The Jersey Central likewise hauled
the sand from the quarries at Dividing
Creek, which now go to other factories over the Winchester and Western.
This is because the West Jersey relinquished its interest in the Bridgeton
& Port Norris line to Bivalve in 1878, permitting the CNJ to acquire it. A
great deal of canned goods were
shipped from Bridgeton over the West Jersey line. The creamery and a
lumber yard at Monroeville serve as examples of on-line agricultural
sources in former days, and Nineteenth Century photographs depict seas of
buckboards surrounding the Elmer station,
waiting to load their produce onto the train. The line was heavily used
for commuting.
The route subsequently devolved to the West Jersey & Seashore, then the
Pennsylvania-Reading Seashore Line, and finally to Conrail. Some of it is
still in use south of Carll's Corner. The line was embargoed in 1984, and
dismantling of track between
Carll's Corner and Glassboro began in 1986. Freights access Bridgeton from
Glassboro today by travelling the Millville line as far as Vineland and
then proceeding to Bridgeton via the CNJ route, now operated by the
Winchester & Western.
What is of interest to passenger rail advocates is that passenger service
ceased on the CNJ route in 1929. The Jersey Central route was a convenient
way to access the Jersey shore from New York. It proved to be a detour for
those wishing to travel from
Bridgeton to Philadelphia. On the other hand, the light passenger service
was relatively more successful on the Bridgeton Secondary route. It
lasted until 1952.
Two factors served to bring about the demise of the line. The first was
the end of Railway Post Office service in 1949. Mail service at this time
justified two trains each way daily. According to Don Wentzel, South
Jersey Magazine railroad editor and
former postal employee, dropping the RPO's impaired the quality of postal
service at that time. Amtrak today ships mail in bulk. Because of the
premature retirement of the RPO's, the sorting technology was never
developed which would permit them to handle
the current volume of mail. The second was the fact that the line
generated little traffic. It was indeed a classic air line route from
Glassboro to Bridgeton, but when the line was embargoed, the only customer
on the line was Schalick Mills, a feed concern
just off the Bridgeton route in Elmer on the stump of the old Elmer-
Riddletown line (abandoned 1943). The abandoned Schalick storage bin
stands today. Conrail did not consider the 70 carloads a year which
Schalick required (down from 158 ten years earlier)
sufficient reason to keep the line open. PSE&G, which operates a nuclear
power plant in Salem, was not interested in joining Schalick in fighting to
save the line. The Schalick brothers considered buying up a portion of the
line (the mill is 8 miles from Glassboro,
12.5 from Bridgeton) and operating it as a shortline. They sought
congressional intervention. Their efforts were to no avail. Conrail opted
for the roundabout way to Bridgeton on the Millville line which offers
numerous customer sidings beginning with Vineland.
Don Wentzel was generous enough to give me a tour of both lines on
October 13. While there are frontage roads along most of the Glassboro-
Vineland-Bridgeton route, the old West Jersey runs through farm fields, and
some woods on the southern portion
of the line, often miles from parallel roads. The northern station stops
(Aura, Harding, Monroeville and Elmer) were located in towns. With regard
to the southern three stops, proceeding southward from Elmer, Palatine once
served a long-vanished amusement
park. Money to construct the Husted station was donated by the Husted
family, and the station has been preserved as a dwelling, albeit several
hundred yards from its original site. Finley was simply the name of a group
of houses on the outskirts of Bridgeton
and Carll's Corner. There never were towns around the three southernmost
stations, although today there are scattered houses within a short distance
of them.
The Gloucester County Passenger Rail Initiative plans to extend service
from Camden to Glassboro. In the future, such service could extend to
Vineland, but it might end right there. Passenger service to Bridgeton via
Vineland might fail today for the
same reason it failed in 1929. I decided that it was my duty as DVARP
representative to seek to assure preservation of the right of way until its
possible use value could be decided. The issue is, would conversion of the
right of way between Carll's Corner
and Glassboro to a trail best preserve the right of way for future use?
Thomas F. Hampton of the New Jersey Department of Environmental
Protection and Energy informed me in a letter dated October 6, 1994 that,
based upon the open house, the project draft plan will be modified such
that: "To be included in the document
will be a statement saying that if the need arises for a rail line between
Glassboro and Bridgeton, shared use of the line for such a purpose would be
possible." A discussion with Valerie Celise of the same department during
the Parvin open house indicated
that as few as five years ago, conversion of a rail right of way to a trail
was generally irreversible, but trailfans have seen that they need to
cooperate more with rail interest groups, and a Rails-with-Trails use is
gaining acceptance.
This letter accompanied three documents which I requested from Mr.
Hampton, "Transportation Enhancements," by the New Jersey Department of
Transportation, the "Draft: Conceptual Plan for the Bridgeton Secondary
Line Trail" of August 1994, and
"Rails-With-Trails: Sharing Corridors for Recreation and Transportation"
by Michael Brilliot and Julie A. Winterich of the Rails-to-Trails
Conservancy. The first document provides an overview of the Intermodal
Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA).
ISTEA is a federal act under which states are reimbursed for their
transportation enhancement activities. New Jersey expects to set aside $10
million in federal funding annually through 1997 under the program.
Eligible projects include provision of facilities
for pedestrians and bicycles, scenic or historic highway programs,
acquisition of scenic easements and scenic or historic sites, landscaping
or other scenic beautification, historic preservation, rehabilitation and
operation of historic transportation structures,
preservation of abandoned railway corridors (including conversion to
pedestrian or bicycle trails), mitigation of water pollution from highway
runoff, and archaeological planning and research. Project selection
criteria and the project selection process
are detailed in the publication.
The Draft, after discussing the history of the line and its current use,
focuses upon issues which could affect acquisition. First, of course, is
the fact that Conrail may no longer own any of the line. Conrail sold
portions to the borough of Elmer, Elk Township,
and the Monroeville Fire Volunteer Company in addition to private
individuals. The borough of Elmer has been selling the portions it
acquired to adjacent property owners. Then according to Fred Winkler of
the Winchester and Western and the Delaware
Valley Regional Planning Committee, title of the portions Conrail did not
sell has passed to the New Jersey Department of Transportation, which has
rail banked the line. The NJDOT could exercise its right to eminent domain
over the entire line. On the other
hand, Route 55 crosses the line, an engineering error which could easily
have been avoided. Reactivation of the line would require construction of
a bridge.
Regarding other factors, residents along the line have voiced a variety
of objections to the trail project. When I first arrived at Parvin, it
appeared that the opponents of trails were also opponents of rails, and
some were. Flag-waving demonstrators bearing
signs reading, "No Rails, No Trails," greeted Open House participants.
After chatting with Valerie Celise at the proponents' table (where Ernest
Barry stood armed with a scrapbook of oldtime rail photos taken on the
line, "In case any railfans show up,") I
walked over to talk to David Schirick of Citizens Committee against the
Trail (CAT). After hearing his arguments against the trail, I asked what
he thought of returning rail service to the line. He stated that the line
was built to serve the farmers' needs. The
railroad acquired many tracts for the sum of $1. If the farmers could not
have rail service, they wished to buy the land back. He said no, take the
rails some other place, it is only on the east coast that there are enough
people for rail service. I should note
that it was he who showed me the publications which I eventually ordered
from Mr. Hampton.
At that point, I walked over to the trail advocates' table and signed the
trail petition in an individual capacity, telling Ernest Barry that I was
doing so solely to enter my name on a mailing list so as to receive
information. About the only document on
the proponents' table was his scrapbook. Then I discovered something no
one had told me about, another room filled with arguing people, report
forms and some publications, albeit not the draft project or the overview
of ISTEA. I sat down and filled out
a report. I noted that I was from DVARP, that the Gloucester passenger
rail initiative was seeking to extend service to Glassboro. The Bridgeton
Secondary Line might be a useful extension. But I stated that I wanted
more information on the legal basis of
the project, and that I was not sure that the trail project would preserve
the right of way for future rail use. Teenage girls with CAT badges were
reading the reports as they were filed.
When I drove to Parvin, I passed through Brotmanville and Norma. The
population of Brotmanville is almost entirely African-American. Norma has
a large Jewish population and a Mennonite church. The Jewish community at
Norma dates from the
early 1800s, but Norma lies on the CNJ line. Elmer and Lawnside were the
two major south Jersey stations on the Underground Railroad. I saw a black
farmer with a CAT badge who turned out to be from the only African-American
community on the line
at Aura and began questioning him on his attitudes toward the project.
This began to attract other CAT members. As I was leaving, David Schirick
said that his group had nothing against the rails. They really were not
against hikers and bikers, just ATVs
(all terrain vehicles). When the tracks were there, the trains kept the
vehicles and litterers out. Some farmers would like to have freight
service. I had difficulty explaining that DVARP was only a passenger rail
advocacy group. Skip Meyers, president of
USANA, the United Sportsmen's Association of North America, voiced similar
opinions. USANA operates New Jersey's largest shooting range at Aura,
which the right of way bisects.
Turning to objections to the trail project, I spent the weeks after the
trip to Parvin talking with officials from the municipal entities along the
right of way, specifically Elk Township (Aura), Upper Pittsgrove Township
(Monroeville), the Borough of Elmer,
Pittsgrove Township and Upper Deerfield Township, and Glassboro. I am
mentioning no names so that no one wishing to remain anonymous may be
identified by elimination. Only Glassboro is in favor of the trail
project. The first five municipal entities
mentioned have courteously supplied me with copies of the resolutions they
have passed against the project. All townships or boroughs which either
own part of the right of way or in which individuals or organizations own
parts of it in such a way that the
land forms part of the municipal tax base are opposed to the trail project.
Some fear that the State of New Jersey may use its power of eminent domain
to implement it. Common to all resolutions is the fear that the trail
would not be adequately policed. The
right of way is 66 feet wide for most of its length, and there are, as
mentioned above, no frontage roads. At the present time, residents must
rely on the New Jersey State Police in Bridgeton for problems arising from
the right of way. Currently, the right of
way is used by persons with ATVs who often trespass on adjacent farmlands
and damage crops. The right of way is being used for dumping primarily
because it can accommodate vehicles. Although this is not explicitly
stated in any resolutions, municipal
officials feel that ATV gangs can be intimidating to adjacent property
owners. Municipal officials object that they should not have to clean up
after horseback riders. In addition, several officials voiced concern that
trail users might be injured by agricultural
pesticides. The Draft states that the DEP will regulate pesticide use so
as to protect trail users. USANA's shooting ranges apparently point away
from the line, but trespassers could subject themselves to the risk of
severe injury.
What about objections to reactivation of rail use? Some officials in
municipalities which own portions of the right of way are hostile to using
it for trails or rails. I asked one official if his municipality would act
as a roadblock if communities to the north
and south wished the line to return to service. He stated that he was told
this was impossible. Residents have been told it would be cheaper for them
to drive to Glassboro than to reopen the line. But some officials said
that rail commuter service would open
up travel opportunities to residents and help the area develop. This is
particularly true in southern townships. Even an official in a northern
municipality stated that the trail would not be objectionable if rail
service were resumed.
A railfan has chided me for talking to the farmers, USANA and the
municipal officials. A call to the NRHS national office indicates that
support for Rails-to-Trails is not a national organizational policy. I
told Valerie Celise that Rails-to-Trails is a catchy
phrase that targets rails. I asked her why trailfans do not also pursue
issues like zoning. One trailfan was loudly holding forth to a CAT member
on all the trails Germany provides. I was tempted to tell him that this is
so because Germany has more rails and
prohibits scatter settlement. The same railfan also suggested that once
the adjacent property owners buy up the right of way, it can never be
reactivated. In such case, the property owners will harm only their own
interests.
Analysis Section
##K Center City Commutation Trends
by John A. Dawson
As part of its decennial census, the U.S. Census Bureau collects
voluminous information on how workers commute to their jobs. Since this
then serves as the basis for planning new transportation facilities, it is
important to understand what this data is
telling us.
In many ways the Philadelphia area is following national trends, and many
of these trends are not favorable to public transportation. In our region
the share of workers driving alone to work has increased from 59% in 1980
to 68% in 1990, ride-sharing
has fallen from 18% to 12%, and transit use went from 14% to 11%. [In this
context transit includes all public transportation, including regional
rail.]
Much of this shift away from transit can be explained as a consequence of
the movement of people and jobs to the suburbs, where development favors
the automobile. However, even when one only looks at jobs in central
business districts, the shift is
still there. The following table, based on 1990 census data, shows how
employees reached their jobs in Center City Philadelphia:
County of Number of Share Using
Residence Workers Transit
Philadelphia 156,142 45.7%
Bucks 8,898 31.4%
Chester 5,584 51.7
Delaware 22,635 48.7
Montgomery 17,623 40.4
Total PA Suburbs 54,740 43.5%
Burlington 6,509 35.8%
Camden 17,149 52.2
Gloucester 5,133 23.6
Mercer 555 34.1
Total NJ Suburbs 29,346 43.2%
External 6,431 20.0%
Grand Total 246,659 44.3%
Because the Census only reports employees who worked at their primary jobs
during the census week, the above numbers should be increased by 10% in
order to account for absences and workers holding multiple jobs. However,
this adjustment should not have a significant effect on the modal split.
First, note that 63% of Center City employees live in Philadelphia, 22%
come from suburban counties in Pennsylvania, and 12% commute from suburban
New Jersey. Only 3% come from outside the region, the largest share coming
from New Castle County
in Delaware.
The bad news is that only 44% of Center City employees commute by public
transportation. This is the first census since the Census Bureau started
collecting journey-to-work data that this share has been below 50%. In
1980 the transit share to Center
City was 58% and in 1970 it was 64%. Even for workers resident in
Philadelphia, only 46% took transit; however, it should be mentioned that
16,000 city residents walked to their jobs and another 1,000 came by
bicycle. Although there is a considerable spread
in the transit share among individual counties, in aggregate the suburbs
send almost as large a share of their workers on public transportation as
does the city.
The good news is that workers apparently respond to good service. The
only counties to send over half their workers on public transportation are
Camden and Chester. At first glance, these counties do not appear to have
much in common. One is in New Jersey, the other is in Pennsylvania; one is
close in, the other far out; and one is almost completely suburbanized,
while the other is still largely rural. But what they do share is good
service. Camden County has the Lindenwold Line, PATCO's heavy rail
transit line, running up its spine, and Chester County is served by Route
R5, SEPTA's best regional rail line. At the other end of the spectrum is
Gloucester County, which puts only 24% of its Center City workers on public
transportation. But Gloucester County has no rail service at all, relying
entirely on buses. Presumably, this situation will change when and if rail
service is inaugurated to Glassboro.
While the shift of homes and jobs to the suburbs is a major factor in
diminishing transit's role, it is not the only one. The lesson here is
that unless we continually improve public transportation, we will lose
ground to highways. As the Red Queen told
Alice, "It takes all the running you can do to stay in one place."
##L Commuter Rail Still Not Considered in Northeast Transit Plans
by Matthew Mitchell
Despite a DVARP request and a newsletter story suggesting that commuter
rail may be a more cost-effective alternative due to its ability to use
existing infrastructure, the mode still is not included in the study.
Though first citing lower capacity as the reason,
a consultant soon let on that the study was initially formulated as rapid-
transit only, as per the earmark of Federal funds which paid for it. The
light rail option was added at the request of SEPTA.
The continued disregard of the commuter rail option may be based on some
unbalanced assumptions. Conventional wisdom holds that the operating costs
of commuter rail would be prohibitive, but the study's cost figures assume
much automation of fare collection.
If that assumption was also made for commuter rail, operating costs would
come down. Likewise, the study's revenue assumptions are based on
establishment of zoned transit fares in the Northeast, something which is
far from a political certainty. In fact,
zoned fares on transit would make the existing R3, R7, and R8 commuter
trains which skirt the Northeast a more attractive alternative.
A few other problems creep up in the study. It recognizes that many of the
riders of a Northeast Metro would be diverted from other routes, but the
operating costs are stated on an incremental basis for only the Market-
Frankford extensions. The savings which
would result from the reduced Market-Frankford demand are not accounted for
in the Broad Street or light rail plans. Not only does this skew the
operating cost figures, but it also adds to the capital costs of the other
plans, since more cars are figured to be
needed.
Inclusion of the light rail option is clearly an afterthought which has not
been worked up as fully as the subway or elevated plans. Changes in bus
service which are used to sharpen the operating cost estimate are not
included for option 7, and other calculations
are similarly handled. There is some welcome outside critique of the SEPTA
proposal, though. Its projected running time of 36 minutes is seen as
over-optimistic. Still, even a reasonable 'back-of-the-envelope' analysis
of competing modes is an essential
thing to have as this stage of the planning process.
Where would that leave commuter rail? A future article will try to tackle
that, as well as project bottom-line costs of the other alternatives. The
capacity argument against commuter rail is suspect, though. Based on SEPTA
ridership statistics, daily ridership
of 70,000 would scale to a peak-hour, peak-direction ridership of about
6,000 to 6,500: less if the reverse-commute fraction is high. This kind of
ridership can be accommodated on commuter rail: with eight six-car trains
per hour (a 7.5 minute headway--slightly
fewer trains than on the peak hour of the Paoli line) 6,500 passengers can
be handled with everyone getting a seat!
Views and Opinions Section
##M Quote of the month
"If the destination is common sense, then you can't get there from here
-- not this way." Bucks County Courier Times editorial board, November 18,
describing government funding of highways, cutting transit subsidies, and
demanding cleaner air.
##N Fare Giveaways Would Hurt Commuters
by John R. Pawson
No one likes to pay more for transportation than is necessary. However,
enlightened people recognize that underpricing can lead to low-quality
service. Alone of the 13 U.S. commuter rail operations, RRD is criticized
as being too good in some qualities and
too high in price; some would have it downgraded to rail-transit quality
and price levels. So in that light, we should scrutinize the current SEPTA
fare-change proposals.
For the sake of achieving a higher, less assailable operating-cost
recovery, RRD's revenue is most critical. It is interesting to see how
that parameter might be improved so that opponents no longer have an excuse
to pursue the railroad's transitization.
This year RRD's operating cost is $172 million; its expected revenue is
$64 million; and its resulting loss (which must be made up mainly by state
and local subsidies) is $108 million. Operating-cost recovery therefore is
37%. (U.S. commuter rail average
is 48%.)
Suppose we set an objective of 50% cost recovery for RRD. What revenue
addition would be required, or what cost reduction would be needed to reach
this objective? First fixing cost, we find that revenue would have to rise
from $64 million to $86 million,
a $22 million increase. Alternately fixing revenue, the operating cost
would have to be reduced from $172 million to $128 million, a cut of $44
million. The conclusion is that an added dollar of revenue gives twice the
leverage of $1 in cost reduction.
So every means should be considered to increase revenues; it's more
important than cutting cost, not just equivalent. Moreover, the last thing
SEPTA should do is to give away value which customers are willing to pay
for.
Giving away value is almost as old as SEPTA's operation of the railroad.
A few years after the takeover from Conrail, a trial-balloon was lofted--
SEPTA would charge the same railroad fare for all distances travelled, like
transit's "flat fare". Anyone who
has passed Economics 101 or who has some economic common sense knows that
some short-distance passengers would leave, depriving SEPTA of some
revenue. Concurrently, more revenue would be lost from long-distance
customers by undercharging them.
Fortunately, this anti-economic scheme was discarded.
More recently, all Transpass holders have been allowed to ride off-peak
RRD trains within city limits without extra payment. They are getting
something free for which most of them would pay.
Most recently, a Wednesday night-in-town $2 round-trip fare was added.
Many reverse commuters who use tickets which cost more than $2 buy these
tickets to use going home Wednesday evenings, then throw away the return
portion of the ticket.
Under SEPTA's current fare proposals, these giveaways are to be added to
those already existing:
1. Fern Rock, a zone 2 station within the zone 2 ring, is to be made a
zone 1 station.
2. Zone 1 customers are to be allowed to ride Saturdays, Sundays, and
Holidays anywhere in SEPTA's service area by showing a Transpass; no
additional fare is to be required.
3. Zone 1 Trailpasses are to be discontinued, their place taken by the
standard Transpass. So current zone 1 monthly Trailpass users who now pay
$68 monthly will enjoy instead the new $64 Transpass rate with all of its
free-riding potential to boot.
Meanwhile, most other passengers are to pay about 7% more for their
tickets.
It's difficult for laypersons to estimate the effective loss to SEPTA of
all past and proposed RRD-related dilutions of revenue. The easiest figure
to estimate is the foregone revenue which would result from eliminating the
zone 1 Trailpass instead if increasing
its rates (e.g., the monthly pass from $68 to $72). In that case alone,
SEPTA would forego about $130,000 annually.
Other, less obvious losses, as well as operating cost increases are
likely, too. For instance, more seats must be provided in RRD trains for
those diverted from City Transit Division.
Why do this? The realist, on seeing economic sub-optimization, tends to
think that there must be a political factor involved. Evidently, that
factor relates to Philadelphia's reported demand to be allowed a reduction
in its annual payments for RRD. But
how can a series of giveaways to benefit zone 1 passengers (some of whom
are quite well-off)--a matter between SEPTA and some of its customers--
relate logically to negotiations between SEPTA and one of its supporting
governments?
Regardless of the non-sequitur, it appears that the SEPTA fare changes
were conceived before Election Day, 1994. In view of the results of that
election, the fare giveaways would seem as politically ill-timed as they
are economically negative. The mandate
would seem to be for more cost-effective government. More to the point,
legislators from inner-city areas (as zone 1) are yielding positions of
authority to suburban legislators who likely are out of sympathy with
adding more fare loopholes.
If political and economic common sense is to be followed, SEPTA should
move in the opposite direction. Maximize revenues by closing loopholes.
Eliminate the current Transpass-on-RRD privileges. Rationalize or end the
$2 Wednesday night fare.
Tailor parking fees to the supply-demand situation at each lot. Finally,
offer weekday commuters a no-frills, weekdays-only, railroad-only
CommuterRailPass for, say, 92% of the going all-inclusive Trailpass rate.
Most commuters are uninterested in all sorts of extra services and in
cross-subsidizing them. Why should the be required to pay for them?
##O Letters To The Editor
I recently took a trip from my home in Philadelphia to a meeting in Bryn
Mawr using the El and the Paoli local. My experience highlights the
problems SEPTA faces in providing an alternative to auto travel.
I left my house after 6:30 in the evening and walked to the Girard stop
of the El. Except for some remaining construction details, the station was
clean and well lit. The next El train arrived within a couple of minutes.
The car I was on was clean, well
lit and had no apparent mechanical or graffiti problems.
As the doors closed at 15th Street, some kid threw bubble gum into the car
and hit me.
As I was walking from the El stop to the train station at 30th Street I was
panhandled for money.
When I arrived at the upper level platform in 30th Street Train Station I
was panhandled for money.
As I waited at the upper level platform in 30th Street Train Station I was
panhandled for money by yet another individual.
The 7:19 pm Local was on time, clean, had three nearly full cars, and the
train crew announced all the stops over a properly working intercom.
After my meeting a friend drove me back to 30th and Market Streets, where I
caught the El home. As I was walking in the El stop at 30th Street I was
panhandled for money.
The next El train arrived within a couple of minutes. The car I was on
was clean, well lit and had no apparent mechanical or graffiti problems. I
was home by 9:30 pm.
SEPTA needs a service policy statement about "professional" panhandlers.
All the panhandlers I encountered were full time career beggars; one of
them routinely does the "evening shift" at 30th Street; another one was
better dressed than I can afford with a new YSL running suit and $100
running shoes.
The bottom line is: Even though SEPTA's Transportation, M/W, and
Mechanical departments "did a good job," I cannot recommend the trip to
anyone. There were five different assaults on my person during this trip
-- four were on SEPTA property.
If any one of these events had been serious I would be dead.
Brian Helfrich
##P DVARP Internal News
DVARP Position on the Fare Increase
Our final position is still being developed by a working group. Member
input is encouraged, through the mailbox of telephone. At the November 19
general meeting, the members voted to include four points in our statement.
1. Support for the general concept of an increase that generates the
expected 7% revenue increase. This was based on the lack of realistic
alternate funding sources.
2. Recommendation that transfers be priced at 25 cents. This was based on
the inconvenience of the transfer and the fact that most transferring
passengers do not have an alternative. In effect the transfer price is a
penalty fare for not working a one seat ride
from home--hardly reasonable if the concept of metropolitan areas is to
remain valid.
3. Opposition to extending RRD zone 1 to include Fern Rock Transfer.
First, it was felt that this would cause those park and riding at Fern Rock
to use RRD rather than BSS, thus overloading RRD trains for a short
segment. More importantly, this is a fare
increase for inner city workers reverse commuting. Four times as many
passengers currently board going north as south at Fern Rock Transfer.
4. A new (additional) fare instrument, the Commuter Rail Pass, is proposed.
This would have zones 1, 2, 3, 4, and Anywhere identical to the TrailPass
on RRD trains. However, there would be no transit division privileges with
this pass. The price of a Commuter
Rail Pass would be 92% of the corresponding TrailPass. This pass was
designed by DVARP's Commuter Rail Committee for many RRD passengers who do
not use transit routes, but who feel that the transit priviledges of the
TrailPass have increased the
price for this unused feature.
DVARP Election
As reported last month, this month DVARP is having an election. For
efficiency, there are two issues on the ballot. The first issue is should
DVARP change structure. Currently, DVARP has monthly general membership
meetings at which those members
present vote on the issues. Officers, elected by the general membership,
carry out the decisions and make any decisions that arise between meetings.
The proposal is to form a Board of Directors which would have monthly Board
meetings. While the Board
meetings would be open to all members, only Board members would vote on the
issues. Also, the Board--rather than the membership--would elect the
officers. The feeling is that this will make the meetings more efficient,
thereby saving scarce volunteer time.
The second issue is the election of Directors. Of course, if the Board
structure is voted down then the Directors would not take office and the
current officers would remain until another election is held for new
officers.
Please take a few minutes and read the statements by the candidates for
Director. Then vote for not more than 9 candidates. Provision is made on
the ballot for write-ins; no more than 9 total from both write-ins and
candidates may be selected on your
ballot.
Members in good standing are entitled to vote. These members have a code
1994 or higher at the right edge of the top line of the mailing label, but
do NOT have a code P, L, or C after the year. DVARP's postal permit
requires that all newsletters weigh
the same. This prevented including a second ballot for family members.
Family members should make a copy of the ballot and send both ballots in
together. Family memberships have the code $, *, &, #, or F at the extreme
right side of the top line of the
mailing label. Members who want to keep their newsletter may also use a
copy of the ballot.
There are four ways to submit your ballot. First bring it to the
December meeting BEFORE 1:15pm. The other three ways use the mail and
require that the outermost covering identify you so that the ballot can be
verified to be from a member in good
standing. Three methods are provided to allow for members with varying
levels of concern for both secret ballot and out-of-pocket cost. Cheapest
method is to fold the ballot into a mailer, tape it shut, apply a 29 cent
stamp, write your name and address on
the outside, and mail. Next cheapest is to put the ballot in an envelop,
apply the stamp, write your name and address on the envelop, and mail.
These envelopes will be separated from the ballots before going into the
pile for counting at the meeting. Third
method is to put the ballot inside an unmarked, sealed envelope, put that
envelope inside a second envelope, apply the stamp, write your name and
address on the outer envelope and mail. The outer envelope will be
separated from the ballot after verification
for membership before going into the pile for counting--the inner envelope
will insure a secret ballot. To ensure an impartial election ballots are
to be sent to the Election Chairman, who is not a candidate: John
Wireman, 574A Rosalie St., Philadelphia, Pa, 19120.
Candidacy Statements for DVARP Board Election:
Chuck Bode
Baltimore Ave., Philadelphia, PA
Top priority is significantly increasing ridership on public
transportation, especially the rail lines. For DVARP: focus on increasing
membership and visibility, increasing level of communication with transit
and planning agencies and with elected and appointed
officials. DVARP should work more closely with associations sharing
similar objectives including ARPs, environmental, and community groups.
Served DVARP as president, secretary, chairman of light rail committee,
testified at numerous hearings. Engineer
in computer field.
John A. Dawson
17 Cornell Rd., Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004-2104
Home: (610) 667-9260, Work: (215) 592-18000, x-153
A good public transportation system is an asset for any metropolitan area,
and here in this region, we have inherited a comprehensive and basically
sound system. But it needs to be modernized, and
it can be made to work better. I believe that DVARP should promote an
integrated public transportation system, work to see that it is adequately
funded, encourage its use, seek to improve its efficiency
and effectiveness, and act as a consumer advocate for riders. I am a
transportation planner, and have served several years on NARP's Board of
Directors.
Robert H. Machler
NE Philadelphia, Pa.
Background: Retired elec. engineer, NARP member since 1970, an original
founder of DVARP--active since 1972 including advocacy for balanced
transportation funding including contacts with elected
officials and SEPTA.
DVARP's goals should be:
 Preserve SEPTA's commuter rail system as a commuter rail system.
 Service to Newtown via Fox Chase & other nonserviced areas initially at
least via nonelectric (such as diesel) power.
 Preserve and restore the trolley system.
 Preserve our existing city railroad stations. Rebuild and restore
service at Frankford Junction Station (SEPTA/NJT).
 Make transit/train stops safer via electronic surveillance, police mini
stations, better lights, commercial activity.
Matthew D. Mitchell, Ph.D.
Glenside, Abington Twp., Montgomery Co., PA
As an active DVARP member since 1986, I have applied my observations,
experience, and analytical and writing skills wherever our organization has
needed them. I have organized major projects
like the commuter rail on-time and service survey and the nationwide
volunteer project to make Amtrak schedules available to the public via the
internet. I coordinated the writing of many DVARP
policy papers, including the report on the Harrisburg service, our
testimony for the RailWorks(R) shutdown hearing, numerous budget
statements, and countless statements for SEPTA route tariff hearings.
I have chaired DVARP's Transit Committee since 1989; but most members know
me for the work I have done with the DVARP newsletter. And thanks to my
service on the Citizens Advisory
Committee to SEPTA (1987-90) and with DVARP, I have a good professional
relationship with many of SEPTA's officers and staff.
The work I do for DVARP is complemented in my professional life, where I
analyze and make recommendations on medical technology.
I welcome the proposed change to our organizational structure, and will
work to continue DVARP's reputation for objective advocacy for the train
and transit users of the entire region.
Bill Mulloy
Upper Darby, Delaware Co., PA
I am employed as a civil engineer although I am not currently working in
the transportation field. I am interested in all modes of transportation
and believe in the intermodal approach to solving transportation problems.
I have a particular interest in light rail and have recently begun
researching the trolley bus (trackless trolley) mode. I am looking into
the feasibility of applying the trolleybus mode to the Chestnut St./Walnut
St. corridor between Center City and 69th Street
(Route 21).
I believe that DVARP would benefit from offering social and special topic
activities. The monthly business meeting and committee meetings serve a
purpose, but are only attracting a small fraction of the membership. I
feel that social and special topics activities
would attract new people and those individuals could likely be recruited to
help with DVARP business and projects needing volunteers. I have several
ideas that I would like to try out: field trips to museums, showing of
videos in member's homes, and joint
meetings with other organizations having similar goals and interests.
Don Nigro
Collingswood (Camden) -- Computer analyst. DVARP's representative to the
Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission (DVRPC) Regional Citizens
Committee (RCC). Chairperson of the RCC Transportation/Work Program
Subcommittee. The RCC's
voting representative on the DVRPC Regional Transportation Committee.
DVARP's South Jersey Coordinator and Chairperson of DVARP's South Jersey
Committee.
Strong advocate for improving rail travel (and thereby its patronage and
cost recovery) through enhancing speed and reliability of the service.
Where applicable, champions a one-seat ride to Center City, Philadelphia,
whether it be for Northeast Philadelphia,
Newtown, Quakertown, Pottstown, Mt. Holly or Glassboro. Supports the
restoration of Philadelphia trolley service. Rights-of-way
preservationist.
John R. Pawson
Willow Grove, Montgomery Co., PA
My qualifications: Experienced seven years commuting by railroad here,
four by rapid transit, three by streetcar, one by bus. Past DVARP
president.
What SEPTA needs: Three distinctly different divisions with different
clienteles and customer expectations call for more decentralization and
greater decision-making authority and responsibility
for each division and its chief.
What DVARP needs: Correspondingly, DVARP should decentralize, too. Policy
decisions must be made by those who would have to live with and travel
according to those decisions. This
is the only democratic solution to the divisive struggle in DVARP over the
future of SEPTA's Railroad Division.
William A. Ritzler
Pitman, Gloucester Co., NJ
Member DVARP, NJARP, and NARP. Vice-chairman DVARP South Jersey Committee.
DVARP representative to NJ Transit Citizens Advisory Committee for
Burlington-Gloucester Corridor
Study. Created t approved proposal to restructure DVARP. Supports the
following proposals:
1) A one-seat ride in the Burlington and Gloucester corridors.
2) Burlington corridor to Mt. Holly via existing railroad right-of-way
3) Commuter rail for Northeast Philadelphia.
4) R6 Norristown via Bala-Cynwyd.
5) SEPTA operation of Harrisburg service.
6) Evaluate current commuter rail mode on R7 CHE, R8 CHW, and R8 Fox Chase
lines.
Sharon Shneyer
245 South Melville Street, Philadelphia, PA 19139
Long-time rail and transit activist, starting with the Seashore trains. I
am tired of rail being accused as too expensive and not practical. I would
like to see better transit connections at rail stations
and improvements in the NEC and Harrisburg service as well. My involvement
with other ARPS, NARP and related groups will be vital to DVARP. We face
the biggest threat to Amtrak's existence since the Reagan era.
##Q DVARP Phone & Voice-mail Directory
DVARP main number (voice mail line) 215-222-3373
9 Chuck Bode, President 215-222-3373
6 Robert H. Machler, VP-Administration 215-222-3373
5 Sharon Shneyer, VP-Public Relations 215-386-2644
3 Matthew Mitchell, Newsletter Editor 215-885-7448
<mmitchell@asrr.arsusda.gov>
4 Betsey Clark, Volunteer Coordinator 215-222-3373
8 Mark Sanders, Treasurer 215-222-3373
2 John Pawson, Commuter RR Comm. 215-659-7736
(6 to 9 pm please)
3 Transit Committee 215-222-3373
7 Don Nigro, South Jersey Committee 609-869-0020
Dan Radack, Bicycle Coordinator 215-232-6303
Computer e-mail (internet) dvarp@libertynet.org
##R DVARP Membership Coupon
Yes, I want to support improved passenger train service in our region!
Here are my DVARP membership dues for 1994!
Name
Address
City, State, Zip
Please choose a membership category below, enclose check and mail to:
DVARP, PO Box 7505, Philadelphia, PA 19101
( ) Regular: $15.00 ( ) Family: $20.00 ( ) Supporting: $25.00
( ) Sustaining: $50.00 ( ) Patron: $75.00 ( ) Benefactor: $100.00
( ) Introductory<72>new members only: $10.00 ( ) under 21 or over 65:
$7.50
Reference in New Issue View Git Blame Copy Permalink