By Anne Waldron Neumann
Do you find the Dinky controversy confusing? Do you wonder why people care so much about moving the station 500 feet? Read, and then decide.
On April 19, New Jersey’s Historic Sites Council (HSC) met in Trenton to consider saving the Dinky. So, first question: why does the Dinky need saving? It’s not because it’s little used. Weekday ridership is well over 2,000 trips, making Princeton’s Dinky station 43rd out of 150 New Jersey stations.
No, the Dinky needs saving because the university wants to dismantle 500 feet of track and build arts classrooms near the right-of-way (not on it). Instead of building a bridge or underpass to cross the tracks, as many have suggested, the university plans a new station 500 feet farther downhill from Nassau Street, accessible by car from Alexander Street, not University Place.
Relocating the Dinky station 500 feet farther downhill would put the station outside a tolerable walk for many more Princetonians. Older people with bad knees would find the new flights of stairs difficult. Because parking would be farther downhill than the station would, even the walk uphill to McCarter Theater would become daunting And statistics show that most Americans, fit or not, drive whenever walking to public transit takes more than ten minutes. These statistics predict that many more commuters would drive to Princeton Junction instead of taking the Dinky. Alexander Street’s congestion would increase. Stop-and-go traffic would raise carbon emissions since time traveled, not distance, determines emissions levels. Dinky ridership would probably drop substantially, threatening the Dinky’s survival.
To see what the new walk would be like, watch “Princeton University’s Bad Idea” on YouTube. The new station would be located closer to the current station than the fence in the video. But the fence is where Dinky parking would begin. The video also shows the steep slope down to Alexander Street and its extreme congestion even at 6:45 p.m.
Imagine this traffic with at least two new traffic lights for a train station and parking.
Second question: why did the Historic Sites Council weigh the Dinky’s fate? The Dinky’s Princeton terminus was listed on New Jersey and National Historic Registers in 1984. Historic protection covers the 1,918 passenger and freight stations, platform, canopy, tracks, right-of-way, and catenary (overhead electric wire).
Just after this historic listing, Princeton University bought Princeton’s freight and passenger stations, the platform, canopy, and land. NJTransit still owns the tracks, catenary, and right-of-way. NJTransit also retains “use and occupancy” of stations, platform, and canopy.
The 1984 sales agreement required the university to maintain its property and keep the passenger station open. It let the university move the terminus just to the current platform’s end because the university planned a grand entry to campus between the passenger and freight stations (this never happened).
And the contract guaranteed that the right-of-way would remain for five years should hard times for railroads come again and NJTransit decide to abandon service. The five years was designed to give Princetonians time to seek alternatives.
Future alternatives might include light rail. But alternatives to NJTransit already exist today: several railroad entrepreneurs are ready to buy and operate the Dinky as is.
Astonishingly, NJTransit agreed to abandon historic public property to a private entity without waiting five years. Despite NJTransit’s surrender, HSC members still seemed reluctant to approve NJTransit’s application which members kept calling the university’s application because the university didn’t submit concrete plans for either arts complex or station renovation.
Four days after the meeting, the university submitted concrete plans to Princeton’s Planning Board.
HSC sends its recommendations to New Jersey’s Department of Environmental Protection, which makes the final decision. HSC’s administrator implied on the 19th that NJDEP would approve the university’s plan, whatever HSC recommended. He pushed HSC to approve with conditions, which (though unenforceable) might guide other review bodies (like Princeton’s Planning Board). HSC members agreed 5-1.
Who really wants the Dinky to move? As I see it, Nassau Hall has pressured everyone involved. For example, why did McCarter’s board president applaud the new station at the HSC meeting, though parking would be much farther away? Why was a borough merchant convinced that two new restaurants on University Place would increase business downtown? Why did HSC’s state-employed administrator push HSC to approve?
I draw no conclusions. But, like all New Jersey governors, Christie is a trustee of Princeton University, where his son has just been accepted. The university heavily subsidizes McCarter. University spokesperson Kristin Appelget formerly headed Princeton’s Chamber of Commerce. And the university buys from Princeton merchants.
Since the university has so much clout and money, what can we do? On April 10, Borough Council introduced an ordinance to zone its portion of the Dinky tracks for transit only. Our Planning Board will comment and return the ordinance for final passage. And, on May 3, the Borough’s Historic Preservation Review Committee (HPRC) will consider granting the Dinky station historic protection under local ordinances.
Please ask township representatives, especially those running for re-election under consolidation, to match the borough’s ordinance. Urge HPRC to protect the Dinky. Attend the Planning Board meeting. Donate at SaveTheDinky.org.
The university can have its arts complex without moving the Dinky. Would we let any other private developer dismantle heavily used, historic train track?
Anne Waldron Neumann is author of “Should You Read Shakespeare?” and teaches creative writing in Princeton.
