EDITORIAL: Legislation proposed by state Sen. Peter Inverso is the best way to ensure that all possible rail-line alternatives have been studied.
State Sen. Peter Inverso wants the state to make sure it leaves no stone unturned before it moves forward with a proposed rail line linking the Shore area and central New Jersey.
The Hamilton Republican, whose district includes South Brunswick, Jamesburg and Monroe, has drafted a bill that would require an institution of higher education to review all studies to date of transportation alternatives for central New Jersey and conduct an independent study of these alternatives. It would set aside $200,000 for the study from the general fund of the state Department of Transportation. The legislation has not yet been formally introduced.
The legislation aims to slow the process and parse through what the bill statement calls "credible arguments for and against" the proposed alignments by providing "an impartial assessment of these conflicting arguments."
Essentially, it would force everyone to take a breath and make sure all relevant information potentially including a study of abandoned alternatives has been reviewed and all interested parties have had their say.
That’s why we are encouraging the Legislature to approve the bill, once it is introduced.
Too many questions remain unanswered about the various alignments for NJ Transit to move forward, including what NJ Transit’s goals for the line ultimately are and which line would best serve those goals. Does NJ Transit want a line that will take Shore area residents to New York? Or is it interested in flexibility, in expanding rail service throughout the state?
Currently, NJ Transit is preparing to move forward with an environmental impact study that would assess two rail alternatives, with the hopes of getting federal funding for the winner.
The alignments under consideration both begin in Lakehurst in Ocean County and run north to Farmingdale. One then runs west through Monroe and Jamesburg to connect with the Northeast Corridor line in South Brunswick, while the other would head north to connect with the North Jersey Coast line in Red Bank.
Each would seem to serve different ends and has engendered opposition and support from different communities because of location. Running the line north would seem to more efficiently take commuters to New York, though it would not help commuters in the Freehold area. Running it west would grant more flexibility, allowing commuters to get to the Route 1 Corridor and Philadelphia, though NJ Transit’s own studies have not made these issues a priority.
The South Brunswick alignment was estimated in a 1996 report to cost about $260 million and to operate at a loss of $11 million a year. The Red Bank alignment was estimated to cost half as much to construct and to operate at a yearly loss of about $8 million. These costs do not include the building of rail stations in towns along the line. The South Brunswick line was estimated to serve nearly twice as many riders.
Towns in Middlesex County including South Brunswick, Jamesburg and Monroe and many residents in Monmouth County would like NJ Transit to choose an alignment heading north, while much of eastern Monmouth County is pushing for the western alignment.
And there is a third alternative: running the line through Farmingdale to Freehold, then north to connect with the North Jersey Coast line in Matawan. The right-of-way for this alignment, however, has been turned over to the state’s Rails to Trails program.
The Lakehurst to Matawan alignment was not extensively studied in the 1996 Major Investment Study. What would it take to revive this line? What would it cost and what kind of ridership would it attract?
We do not know if the Matawan alternative is feasible, but it deserves a look.
Residents and commuters in all of the affected communities need to know that all of the potential alternatives have been studied and that the rail alternative chosen is the one that makes the most sense for everyone.
We think this legislation can ensure this.