|
|
Post by novillero on May 28, 2009 6:29:18 GMT -5
Freehold Boro is the big loser in all of this...
May 28, 2009
Counties: Rail line should go to Red Bank
By LARRY HIGGS
TRANSPORTATION WRITER
Significant progress was made on the proposed Monmouth-Ocean-Middlesex, or MOM, rail line after representatives of the three counties agreed on construction of a route from Ocean County to Red Bank, instead of to Monmouth Junction, ending years of stalemate.
NJ Transit officials announced the compromise Wednesday. The line's southern terminus would be in Lakehurst, and it would run through Lakewood along existing freight tracks to join the North Jersey Coast Line in Red Bank. It also includes the possibility of a spur between Freehold and Farmingdale, and consideration of better bus service on routes 9 and 18.
Gone from the proposal is the option for the Monmouth Junction (Middlesex County) route between Lakehurst and the Northeast Corridor Line in South Brunswick, which has long been supported by Monmouth County officials and opposed by Middlesex County. A third option, the Matawan route along new tracks on part of the Henry Hudson trail, also has been ruled out.
"Each of the three counties have different needs; it's what could everyone live with," said Ocean County Freeholder James F. Lacey. "The bottom line is Ocean County needed a rail line. Middlesex County had concerns about it going through their county. We needed something good for the region and the state that we could afford."
Red Bank officials said they oppose the plan because of the effects of running additional trains on a rail line that bisects the borough, including its popular downtown.
Borough officials said they plan to meet with officials of other towns on the North Jersey Coast Line that also would be affected.
"If implemented, this will destroy the fabric of Red Bank. It will be impossible to come in and out," said Mayor Pasquale "Pat" Menna. "This is not a fight that Red Bank sought, but will accept."
The compromise was hammered out at a May 21 meeting between county, NJ Transit and other transportation officials and consultants. NJ Transit officials said it planned to address vehicular traffic issues in Red Bank, which the group recommended at the meeting.
In March, NJ Transit officials said the "preferred" Monmouth Junction route was too expensive to qualify for federal funding under new cost-efficiency standards and proposed four options, including single-track Monmouth Junction and Red Bank routes, a spur to Freehold from the Red Bank Line, and what is called bus rapid transit lanes.
At the May 21 meeting, Monmouth County Freeholder John D'Amico Jr. recommend that the counties support the Red Bank alternative, a Freehold Township spur line, and Route 9 bus rapid transit, officials said.
The agreement by the working group, announced by NJ Transit Wednesday, ends years of fighting between the two counties over the final route. But a new fight may be brewing with Red Bank.
"It's not just going to happen to us," said Menna. "Additional (rail) traffic will go through Middletown, Hazlet, Matawan and Shrewsbury. It's their quality of life being affected."
Lacey said that the group at the May 21 meeting acknowledged that there would be efforts to mitigate the effects of additional trains in Red Bank.
"There certainly is an issue with Red Bank. They're very concerned about traffic and parking," Lacey said. "I think NJ Transit can work with them to solve their problems."
New Jersey Association of Railroad Passengers officials joined Red Bank in opposing the route as the least desirable of the three routes proposed.
"That's not a compromise. Middlesex wins on this round. The route's efficiency and effectiveness is compromised," said Douglas Bowen, president of the association, which backed the Monmouth Junction option "We're aware of the Red Bank opposition, and NJ-ARP shares many, but not all, of their doubts and concerns."
NJ Transit officials said that information in studies that have been conducted on the three proposed MOM routes could be used in the federal process to get approval and funding.
Lacey said the line had been studied to death, and it was time for a decision.
"I'm senior freeholder on the issue; others have passed on or retired," he said. "I thought it was important that we stop talking about it and come up with something we could live with or drop it."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------http://www.app.com/article/20090528/NEWS/90528002/-1/nletter05?source=nletter-news
|
|
|
|
Post by novillero on May 28, 2009 7:04:42 GMT -5
I cannot find the words to express my profound disappointment. What pull do our elected officials have outside of getting themselves re-elected? The answer is none. For all of the years they have held office, their reach does not extend past the Freehold Borough boundary lines. There were two possible lines out of the three railway lines that would have had benefited the boro. Instead, the least likely route was chosen; the route that benefits the least number of state citizens and the route that was the dark horse of the various studies won out. Obviously, something else came into play in deciding the outcome here; and it was not the political pull of our leaders, but rather another town's leaders. 2 prior threads (I know there is more but I couldn't find them): freeholdvoice.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=anythingfreeholdborough&action=display&thread=2695freeholdvoice.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=main&action=display&thread=962 |
|
|
|
Post by novillero on May 28, 2009 11:09:04 GMT -5
After this quote from Marc, Rich asked "I agree with all this -- of course. What role has Freehold Brough played in this effort to bring rail -- and what in your mind do you think it can or should do?" There was no response (or it was later erased by Marc, there is no way for me to tell). The question remains, what did council do, or did not do? freeholdvoice.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=3413&page=1 |
|
|
|
Post by novillero on May 28, 2009 11:10:32 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by novillero on May 28, 2009 11:11:12 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by admin on May 28, 2009 15:37:01 GMT -5
I cannot find the words to express my profound disappointment. What pull do our elected officials have outside of getting themselves re-elected? The answer is none. For all of the years they have held office, their reach does not extend past the Freehold Borough boundary lines. There were two possible lines out of the three railway lines that would have had benefited the boro. Instead, the least likely route was chosen; the route that benefits the least number of state citizens and the route that was the dark horse of the various studies won out. Obviously, something else came into play in deciding the outcome here; and it was not the political pull of our leaders, but rather another town's leaders. 2 prior threads (I know there is more but I couldn't find them): freeholdvoice.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=anythingfreeholdborough&action=display&thread=2695freeholdvoice.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=main&action=display&thread=962If this rail goes to Red Bank or anywhere east, it is a massive loss for not only Freehold Borough, but all of western Monmoth County. Your questions about what did our electe leaders do is a good and fair one. That also goes for elected leaders in other towns. One such example is Upper Freehold. I have been saying for a while that UF is the future of Monmouth County and will take off in demand if the MOM line goes up around here. |
|
|
|
Post by novillero on Jun 17, 2009 19:35:38 GMT -5
Anti-MOM rail line is unacceptable to Monmouth County freeholder By now, everyone should know all the reasons for building the MOM rail line, but here is the explanation again: Taken together, Monmouth, Ocean and Middlesex counties are home to more than one in five New Jersey residents. These counties have been the major engines for population growth over the last 30 years, with the majority of growth being concentrated in the suburban municipalities along the Route 9 corridor in northern Ocean and western Monmouth and Middlesex. In this area, the car is king and roads are choked at peak commuter hours, because there is no mass transportation alternative other than bus service on Route 9. The purpose of the MOM line is to take some of the pressure off of these roads. But it is also far more than that. It provides a real opportunity for those one in five New Jersey residents to have rail access to not only New York City, but to the educational resources in New Brunswick, to the state capital in Trenton and to the city of Philadelphia. This option (Lakehurst to Monmouth Junction) provides the greatest range of opportunities for people in the major growth corridor in the state and, while initial costs may be high, as population continues to grow and the use of resources expands accordingly, the cost per person will reduce over time. All of this makes the MOM line the right choice for New Jersey. But now, NJ Transit has decided to support the anti-MOM alternative. This proposal meets the needs of Ocean County residents bound for New York, but it does nothing for either western Monmouth County or Middlesex County residents, and provides no access to either New Brunswick or Philadelphia.
It also does unquestionable harm to the densely developed residential communities of eastern Monmouth County - particularly Red Bank. Red Bank Mayor Pat Menna's plea for help to oppose this alternative shall not go unanswered. A 20 percent increase in train traffic will exacerbate already difficult road conditions and make an already constrained parking capacity in Red Bank far more problematic. Red Bank is one of the most successful suburban centers in New Jersey, and is currently wrestling with its own share of development issues. For external forces to suddenly impose unplanned impacts on this community for the primary benefit of residents of another county is wholly unacceptable. When the costs and benefits are weighed in terms of opportunities lost and damages done, the anti-MOM option is far too expensive to be considered, even with a someday western spur. It is short-sighted and irresponsible. Discussion of rail options should cease until new leadership with a broader statewide vision is put in place. Lillian G. Burry Monmouth County Freeholder Freehold Borough newstranscript.gmnews.com/news/2009/0617/letters/015.html
|
|
|
|
Post by novillero on Jun 17, 2009 19:42:07 GMT -5
Time for a truth commission to investigate rail foes While Washington politics struggle with the advisability of a "Truth Commission" on enhanced interrogation linked to "torture," Middlesex County is putting another "notch on their political gun belt" preventing action on construction of a MOM rail line for Monmouth, Ocean and Middlesex counties while its citizenry suffer the anguishes of overburdened "rail line transit tortures." Perhaps a New Jersey advocacy group should form a "Truth Commission" to investigate the "political powers that be" in Middlesex County who have managed to be successful in the last 20 years keeping those nasty "MOM" railroad line tracks from touching the sacred "terra firma" of Middlesex County. The three routes considered for construction of a rail line exhibit a common denominator since Middlesex County alone has been steadfastly ready to crimp and oppose any effort to arrive at a consensus regardless of the route. Last May's so-called sudden Red Bank "compromise" suggested by "NJ Transit officials" was quickly abandoned. There was no doubt this new direction would have created a traffic disaster. NJ Transit officials and the New Jersey Association of Railroad Passengers should be called together in contesting Middlesex County obstructionists. They could join witnesses with civicminded groups and generate courage to organize efforts for a "Truth Commission" eliciting answers held captive, including the specifics that surround the politics behind Gov. Jon Corzine's "special deal" with Middlesex County to cut loose the "M" out of "MOM" which could provide middle New Jersey residents with a well-deserved rail line. The Monmouth Junction (Middlesex County) route between Lakehurst and the Northeast Corridor line in South Brunswick has long been heralded as probably the most logical and cost-effective direction, but Middlesex will probably "stand ready in the wings" to squelch the MOM route. Maybe a "Truth Commission" is the answer? Herbert Resnick Marlboro newstranscript.gmnews.com/news/2009/0617/letters/019.html
|
|
|
|
Post by novillero on Jun 20, 2009 14:09:16 GMT -5
Freeholders derail MOM planBy Bob Jordan • FREEHOLD BUREAU • June 19, 2009 After testing the waters for support of a proposed railroad service stretching from Ocean County and running through Red Bank, Monmouth County officials say they are officially no longer on board that train. The county freeholders have passed a resolution affirming "support for the Monmouth Junction alternative and opposition to the Manchester to Red Bank line." To help prevent future flip-flops on the direction of the proposed MOM (Monmouth-Ocean-Middlesex) rail line, Marlboro business owner Wally Tunison has come up with what he admits is a "ridiculous" proposal, but it's an idea picking up steam. Tunison wants the county make a purchase offer of $1 to NJ Transit to acquire a railroad 12-mile right-of-way from Freehold to Matawan. The goal is to take that line out of future rail service consideration, said Tunison, a leader of the public support group Monmouth Heritage Trail Inc., which wants to preserve a recreation trail along the right-of-way in its present use. "One dollar. Why not?," Tunison said. "At least it could start the discussion of finally taking the trail out of train consideration. "The Freehold-Matawan route has been included, removed and then re-included for rail line restoration over the last 20 years. NJ Transit needs to relinquish its rights to this trail," Tunison added. The dollar offer might not be all that ridiculous, however. Government agencies have performed $1 property transfers in the past, and Park System officials say they will study Tunison's proposal. "We clearly need to look into the ownership and lease situation of the right-of-way and find out what are rights are," said Lillian G. Burry, the freeholder board's liaison to the Park System. NJ Transit officials wouldn't comment on whether they'd be willing to permanently turn over the trail property to county ownership, however. Tunison said the transit agency's lack of commentary was typical. "Generally, they don't respond to anyone," Tunison said. "The Park System has spent probably a million dollars improving the trail and must preserve its investment." The freeholders unanimously passed the resolution affirming "support for the Monmouth Junction alternative and opposition to the Manchester to Red Bank line" on June 11. The vote came two weeks after a NJ Transit spokesman claimed the agency had won the backing of Freeholder John D'Amico and other county representatives for the Red Bank line. D'Amico said that his support had been conditional because the rail agency had deemed "better alternatives" as too expensive to meet federal requirements. The resolution also called for a study and evaluation of the feasibility and cost of a bus rapid transit (BRT) project to expedite bus travel on Route 9 that includes bus-only lanes, traffic signal controls to aid buses, and expanded park and rides. www.app.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2009906190371
|
|
|
|
Post by admin on Jun 22, 2009 17:10:46 GMT -5
APP endorses the Red Bank line! www.app.com/article/20090622/OPINION01/906230308/Red Bank option: Full steam ahead ASBURY PARK PRESS EDITORIAL • June 22, 2009 The Monmouth County freeholders have unanimously passed a resolution opposing the Manchester-to-Red Bank alternative to the Monmmouth-Ocean-Middlesex rail line — the only realistic option to increased Shore-area rail transportation — and affirming support for the Monmouth Junction alternative. It is a short-sighted, cutting-off-your-nose-to-spite-your-face decision. If the freeholders refuse to come around and recognize the value the Red Bank line would have for Ocean and Monmouth counties — and the futility of holding out for an even scaled-back Monmouth Junction alternative — NJ Transit should proceed with the project anyway. The resolution came two weeks after a NJ Transit spokesman claimed the agency had won the backing of Monmouth County Democratic freeholder John D'Amico and other county representatives for the Red Bank line. But D'Amico flip-flopped, claiming his support had been conditional because NJ Transit had deemed "better alternatives" as too expensive to meet federal requirements. That hasn't changed. Those alternatives are still too expensive; the passage of time will only make them more so. The Red Bank-Manchester option was one of four proposals called "MOM Lite" after NJ Transit determined the three original routes that had being studied for years, including the Monmouth Junction route favored by Ocean and Monmouth counties, were too costly to qualify for federal funding. The scaled-back Red Bank line, which would operate on existing tracks, is the only remaining viable alternative. If this project does not proceed, any hopes for mass transit in Ocean County and unserved portions of Monmouth County are essentially dead. NJ Transit can't allow that to happen. The Red Bank route, which is far less expensive than the Monmouth Junction option, would allow a rider to board a train in Manchester and arrive at Penn Station, New York, without changing trains. Five new stations, in Manchester, Toms River, Lakewood, Howell and Tinton Falls, would be included. Thousands of Ocean County residents would have access to train service for the first time, and thousands of other Monmouth County commuters would be served, helping to take traffic off clogged Shore-area roads. Red Bank made a "not in my backyard" stink about NJ Transit's preferred "MOM Lite" route, arguing the increased train traffic the line would generate — about 20 percent — would exacerbate already frequent traffic delays throughout the day. That is a legitimate concern. But it should not be a deal breaker. NJ Transit should not allow parochialism and politics to dictate transportation policy. It should approve the Red Bank alternative without delay, whether the freeholders are on board with the decision or not. |
|
