NEWSLETTER REPORT December 21, 2010 Published Bi-Monthly PO Box 68, Chatham, N.J

Transcription

1 December 21, 2010 Published Bi-Monthly PO Box 68, Chatham, N.J HOBOKEN TERMINAL S ROLE SEEMS (MORE) SECURE Sources are telling NJ-ARP that New Jersey Transit is revising its view of Hoboken Terminal as a transportation facility, to some degree based on the termination of Access to the Region s Core. Capacity already is near its limits (at least at peak hours) on the Northeast Corridor, but demand is seen rising for access to Manhattan (and gasp! New Jersey s Gold Coast imagine that!). To be fair, NJT s Interest in Hoboken s Real Estate Potential Never Has Waned: NJT s real estate interests have been keen not only on recovering unused terminal space above the ferry slips, but in developing acres of space over the terminal yards, straddling the Hoboken-Jersey City border. Jersey City has in essence welcomed plans for skyscrapers on platforms on its portion of the yards; Hoboken, weighing density and city character issues, has been much more wary of such a plan. Still, the latest Development Plan Eyes Big Building Housing Bus Terminal: NJT s prime effort at year s end is to develop the blacktop bus shelter area northeast of the terminal building itself, along Hudson Place in Hoboken. NJ-ARP s initial take, for a transport point of view: Almost any development couldn t help but improve Hoboken s current shabby bus terminal operations, and the large, boxy building proposed for the site would at least offer shelter and sheltered access to the adjacent train sheds, as well as improved pedestrian access. The box building, though rising taller than Hoboken Terminal s clock tower, at least displays some sensitivity to the low-lying terminal layout, but that s a judgment call for the city and architecture critics. Meanwhile, the Ongoing Work at Ferry Slips Continues: Work has been slow, but steady, as construction crews continue rehabilitating fi ve of the six ferry slips in the terminal to resume upgraded ferry service across the Hudson, more vital now given ARC s demise. (The sixth slip reportedly still is being restored to historic standards, presumably also making it usable at least to some degree.) REQUIRED READING: NARP DECEMBER NEWSLETTER ON ARC Time and space constraints prevent this from publishing NJ-ARP s overall review of the ARC issue, but thanks to heavy lifting by NJ-ARP Director and NARP Vice President Albert L. Papp, Jr., our take on the issue is available in the December 2010 NARP News (see images/uploads/1010.pdf). The review includes our ongoing concern for the other portion of ARC still breathing: Portal Bridge, the aging and cantankerous span in the New Jersey Meadowlands at times plaguing Northeast Corridor operations. Papp s efforts for publication of an ARC update, following NARP s November take on the matter, was prompted by Disastisfaction of Overall Analysis, Flawed Blame Game : There s blame to share for plenty of groups, and NJ-ARP includes itself. But too much blame, in our view, was assigned to New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie in NARP s November take, leaving out plenty of congressional players and a host of New York metropolitan area groups who we ll be blunt wouldn t give NJ-ARP and/or the Sierra Club of New Jersey the time of day until the tide turned then sought to blame NJ-ARP for, in essence, not going along to get along. We hope the article in the NARP December issue rectifi es such oversight. PJ&B TO REMAIN RAIL, BUT TRUNCATION STILL A THREAT Credit Princeton-area citizens and rail riders for pushing back against converting the Princeton Junction & Back (PJ&B) rail line to Bus Rapid Transit (BRT). The Regional Planning Board of Princeton expressed unanimous support for retaining the Dinky at its December meeting, and also stated in a resolution that it seeks more frequent service, ensure the meeting of trains from the Northeast Corridor (Princeton Junction) during peak commuter hours. NJ-ARP Director Jack May lent an organizational hand to those defending passenger rails service. But the Real Battle, over Real Estate, Remains in Play: Princeton University isn t into BRT for the transport; it simply wants to shorten the shuttle line to add more real estate to its development potential, and consistently has proposed moving the Dinky back 460 feet further from the downtown as part of its redesigned Arts and Transit Neighborhood project. Area residents want the terminus to stay the same, and here NJ-ARP parts company with even those defenders: We want the PJ&B extended into Princeton Borough itself, if only as a long-term option.

2 December 21, 2010 Page 2 PRESIDENT S PERSPECTIVE Amid sine waves of change, keeping perspective Rail advocacy, understandably, can trigger manic-depressive tendencies, it seems! We re on a roll, horizons are unlimited! one week (or year), followed by It s all over; NOTHING will ever happen! the next week (or year). Veterans try to keep it all in perspective, but most of us will admit it s not a matter of just deciding. Take this year, 2010, a tumultuous one at best for us in New Jersey. NJ-ARP victories and defeats seem intermeshed, or simultaneous. By holding to the higher standard, we helped to stop an ever more flawed Access to the Region s Core yet it cost us true access in the process, at least for now. With NJ-ARP Director Jack May assisting pro-dinky forces in Princeton and vicinity (and hat s off to all involved, determined and savvy!), both neutral New Jersey Transit and real estate developing copartner Princeton University backed down, a little, from a Bus Rapid Transit sales job. But the Dinky may still be truncated (read that: made less accessible, less valuable). Have we won or lost? To anyone who ll listen, I maintain: We re winning. Step back from the New Jersey arena, and it s even more convincing. Yes, I know, I know, incoming governors in Ohio and Wisconsin have rejected high speed rail funding but look at the states willing to take it off their hands! (And they re not all Blue states, either, champions of the Great Divide please note.) Yes, light rail expansion is slow or stymied in this city or that and yet the LRT city candidates keep on coming, and most current systems keep on growing. At my day/pay job at Railway Age, our featured January Passenger Railcar Outlook shows two trends. One is the number of railcars on order or being built or rebuilt. The second is the number of North American locales, most of them in the U.S., who are doing the acquiring. That list is a LOT longer than it used to be, or usually is, an elderly colleague of mine noted. Longer than, say, 1974 the benchmark year many NJ-ARP members use as the absolute nadir of U.S. passenger rail fortunes. Sure, there s pushback from anti-rail forces, much of it from road warriors declaring the War on the Car is over! (Really? What about the War WITH the car, and all its concomitant damage and death? A war often waged by Road Ragers; is THAT over, too?) But even here, glean the good news: The road warriors are reacting, are responding to the threat they see to their hallowed ground (all paved road surfaces, everywhere) as well as to the shrinking fiscal resources facing all of us. Rail advocacy weaker? We re relatively stronger now. In 1980, road warriors howled with laughter with the suggestion (by a third-party presidential candidate, no less) of a 50-cent gas tax. Suggest that today, just as a trial balloon, and you ll get the howls but not with the laughter. Here s a note to rail advocates: Take notes on how the bicycling community is handling this. Throughout the nation, and notably in New York, automania pushback has lamented the lack of public process in carving bike lanes on city streets. The idea has democratic merit, but we wonder where such public process concern was when it was auto-über-alles time. And the bicyclists aren t taking anything for granted; they re fighting back, fighting hard, and fighting proactively not just to hold, but to expand, what they see as their rights to share road space. Rail advocates (myself included) don t automatically sympathize with the bike folks because, thanks to the Rails to Trails movement, too often the bicyclists want to limit our transport option. But NJ-ARP members (and especially those older members, disdainful of bikes as serious transportation a big mistake, in my view) should look beyond that animus to see how the bike folks are doing. Bottom line: Spot setbacks here and there, but nationwide, they re winning. Just like we are, only oftentimes even better. So did ARC suck the life out of New Jersey rail capital projects beyond repair? No. To be sure, ARC s demise does expose just how little is left on New Jersey Transit s capital projects plate, let alone whether New Jersey can make nice with a federal administration it has antagonized. But look what happened in five weeks (or less!) following the ARC funeral. Multiple long-dormant trans-hudson rail tunnel options surfaced, and quickly, much more quickly than most of us expected. (The No. 7 alternative is amply covered in this issue, one of three known options in some state of play.) Beyond that, look to ongoing progress in Atlantic and Cape May counties, courtesy in part of NJ-ARP Cape May Representative Paul Mulligan, helping passenger rail service to re-establish itself in southern New Jersey, ARC or no ARC. Back in the north, closer to ARC turf, in my hometown of Hoboken, the streetcar concept continues to kick around, in tandem with (yes!) bicycling and bicyclists seeking ties with rail advocates to forge an auto-alternative network. A long shot, to be sure but a far, far different perspective for so many compared with not so long ago. Douglas John Bowen NJ-ARP DIRECTORS and OFFICERS, 2011 NJ-ARP OFFICE/NORTH 1219 Garden Street Hoboken, NJ , Ext. 2 Douglas John Bowen, Director NJ-ARP OFFICE/SOUTH 22 Hartford Road Medford, NJ (eves only) Carol Ann Thomas, Director NJ-ARP CONTACT NJ-ARP INTERNET INFO Douglas John Bowen, President (days) (eves) Jim Ciacciarelli, Vice President Lee Lensky, Director , x7510 (8a-4p) Jack May, Director Jack McDougal, Director Albert L. Papp, Jr., Director Carol Ann Thomas, Director (days) (eves) Lester W. Wolff, Director (days only) Leonard Resto, Treasurer Paul Mulligan, Cape May rep (eves only) Daniel Kerwin, Middlesex rep (eves only) William Armstrong, Monmouth rep (eves only) George Musser, Jr. Montclair/Boonton rep (eves only) Jishnu Mukerji, Morris rep (eves only) Gary Johnson, Northeast Corridor rep Joe Versaggi, Raritan Valley rep (eves only) Orrin Getz, Rockland rep (eves only) Tim Apgar, Sussex rep John Dragseth, Membership Offi cer Rose M. Heck, Government Affairs

3 December 21, 2010 Page 3 Reprinted from The Asbury Park Press, Sunday, December 5, 2010 Is new rail tunnel in state s distant future? By LARRY HIGGS Will it be a subway or an Amtrak train that crosses under the Hudson River in a brand new tunnel? Or will it be neither? Experts interviewed are not giving good odds to either project--extending New York City s No. 7 subway line to Secaucus or construction of a new set of Amtrak tunnels to augment the 100-year-old tubes that it and NJ Transit use now--at least not for 20 years or more. Gov. Chris Christie has given a preliminary blessing to a concept announced last month by New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg to extend the No. 7 subway line past its new end point at the Javits Convention Center on the west side of Manhattan to NJ Transit s Secaucus Junction. Meanwhile, Amtrak announced future plans to build a second set of tunnels to Penn Station as part of the first phase of an ambitious high-speed rail plan for the Northeast Corridor, and also included the need for them in its master plan. But like the now-canceled Access to the Region s Core NJ Transit tunnel project, the ultimate answer will be money, followed by political will, experts said. And the two contenders, Amtrak and New York s Metropolitan Transportation Authority, are not flush with either. There are substantial roadblocks for both, said Martin Robins, director emeritus of the Voorhees Transportation Institute at Rutgers. I don t see either of these options being that likely to jump to the forefront and gather tremendous support. Both the subway extension and the Amtrak tunnel are starting from the beginning, No preliminary engineering, feasibility or environmental work has been done. The 7 (extension) is a concept. It will take a decade or more. It needs a lot of work, said U.S. Sen. Robert Menendez, D-N.J. When it s hard and fast and I see the money committed, I ll be an advocate. Menendez, who with U.S. Sen. Frank Lautenberg, was key in securing $3 billion in federal funding for the ARC tunnel, said the subway extension has at least 10 years of environmental and regulatory work to be done. Experts interviewed disagreed about which plan would serve the region best. If it was one or the other, I d say it should be the Amtrak master plan tunnels, said Ross Capon, president of the National Association of Railroad Passengers. They serve a multiplicity of uses-- commuter trains, (Amtrak) Northeast regionals, Acela--and they enhance the viability of the service by protecting it against blockages in the old tunnels. You don t get any of those benefits from the 7 subway extension. Douglas Bowen, president of the New Jersey Association of Railroad Passengers, gave a slight edge to the 7 line extension, partly because it has been discussed for decades and suddenly has new life, although he said it does have limitations. The 7 offers serious benefits locally to northeastern New Jersey, Bowen said. It bridges the Hudson River and reaches better (New York) connections than PATH. The Amtrak and the ARC tunnel are intercity and commuter rail access. They re different markets and serve different needs. Robins agreed and said the subway extension would require several transfers for NJ Transit passengers coming from some of its major suburban train lines. It doesn t solve the capacity problem through Secaucus Transfer from the North Jersey Coast Line, the Northeast Corridor and the Morris and Essex lines, Robins said. From the Raritan Valley Line, it s difficult to get to Secaucus. Passengers have to transfer at Newark. With (the subway), it becomes a three- to four-seat ride, depending on where you go. If the subway extension is built, the need for a second set of Amtrak and commuter rail tunnels doesn t go away, Capon said. It (the subway) would have some utility. In a perfect world, the railroad connection is more badly needed and should come first, he said. But if the stars should align for the number 7 extension, I m not sure it would make sense to turn the nose up at it. Politics and money would be a major issue for a subway to New Jersey, Robins said. I d wait to see if Bloomberg talks about seriously putting money into it, he said. He s a lame duck who can t be re-elected in I can t imagine he ll spend his political capital promoting this project. Another issue is that MTA officials haven t weighed in on it, Robins said. That agency is in the midst of two large, costly construction projects--building the Second Avenue subway and the Long Island Railroad s East Side Access project to Grand Central Terminal. There are a lot of needs in New York that require money, so it is very unlikely the MTA will jump in and say we ll build it and pay a share, Robins said. We haven t heard from the MTA yet and we had the Ravitch report that paints a very scary picture of transportation funding in New York. Capon also questioned how a subway extension would be funded. New York State has a dire fiscal situation and maybe the city as well, he said. Amtrak has been chronically underfunded over its 40-year existence and the incoming Republican House of Representatives may not look favorably on funding Amtrak tunnels. Rep. John Mica, R-Fla., is likely to take over as chairman of the House Transportation Committee. While he has said that states, including Florida, should reject high-speed rail money for trains to nowhere, he favors using that money to build it where high-speed rail has been proven to work, such as the Northeast Corridor. Mica isn t a huge Amtrak fan, but he s argued that the Northeast Corridor should get high-speed rail (funds), Bowen said. It s also the chance for new opportunities. Even the GOP and the Tea Party have to look at China and the billions it spent on building high-speed rail. But Capon predicted that if the new House majority has anything to say about it, Amtrak will be underfunded. He has fellow Republicans who want to turn the (Obama administration) highspeed rail money back to the treasury if it s not obligated, Capon said. He has a debate in his own caucus. In the past, he s emphasized public-private partnerships (to build high-speed rail).

4 December 21, 2010 Page 4 Reprinted from The New York Times, Wednesday, November 17, 2010 Extend a Subway Line Under the Hudson? For Two Men, It s Hardly a New Idea By PATRICK McGEEHAN Steve Lanset said he was totally blown away when he read on his computer on Tuesday night that New York City officials were thinking of extending a subway line to New Jersey. Mr. Lanset, who lives in Jersey City, liked the idea. Indeed, he has liked it for, oh, about five years, since he helped create subwaytosecaucus.com claiming to be a Web site dedicated to it But judging by the response to that site, few people warmed up to the idea. It didn t seem to have the wildfire effect that we had hoped, Mr. Lanset said Wednesday. His collaborator, Ralph Braskett, said he had received a lot of abuse and very little praise for promoting a subway stop alongside the New Jersey Turnpike. Thus, the two men were more than a little surprised to learn that stretching the No. 7 line westward to Secaucus was gaining traction at City Hall. After a plan for a commuter-train tunnel under the Hudson River was scrapped, some developers have convinced city officials that a subway extension could be the next best solution. They estimated it could double the capacity for commuters into the city at about half the price of the rail tunnel, which Gov. Chris Christie of New Jersey said would cost billions of dollars more than his state could afford. On Wednesday, Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg attributed the idea to recent thinking totally out of the box by Robert Steel, his new deputy mayor for economic development. Neither Mr. Braskett nor Mr. Lanset had any expertise in transit planning when they first broached the idea. Neither is even a commuter anymore. They simply believed there was a better, less costly way to ease the crush on trains and buses between New Jersey and Manhattan, they said. Mr. Braskett, an actuary who works from his home in Plainfield, N.J., said he thought the rail-tunnel plan was seriously flawed because it did not deliver commuters directly to any subway line, another train station or to the East Side of Manhattan. Having lived in Brooklyn for more than 20 years, he said, he knew enough about the subway to recognize its potential for carrying people under the Hudson, if only officials on both sides of the river could work together. He proposed the idea at a public hearing on the rail tunnel, and he and Mr. Lanset wrote an essay in The Record newspaper in Bergen County in February 2006 that made the case for the subway to Secaucus. It did not reroute the debate. We were not greeted with open arms and great enthusiasm over this idea, said Mr. Lanset, who recently left a longtime job as a programmer for an investment bank in Manhattan. Mr. Braskett described the response as less charitable. I received abuse from N.J. Transit, I received abuse from the rail nuts, he recalled, referring to ardent fans of train service. They d tell me I m crazy. New Jersey Transit officials had considered a subway extension about 10 years ago, but dropped the idea because, they said, it would not provide as much passenger convenience and time savings as a rail tunnel and it would not adequately reduce congestion in existing rail tunnels or at Pennsylvania Station in Manhattan. New Jersey Transit representatives declined to comment about the revival of the idea. The concept was buried so deeply that even the Sierra Club of New Jersey did not have a view on it, though Mr. Lanset is the group s transportation issues coordinator. Jeff Tittel, the spokesman for the club, said: There have been people within the Sierra Club for 15 years talking about it. It just seemed to make common sense. While no officials or transportation planners contacted Mr. Braskett or Mr. Lanset about the idea, Mr. Braskett said he had a hunch that the new plan had borrowed from his older one. We said it would take half the money and half the time as building the rail tunnel, he said, noting that city officials were making a similar claim. But even if the discussion at City Hall never leads to the first extension of a subway line beyond the city s boundaries, Mr. Lanset and Mr. Braskett were feeling on Wednesday as though their advocacy had not been wasted. I certainly felt some validation and vindication, Mr. Lanset said. [Editors Note: Both Steve Lanset and Ralph Brasket are NJ-ARP members] NJBIZ Readers Poll Supports 7 to Secaucus By 3-to-1 Margin In a Nov. 29 poll NJBIZ readers were asked Should N.J. support extending New York s No. 7 subway to Secaucus? The choices were No, the cost is still too high. No, better options exist. Yes, but only if all parties share the cost equally. Yes, rail commuters need more options. Yes, so it will be easier to get to a Mets game. Of the 737 respondents to date, 560 (76%) chose one of the yes options and 177 (24%) chose a no option. Almost half of the yes respondents would support the line if the costs were shared equally between the two states. 16% of the no respondents still considered the cost of the project too high. NJ-ARP Editor: Douglas John Bowen Assistant Editor: Leonard Resto, Lester W. Wolff Production: Lester W. Wolff The, founded in 1980, is closely allied with the National Association of Railroad Passengers, based in Washington, D.C. [(202) ].

5 Reprinted from The Asbury Park Press, Thursday, December 9, 2010 NJ Transit to rehab electric rail cars By LARRY HIGGS NEWARK The silver electric rail cars that were brand new when NJ Transit re-electrified the North Jersey Coast and Morris & Essex lines in the mid-1980s will get one last in-house rehabilitation to squeeze another five years out of the venerable trains known as Arrow IIIs. NJ Transit s Board of Directors approved a total of $15.6 million in contracts Thursday to buy the needed parts and major components to rehabilitate 170 Arrow III rail cars out of the total fleet of 230. The other 60 will be taken out of service. These are really tired vehicles. I ride them daily, said James Weinstein, NJ Transit executive director. They are really threadbare. One final overhaul of the Arrows will cost about $192,000 per car, compared with an estimated replacement cost of $3 million to $4 million per car, NJ Transit officials said. December 21, 2010 Page 5 Some transit advocates at the board meeting suggested NJ Transit cancel a contract to buy 100 more bi-level cars, which were being purchased as part of the now canceled second Hudson River Tunnel project. Just overhauling the 170 Arrow III cars is less than the cost buying the bi-levels, noted David Peter Alan, Lackawanna Commuter Coalition chairman, who supported overhauling the Arrows. I call for the cancellation of the bi-level car order because they re not needed, Alan said. Al Papp Jr., a director of the New Jersey Association of Railroad Passengers, suggested NJ Transit reassess the need for rail cars and put the money into more useful projects in the corporation. Weinstein disagreed, saying the bi-levels can move more people than single level cars and are popular with riders. While the tunnel project has been canceled, the demand has not been canceled and we must find alternative ways to meet it, he said. Weinstein said the agency is evaluating procurement of replacement electric multiple unit cars to replace the Arrow IIIs, but added there is no schedule for that purchase. We ll see where that fits in the new capital plan, he said. The agency got some good news about a study of a program to rebuild older diesel locomotives. That study found after taking apart two locomotives, that a less expensive, maintenance program based on the condition of individual locomotives was warranted. The transit board approved a $4.5 million contract with Alstom Transportation Inc. to develop a condition-based maintenance plan, which identifies and targets only the components that need to be replaced. That work would be done in-house by NJ Transit mechanics to keep older locomotives reliable until the agency takes delivery of 26 dual-mode locomotives that run on diesel or electric power. INTRASTATE RAIL SERVICE. WHAT A CONCEPT! The 800-pound gorilla in New Jersey s living room that is New York City has for the time being departed the premises, at least as far as ARC is concerned. At NJ-ARP, we have for three decades been focusing on the family in that living room something too many other transit experts have failed to glimpse as they fixated on the gorilla and nothing else. In transit terms, that means NJ-ARP has, sadly all too often, been the leading voice arguing for rail, light rail, ferry, bus and bicycle options for New Jersey s needs and intrastate destinations as opposed to the simple one-seat ride philosophies of the 1950s that focused on New York (or Philadelphia) at the expense of the Garden State. Northern Branch? MOM? Cape May Branch? Those should serve New Jersey riders New Jersey needs. These lines plus other long-deceased branches offer a potential boon to local ridership possibilities. If you believe in New Jersey rail passenger service for New Jersey needs and gee, New York and Philly will still benefit, too! join NJ-ARP. [ ] Single $25 USPS $20 [ ] Family $35 USPS $30 [ ] Sustaining $60 USPS $50 [ ] Patron $100 [ ] Student/Senior $15 USPS $10 (Up to 3 People) Enclosed is $ for membership(s) in NJ-ARP. Name Address City/State Zip Phone (day) (eve) Send publications via: Regular U.S.P.S. Mail Both Please mail this coupon with membership fee to NJ-ARP, P.O. Box 68, Chatham, N.J news.1012.arp

6 Decemebr 21, 2010 Page 6 Al Papp Wins Second ART Award Director Albert L. Papp was awarded the 2010 Arthur R. Reuben Advocate for Rail Transit (ART) Award at the group s annual meeting in Bordentown, N.J., on November 6. Papp received the award from NJ-ARP Vice President Jim Ciacciarelli, being honored for his on-the-point work, on behalf of NJ-ARP, to find a better solution for Access to the Region s Core. Though he had help, Al Papp was the driving force and conscience that kept NJ-ARP honest and accountable, and reaching for a better project, said NJ-ARP President Douglas John Bowen. We failed to attain that better project, but we helped big time in culling an increasingly inferior one. Our critics have loved saying we never met a rail project we didn t like they ll have to find a new sound bite, and Al Papp is a big reason why. The award is Papp s second; he also won the ART Award in 2003, at a time when the ARC project began mutating drastically, despite earnest efforts by NJ-ARP and others to keep the project focused as a true means to serve to and through the region s core and not function as a six-mile, stub-end commuter railroad paralleling North America s busiest passenger rail corridor. Bowen to Step Down as NJ-ARP President Though eight (8) incumbent NJ-ARP Directors were returned to office at the NJ-ARP Annual Meeting Nov. 6, the seats are soon to be rearranged. Current President Douglas John Bowen will step down from the post at the next Board of Directors meeting, likely to occur sometime in January. Bowen served as NJ-ARP s second President, succeeding group founder Anthony Perl, from 1987 through He was in turn succeeded by President Leonard Resto, but again assumed the presidency in January 2004 for a second stint at the post. I ll remain involved as a Director and, I hope, get a chance to pursue some of my own personal rail project interests, some of which haven t been on NJ-ARP s larger agenda, Bowen said. It s also time for someone with perhaps a fresh outlook to lead the group as conditions change and new challenges confront us. ARTHUR L. REUBEN ADVOCATE FOR RAIL TRANSIT (ART) AWARD WINNERS 1988: William P. Armstrong 1989: William R. Wright 1990: Anthony Perl 1991: Orrin Getz 1992: Lester W. Wolff 1993: Phyllis Elston 1994: James C. Greller 1995: Martin Gill 1996: Paul Mulligan 1997: Carol Ann Thomas 1998: Daniel Kerwin 1999: Rose M. Heck 2000: Greg Bender 2001: Win Greenleaf 2002: Robert Scheurle 2003: Albert L. Papp, Jr. 2004: William R. Wright 2005: Leonard Resto 2006: Lester W. Wolff 2007: Orrin Getz 2008: Jack May 2009: Phil G. Craig 2010: ALBERT L. PAPP, JR. BEST WISHES TO ALL OF OUR READERS AND THEIR FAMILIES FOR JOYFUL HOLIDAYS AND A HEALTHY AND HAPPY NEW YEAR! NJ-ARP Vice President James Ciacciarelli (right) presents the 2010 Advocate for Rail Transit (ART) Award to Director Albert L. Papp, Jr. at the NJ-ARP Annual Meeting in Bordentown on Nov. 6. NJ-ARP Photo by Les Wolff