The New Jersey Transportation Planning Authority, the metropolitan planning organization for northern NJ, recently advanced the first part of the Lackawanna Cutoff, a long-discussed project to restore rail service between Scranton, Pa. and Morris County, NJ, connecting Scranton to Hoboken and New York City. Most of the restored line would run through low-density rural and natural areas, meaning it would attract few riders, do little to get cars off the road (as NJ Transit officials have said in the past), and promote development on open space (see MTR #s 532, 285). NJTPA’s amendment to the state capital plan dedicates $36.6 million to restore 7.3 miles of rail between Port Morris Junction and Andover, NJ, and build a new station in Andover. The Environmental Assessment (EA) for the project, released last month, details the project’s major flaws.
The proposed Andover station (pictured below) is an example of the problems which plague the entire Lackawanna Cutoff. The station is sited on a narrow rural road and will be immediately across from last year’s highest ranked federal Forest Legacy Project Area. Development around the proposed site could have major impacts on the Highlands Preservation Area adjacent to Andover, injecting sprawl into one of the most beautifully rural parts of the Highlands.
A proposed rail station for Andover would be built far from existing development. (Yellow outline is proposed station, brown highlighted area is threatened and endangered species habitat, white-and-green swaths are wetlands – Click image for expanded picture and map legend.)
NJ Transit projects that just 260 daily riders will use the new Andover station by 2030, which will initially be served by eight eastbound and eight westbound trains per day with no weekend service. If the entire project is built it would attract 3,520 daily one-way boardings by 2030 (the EA does not include two-way ridership projections). The costs? $36.6 million to construct the first segment and $551 million for the entire project.
Moreover, the expansion could encourage urban-dwelling commuters to migrate to some of the state’s largest and most environmentally sensitive undeveloped tracts. In fact, the EA lists the “untapped economic development potential in the region” as a rationale for the project. Although the EA denies that the rail project will have any effects on local land use, it admits that land use is ultimately controlled by local and regional bodies.
Transit and environmental advocates have long questioned whether the Lackawanna Cutoff is a wise investment. Such concerns are especially relevant during a year that has seen NJ Transit cut service on several lines due to low ridership and waning operating funds, and when the state must deal with structural deficits in its budget and the Transportation Trust Fund. Certainly transit in New Jersey needs to be expanded. The question is whether the Lackawanna Cutoff money should be spent on transit needs in denser, more urban areas.
Public Meeting – Tuesday, July 10
NJ Transit will hold the first of two public meetings on the Lackawanna Cutoff (and the only one in New Jersey) from 4-8 pm tomorrow, July 10, at Perona Farms, 350 Andover-Sparta Road, Andover. Written comments on the project can be sent to Vincent Truncellito of NJ Transit at vtruncellito@NJTRANSIT.COM. For more information see the project website here.
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.)
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?
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.
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.
As a Scrantonian I have been following this project closely. Numerous people I know commute to the city and surrounding communities for work on a daily basis and are looking for a viable option out (other than moving) – especially with the current price of fuel (which is only going to climb higher). In fact, I have yet to find someone who if asked whether they would prefer to drive, take the Martz bus, or take a train, would pick any other option over a train…that is until I tell them that it will take 3 hours! I can drive there in less time which defeats the entire purpose and negates the marginal benefit of such a rail service. I agree with Joe – this should be a high speed route…it needs to offer an advantage over the convenience love Americans have for their vehicles. (If it will be 3 hours long it better at least have free Wireless!)
Is it truly necessary to build so many stations? I say Scranton, Mt Pocono, Stroudsburg, a few in NJ’s busier stations on the line, then direct Hoboken. We do not need a station in every backyard…just the most populous communities along the line.
I fully agree that part of the rebuilding of the Lackawanna Cutoff is to give people a choice other than pollution producing cars and busses. I’m afraid you suffer the same misconception that the idea of the Cutoff is to commute to NYC. It is not, as most passengers will be going from the Pocono’s to the greater Morris County area.
Take a look at the number of people that commute from Port Jervis and eastern Long Island as well as parts of Connecticut-some of these people travel greater distances.
The comparison of the 3 1/2 billion dollars it would take to add a lane from 287 to the Delaware Water Gap is the final convincing argument. After several years of horrible traffic tie-ups for construction, within two years experience has shown that the traffic patterns will be the same as before expansion. With trains, just add more cars or sections.
Perhaps if TSTC were as opposed to the latest NJT and 33% PATH fare hikes as they are to the Cutoff, instead of foolishly endorsing them, it would have had some positive environmental impact and reduced traffic, if they were the least bit interested in public transit users, which of course they are not. OTOH, endorsing the boondoggle approach to ARC is unimpressive, and does nothing for non-Manhattan bound commuters anyway, which is 90% of us. You get a job where you can get a job and dodge bullets and pray is doesn’t get moved to India or China.
80% of the Water Gap’s rush hour auto crossings are to jobs in Morris County. Telling them in essence to move from Mount Pocono and Stroudsburg to Paterson is a fantasy. Perhaps if TSTC did some thinking instead of taking dictation from the clueless Sierra Club, they would come up with something constructive.
While I understand the apprehension over the potential sprawl-inducing effects of the western New Jersey stations on the Lackawanna Cutoff, there are much larger issues to consider. This line would form the first step in the reintroduction of an intercity rail system into Northeastern Pennsylvania and the Southern Tier of New York.
In many ways the project is more similar to Amtrak’s intercity service to Albany than it is to MetroNorth’s service to, say, Port Jervis. Amtrak’s Albany service has had a significant positive effect on the Capital District and the Hudson Valley, but has not been a major cause of sprawl. This is because the service is aimed at business travel, cultural trips, recreation, and so on, and not at daily commuting.
The land use patterns in the Lackawanna Valley and the Southern Tier are historically closely tied to stations on the main line railroads that operated through this area and supported the heavy industrial economy of the region. By reinvigorating these patterns, the Cutoff has the potential to create the same type of positive effect seen along Amtrak’s Empire Service in the Hudson Valley.
While the passenger boarding numbers may be low on the Lackawanna Cutoff, each one of these people represents a large potential converstion of VMT to transit. A single trip from Scanton to NYC is about 250 miles round-trip, or a month of 5 mile one way commutes.
People still need to travel where overall development density is low. They also need to travel between these areas and areas of very high density, like New York City, and they will often choose transit to do so.
We can’t stop all sustainable transportation projects because they might have localized negative, near-term effects on land use. In the long run we are going to have to find a way to make land use planning work or nothing else that we do will have a lasting effect.
Of course, this not an excuse to ignore the opportunity to make the Lackawanna Cutoff stations models of transit oriented development.
The larger issue of longer term regional rail transportation definitely needs to be considered. I have many relatives in the Scranton area who would love to be able to ride a train into the NYC area a few times a year, the reverse applies as well – at least for me. If you can get to Scranton by train, then maybe 30 years from now (who knows, maybe sooner) you’ll be able to get to Syracuse or Binghampton or Utica or deeper into PA as well.
This corridor should be thought of as another step in making the full eastern seaboard rail accessible. Commuting from the Poconos to NYC is a bit ridculous, I’ll agree, but if someone can at least park-and-ride and train it that’s better than driving that’s definitely better. What this really should be thought of is a way to make any regional trip possible without a car at some point in the future (we’ll always have cars, but the choice is necessary).
Your comments on the rail service typify your apparent attitude that New Jersey ends at Summit. There are thousands of people that live in western Morris, southern Sussex. and northern Warren Counties that have no option than the car for transportation.
Properly created and enforced land use laws are the way to control sprawl, not by restricting public transportation.
The relative low ridership (one way) figures were determined by models that were established when gasoline was well under $2.00 per gallon in the early part of this century. If these demographics were redone using today’s prices, which will be here for a long time, current rolling stock projections will probably be totally inadequate. Additionally, the forces driving NJ residents to buy in Pennsylvania, ie. the high cost of living driven by the corruption in government among other factors, will not significantly decrease in the near future.
The building of the Lackawanna Cutoff is long overdue. Although it has a price tag, it is significantly less expensive than trying to add lanes to I-80 at a cost of $30-50 million per lane mile. It is an investment that must be made without delay.
It would be interesting to require at least one of your staff members to live in Warren County before writing on this topic about which they obviously have little personal knowledge.
I am a big fan of TSTC, but have always been puzzled and disappointed by its opposition to the Lackawanna Cutoff. Adding a sustainable transportation option to an already fast growing portion of the region is a no-brainer. Some of the proposed station sites are curious, but we all know it is difficult to navigate the NIMBY’s and local government wishes.
With our whole new paradigm of high gas prices and environmental awareness, every rail expansion remotely considered throughout the state should be pursued. I’m surprised that your staff does not understand how the chances of NJ Transit getting dedicated funding will improve when more parts of the state get to see the effectiveness of rail transit first hand.
The Lackawanna Cutoff Project re-activates an existing railroad infrastructure segment that has been dormant and forlorn since 1979. It is a great example of how my tax dollars SHOULD be utilized. The NJTPA under the leadership of Sussex County Freeholder Susan Zellman made a great decision to fund the initial MOS from Port Morris into Andover Township. It is a wise investment.
The Lackawanna Railroad did not construct the elevated Pequest Fill over Andover Borough or bore the Roseville Tunnel in Byram at considerable expense for the purposes of creating wildlife preserve. It was a working railroad then and that is what it should be now. It was shortsighted and ignorant public planning and neglect that allowed the Lackawanna Cutoff AND the nearby DL&W Sussex Branch to de-activated in the 1960s and 1970s.
Sprawl already exists in Sussex County and will only get worse, even without the Cutoff re-activation. Decisions handed down by liberal out-of-control NJ State Supreme Court judges on where and when municipalities must construct high-density affordable housing in conflict with local zoning regulations do far more to destroy wildlife habitat and contaminate ground water than the addition of a few new rail stations.
Previous posts in this blog have already very eloquently listed the considerable transportation and quality-of-life benefits that rail transit will bring to Warren and Sussex Counties. As a life-long resident of the Newton-Andover Township area I demand that I get a return on my taxes and that this area get the rail service that other counties like Morris, Essex, and Bergen have enjoyed for years, not only on weekdays but on weekends as well. I want other options besides my personal auto or the Lakeland Bus for mobility.
Do you three have any clue WHERE they are placing this station? In the middle of NOWHERE!
Look here: http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&geocode=&q=355+Roseville+Rd.+Andover,+NJ&sll=40.981777,-74.727416&sspn=0.012262,0.016801&ie=UTF8&ll=40.981696,-74.728146&spn=0.012262,0.016801&t=h&z=16&iwloc=addr
What happened to smart planning and building “transit villages?” Move this station less than a mile into Andover Boro proper, build a two-story parking ramp with a station atop it next to the elevated tracks, and people would be rallying en masse to support this.
What about Pennsylvania? The map shows a lot of twists and turns, slowing speeds to around 50 mph over most the route between Delaware River and Scranton…Scranton to NYC is about 120 miles….should be 1.5 hours by HSR if you really want to “get people out of their cars”. This route should be part of a national high-speed rail strategy that basically duplicates the Interstate Highway System in the NE. Simply restoring service in the same old way with commuter rail coaches hauled by heavy diesels at relatively slow speeds isn’t going to work.
The restoration of the Lackawanna Cutoff is decades overdue. There is massive traffic through the Poconos and western NJ that will never get remedied by added capacity for I80. People commute from Scranton and vicinity to New York City on a daily basis. Numerous people travel to the Poconos for skiing and other attractions. I’m a native of Scranton, working in Manhattan, living first in Manhattan and now on Long Island, and for years I’d periodically traveled to Scranton by bus and later by car, a long and slow trip. Decent train service (into Penn, not terminating on the wrong side of the Hudson) would make a huge difference. Choice of the right equipment (NJT’s proposed dual modes with diesel and pantographs) could take skiiers directly from Long Island to the Poconos in winter. Baseball fans could go from NYC to see the Yankees AAA farm club in Scranton. Steamtown National Historic Site would get a great tourism boost. And with all the firms that have established call centers and the like in the Scranton area, executives could easily get there by train – as opposed to renting a car. There is no viable air service.
The TSC and Sierra Club are off target (again), first the Sierra Club objected to the sidings project on the Pascack Valley line, now objecting to the cutoff service restoration, this project when complete will help to divert drivers from I-80. I’d recommend reading the public comments from the residents in the area, seems to be overwhelming support for this. New Jersey on the whole, has a population density greater than China AND India, that’s the fact, it can’t be changed by wishing. If you have problems with the plan, then work on the local level to implement master plans to limit growth, work to relocate the station, don’t just have a knee-jerk “NO” reaction. You should be thankful that NJT has acted at all
Perhaps a better argument against the initial portion of the project is that the 36.6 million might be better spent serving higher density areas.
While NJ may have denser population than China or India, a lot of that density isn’t located along the proposed path of the cutoff. I’ll admit it’s been awhile since I looked closely at the numbers, but I do remember the plan will remove several hundred cars from local freeways. That’s not even enough traffic that the benefits would be noticed by your average commuters. That money could be better spent, to move more people, elsewhere.
Thanks for all your comments. As an advocacy group that promotes transit, questioning potential rail projects is not an easy choice. However, looking at the numbers, this project doesn’t quite add up. The main reason, as J points out above, is that there needs to be density to support rail service and the areas along the proposed Lackawanna line are not dense at all.
Peter Newman and Jeffrey Kenworthy recommend densities above 30-40 persons/hectare (12-16 persons/acre, 12-20 units of housing per acre) for public transit oriented urban lifestyles. Jeff Zupan has recommended 12 units of housing per acre for rapid transit.
The minimum seems to be about 4 housing units per acre for bus service, which is more flexible and can generally serve lower densities than rail transit. Much of the area around the Lackawanna Cutoff is simply not that dense.
Perhaps the millions spent on the Lackawanna Cutoff should be better spent in urban places like Newark, Elizabeth, or Trenton, where many people do not even own cars and rely solely on transit to get around.
It is not without precedent that counties fund their own transit improvements. If Sussex, Warren, those in PA and NY want to restore service to Manhattan via the cut-off – then let them fund it. No objections, here. Yet, I’ll agree that its a dubious use of state funds (per capita benefit). Good work Tri-State.
The important issue is to look at what this line can serve when completed to PA, there will be many opportunity’s to divert greater numbers of drivers off RT 80. For ex Warrington / Columbia where 80 and 46 intersect. Also check the $ per gallon cost estimate for the ridership numbers, that has changed the equation greatly. Again the focus should be on local master planning and working within the process to ensure the greater objectives.
PS the population numbers came from a Rutgers study fall 2007
Folks are missing the larger regional transportation, land use and economic development issues.
Reactivation of this line – like all transportation infrastructure – will drive land use decisions and stimulate growth. In fact, certain minimum densities are required to make such investments cost effective.
Is it desirable to stimulate growth in this region?
Supporters of rail and “mass transit” (I am one) see many other more cost effective investments. How is this project possibly justified on economic, cost effectiveness, or transportation mobility/acces grounds? ($500+ million is a LOT of money)
“Although the EA denies that the rail project will have any effects on local land use, it admits that land use is ultimately controlled by local and regional bodies.”
Perhaps the greatest irony came at an NJ Transit meeting with Byram Township on June 18th, where a NJ Transit rep told those questioning whether the location would induce sprawl that it would not, “with good local planning.”
The placing of a train station in the middle of a wooded field over 1.1 miles from any infrastructure and State Route 206 (a perferct REAL transit village location), in an economically impoverished town (Andover Boro) that could benefit from an injection of regional commuters and redevelopment – can only be blamed on “bad regional transit planning.”
Get with the program, NJ Transit!
Thanks Zoe and TSYC for staying on top of this one.
The Lackawanna mainline is perhaps best suited for intercity service to New York City as an Amtrak route. Amtrak is currently invloved in the initial study phase to use the route between Syracuse and Hoboken as a new rail corridor to serve NYC and connect with their existing system at Syracuse. It will be interesting to see what happens as Amtrak comes in as a development partner on this new rail corridor project.
While I understand RPA’s and Tri-State’s concerns about the intermediate piece of this rail extension, as I understand the landscape out there, it’s the only viable way to restore rail service to Scranton, PA and then on to Binghamton, NY. Both of these communities are very committed to restoring a rail connection to NYC and the Cutoff is the only way to do it. Maybe there should just be no stations in the rural portions of northwest NJ.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
I understand what you’re trying to mention, but i think something is wrong on this article.
[…] An infill station adds roughly 60-90 seconds to a train’s schedule, depending on the type of train and how many passengers use the stop. The inconvenience to other train passengers is minimal, but the benefit for passengers at the new station is significant. It’s a strategy to make better use out of the transit system we have, rather than spending millions of dollars on expensive extensions out into the fringes of suburbia. […]
[…] the agency also approved the first phase of the Lackawanna Cutoff rail project, planning to build a station in the sparsely developed Highlands that could induce greenfield construction and is not projected to attract many […]
This metro area is going a monstrous change . The most part of this is in the transit division . I hope that Stewart Airport is considered part of this metro area. Many times it isn’t. Also, Allentown, and Easton, Pa. got to be the western edge of the Metro area. Yes. The effort of NYC does reach out that far. The final idea I want to speak about is that Rail Electrification must be the major project(s) in this part of the lower 48. Croton-on -Hudson to Schenectady, Dover, NJ to East Stroudsburg, Pa., Long Branch, NJ to end of that line in South Jersey.