Article on repair and possible reuse of the world's longest vertical lift bridge for rail service to Staten Island.

http://www.pbworld.com/news_events/publications/network/issue_47/47_16_AbrahamsM_RehabilitationStudyArthurKill.asp
ryarger@rypn.org

http://www.phillyroads.com/crossings/burlington-bristol/
ryarger@rypn.org

> Article on repair and possible reuse of the
> world's longest vertical lift bridge for
> rail service to Staten Island.

This project is moving forward. Work has begun to the link this former B&O line with the former Jersey Central line at the point where the B&O crossed the CNJ and then ran on a wooden trestle. The work will allow trains to move off the Conrail "Chemical Coast" ex CNJ route into Staten Island via the former B&O Staten Island Rapic Transit.

Interestingly, the rest of the B&O line in NJ is being actively rebuilt for opertation by the Morristown & Erie. The M&E is also rebuilding the entire Rahway Valley route, despite the complaints of NIMBY's.

Once completed the M&E will be able to operate frieght on a route combinging the RV and SIRT.

And, yes all you dreamers, with NJ moving forward -- slowly -- on the DL&W cut-off rebuild, there will be a direct route to the new terminals on Staten Island that will totally avoid Conrail, NS and CSX east of Binghamton. How? Here:

CPR Bingo - Scranton
D-L Scranton - Slateford Jct, PA
TBD Slateford - Port Morris Jct.
M&E Port Morris - Staten Island

Catenary around Dover will limit train height, but it is an interesting back door into NY harbor.

Rob

> And, yes all you dreamers, with NJ moving forward -- slowly -- on the DL&W cut-off rebuild, there will be a direct route to the new terminals on Staten Island that will totally avoid Conrail, NS and CSX east of Binghamton. How? Here:

CPR Bingo - Scranton
D-L Scranton - Slateford Jct, PA
TBD Slateford - Port Morris Jct.
M&E Port Morris - Staten Island

an interesting back door into NY harbor.

It goes farther from Binghamton:
NYS&W to Utica or Syracuse, then whoever has the Adirondac to someplace in the north woods; and CPR goes all over Northern North America!

This all dies if ConRail gets the SIRT!

104577.651@compuserve.com

It has been posted on other forums that the SIRT line is being severed at the Chemical Coast connection. The new connection is to replace the old CNJ Cranford connection.

There are also some restrictions on M&E operating trains on the old RVRR. Things like train length and frequency, all of which would prohibit M&E from effectivly serving Howland Hook, even if the track was there.

There are about 13 pages over on Railroad.net on this topic. Lots of speculation, and many misunderstandings and misconceptions abound on this topic.

I believe I read, somewhere in those 13 pages, that the traffic would go north to Oak Island. So, it seems that Conrail, NS and CSX will remain in the picture.

> Interestingly, the rest of the B&O line
> in NJ is being actively rebuilt for
> opertation by the Morristown & Erie. The
> M&E is also rebuilding the entire Rahway
> Valley route, despite the complaints of
> NIMBY's.

> Once completed the M&E will be able to
> operate frieght on a route combinging the RV
> and SIRT.

> And, yes all you dreamers, with NJ moving
> forward -- slowly -- on the DL&W cut-off
> rebuild, there will be a direct route to the
> new terminals on Staten Island that will
> totally avoid Conrail, NS and CSX east of
> Binghamton.



edm5970@earthlink.net

> It has been posted on other forums that the
> SIRT line is being severed at the Chemical
> Coast connection. The new connection is to
> replace the old CNJ Cranford connection.

That's one part of the project I can't get a straight story on. There is a connection being built from CC, but is the SIRT going to be severed or just have the new connection added?

I have heard both, and hope the latter is true.

The Cranford-Linden portion is expected to be done this Fall according to the Star Ledger. The paper reports the M&E will run over the ex CNJ (NJ Transit) main from Cranford to interchange at Bound Brook. Alcos back ont he CNJ! Whodathunk?

In the first year, they are limtied to 3 trains a week, of 15 cars legnth. Well, at least these are two lines coming back as railroads and not being rail-trailed!

Rob

> This all dies if ConRail gets the SIRT!

Uh - I hate to be the bearer of ill tidings but I will repost my previous comments from Railroad.net below (note: 2 A and B disappeared during one of Railroad.net's crashes)
Analysis of the latest decision is at the very end.

1. Concerning Howland Hook and AK Bridge -
GOVERNOR ANNOUNCES REACTIVATION OF STATEN ISLAND RAILROAD
Posted: Wed Apr 28, 2004 11:37 am
Gentlemen;

If you will take the trouble to read the Port Authority filing and STB decisions the question of who will operate the line has already been answered. A footnote on page 3 of the PA filing states that CSX and NS will be the operators.

This is confirmed in the third paragraph of the decision.

Further decision on the modified certificate was released March 19th.

Side note from my own days as a cavalry officer - If AK is not in service The 10th Mountain can do a road march from the port and load their wheels at a railhead in New Jersey. They have to load anyway and itÂ’s not a bad training exercise. The tracks will have to move by truck, either using Transportation Corps lowboys or a contract trucker. Having said that I realized that there are several sites to which the tracks could be barged.

GME

Port Authority Petition for Declaratory Order:
http://wwhttp://www.stb.dot.gov/FILINGS ... enDocument

STB Decision:
http://www.stb.dot.gov/Decisions/readin ... 46a685256e
210077307a?OpenDocument

The decision on the modified certificate is:
http://www.stb.dot.gov/Decisions/readin ... enDocument

2. The overall project,the lawsuits and the nimby's:

A. IÂ’ve decided its time to add another aspect to this discussion

As a matter of Public Policy I think that cross-connecting Rights-of-Way such as that of the Rahway Valley should remain open (or should have been kept open) even if they are not in active rail use. This applies equally to he Cutoff, the CNJ Highbridge Branch, Wharton and Northern, the WJ&S from Newfield to Atlantic City, The Camden and Amboy, Mount Holly to Bay Head, the Southern Division, et cetera. It even applies to the Morristown and Erie to Essex Fells. I also think that Summit to the ferry terminal at St George would be a very reasonable cross suburban route. I am not convinced that there is sufficient freight business available on the Rahway Valley to support an unsubsidized operation.
Having said that, and having finally read the Petition to Reopen filed with the Surface Transportation Board (STB) by Five New Jersey Municipalities, I do not believe that the real issue here is whether or not the rights-of-way will remain open. I do not believe that there is any real legal question there. I believe the actual question is just what authority the STB approval of Verified Notice of Exemption actually confers on the carrier, in this instance the Morristown and Erie (M&E).
The facts, as I understand them are:
The rights-of-way (though not necessarily a fee interest in the property – I have not researched this nor do I intend to if nobody hires us) are owned by the State of New Jersey and the State has delegated the management of the property to Union County
A contract or more accurately a series of contracts and agreements exist between variously the State, Union County, The Morristown and Erie, and the Five Municipalities concerning the rehabilitation of these lines. For simplicityÂ’s sake I am going to refer to these in the singular, as the contract.
One of the conditions of the contract is that the lines will not be reopened without the written consent of the municipalities effected.
It is clear from the fact of the filing that the Five Municipalities have not given their consent.
The ability of any Railroad to operate as a common carrier on or over any given piece of real estate is dependant on the Railroad having some form of property right, such as a lease or an easement or outright ownership. An operating exemption is not a condemnation of property or an exercise of eminent domain. The exemption granted to the M&E by the STB does not in and of itself confer any property rights on the M&E only the right to operate as a common carrier across that property. It is possible for a carrier to file a Verified Notice of Exemption to operate a certain property on which they have no property rights whatever and have the exemption approved. In this type of case the STB has ruled that the exemption is not effective until and unless the carrier does acquire the legal right to use the property. (See Morristown and Erie – Authority to Operate Somerset Terminal Railroad).
What seems to have happened here is that the M&E and/or Union County has taken the position that the fact of the STB action pre-empts the need to abide by the terms of the contract. They have gone ahead with the rehabilitation without the concurrence of the Five Municipalities and therefore the conditions of the contract giving the M&E the right to use the have not been met. If the M&E does not have the right to use the property then the exemption is moot.
The current management of the M&E has done this before. Even though the M&EÂ’s amended filings in Somerset showed that they were aware that Somerset did not have title to the property involved, and the STB Ruling was very clear that the exemption was not valid until and unless a court ruled in SomersetÂ’s favor and awarded them the disputed property, I understand from one of my former officers who is familiar with the case that the M&E tried on at least one occasion to send a crews to commence operations and that a representative of the company filed an application with NJ DOT for rehabilitation funds which stated that the M&E had custody of the property and apparently stated, through SomersetÂ’s attorney, to the court that was hearing the dispute, that they had obtained the state funding when in fact they had not. There was even a claim made in one of the court filing that the M&E was to operate the Somerset property because of the exemption made before the notice was even published in the Federal Register. There was also some very questionable testimony from an officer of the M&E concerning orders from various federal agencies but as I do not have either the depositions or a trial transcript to refer to I am not going to comment on the specifics.
None of the concerns cited in the petition strikes me as unreasonable. They are very much the same as I would expect if an old industrial site in what is now a residential area were being excavated and the people living there wanted to know what was going on, or if a new highway were planned for your neighborhood. I daresay that if almost anyone on this message board were placed in a position where he was told that certain highly disruptive actions which affected his home would not be taken until his concerns were met and he had agreed in writing and was then told “Too bad were doing it anyway. So sue me.”, you would be screaming and looking for a lawyer also. If you thought you weren’t getting straight answers I think your response would be all the more vehement.
All of this can probably be dealt with in a reasonable manner if the townspeople felt they were getting straight answers and if the M&E did not appear to be acting beyond its authority
My concern, if I were sitting on the STB, is the apparent magnification of the authority conveyed by and the use of the operating exemption to claim rights which it does not convey. I would probably be willing to reopen and accept argument and if the showing was made by the Five Municipalities that that the terms of the contract had not been met I would be inclined to issue a clarification stating that the exemption could not be considered effective and that no authority was conveyed until the deficiencies were cured. In view of the history here I would also be inclined to ask staff to audit the original filings for misstatements of fact.
I would like to see the project completed. I do not want to see it done in a way which runs roughshod over the people effected and where the company doing it appears to take the position that they are not bound by the normal rules of civilized behavior.
When I was a poor grad student courting my lovely late wife I would make a regular trip Rutgers on the Pennsy from New Brunswick to Newark, the H&M to Hoboken, and the DL&W to Convent. (I usually made just as good time as if I went across Newark to Broad St). I used to think that it would make sense if the B&OÂ’s Rapid Transit crossed the bridge to Cranford and if I could cut the corner by taking this and the Rahway Valley to Summit. I am hoping our grandchildren will be able to.
GME

B. Some comments in rebuttal:

In response to RVRR Neighbor's comments about respecting the M&E's privacy:

The M&E was not merely hired to do a job. They have acquired the right to operate the line for their own benefit. The resurrection of the Rahway Valley is not a private business dealing. It is a publicly owned property being rehabilitated with primarily public funds with the appearance of a substantial benefit to a private company. What benefit that private company receives and from where is a matter that merits public scrutiny. The generic argument that such a project will reduce truck traffic is not valid if there is no hard data substantiating the claim. The M&E has apparently refused to provide this data and that refusal alone is grounds for suspicion. Further, there is some anecdotal evidence (see page 58 of the Petition to Reopen) that Mr. Fuller has stated that the line is a link in a route from Staten Island to Scranton, PA. If indeed Mr. Fuller did make this statement it lends credence to the belief that the line will be used for through traffic and this legitimizes the concerns of many of the area residents and gets us back to what I said before about straight answers.

The Scranton comment implies that the driving force here might actually be the Canadian Pacific and its access to New York Harbor. The implied routing is CP to Scranton, Delaware Lackawanna Scranton to Stroudsburg, somebody (probably M&E) on the cutoff from Stroudsburg to Port Morris, and then the M&E via the Morris and Essex, Rahway Valley, and Staten Island Ry. I have some trouble with the idea of the though route to Scranton for a whole slew of reasons: 1) I doubt that Norfolk Southern would willingly give up the Canadian Pacific traffic and then allow it onto Shared Assets; 2) Clearances from Summit to Dover on the Morris and Essex would preclude double stack container traffic; 3) an STB decision released this morning (STB Finance Docket No. 34428, PORT AUTHORITY OF NEW YORK AND NEW JERSEY -- PETITION FOR DECLARATORY ORDER, Decided: January 20, 2004) indicates that the Staten Island will be severed east of the New Jersey Turnpike and a new connection installed to the Chemical Coast and thereby CSX, NS, and Conrail (the decision is very clear about this connection replacing the previous connections); 4) Any time advantage from using the cutoff would almost certainly be negated by the availability of widows on New Jersey Transit, having to creep from Summit to Cranford, and then the round about routing from Cranford to the Arthur Kill or the reverse movement on the Rartian Valley ; 5) (opinion) State money spent on increasing freight capacity to the west would be more effectively spent on the Lehigh Line / Raritan Valley combination and on the Port Jervis line, even the using the cutoff to the Boonton Line and rehabbing the lower end of that seems to make more economic sense as a through route.

As to cjl330's question about where in the contract between the County and the M&E is the provision about municipal consent - it isn't. The consent provision is in a resolution passed by the Board of Freeholders 902-02 (8/22/2002).

The contract between the County and the M&E and the filing of the Notice creates a representation that both parties are legally competent to enter into the contract. The STB decisions normally contain a line of dicta which reads something like, " If the notice contains false or misleading information the exemption is void ab initio." In normal English what this means is that the notice is not valid if a material representation is not true. The question is whether or not the county was bound by the resolution cited above. The Five Municipalities clearly believe so. If the county was bound by the resolution then they were not legally able to enter into the contract, the contract is therefore void, and therefore so as the exemption is based on the representation of a valid contract it too is void.

The STB is not going to rule on the validity of the contract or the status of the Freeholders' resolution. They will almost certainly leave that to a court to determine. The Five Municipalities do have to start at the lowest tribunal having jurisdiction, which is the STB.

With the caveat that I have absolutely no idea what is going to happen here and I am just guessing, here is what I suspect. As of close of business today no responses had been filed. The normal rule is that an unopposed petition will be granted. If the M&E is unwilling to reveal their customers then they cannot show that they will be harmed by a stay. The Five Municipalities may be able to show harm from the lack of a stay for a proper environmental analysis. If this is not settled and both the Five Municipalities and Union County/M&E want to go to the mat with this it should be quite a show.

GME

C. Posted: Fri Aug 06, 2004 10:50 am Post subject: Encroahers or tenants
fox7344 wrote "Also be aware that those encroachers are leasing that property from the county of union and will be given if the have not already been given notices to vacate the premises within 30 days time.That is my understanding from my county contact."

You certainly were not awake in my property law class - If any of the entities which have been using the railbed are actually leasing it from the County they are tenants, not enroachers. If this is the case They have a right to be on the property and there is a need for action on the County's part to terminate the lease. The County or its agent cannot just buldoze through. While I cannot comment specifically without reading the lease(s), some of the tenants may actually have a cause of action here (breach of contract et c.) that will have to be solved with an application of money.

D. Posted: Sat Aug 07, 2004 12:44 pm Post subject:
I was responding to the comment above my last, which stated that "encroachers " had leased property from the county.

As I said, without actually reading the leases (if any) I cannot comment accurately. It does strike me as feasible that if there was an agreement between the state and the county which allowed the county to act as the state's agent then the county could lease the land to the adjacent businesses.

Any question of property taxes is a matter that would be dealt with by the lease.

One of the problems with discussions like this one is that speculation and fact can, through nobody's fault, become mixed. I do not know if there are any leases. I do not know what these leases which may or may not be real say. I am not sending my granddaughter down to New Jersey to research this.

The discussion has gone from a statement by someone who may have some inside knowledge or a contact that there are leases to what could appear to be a claim (though it actually isn't) that the tenants are behind on their obligations.

By the way, I disagree on the common interpretation of he STB's decision not to reopen. What the ruling said was that the M&E's operation of the Union County Lines would be exempt from regulation so long as it remained within the limits specified in the original petition. If a showing is made that the operation is exceeding those limits then the matter can be reopened.

Exemptions are not permission for anything except in a backhanded sort of way. What they are is a statement by the regulatory authority that a transaction need not be regulated because it falls within certain parameters. This decision by the STB is based on the information in the filing. If the information in the original filing can be shown to be incorrect then the matter is subject to regulatory review and the board may approve or disapprove. The Riffin case in Maryland is a good example of this. The STB published the notice that Mr. RiffinÂ’s operation would be exempt. Then the state of Maryland and Norfolk Southern filed various motions and statements asking that the exemption be revoked on various grounds including that Mr. Riffin did not have the right to use the property which he claimed. The board reviewed the matter and revoked the exemption. Mr. Riffin was invited to return with a petition which would be subject to full regulatory scrutiny. An example closer to home is the M&E/Somerset Terminal. The ruling was that while the transaction as presented fit the parameters for an exemption and would therefor be exempt if it ever occurred, it just didnÂ’t matter because Somerset still had to show that they had any rights at all to the property. The board made very clear that the decision to grant the exemption was not a determination of property rights, only that the transaction between Somerset and the M&E would be exempt from regulatory scrutiny.

I have also seen several comments on this board (RRnet) that the M&E will operate into Port Reading Junction (Manville Yard) when they start operating the Rahway Valley. Neither my granddaughter nor I have seen any filings that support this. Would somebody please be kind enough to give me the reference?

GME


gmedwardsesq@juno.co

> I have also seen several comments on this
> board (RRnet) that the M&E will operate
> into Port Reading Junction (Manville Yard)
> when they start operating the Rahway Valley.
> Neither my granddaughter nor I have seen any
> filings that support this. Would somebody
> please be kind enough to give me the
> reference?

Not having the time to wander the STB filings, all I can point you to is a Star Ledger article from last month saying the municipal hurdles on the SIRT have been cleared and that trackage rights on NJT are being sought to perform interchange in "Bound Brook." Whether that should be taken literally... that they are going to drop cars for NS at Bound Brook" or if they are going to drop them at the Conrail yard in Manville is open to interpretation from the article.

Rob

So that those who are not familiar with the geography understand, The portion of the Staten Island which can be connected (note: I said "can" not "will")to NJT is not the part that crosses at AK.

GME

> Not having the time to wander the STB
> filings, all I can point you to is a Star
> Ledger article from last month saying the
> municipal hurdles on the SIRT have been
> cleared and that trackage rights on NJT are
> being sought to perform interchange in
> "Bound Brook." Whether that should
> be taken literally... that they are going to
> drop cars for NS at Bound Brook" or if
> they are going to drop them at the Conrail
> yard in Manville is open to interpretation
> from the article.

> Rob


gmedwardsesq@juno.co