(The following editorial by Michael J. Panter and Robert L. Morgan was posted on the Asbury Park Press website on May 10.)
ASBURY PARK, N.J. — As a result of tremendous growth over the last two decades, increased public transportation has become a necessity for Monmouth and Ocean counties. The best way to satisfy this need would be to reactivate NJ Transit’s proposed Lakehurst-to-Monmouth Junction line and connect Monmouth and Ocean with their neighbor, Middlesex County.
As the least intrusive of the three proposed lines, this alternative would offer an appropriate balance between the needs of the commuters and the needs of the neighborhoods that would be affected by a rail line reactivation.
Although NJ Transit’s Draft Environmental Impact Statement suggests that the Lakehurst-to-Matawan line would attract the most riders, this is not the only priority that should be weighed during this discussion. Equal consideration must be given to both the commuters and those who would have to accommodate the reactivated line in their neighborhoods.
For that reason, we are opposed to the reactivation of the proposed Lakehurst-to-Matawan line, which would run through Freehold Borough, Freehold Township and Marlboro, and the Lakehurst-to-Red Bank line, which would be located in Red Bank, Shrewsbury, Colts Neck and Tinton Falls.
Eastern Monmouth County already has train service. The Monmouth Junction line would serve western Monmouth communities in a much less disruptive manner.
Because we understand the need for mass transportation from an environmental and traffic perspective, we agree that Monmouth County must do its part, if feasible, to allow rail service for the Monmouth-Ocean-Middlesex (MOM) line to pass through. However, we believe that the Monmouth Junction line would be the most advantageous route. The Matawan line, which NJ Transit seems to be favoring at present, would be detrimental to thousands of people and would destroy a $2.5 million trail project just about to be completed by the Monmouth County Park System.
This southern extension of the Henry Hudson Trail is expected to be used by 145,000 people per year when it opens. Many area homeowners paid premiums to live nearby, and hundreds of homes are being constructed along its borders. Developers are touting its proximity as a selling point for future homeowners. To reactivate a rail line in this area would be a betrayal of the public’s trust.
We have taken a great deal of time in addressing this issue with our constituents. We have worked with them at three meetings, all of which were public. We thank the Asbury Park Press for clarifying on March 29 that its editorial criticizing the closed-door nature of NJ Transit’s last meeting in Freehold was in error. We demanded that it be open to the public, NJ Transit complied, and 250 people attended.
We have also met with the Central Jersey Rail Coalition and have agreed to work with it to advocate for the Monmouth Junction line.
As part of our process of reviewing NJ Transit’s findings, which point to the Matawan line as the most advantageous, we have made a request under the Open Public Records Act for copies of all communications between NJ Transit and lawmakers or state officials, as well as internal documents produced by NJ Transit from one year before its February 1996 Major Investment Study through the current date, with respect to the Matawan line.
In that 1996 report, NJ Transit determined that the Matawan line was not worthy of study. We are trying to determine why an unattractive option has suddenly become the most favored.
The only information we can glean is that a Middlesex County legislator demanded that this line, which does not even affect his county, be put back on the table. If this is the motivation behind NJ Transit’s about-face from its 1996 study, we believe that the Matawan line is tainted on its face and should be excluded from further consideration. The Red Bank line, which NJ Transit’s current study shows is the least desirable based on ridership data, also should be ruled out.
We hope our OPRA request will help us get some answers, since none have been provided and the appendix covering the Matawan line in the 1996 study has not been provided — and no one seems to be able to produce it.
We further believe that an objective assessment of these rail lines will reveal significant flaws in NJ Transit’s ridership estimates for the Matawan line, since areas served by that route will not realize population growth as high as those served by the Monmouth Junction line.
Michael J. Panter and Robert L. Morgan are Democratic members of the Assembly representing the 12th
Legislative District, which includes parts of Monmouth and Mercer counties.