Dear Fellow Citizens:
This past June 18th I attended the public “Open House” sponsored by the NJDOT regarding the proposed redevelopment study of the abandoned rail corridor known as the Bergen Arches. The purpose of the “Open House” was to invite public feedback and to share information regarding the soon to be concluded study of the abandoned rail corridor the NJDOT is overseeing. The engineering/consulting firm Parsons Brinkerhoff of NYC, a known roadway builder, is actually conducting the redevelopment study.
I have previously expressed my opinion that the NJDOT Bergen Arches redevelopment study is inherently biased towards roadway development of the abandoned rail corridor. The study is supposed to approach the proposed redevelopment in an unbiased manner with regard to the transportation modalities being considered: 1) Roadway, 2) Commercial freight rail, 3) Passenger Light Rail and 4) alternative transportation – i.e. pedestrian and bicycle. I base my resolve on the following, additional facts and perspectives:
1) The public “Open House” was intended for the entire resident population of Jersey City and yet only 1,000 people were invited according to NJDOT Senior Official, the NJDOT employee who is overseeing the entire redevelopment study. According to the US Census 2000 Jersey City’s population was 277,000 – meaning only 0.36% of the entire City’s population was invited.
2) A NJDOT Senior Official has openly stated:” If you build more highway more vehicles can move more freely and that will lower pollution from vehicle emissions.” When other attendees and I presented factual information to the contrary and anecdotal experiences, too, the NJDOT Senior Official shrugged them off by stating “I base my information on my experience of being an employee of the NJDOT.” For the record, the NJDOT Senior Official’s formal education and training is a BA in Business Administration.
3) The environmental studies component of the redevelopment study is being done by the firm DMJM + Harris. An official stated that the environmental impact aspect does not take into account air emissions and non-point source runoff pollution from roadway building. In addition, she admits that to date her contributions to entire study team have minimal as an alleged “equal.”
4) The NJDOT web-site on the Bergen Arches redevelopment study: http://www/state.nj.us/dot/roads/arches mentions the proposed redevelopment from a regional context and yet the study team has previously stated that the redevelopment study is only centered on the Bergen Arches. The regional nature of the redevelopment is “beyond the scope” of the study. I find this to be misleading.
The remaining facts and perspectives will be shared in a forthcoming article.
Alan Singer