Comments on: Lackawanna Cutoff: Why Now and Why There?

By: Angelyn Raska

Angelyn Raska — Sat, 28 Jan 2012 09:44:55 +0000

Thanks for the write-up. I have continually noticed that a lot of people are needing to lose weight simply because they wish to look slim plus attractive. Nonetheless, they do not usually realize that there are additional benefits so that you can losing weight as well. Doctors declare that obese people come across a variety of ailments that can be directly attributed to their particular excess weight. Thankfully that people who definitely are overweight as well as suffering from different diseases can help to eliminate the severity of their particular illnesses by way of losing weight. You’ll be able to see a gradual but noted improvement in health as soon as even a moderate amount of fat reduction is reached.

By: Chuck Walsh

Chuck Walsh — Thu, 04 Aug 2011 14:31:31 +0000

I’m surprised to read that we’re still debating over the merits of the Lackawanna Cut-Off, particularly over environmental issues. Trains, in general, are by far the most environmentally-friendly means of transportation. Everyone knows that, so it’s puzzling that that point is still being debated here. The Andover station site was chosen because it is the only flat piece of property in the area that both is adjacent to the Cut-Off’s right-of-way and has road access. There really is no other choice. In addition, that the station site is in the “middle of nowhere” because it is a mile outside the center of Andover is a strange argument since that means it’s a mile from Route 206 and under a mile from Route 517. That’s hardly inconvenient and hardly in the middle of nowhere, in my opinion.

By: Jeremy

Jeremy — Fri, 09 Apr 2010 14:51:53 +0000

One thing everyone is missing here is that northwest New Jersey and northeast Pennsylvania are already well served by commuter buses to NYC.

Let’s build on the bus network rather than continuing to believe that only rail transit can be good transit. Buses do not have to be slow. For a fraction of the cost of this rail line, we could invest in additional bus trips and improvements such as HOV lanes (or allowing buses to use highway shoulders during congested times) that would significantly reduce travel times and benefit many more people than this rail line. The area just does not have the density to support rail. Buses can serve locations a lot closer to where people actually live (including many walk-up locations) and then run express to their destination. Regular commuters from this area know that the Lakeland 80 express is faster and more comfortable than driving to a rail station which makes many stops.

If we dispense with the implicit assumption that rail is always good and buses always suck, and realize that both can be good if we make them, we will dramatically improving the transportation system for thousands of people in this area.

By: Jan H Rinnooi

Jan H Rinnooi — Sun, 19 Jul 2009 21:14:39 +0000

Everyone missed a very inportant fact. The base material for this line was sold at the ridiculous price never had one stone been moved and sold back at more than ten times it’s value. I must be very foolish to believe someone was not politically connected. Of course this could be just GOOD OLE BOY business as usual. When the railroads asked for help in the mid seventies to improve service, no way. This rail line is going fill a lot of well connected parties. What is needed now is some good investigative reporting. Let’s stop goverment from running wild.

By: J R Kurie

J R Kurie — Mon, 16 Mar 2009 22:35:11 +0000

About the comment from John:
The state of mass transit in NJ is a larger issue than any one project. We are the state with the highest population density in the nation. We still have the much of the rail right of way that provided residents with local transit options for over 75 years.
Now, the state approved $900 million for the Bergen Light Rail Project – which cost us $2.2 billion – and was willing to spend another $1.2 billion for extension projects – but can’t fund rail projects over existing right of ways that would better serve northern and central NJ and suburban Philadelphia for a fraction of the cost per mile of the BLR project.
However, I don’t see much of a sustained grass roots initiative to improve the situation. Help!

By: John

John — Sat, 14 Feb 2009 02:58:43 +0000

Personally, I think the money would be better used to provide rail service in South Jersey. We have one line that’s very slow, a light rail that’s only useful if you want to go to Trenton and points north, and the Patco if you want to drive to the station. that for the entire Southern half of the state, where as the north has approximately 11 lines. As much as I would love to see this line rebuilt, I think the money would be better spent adding a line from Philly south through Glassboro through Millville, rebuilding the tracks to Woodbury and on to Cape May with transfers for Ocean City, Wildwood, and the ferry.

By: tim sevener

tim sevener — Fri, 07 Nov 2008 04:09:36 +0000

I would invite Jeff Tittel and anyone who objects to the Lackawanna Cutoff to try to drive Route 80 Eastbound any weekday morning or Westbound any weeknight. Many of these commuters would LOVE to have an alternative to the Route 80 traffic jam. Obviously there is some sort of density filling Route 80 every weekday. Train service would take hundreds of cars off the road saving many gallons of gas and greenhouse emissions. I do agree that Amtrak and long distance service should also be part of the planning along with non-commuter regular service.
It is not an either-or proposition – commuter service or long distance, commuter service or recreation.
The biggest waste in New Jersey mass transit is all the rail lines which provide only commuter service and the whole attitude that the destination is NYC during workdays. In fact people would be happy to ride the rails for skiing, swimming, whitewater rafting in the Poconos if service was available.
I often considered taking the train to Lake Hopatcong on summer weekends but then ruled it out since there was virtually no return service, NJ Transit has solved that problem – now they do not provide ANY service West on the weekends!
There needs to be a new model of local combined with express service along all rail lines. And beyond that to rebuild a high speed National Rail System.
Sometimes this could mean 3 tracks but in many cases
sidings for locals at key points could still allow the two to coexist.
Every car off the road and people onto trains helps save our planet.
The goal is to make mass transit as ubiquitous as it was in the days when you could take trolleys all the way from New Jersey to Boston.

By: J R Kurie

J R Kurie — Thu, 14 Aug 2008 19:56:44 +0000

I have been reading the comments about the location of the proposed Andover station. My question to those who want the station closer to the center of town by Rt 206.

Have any of you looked at the height differential between Rt 206 and the top of the fill were the tracks will run?
the Pequest Fill, which crosses the Pequest River valley, extending westward from a point one mile (1.6 km) east of Andover, New Jersey. is up to 110 feet (34 m) in height and over three miles (4.8 km) long and was the largest railroad fill in the world at the time of construction.

I’m not walking up there…

a final note – the entire original project was put together in just over 6 years. 3 years to plan (1905 – 1908) and 3 years to build (1908 – 1911) – today it has taken 20 years to decide to build a station and replace 7 miles of track.

By: Nathanael Nerode

Nathanael Nerode — Mon, 11 Aug 2008 20:18:29 +0000

And again, to the idiots out there: if the counties in Pennsylvania were allowed by the Pennsylvania state laws and constitution to fund the cutoff’s reconstruction by themselves, entirely, without NJ stations, *they would have done it already*. They aren’t allowed to. The NJ stations are a political compromise made in order to try to get the damn thing built, and it’s taken far too long already. It’s very irritating to see supposed “environmental” or “transit” organizations failing to look at the big picture. Rather than opposing the Cutoff, how about agitating to move the Andover station to a better location, and agitating to get service to Pennsylvania faster?

By: Nathanael Nerode

Nathanael Nerode — Mon, 11 Aug 2008 20:13:15 +0000

What NJ Political Addict said.

Restoring track on the Cut-Off is vital, long-term, for intercity transportation from Scranton, Binghamton, and beyond to the NYC area. For commuters, it’s vital to move the Ponocos commuters to their jobs in Morris County, NJ in an efficient manner which bypasses roads.

Arguably putting stations on the NJ part of the Cut-off is unnecessary — the vast majority of the ridership will be from Pennsylvania — and not entirely desirable. But it seems to be necessary in order to get NJ funding or support for the project, and PA’s counties, which need this project and want it done ten years ago, are not allowed to pay unilaterally for the track in NJ.

Why is there an Andover station? It allows NJT to have a reason to build the first segment when they can’t get the money to build all the way to PA. Why isn’t the Andover station in the more appropriate downtown location? Money — the Andover station is dumped on the cheapest spot which NJT already owns. Offer an extra couple of million dollars and some free property and they’ll move it, no doubt.

Stop thinking so parochially. *REAL* transit advocates have not “questioned whether the Lackawanna Cutoff is a wise investment”; it obviously is. *REAL* transit advocates have simply questioned the *details* of NJT’s plans, which are an ugly political compromise and should be improved as much as possible.

Don’t throw out the baby (fast rail service from Scranton to NY and northeastern NJ) with the bathwater (stupid station locations, too-slow schedules, etc.)