The Dinky has been giving Princeton quite a ride, in more ways than one. Though I ride it occasionally to get to the main line, I had been avoiding hitching a ride on the debate over its 460 foot move to a new station as part of the university's proposed Arts and Transit Neighborhood. Given how much community brain power was being brought to bear, the Dinky's dilemma was sure to be propelled to a win-win solution.
That the result was, and may still be, looking more like a lose-lose shocked me into seeking out opinions. The result was a letter to the Princeton Packet and the Town Topics, and the page of Dinky Q and A above, accessible via the tab entitled "The Dinky Debate".
Below is the letter:
Catch a ride on the Dinky opinion train and you will find that, like the Dinky, it sweeps you vigorously from one terminus to the other, with no stops in between. Respected friends will have opposite views, delivering you either to the conclusion that a rail line really should reach up to Nassau Street, or that the best chance for sustaining the Dinky is to move it 460 feet down the hill, as the university now says it will do, regardless.
The debate about the university’s proposed arts and transit neighborhood would be greatly expedited, and needless ill will avoided, if people would look at the university’s proposal as a whole, not just one aspect. The Dinky, though its horn sounds like a cross between a tugboat and a mourning dove, has taken on the qualities of an elephant being intently scrutinized at too close a range. Some aspects of the beast that I’d like to mention are these:
The 460 Feet: Having made the locally famous 460 foot, two minute walk to the proposed new Dinky station location, I found it to be a surprisingly minimal change. For those parking at the nearby Lot 7 university garage (free to the public after hours and on weekends), the new location will actually reduce the walk by that same 460 feet. Though the university plan would lose the appealing interface with University Place, it offers improvements for traffic congestion, parking access, and train station facilities.
Extending tracks to Nassau Street: If extended to Nassau, as would reportedly still be possible via Alexander if the university’s proposal goes forward, the Dinky or any other heavy vehicle (“light rail” is not necessarily lightweight) will encounter steep inclines that could substantially reduce energy efficiency compared to the current relatively flat route. The combination of steep inclines, longer route, more stops and interactions with streets could affect the most important factors determining Dinky ridership: dependability and frequency. Though a train stop on Nassau Street has symbolic power, even with more downtown density most Princetonians would still live well beyond the 10 minutes people are supposedly willing to walk to a train stop.
It’s important that we defend town traditions and dream of an even better Princeton. Sustainability, whether environmental or in reducing the Dinky’s dependency on state subsidies, is a vital part of any vision for the future. The danger comes when the strong sustainable, cultural and civic aspects of the university’s proposal are ignored due to focus on 460 feet. Nor is it fair to delay the university’s vision for years while the serious logistical and budgetary challenges of alternative proposals are indefinitely explored.
If people agree on a foundation of facts as they can best be determined, look at the big picture, and are as skeptical of their own opinions as those of others, then there’s hope this four-year opinion ride can finally pull in to a pleasing destination.I have assembled a summary of information about the university proposal and the Dinky at http://princetonprimer.blogspot.com/p/dinky-debate.html.
4 comments:
Transportation constitutes a major component of energy consumption. Public transport is very sustainable in comparison to private automobiles. On a long-term basis, rail/train mode of transportation generally is much more sustainable over buses.
Limiting access hours to a public transport waiting room, truncating railroad track length (especially for a third time in the case of the Dinky shuttle), 'repurposing' an historic railroad station, and eliminating train service to a municipality (the Borough) does not encourage use of alternative transportation and is not a sustainable practice by any stretch of the imagination -- even if the (latest) proposed curtailment is 'only' 460 feet.
Try being a non-motorist and utilizing walking, bicycling, and public transit as your primary or sole modes of transportation year-round (as for decades citizens have been urged to do wherever possible), and you'll grasp the underlying wisdom of expanding various forms of railroads rather than senselessly and probably irreversibly reducing same.
Arts and transit are not mutually exclusive concepts. Elsewhere, in fact, existing transit typically is expanded for such facilities, not condensed as sought by Princeton University.
If the citizenry and governmental and institutional parties at play were to examine local and regional transportation in a truly holistic manner, we'd all be striving for essentially the same thing: expanded rail service and minimized dependency on automobile/bus/van traffic, toward a more sustainable Princeton.
I appreciate the comment, and agree that a world dominated by rail, bicycles and walking would be preferable. If the true cost of energy had been factored into the market over the past century, we wouldn't be in the predicament we now face.
To prefer rail, however, does not mean that rail is the answer in any and all situations, or that any entity that suggests moving the Dinky 460 feet must be vilified without consideration for how that move fits into an overall plan.
"The Dinky Debate" info on this website is an effort to show how the sustainability of a proposal is the sum of many parts.
No vilification of PU or others intended. Appreciate your efforts herein and elsewhere and generally agree with most of your opinions, yet . . .
From a purely public-transport and historical perspective, cutting rail service doesn't make sense in this day and age. So, is it the preference of NJ Transit, Princeton University, Borough Council, Township Committee and Sustainable Princeton to encourage growth of and subsidies for automobiles, buses, roads, and parking lots --rather than rail transit? Should area realtors stop proclaiming proximity of existing train service to brokered properties in their advertisements, and should some of us be prepared to increase our local automobile dependency?
At which point do we all come together to work for true sutainability -- environmentally, healthfully, historically, fiscally?
Why haven't aforementioned entities jointly scheduled informal public Q&A/discussion sessions specifically on the topic of transportation? Current back-room political dealings shouldn't be necessary for major development projects -- especially those touted as being a great experience for the populace. May we have more transparency to help foster the best possible solution(s)?
There is a confusion of symbolism and reality here. Moving the station 460 feet does not deprive Princeton of rail service. In fact, some have argued that, given the lack of adequate ridership currently, moving the Dinky as the university has plausibly argued is necessary is the best way to insure continued rail service to Princeton. Businesses will benefit from the regional attraction of an arts center.
Since most people live too far from the station to walk, no matter where it is located, the most sustainable option for accessing the Dinky in the future, for those who don't walk or bike, could prove to be plug-in electric cars and a smart grid, rather than extending rail or trying to serve a sprawled populace with shuttles.
Moving the station will reduce car miles for university commuters, and also make parking more accessible for many of us wanting to use the Dinky.
Though I've been a critic of some aspects of the university's sustainability practices (stadium lights left on when the stadium is not being used, breakdowns in recycling) the university has reduced its energy use over the past two years, while the township and borough have yet to even measure. Portraying the university as an impediment to sustainability in Princeton is possibly only by ignoring their considerable positive initiatives, and the many sustainable features of their arts proposal.
Post a Comment