Crisis in New Jersey: Improving Commuter Service A Must, But No One Wants Job

By Frederic Cassin

(First of a series on the rail commuter crisis)

Preserving and improving commuter transit service in New Jersey is one of the more pressing problems facing the state these days. Most everyone agrees it must be done, but no one wants to undertake the job.

The railroads, struggling under deficits they say are caused by their commuter trains, seem to be looking around for someone to assume the service, or its improvement.

The Metropolitan Rapid Transit Commission, set up by the states of New Jersey and New York to work out a solution, is preparing to go out of business.

The Port of New York Authority, created in 1921 to solve the metropolitan area’s transportation puzzle, is strongly opposed to having the job thrust upon it.

The counties of Northern Jersey don’t want to have their tax money used to further any transit plan, though their governing bodies are in favor of more and better train service.

And the state Legislature has been unable to act, stalemated as it is by a dispute between factions proposing alternate ways of control and finance of a new commuter rail system. The legislators can’t decide who shall run it, or who shall pay for it.

Meanwhile, there are 75,000 commuters in New Jersey almost entirely dependent upon the trains to get them quickly and safely back and forth between home and work each day. Many of these commuters will lose this mode of train service when two commuter railroads have said they would seek permission for such abandonment.

If the two railroads succeed, it is not unlikely that other Jersey commuter lines will follow them.

Eighteen months ago, it looked as if there might be some progress made toward solution to the commuter transport problem. It was then that the first of two proposals being considered by the Metropolitan Rapid Transit Commission was made public.

The MRTC’s project director, Arthur W. Page, recommended to the commission that a new loop rail system be constructed in New Jersey and under the Hudson River, the system to be tied into the New York subway system by connections with the BMT-Manhattan Line that runs to 59th St. Between the tubes, under Page’s proposal, would be connected with two new loop routes: one at the Battery and the other near 59th St., New York. The New Jersey branch of the system would connect with all the state’s commuter railroads.

The plan also provided that the Metropolitan Transit District, a new agency to be set up to run the system, could purchase the equipment of commuter railroads and integrate them into the system.

The plan, Page said, would cost 400 million dollars.

The MRTC however, bypassed Page’s proposal and accepted in its place an alternate plan that had been under study. This alternate would also provide for construction of a loop system similar to that in the Page proposal. But the New York side of the loop would be confined to a point from the Battery to 59th St.

The cost of the alternate plan, valued at 500 million dollars, would provide direct service into New York by rail.

Under both plans, a bi-state, 13-county transit district would be set up. Each of the counties in the district—10 in New Jersey and three in New York including Manhattan—would have members on the district’s governing board.

Each county, also, would be assessed money each year to be raised as taxes on real estate to finance what was expected to be a 12 million dollar annual operations deficit.

Objections came quickly. In the first place, it was declared by some persons, the MRTC had underestimated the construction costs and annual deficits for its plans.

Herman T. Stichman, trustee of the bankrupt Hudson and Manhattan Railroad (the Tubes), came forth with a proposal which, he contended, would entail less than that entailed by the MRTC’s plans.

His proposal utilizes the existing under-Hudson tunnels of the H & M Railroad, and two New Jersey subway lines. The only new construction needed would be one under-Hudson tunnel either at 59th or 50th St. and connecting spurs between Jersey railroads and the tubes and a spur between the New York subway and the Manhattan Terminal.

While the Hudson and Manhattan has been pushing its ideas for more than a year, it has apparently made little impression.

The most important and far-reaching objection to the MRTC plan, however, was against the creation of a new agency to solve the transit problem. The proposal to charge any deficit of such operations to the counties that would compose the new district.

These counties are Hudson, Essex, Bergen, Union, Middlesex, Somerset, Monmouth, Morris, Passaic and Mercer, in New Jersey, and Rockland, Orange and New York in New York.

The counties that would be taxed, backed up by such organizations as the Inter-Municipal Group for Better Rail Service, which is composed of representatives of municipalities along the Jersey Central Railroad, reacted to that part of the plan. They were supported by members of the New Jersey Assembly.

Upon recommendation of the MRTC, bills creating the bi-state Metropolitan Transit District did, however, finally adopt a final plan upon securing approval of its actions by the legislatures of the two states, put it into effect, having been approved by both the New Jersey and New York Legislatures.

New York quickly adopted the measure. In New Jersey, the Jones Bill, incorporating the MRTC’s proposal, passed the Senate without difficulty, but bogged down in the Assembly.

Instead, a bill was introduced in that body by Assemblyman William V. Musto of Hudson County which would give the whole job to the Port of New York Authority, an organization proponents of Musto’s bill claim, that will prevent the Port system out of its profits from the operation of airports, piers, a bus terminal and other facilities. The bill was rejected in committee.

A substitute bill brought forth in the Assembly just before adjournment also failed of passage.

Under it a 10 member board would be set up to control a new transit district. It barred use of real estate taxes to meet deficits and listed the Port Authority as a possible solution.

Senator Wesley L. Lance of Hunterdon County said he would introduce an alternate suggestion for a state division of rail transportation when the 1959 session of the Legislature is in full swing. Its details will be examined tomorrow.