Not in YOUR backyard, either!
June 15th 2007 06:52 am
It’s bad enough when an individual or municipality becomes a NIMBY and opposes a good project in their town, or “backyard”. But here’s an example where they’re opposing a project halfway across the state!
The Woodbridge Township Municipal Council passed a resolution opposing the reactivation of the Lackawanna Cut-Off. The following is from the Woodbridge Township Municipal Council minutes of February 6, 2007 (emphasis added):
The Municipal Clerk introduced the following Resolution:
(3) BE IT RESOLVED that the Municipal Council of the Township of Woodbridge opposes additional freight movements along the Port Reading Secondary and Chemical Coast Lines, the construction of the Lackawanna Cutoff project, and the reactivation of the Rahway Valley and Staten Island Lines west of the New Jersey Turnpike, and calls upon all State and Federal officials to discontinue any further support or funding for these projects.
Councilman Kenny: On behalf of Councilman Bedard and myself, I just want to briefly explain again that this is in opposition to the Lackawanna Cutoff project, and also the expansion of the Port Reading Secondary and Chemical Coast Lines. If this was approved and moved ahead it would cause more trains to be using our grade crossings, which would block up more traffic in the Township area. Also in this resolution there’s a call for the Army Corps of Engineers to do a study for high speed rail freight along Route 78 and Route 80 straight into the Newark ports and out to Pennsylvania or further out west. So I ask the Council, on behalf of myself and Councilman Bedard, for their support on this item.
Council Vice President Dalina moved the adoption of the foregoing Resolution. The motion was seconded by Councilwoman Osborne and carried unanimously.
…
Stuart Weiss, Edison: I’m the Chairman of the Inman Railroad Committee. I just came here to thank the Council for resolution #3 that you have in opposition to what is being done with the freight system. I wanted also to bring something up. We have had two meetings with Commissioner Kolluri discussing freight problems in the state of New Jersey, as well as on Inman Avenue and on Route 35. I’m at least hoping to be able to talk in front of the Budget Committee to try to see what we can do again to try to stop Rodney Freylinghouser [sic] and his $550 million fiasco over there called the Lackawanna Cutoff. Only 80 people get in, so whether I’ll get in or not I don’t know. Not right now but in the future, if they put that through, the State of New Jersey will be subsidizing the Pennsylvania riders on the Lackawanna Cutoff. The cost to maintain it is going to be over $22 million a year, and they contemplate being able to get maybe $12 million. The remainder has to come from someplace, and New Jersey Transit never has sufficient money in its other lines to be able to pay for this boondoggle. So we hope that we’ll be able to get some people over there because they keep on talking about our budget.
Council President Velasco: Thank you, and I wish you good luck. Thanks to Councilman Bedard and Councilman Kenny for pushing the resolution.
Mr. Weiss: I’d like to get a copy of the resolution signed and notarized.
There are several problems with this action. First of all, the Lackawanna Cut-Off is roughly 40 miles away from Woodbridge. I’m sure the Woodbridge Township Municipal Council has more useful things to do than worry about a project several counties away.
Second, the notion that the Lackawanna Cut-Off will increase freight traffic in Middlesex County is laughable. I’m not even sure how the freight trains would get there, as there’s no direct route between the two areas. On the east end of the Cut-Off, the trains would have to take the Boonton Line or the Morristown Line, neither of which is suitable for heavy freight traffic. Beyond the west end of the Cut-Off, the steep grades through the Poconos also make the route less desirable than others for freight heading west.
Third, the call for a “high speed rail freight” line parallel to Route 78 is silly. There already is a heavy-duty freight line parallel to Route 78 - Norfolk Southern’s Lehigh Valley Line. There’s a reason the Lehigh Valley Line is where it is - It’s the best east-west route across that part of New Jersey. Any study of “high speed rail freight” lines parallel to Route 78 would certainly say that the Lehigh Valley Line is the best route.
When people in Middlesex County oppose projects in Sussex and Warren counties, they’re not NIMBYs. They’re BANANAs: Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anybody. The BANANAs shouldn’t be permitted to prevent the rest of us from getting the rail service we need.
LRTADV responded on 16 Jun 2007 at 1:42 pm #
This truly sounds like the tail wagging the dog. Who are these people to dictate to a company about how to run its business!! I’m surprised no mention was made about putting the second track back on the Lehigh Line. No doubt the township would have objected to that some how… even though traffic ran on a double track mainline for years. As I recall, operation of the Port Reading Secondary was mostly nocturnal back when I lived in Piscataway years ago. They ran Manville-based locals and some coal trains and empty hopper trains, but that was about it. This is the time of day when auto traffic would be down considerably. The same people who oppose expanded rail service are most likely the same people who will whine about increased auto and truck traffic on local streets and county roads. They get exactly what they deserve!!!