Warren County
Figure 1 Warren County Seal
3.1 Introduction
Warren County is located in the northwestern region of New Jersey. It occupies an area of
365 square miles and takes the shape of a sock. Of those 365 square miles, 358 square
miles is land and 5 square miles is water. It ranks ninth in size among the state’s twentyone counties but only 19th in population with a 2000 estimated population of 102,437. The
population density for the county is 268 people per square mile. Within the county, there
are 38,660 households and 27,487 families. The county consists of some of the most
undeveloped, rugged terrain in New Jersey due to the Kittatinny Ridge. Over 50% of the
county is undeveloped woodland and wetlands comprise another 25%. Warren County
land use is primarily agricultural with four small urban areas. These urban centers are
Hackettstown, Belvedere, Phillipsburg, and Washington Township.
Warren County lacks intracounty public transportation. Warren County contains a number
of state routes including Route 57, Route 173, Route 31, and Route 94 as well as two US
routes, US Route 22 and US Route 46. The county also houses two interstates, I-78 and I-80.
The county has a New Jersey Transit stop located in Hackettstown, but does not have any
other form of mass public transportation. This station is the western terminus for the
Morristown Line and Montclair-Booton Line. The Morristown Line services trips to New
York Penn Station or Hoboken. The Montclair-Booton Line services trips to Hoboken or
New York Penn Station. The Morristown Line has a ridership of 50,000 people daily.1 The
trip ends for the Hackettstown NJT PRT station were then estimated to be roughly 20,000
because many of those living in Warren County commute to their jobs outside of the
county.
The data used in order to obtain the productions and attractions for the PRT network was
cleaned in the sense that care was taken to ensure that businesses had sensible patronage
numbers. Most businesses do not have patrons, engineering companies, chemical
companies, etc. Other businesses, such as doctors’ offices, pharmacies, and grocery stores,
do have patrons. During the collection of the data, great care was taken to ensure that the
businesses would have reasonable patronage numbers. Although this may have resulted in
underestimating the actual patronage numbers in some cases, underestimating the results
is better than overestimating the results in order to get a more realistic idea of the actual
usage of the PRT system.
For more information regarding Warren County, please see the following helpful reports
and links:
ORF 467F08PRTSystem.pdf
PRT_NJ_Orf467F07_FinalReport.pdf
http://www.co.warren.nj.us/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_County,_New_Jersey
3.2 The Initial PRT Network
In order to design a PRT network for the entire county of Warren, stations were
strategically placed throughout to serve as many trips as possible while still being
economically feasible. Due to the spread out nature of the population, which is evidenced
by the low population density of 268 people per square mile, the PRT network was
designed to both serve a majority of the county as well as remain economically sound. In
order to do so, the minimum number of trips for a station was dectermined to be 1,000.
Although this may seem to be a relatively low minimum in comparison to the PRT
networks designed for other counties in New Jersey, it is ideal for Warren County due to
both the relatively low number of people residing in the county and the relatively large
amount of area that the county covers.
1
According to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morristown_Line
Figure 2 PRT Network for borough of Washington, NJ
After placing the stations, the initial PRT network in Warren County was built around the
borough of Washington, NJ, one of the four urban centers located in the county. The
borough of Washington is located along the southeastern border of Warren County. As of
the 2000 census, the population density for the borough of Washington was roughly
3,429.9 people per square mile. Due to this relatively high population density, the stations
in this area were relatively close together, in comparison to the placement of the stations
throughout the county, thereby making it an easier starting point to build a PRT network.
3.2.1 The Initial PRT Network Design
In designing the network for this area, as well as the network for areas that had stations
that were located close together, a triangle design as well as a quadrilateral design was
used. The triangle design consists of a station with two interchanges placed so that the
track forms a triangle. The quadrilateral design consists of a station as well as three or
more interchanges or two stations and two interchanges placed so that the track forms a
quadrilateral. The use of the combination of the triangle design as well as the quadrilateral
design allows for users to get from one station to another without having to pass through
many other stations or go far out of the way.
Figure 3 Triangle Loop Design
Figure 4 Quadrilateral Loop Design
Allowing users to have more direct paths from a station to a station, instead of forcing them
to travel along larger loop networks, makes the PRT more competitive with the current
popular mode of transportation, the automobile. A user would not choose to travel on the
PRT if he or she was forced to travel a long distance in order to get to a place that was not
far from his or her initial starting point. By using the triangle and quadrilateral loops, the
user is able to quickly and efficiently travel from one station to the next.
3.2.2 Initial PRT Network Statistics
Table 1 Initial Warren County PRT Network Statistics
Initial Warren County PRT Network At a Glance
Stations
16
Cost
$32,000,000
Interchanges
24
Total Trip Ends Served 59,615
Home
28,240
School
5,610
Work
5,815
Shopping
19,950
This initial borough of Washington, NJ PRT network contains 16 stations and 24
interchanges. These stations and interchanges serve a total of 59,615 trips. The most trip
ends served by a station is 11,251 trip ends at the Jefferson Street Station. The smallest trip
ends served by a station is 1,056 trip ends at the In the Woods Station. For the complete
breakdown of trip ends served by station, please see Initial Network Trip ends served by
station.xlsx.
Trip ends served per station
Initial Warren County Network
Trip Edns served per day
12,000
10,000
8,000
6,000
4,000
2,000
19
29
32
36
48
50
56 63 76 81 84
Highest to lowest
85
97 100 106 111
Figure 5 Trip Ends Served per Station in Initial Warren County Network
The largest number of trip ends served by a station is 11,251 whereas the smallest number
of trip ends served by a station is 1,056.
3.3 The Entire PRT Network
The county of Warren covers a large amount of land and has a relatively low number of
inhabitants. The main challenge in creating the entire PRT network for Warren County was
to serve a majority of trip ends in the county while attempting to remain economically
sound.
3.3.1 The Entire PRT Network Design
The entire PRT network was designed by first designing four smaller networks, such as the
one described in the above section, for the four previously mentioned densely populated
urban areas in Warren. To connect stations that did not belong to any of the smaller
networks, an interchange was placed near the station to allow for guideway to be placed
connecting the station to the rest of the network.
Figure 6 A Rural PRT Station
Once all of the smaller networks were designed, the networks were combined to form the
entire PRT network.
Figure 7 Entire Warren County PRT Network
The network was designed to provide an efficient way to travel from the northernmost
station to the southernmost station and to quickly accommodate trips from the eastern
part of the county to the western part of the county. This is evidenced by the four paths
running from north to south as well as the roughly ten paths spanning the county east to
west.
For guideways spanning long distances, such as pictured below, care was taken to have the
guideway follow preexisting roads. This was done so as to minimize disruptions to homes,
businesses, parks, and most importantly the environment.
Figure 8 Section of Guideway
3.3.2 Entire PRT Network Statistics
Table 2 Warren County PRT Network Statistics
Warren County Entire PRT Network At a Glance
Capital
Stations
116
Interchanges
124
Guideway
290.37 miles
Fleet Size
2,299
Trip Ends
Total Trip Ends Served
728,224
Home
229,288
School
35,438
Work
69,238
Shopping
354,260
Transportation
40,000
Total Trips per Day
139,346
Peak Hour Trips
20,902
The proposed Warren County PRT network consists of 116 stations connected by 290.37
miles of guideway. There are 124 interchanges that connecting the stations. The fleet size
consists of 2,299 PRT vehicles. The total trips per day was calculated to be 139,346 trips.
Peak hour trips were estimated to total 20,902 trips.
Trip Ends Served per Station
Warren County
Trip Edns served per day
70,000
60,000
50,000
40,000
30,000
20,000
10,000
1
5
9
13
17
21
25
29
33
37
41
45
49
53
57
61
65
69
73
77
81
85
89
93
97
101
105
109
113
Highest to lowest
Figure 9 Trip Ends Served per Station
The most trips ends served by a station is 61,467 trip ends at the Hackettstown NJT PRT
Station. This is due to the large amount of transportation ends served because of the
nearby Hackettstown NJT station. The smallest number of trip ends served by a station is
1,004 trip ends at the Ketcham Road Station. For the complete breakdown of trip ends
served by station, please see Warren Trip ends served by station.xlsx.
Table 3 Trip Ends Served
Trip End Type
Home
School
Work
Shopping
Transportation
Total
Trip Ends Served
229,288
35,438
69,238
354,360
40,000
728,224
Total Trip Ends
409,748
43,982
87,018
596,410
40,000
1,177,158
Percentage of Trip
Ends Served
55.95%
80.57%
79.56%
59.39%
100.00%
61.86%
Trip Ends Served versus Total County Trip Ends
700,000
600,000
Number of Trip Ends
500,000
400,000
Trip Ends Served
300,000
Total County Trip Ends
200,000
100,000
home
school
work
shopping
transportation
Type of Trip End
Figure 10 Trip Ends Served Versus Total County Trip Ends
The trip ends were broken into five basic categories: home, school, work,
shopping/recreation, and transportation. Of the 409,748 home trip ends, 229,288 home
trip ends are served by the PRT network. This results in approximately 55.95% of the home
trip ends being served. Of the 43,982 school trip ends, 35,438 school trip ends are served.
This results in approximately 80.57% of the school trip ends being served. Of the 87,018
work trip ends, 69,238 work trip ends are served. This results in approximately 79.56% of
the work trip ends being served. Of the 596,410 shopping and recreation trip ends, 354,360
of the shopping and recreation trip ends are served. This results in approximately 59.39%
of the shopping and recreation trip ends being served. Of the 40,000 transportation trip
ends, all 40,000 of the transportation trip ends are served. This results in 100% of the
transportation trip ends being served. Overall, of the 1,177,158 trip ends, 728,224 of the
total trip ends are served by the PRT network. This results in an overall 61.86% of the total
trip ends being served.
Table 4 Costs and Revenue
Cost of Capital
Stations
Guideway
Costs and Revenue
$1,914,000,000
$232,000,000
$1,452,000,000
Fleet
Annual Recurring Costs
Cost of Capital
Maintenance
Operating
Annual Revenue
Fare
Station Lease
Profit/Loss
$230,000,000
$212,000,000
$153,000,000
$38,000,000
$21,000,000
$130,000,000
$125,000,000
$4,000,000
$(83,000,000)
The calculated total cost of capital is $1,914,000,000. The total costs for the station was
calculated to be $232,000,000, assuming that there are 116 stations at a cost of $2,000,000
each. The total cost for the guideway was calculated to be $1,452,000,000 for 290.37 miles
of guideway at a cost of $5,000,000 per mile. The total cost for the fleet was determined to
be $230,000,000 for 2299 vehicles at a price of $100,000 each. The total annual recurring
costs were determined to be $212,000,000 with $153,000,000 coming from the cost of the
capital, $38,000,000 from the cost of maintenance, and $21,000,000 in operating costs. The
annual revenue was determined to total $130,000,000. Of that $130,000,000 in revenue,
$125,000,000 comes from fares, assuming that the fare is set at $3.00 a ride and that each
trip taken 300 times in one year. The remaining $4,000,00 of revenue comes from the
station lease and naming rights. In total, the estimated loss for the Warren County PRT
system is calculated to total $83,000,000.
Trip Served by Station
Warren County
7,000.00
6,000.00
5,000.00
4,000.00
Break Even Line
3,000.00
2,000.00
1,000.00
-
1
7
13
19
25
31
37
43
49
55
61
67
73
79
85
91
97
103
109
115
Trip served per day
8,000.00
Highest to lowest
Figure 11 Trips Served by Station
Of the 116 PRT stations, only 14 stations, or 12.1% of the stations, are expected to break
even. The break even point was calculated to be 10% of the station cost, or $200,000,
divided by $135, or $.45 of revenue contributed to the station by a trip times 300 days,
leading to a break even number of 1481 trips per station per day.
In order to have the entire PRT system break-even each year, a fare of $4.97 must be
charged. At that price, the annual recurring costs are equal to the annual revenue and the
system makes a profit of zero dollars. Given the demographics of those living in Warren
County however, it is unclear as to whether or not residents would be willing or able to pay
this high fare. The median income in the county per a household is roughly $56,000. If only
the head of household used the PRT system at the proposed price, then each year, assuming
that the person uses the system to travel to and from work 300 of the 365 days of the year,
the household would spend roughly $2,982 dollars.
3.4 The Future of the PRT Network in Warren County
According to the calculated costs of the current PRT network, a PRT network in Warren
County will not be economically sound. The annual recurring costs are estimated to be
$212,000,000 whereas the annual revenue is projected to only be $130,000,000. This
results in a loss of $83,000,000. This is due to a number of factors, but can mainly be
attributed to the amount and cost of the guideway and the available ridership.
The initial cost and maintenance costs of the guideway cannot be altered. The design of the
network, however, can be altered so as to use less guideway, but only to an extent. Warren
County covers a vast amount of land, containing more densely populated areas that are
spread relatively far apart. This creates a conflict as to how to design a network that allows
for ease of travel from one destination to the next while at the same time considering costs.
Sacrificing ease of travel will only make the PRT a less attractive alternative to the
automobile. Disregarding costs however will only lead to a network that is not
economically sound and therefore unrealistic. If PRT networks prove to be profitable in
other counties, the Warren County PRT network could be subsidized by these other
counties.
Because Warren County lacks basic public transportation within the county, a PRT system
for the entire county would provide great benefits to the inhabitants of the county, but as
explained before such a system is not economically sound for the entire county. Instead
however, PRT systems, such as the previously proposed borough of Washington, NJ system,
could be established in the four densely populated urban areas of the county. These
systems would greatly benefit the inhabitants of these areas. If the land use of the county
evolves such that it becomes more densely populated, then the small PRT networks could
be connected to form the proposed entire PRT network system.