Let NJ Transit complete an unbiased study of passenger rail options

I read (state Sen.) Peter Inverso’s column (News Transcript, Feb. 20) on the Monmouth-Ocean-Middlesex rail line with great interest. I think many of us share the senator’s goals of providing safe, reliable transit where appropriate, in a way that minimally impacts affected communities.

I would like to offer perhaps a different perspective and point out some apparent misstatements made by Mr. Inverso.

Before I start, I would like to disclose that I live approximately 1,000 feet from the Matawan-Freehold branch, but also that I do not have a strong opinion about whether or not the rail line should pass through this area (This is not true for many of my neighbors).

First and foremost, as part of the analysis, NJ Transit will need to make a case for the rail line and convince the public that it will not turn into a publicly subsidized boondoggle in which the costs of operation are not offset by revenue.

The study should review which markets are underserved by commuter rail and take that into consideration when selecting the route, as this will improve revenue potential.

Lastly, the environmental and quality of life impact must be assessed for each option.

Every town directly affected by one of the route options could voice concern about proximity of the rail line to residents’ backyards, and negative impact on traffic and other environmental factors. Certainly, the Matawan-Lakehurst alternative has its own liabilities, briefly touched upon below.

With the exception of a 3-mile length of track, the Freehold Secondary Branch (common to both routes) and the Jamesburg Branch are currently used for freight trains. As these lines intersect some heavily traveled roads, many of these have appropriate over/underpasses to avoid grade crossings.

In contrast to Mr. Inverso’s statement, there is virtually no remaining railroad infrastructure on the 12-mile Freehold-Mata-wan branch. Restoration will add cost and complexity to the project, and delay its completion.

Further, activating this line will create grade crossings on some of the most congested roads in the area, three on state Route 79 and one each on county Route 520 and county Route 3.

These arteries are barely capable of handling traffic flow at peak hours, without the complication of grade crossings. These crossings and the traffic that new stations will attract will surely exacerbate an already difficult traffic situation.

While being a potential burden on residents, the right of way also comes within 50 feet of one early learning center, and within 25 feet of a preschool (which is housed in a former Marlboro train station).

Ultimately, a selection from among the three imperfect choices must rely on a comprehensive and objective analysis that appropriately balances public interest with local concerns. Where are the underserved markets for commuter rail? Which option will bring mass transit relief to these communities most quickly? Which alternative maximizes ridership growth, revenue and minimizes the potential for future public subsidies? Which alternative least impacts the local population?

Mr. Inverso’s column, while well intentioned, falls far short of objectivity. Let NJ Transit do its job.

John Lepore

Marlboro