Bob Durkee, vice president and secretary, Princeton University
To the editor:
In her recent letter, Jenny Crumiller accuses Kristin Appelget, President Tilghman and me of being “dishonest” and “deceitful” in discussions regarding the university’s arts and transit project. She specifically cites a conversation in 2011 in which we said that the university had explored various options, including bridges and tunnels, as alternatives to relocating the Dinky station. She then cites a Planning Board meeting in 2012 at which the architects for the new station and Wawa said they had not been asked to explore alternatives to the plan then before the Planning Board the plan approved by the board by a 9-1 vote. But these were the wrong people to ask; they were hired only to design these new buildings and to renovate and expand the existing station buildings, long after the point in the process when alternatives had been considered.
In fact, for a solid year in 2010, the university did actively and seriously examine every alternative that we could imagine or that had been proposed to us. We engaged outside engineers and planners to assess the costs and feasibility of bridges and tunnels. We confirmed our understanding with state officials (which they later re-affirmed at a meeting of Borough Council) that they would not permit a grade crossing in the area. We even commissioned engineering studies on the idea pushed most aggressively by opponents of the project, a terrible idea in our view, which was to relocate the Dinky and the Dinky station underground. We not only commissioned all of these studies, but on Dec. 2, 2010, we invited public officials and opponents of the projects to a meeting with the engineers and planners who had done the studies and we presented their findings. Attendees at the meeting included members of the governing bodies and the Planning Board and the most insistent opponents. The meeting lasted several hours and there was a follow-up meeting in mid-January to respond to a number of questions and requests for additional information.
We referred to all of this in our presentation to the Planning Board in the fall of 2012, saying: “There were other ideas, ranging from bridges and tunnels to a proposal that would have moved the Dinky arrival experience underground and precluded any light rail connection in the future. We studied these ideas in detail, sought expert advice, and reported back in public meetings on what we learned. The fact that we didn’t adopt a proposal doesn’t mean we didn’t consider it.”
Ms. Crumiller also misrepresents what university officials and New Jersey Transit have said about the impact of this project on the future of the Dinky. Your readers may be interested in what a deputy attorney general for New Jersey Transit said during the recent court hearing in which a requested restraining order was resoundingly denied. Speaking for NJ Transit, he said: “What this project is all about is not destroying the Dinky service. It’s enhancing the Dinky service. It’s enhancing the use of public transportation for the benefit of all of the people in the community . . .This project . . . will, in fact, probably save the Dinky. It’s ironic that the plaintiffs are arguing that they have to bring this action in order to save the Dinky.”
In recent discussions about proposed state legislation that would exempt colleges and universities from the existing planning process, Ms. Crumiller has been a vigorous advocate for retaining the current process, so we have been surprised and disappointed by her unwillingness to accept and support the outcome of the very process that she wants to retain. From March 2006 through December 2012, the university discussed the arts and transit project at some 15 Borough Council meetings, 9 Township Committee meetings, 15 Planning Board meetings (including three lengthy meetings last fall), three joint meetings of these bodies, two Historic Sites Council meetings, one New Jersey Transit board meeting, and at least 14 other public meetings. This process resulted in zoning approvals in the borough and township; Planning Board approval with only one dissenting vote; and green lights from the Historic Sites Council and NJ Transit.
Contrary to what Ms. Crumiller says in her letter, our attorneys have made no representations about whether residents of the community favor or oppose the relocation of the station and reuse of the existing buildings for a restaurant and café (or whether they are waiting for the completion of the project to make their judgment). What they have cited is the small group of residents who have been unwilling to respect the outcome of the lengthy public process that led to approvals for the project, and instead continue to file lawsuit upon lawsuit, seek injunctions to delay the project in midstream, and submit a federal petition that alleges a termination of service that any rider of the Dinky can attest has not been terminated.
Let me close by saying that we do regret the inconvenience associated with the construction of such a multi-faceted project, but we are doing our best to provide alternatives that meet the needs of Dinky riders and others during this interim period, to keep folks as fully informed as possible, and to move as quickly as we can toward completion of the project.
Bob Durkee
Vice president and secretary
Princeton University
