Tuckerton RR ROW

Any news on this since September 05?

Asbury Park Press, Sept. 15, 2005

BATTLE OVER LACEY RAILROAD TRAIL HEATS UP

CHOICE: Use it as a recreational trail or as a new road to alleviate
traffic

By John Vandiver, Manahawkin Bureau

Talking politics with friends at the Lacey Diner is a daily exercise
for John Parker, a political fixture here for nearly half a century.

And Wednesday morning, the talk turned serious as Parker's attention
focused on a narrow stretch of undeveloped land, the focal point of a
crucial public meeting scheduled for later that night.

"This is my brain-child," said Parker, a township committeeman who has
served a number of stints as mayor. "It all culminates tonight."

What Parker was talking about is the township's plan to build a three-
quarters-of-a-mile road, known as Railroad Avenue, on an abandoned
railroad bed parallel to Route 9 from Lacey Road to Musket Road/First
Street. Parker says he's been pushing for the road for some 10 years.

Before deciding whether or not to grant the necessary permit for the
project, the state Department of Environmental Protection held a
meeting at Lacey Middle School to collect public opinion on the issue.

While Parker discussed the practical and political implications of the
meeting's outcome, his chief opponent in the fight over the road spent
her morning getting ready for the upcoming meeting.

"This is something we've been preparing for for five years," said
Helen Henderson, chairwoman of the Lacey Rail-Trail Environmental
Committee, which formed in 2000 to combat construction on the
abandoned railroad bed.

Rail-Trail members say the railroad right-of-way should be dedicated
for a linear park with a proposed recreational trail that would run
from South Toms River to Barnegat.

Henderson and her supporters made their case Wednesday night to DEP
officials, who hold the key to resolving the drawn-out battle over
Railroad Avenue.

"There is already an alternate route to Route 9 and all the locals
know it. It's called Lake Barnegat Drive," said Lorraine Sansone, a
Lacey resident opposed to the road. "I ask you very respectfully to
deny this application."

Meanwhile, road supporters say the project would divert traffic from
Route 9 and provide a shortcut across Lacey, helping alleviate some of
Lacey's traffic congestion. State officials are expected to determine
within 60 days whether to grant an environmental permit required under
the Coastal Area Facility Review Act.

Lacey Board of Education President Robert Laureigh told state
officials that a new road will make transportation to and from nearby
schools safer for students.

"Whether we like it or not, Lacey has grown," Laureigh said. "Like it
or not, we need this road."

About 120 people attended the meeting.

But as those deeply involved in the debate voiced their opinions at
the public input meeting, scores of other residents not present have
quietly formed opinions on the issue.

The split between members of the Rail-Trail committee and certain
township leaders is reflected in the community itself, where neighbors
are divided.

Dan Greener, whose Lake Barnegat Drive home runs parallel to the site
of the planned road, said a new road is needed.

"Make something happen," said Greener, tired of the seemingly endless
battle. "It'll alleviate traffic, which is what we need."

However, Warren Mattson, whose home also is within walking distance to
the site, said property values will suffer if Railroad Avenue is
constructed.

"It shouldn't happen. It should be a nature trail," he said.

The road will do little to solve Lacey's traffic troubles, said
Mattson, 75.

"Leave it natural," agreed Chris Streno, owner of a pet supply shop on
Route 9. "I don't think a road there is going to help traffic," she
said.

Yet Debbie Pierce, a resident here 10 years, says more roads are
needed to support a growing community.

"It used to be so mellow here, but it's crazy around here now." said
Pierce, 51.

Copyright 2005 Asbury Park Press.

I've seen nothing lately in the Asbury Park Press, however, that's the Barnaget Branch of the Central Railroad of New Jersey, not the Tuckerton RR.

NY&LB wrote:I've seen nothing lately in the Asbury Park Press, however, that's the Barnaget Branch of the Central Railroad of New Jersey, not the Tuckerton RR.

Thanks for the correction about the CNJ.

Ken

One might wonder why the Lacey town fathers place such importance on builing a road which so many members of the public oppose, especially given the fact that another road, as mentioned in the above article, already diverts traffic from Rt 9 to Lacey Road. Could it be something so often ignored or not known by the reporters, which is the planned major commercial development slated to be built between the railroad ROW and Rt 9? As with other towns, the short sighted quest for tax ratables that will be brought in by the Walmart, Home Depot, and associated smaller stores planned, will create traffic problems that make the current situation seem like a ghost town. They know having this road running behind the shopping center, similar to the one that was built parallel to Rt 72 in Manahawkin, is the only way they will not create a major mess in that area. Incidentally, both a Home Depot and Walmart already exist in both Toms River and Manahawkin, either one 15-20 minutes away.

CHOICE: Use it as a recreational trail or as a new road to alleviate traffic

Yeah, anything but its original purpose, right...?

No roads alleviate traffic. They only exacerbate traffic.

Trails are pork and serve no economic purpose. (No offense to trail fans.)

Are there potential rail customers down there I'm not aware of? There might be a few folks who are commuting to north Jersey or New York from Lacey, but not many. And the portion of the old Barnegat Branch used for freight is shrinking northward, not growing to the south. I'm an avid as well as sentimental railfan, but also a realist. The MOM project deserves to move forward, and this ROW deserves to become a trail.

As far as economic purposes, it seems almost silly to have to justify them, but don't trails and other recreational facilities contribute to the health and well being of our population? There is certainly an econmic cost to being a fat and flabby couch potato. Myself and my family happen to use trails quite a bit. I also don't like bowling, but I would hardly claim bowling alleys are useless, just because I don't use them.

Here's how I see it. Rt 9 definitely has problems down that way. It is basically just 2 lanes. Summer traffic is horrendous. All the new housing that has gone up in Lacey has resulted in extensive traffic just due to "locals". But turning the CNJ ROW into a road accomplishes almost nothing because it does not A) Expand Rt 9 capacity, nor B) Provide a critical connection. To address point A, you need to expand the number of lanes of Rt 9 which will have to happen sooner or later. For point B, as the one woman in the article stated, Barnegat Light Drive already makes the exact same connection between Musket Rd/1st Ave and Lacey Rd. It is located one block west of the CNJ ROW.

The CNJ's Barnegat Branch was basically built to be a tomato & fish hauler. And those days are gone. Other than an occaisional lumber yard or Home Depot, there is no industry to speak of to support freight. However, I will respectively disagree with German on one point. The majority of all that new housing belongs to commuters. There aren't as many commuters living down in Lacey that are destined for NYC like there are in Toms River (10 miles north) but those commuters are mostly heading to Monmouth county, Middlesex county, North Jersey and other points. As Doug Bown, of NJ-ARP points out, those commuters are valid numbers when determining rail capacity.

A Rail Trail is a nice recreational facility, but would it be that bad to examine the concept of extending passenger rail (once MOM to Lakehurst is finally completed) from Lakehurst to Toms River to Lacey and maybe even further south. The residential commuters numbers are heavily there and continuing to grow that would support it. It just seems like after Lakehurst, reactivating the rails through Toms River and Lacey just seem logical. I know there isn't any way to reactivate the old PRR from Bayhead to Seaside and across the bay to Pine Beach/Beachwood and over to Whiting. So the Barnegat Branch is the best shot. And I believe the entire ROW is still (for now) intact with only the need for a few minor bridge crossings over creeks and the narrow side of the Toms River.

The ROW is indeed intact. There are quite a few new roads crossing it than there once were, but nothing built right on it, unlike the Tuckerton RR, which has roads built upon its ROW in both Tuckerton and Whiting. The Ocean County sewage facility in Bayville may have placed obstacles in the old ROW, but there is room there to re-align it.

I'm not really up to speed on the legal aspects of trail construction on old railroad beds. Have any been created that maintained the right to restore future rail usage if it is ever deemed needed? It seems to me that an unimproved trail would be alot easier to convert back into a railroad than the road they are proposing in Lacey would be.