NJ-ARP Hotline #603 available
August 22nd 2007 08:21 pm
NJ-ARP Hotline #603 is now online. When you’re finished reading the Hotline, you can come back here and leave your comments in this thread.
NJ-ARP is not responsible for the posts/comments on this blog.
The opinions expressed in the blog are not necessarily those
of NJ-ARP or its members. By viewing the blog, you agree not
to hold NJ-ARP responsible for any posts/comments, or any
action or omission regarding posts/comments.
Daniel Green responded on 22 Aug 2007 at 11:02 pm #
In Hotline 603 you have expertly rebutted the anti-MOM letter written by Mr. Crabiel in response to my own letter critical of his policy. This is the first time in my memory that he addressed the MOM issue in writing. I found it noteworthy that he used my name eleven times; perhaps it means that my letter must have hit the right nerve. It is significant that Mr. Crabiel attempted to rebut my criticisms point by point, but missed the mark on some and completely ignored others. The following five points will illustrate this:
1. In my letter I had written: “It is now an established fact that most travelers in New Jersey are NOT going to New York. But Mr. Crabiel and the officials of South Brunswick, Jamesburg and Monroe keep sticking their heads in the sand, refusing to hear that.” Mr. Crabiel did not respond to that at all.
2. I had written: “More and more Middlesex residents are now calling for the MOM line via South Brunswick, for they, too, want more rail options. But Crabiel and his friends have lost touch with what their constituents need and want.” His response to that statement simply parrots what the elected officials–not the real travelers–declare in public: “None of the three affected Middlesex County municipalities favors the Monmouth Junction alignment.”
3. I had written: “Another example of Mr. Crabiel’s grasping at straws to find deficiencies is his laughable assertion that the route to South Brunswick would adversely impact Monmouth Battlefield State Park. That is also false, for the existing rail line has been part of the park’s landscape for over 150 years.” Mr. Crabiel did not respond to that at all.
4. I had written: “The real reason Mr. Crabiel is unhappy that NJ Transit voted to fund completion of the current environmental study is his fear that the South Brunswick route will be found to be the best of the options.” Mr. Crabiel’s response to this was to try to obscure my point with a personal and unsupported attack, for he wrote: “Clearly, Mr. Green’s primary concern is the convenience of Monmouth County and Ocean County residents. He has no concern for the impact the Monmouth Junction alignment will have on the residents of Middlesex County.” I flatly deny that.
5. Mr. Crabiel concluded his rebuttal with the following: “If, as Mr. Green claims, thousands of travelers truly need and want more passenger-rail-service options, then perhaps he should not continue to obstruct the most effective and feasible means (the Matawan or Red Bank alignments for MOM) to provide those options.” My response to that is: Red Bank is the most feasible, Matawan is the least feasible, and South Brunswick (Monmouth Junction) is the most effective.
When it comes to the long-range transportation needs of our large region, the route which is the most effective is the clear winner. Let Mr. Crabiel eat his own words and not continue to obstruct the true MOM through South Brunswick–the most effective route.
DANIEL GREEN