Dear Editor:
This past March 26th I attended a meeting at the Jersey City Hall Rotunda Room facilitated by both the New Jersey Department of Transportation and the North Jersey Transportation Planning Authority. The meeting was regarding the study of the proposed redevelopment of the Bergen Arches. I attended as a member of the general public and was soon informed by the meeting facilitators that the meeting was not intended to be open to the public. Indeed, a “miscommunication” some how occurred as to the meeting being open to the public. However because of the unexpectedly large public turnout the facilitators allowed the public to remain in attendance, which most of us did.
As background, The New Jersey Department of Transportation (NJDOT) has sponsored a $1.5 million study of an existing, abandoned rail arch – the Bergen Arches – that historically linked Jersey City with points West. Parsons Brinckerhoff of New York City, is performing the study in order to render, in their professional opinion, the best use of the re-developed arch structure to accommodate surface transportation. The surface modalities being considered are rubber tire roadway (cars, trucks and busses), passenger light rail, commercial freight rail and “alternative transportation – i.e. bicycle and pedestrian lanes.
I support the development of the Bergen Arches for surface transportation. Indeed, Jersey City will increasingly become a major regional employment hub – especially along the Hudson River waterfront. The need to move people between the Jersey City waterfront to and from point West will continue to be more and more critical to sustaining the waterfront’s growth and development. However, I would like to share with you the following background facts and perspectives regarding the study in its present form:
1) Only the NJDOT is involved with the direct oversight of the study. NJ Transit is not directly overseeing the study in equal partnership with the NJDOT. Indeed the NJDOT has stated that it “has conferred with the NJ Transit – along with the North Jersey Transportation Authority, among others – regarding the re-development study. The Bergen Arches re-development study should be done jointly with the NJ Transit in order to ensure the fairness of consideration for all modalities of surface transportation in a re-development study. The study presently does not.
2) Parsons Brinckerhoff is mainly a roadway “rubber tire” builder – significantly less than 10 percent of its overall net revenues come from either passenger or passenger light rail building activities – according to its senior company sources.
3) Parsons Brinckerhoff is a major company. Why would Parsons Brinckerhoff choose to just conduct a $1.5 million study of an abandoned rail arch? Parsons should be precluded from further involvement to avoid a conflict of interest. Presently they are not precluded.
4) Public input into the study and planning process to date has not been solicited or allowed despite the original promise to the contrary by both the NJTPA and the NJDOT.
In the concluding article to follow I will have more points to share.
Alan Singer