(The following column by Lillian G. Burry appeared on the Asbury Park Press website on June 12, 2009.)
ASBURTY PARK, N.J. — By now everyone should know all the reasons for building the MOM (Monmouth-Ocean-Middlesex) rail line, but recent events make it necessary to review the issue again.
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 during the last 30 years, with the majority of growth in the suburbanizing rural municipalities along the Route 9 corridor in northern Ocean, in the western portions of Monmouth and in southern Middlesex.
This is an area where the car is king and roads are choked at peak commuting times because there are no mass transportation alternatives other than bus service on Route 9. The purpose of the MOM line, specifically the Monmouth Junction alternative, is to take some of the pressure off the roads and relieve the escalating congestion.
A New Jersey Institute of Technology study in 2007 listed Monmouth and Middlesex counties on its roadway congestion index as counties experiencing the highest level of congestion in the state. The Monmouth Junction rail plan offers the best traffic relief among the alternatives being studied.
The MOM line offers far more than that. It provides a real opportunity for residents to have rail access to not only to job, educational, medical and cultural opportunities in New York City, but also in New Brunswick, Princeton, Trenton and Philadelphia. The MOM line passes through the most “smart growth” planning areas on the State Development and Redevelopment Plan map where vacant land is abundant and new development and redevelopment is encouraged.
The MOM line will serve as an economic stimulus to bring new businesses and residents to these areas. This option provides the greatest range of opportunities for people in the major growth corridor and is projected by NJ Transit to have, by far, the most riders.
There is strong support for the Monmouth Junction alternative, as shown in a recent opinion poll conducted by nationally renowned marketing research firm McLaughlin & Associates. The poll showed that 80 percent of the residents in Monmouth, Ocean and Middlesex counties are in favor of MOM. This makes the MOM line the right choice for New Jersey.
Instead of the MOM line, Gov. Jon Corzine and, it appears, NJ Transit have decided to support the anti-MOM alternative — which is the Red Bank alternative, with maybe a Freehold spur some time in the future and an express bus that runs along the shoulder of Route 9. The Red Bank line meets the needs of Ocean County residents bound for New York, but it does nothing for either western Monmouth or Middlesex County residents. It also does unquestionable harm to the densely developed residential communities of eastern Monmouth County — particularly Red Bank and Shrewsbury.
Red Bank Mayor Pat Menna is opposed to having more trains through Red Bank, and his plea for help to oppose this alternative shall not go unanswered. A 20 percent increase in train traffic will exacerbate already difficult rush-hour conditions and make an already constrained parking capacity in Red Bank far more problematic.
While Red Bank has benefited from being a rail transportation center, it does not have the infrastructure to support additional trains. Red Bank is one of the most successful small “cities” in New Jersey and is an example of well-balanced municipal planning. For external forces to impose unplanned impacts on a community for the primary benefit of residents of another county is unacceptable.
The proposed Freehold spur for the Red Bank line does not make sense. People from Western Monmouth will not drive to Freehold and board a train that travels to Farmingdale then to Red Bank and, finally, on to destinations in northern New Jersey and New York; with this as the choice, they are more likely to continue to drive or take a bus. The express bus on the Route 9 shoulder that NJ Transit calls a “Bus Rapid Transit System” will be faced with many traffic conflicts with adjacent shopping centers, and will save only five minutes in travel time; it’s not a very useful alternative either.
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 its some-day-western-spur. It is short-sighted and irresponsible and should be seen as the end of the discussion of rail options until new leadership with a broader statewide vision is put in place.