Addressing The Dinky Terminus Must

Move Issue

Alain L. KornhauserMontadale Circle

Township

Premise

1. It is best for the community if the Dinky terminus not move any farther away from Nassau Street than its current location

2. It would be of some value to return it to its pre-1985 terminus at the Passenger Building

3. The possibility of its extension to Nassau Street must be preserved and its practicality seriously investigated.

4. Nassau Hall has not provided a compelling reason(s) for violating the above. Not:

1. Access to Lot 7

2. Liability of at-grade crossings

3. The beauty of a reflecting pond

4. NIMBY

5. It’s Ugly

The Nassau Hall has explicitly said

• We bought the land from NJ Transit with the proviso that we can move the Dinky anywhere anytime– As long as we provide a 170 foot platform – The Executive Director of NJT agrees with that

interpretation as per some letter to Bob Durkee.• The ED of NJT is appointed by the Governor who sits on the

Board of the University

• We are moving the Dinky, period!– Dinky issue is Not tied to the Arts District issue; – Arts District issue may be tied to the Dinky issue

• Therefore, Dinky issue needs to be settled prior to Arts issue

The Community’s Options

1. Freight service on the Dinky line may not have been abandoned properly in the 1980s thus voiding the NJT_PU sales contract and the Surface Transportation Board might have jurisdiction.– Suggested by a Seattle lawyer recommended by our

law firm– We aren’t that desperate nor that rich

2. Nassau Hall’s interpretation of its contract is exceedingly self-serving.

Pre-1985 to Present Terminus~185 feet

http://www.daftlogic.com/projects-google-maps-distance-calculator.htm

The Community’s Options

2. Nassau Hall’s interpretation of its contract is exceedingly self-serving. – We could challenge that interpretation in the

appropriate court

The Community’s Options1. Freight service on the Dinky line may not have been abandoned properly in the 1980s thus voiding the

NJT_PU sales contract and the Surface Transportation Board might have jurisdiction.

2. Nassau Hall’s interpretation of its contract is exceedingly self-serving.

3. We could buy back the Dinky Right-of-Way (RoW)

– Zoning can not compel Nassau Hall not to move the Dinky– It is bad Public Policy to have a disinterested Private entity

own assets that are critical to the delivery of Public Services • especially in the public’s role in delivering mobility opportunities

for all

– We would be doing Nassau Hall a favor by substantially reducing their perceived liability• Nassau Hall bought the land in ‘85; Miller climbed the Dinky at

4am in Nov. ‘90: Nassau Hall settled out of court.

– We would control our own destiny

Recommended Process

• Create Princeton Community Transportation & Parking Authority (PCTRA)

– Needed anyway for community parking issues with condemnation rights through eminent domain

• PCTRA establishes a Public-Private-Partnership (PPP) with a willing and able private entity to acquire the Dinky RoW and oversee the operation of the Dinky service– The Private entity finances the RoW acquisition and the operation of the

Dinky at zero financial exposure to the community– PCTRA puts out for bid the operation of the Dinky and oversees its

operation• It sets the service standards, fare and investigates the alternatives for extension to

Nassau Street

– Henry Posner III, ‘77, Chairman, Railroad Development Corp.  is willing and able to be the Private partner in the PPP and prepared to operate or contract the service should NJ Transit wish to abandon its current obligations. See www.rrdc.com

Implications

• Creation of PCTPA allows the Borough to gain control of and independently solve the Dinky issue.

• Acquisition of the Dinky RoW, terminal and commuter parking allows the Borough to approve Nassau Hall’s “Arts District zoning” for the remaining Nassau Hall properties.

• PCTPA will welcome Nassau Hall’s requests for at-grade or below-grade crossings of the Dinky RoW should those requests be made