We wonder if all these signs of progress aren't having a dispiriting impact on those opposed to restoring Rahway Valley Railway service. And, as it happens, a chance discussion August 5, 2005, between this NJ-ARP representative and a Springfield resident -- a co-worker -- while reviewing the latest messages on this thread reinforces that sense.
The resident volunteered that:
1. Springfield opponents to the Rahway Valley Railroad remain convinced that garbage trains are in their future -- "if not now, then long term"; but regardless of that ...
2. Many of the same residents claim they'd change their tune if passenger rail services were part of any restoration mix.
Regarding point #2, NJ-ARP (as a whole -- this rep quickly polled some other officers on this matter) remains bemused by such emotional gyrations. It's our belief that Springfield citizens think they see the writing on the wall, and it's rail freight through-running.
To that end, it's possible those same folks will list their "needs" for accepting rail's return. "Passenger rail" buys them political cover -- even though in past years Springfield has rejected proposals for light rail, and even a rail-trail, on the right-of-way traversing it.
Still, NJ-ARP and others have heard Springfield reps raise the issue of passenger rail before. We'll dutifully check out whether those expressed interests are in any way for real.
Regarding point #1: NJ-ARP informed the Springfield resident that if his neighbors want to dwell on "garbage trains" as a focal issue, they were welcome to do so, since they are in essence doing NJ-ARP and others a favor by being so distracted.
The resident volunteered that:
1. Springfield opponents to the Rahway Valley Railroad remain convinced that garbage trains are in their future -- "if not now, then long term"; but regardless of that ...
2. Many of the same residents claim they'd change their tune if passenger rail services were part of any restoration mix.
Regarding point #2, NJ-ARP (as a whole -- this rep quickly polled some other officers on this matter) remains bemused by such emotional gyrations. It's our belief that Springfield citizens think they see the writing on the wall, and it's rail freight through-running.
To that end, it's possible those same folks will list their "needs" for accepting rail's return. "Passenger rail" buys them political cover -- even though in past years Springfield has rejected proposals for light rail, and even a rail-trail, on the right-of-way traversing it.
Still, NJ-ARP and others have heard Springfield reps raise the issue of passenger rail before. We'll dutifully check out whether those expressed interests are in any way for real.
Regarding point #1: NJ-ARP informed the Springfield resident that if his neighbors want to dwell on "garbage trains" as a focal issue, they were welcome to do so, since they are in essence doing NJ-ARP and others a favor by being so distracted.