As researchers at New York University’s Stern School of Business and lifelong residents of New Jersey, we have performed an analysis that identifies a correlative relationship between current level of economic prosperity and access to NJ Transit rail lines. Please see more information below.
There is a serious error in the op-ed linked above. The NJDOT Transit Village program is not designed to help towns CREATE transit facilities where there are none; it is designed to enhance the neighborhoods around existing transit facilities. Towns have to do a lot of preliminary work in order to set themselves up for designation (not necessarily including building housing, another error in the article, but definitely planning for new housing). The Transit Village designation gives a town priority status when it applies for funding from any Transit Village partner agencies, and that funding is usually used to fill in gaps where private investment falls short — public-realm improvements, for example.
The links to the DOT’s Transit Village pages explain the program very clearly:
— General information: http://www.state.nj.us/transportation/community/village/index.shtml and http://www.state.nj.us/transportation/business/localaid/transitvillagef.shtm
— Criteria for designation: http://www.state.nj.us/transportation/community/village/criteria.shtm
— FAQs and list of designated Transit Villages: http://www.state.nj.us/transportation/community/village/faq.shtm
The authors’ entire argument is based on a misunderstanding of the program. Our organization has studied the Transit Village program extensively; more information may be found here: http://www.njfuture.org/?s=%22transit+village%22&x=0&y=0
Hello,
Thank you for your comment. However, we feel the need to briefly point out some flaws in your response, given that you have made some strong claims.
1. You write that Transit Village Initiative is not explicitly designed to create ‘transit facilities where there are none’ but ‘to enhance the neighborhoods around existing transit facilities.’ This is correct. However, what is implicit in the Transit Village Initiative — and ALL transit-oriented development (TOD) — is that the town/municipality in question have some sort of transit station. Without that, quite obviously, there can be no enhancement of the town’s neighborhoods, culture, etc. Hence, what the Transit Village Initiative tacitly incentivizes is the very creation of a transit station and/or hub. Only then can development occur. So while you are right that the Initiative only formally applies to those with transit stations (and, this is an inaccuracy on our part), it would be unfair to argue that the Initiative does not incentivize the towns to create transit facilities in the first place. And, there is at least one example where a transit station was not completed, but the town was designated as a Transit Village: http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2017/03/02/north-brunswick-transit-village/.
Additionally, our argument is not just to reform the Transit Village Initiative; it is part of an expanded effort to bring attention to the inequities caused by disproportionate transit and rail access in the state. Your comment makes it even clearer that transit access is an even bigger determinant of economic success and inequality in this state.
2. You write that we discuss ‘building housing,’ calling it ‘another error in the article.’ This is simply false. If you look closely, we never discuss building housing in the op-ed (only ‘development,’ which encompasses planning), and, in our fact sheet, we predominantly discuss the planning requirements and reducing the burden on municipalities. Furthermore, in said facts sheet, we discuss relaxing the affordable housing requirement for transit village applicants — which is found here: http://www.state.nj.us/transportation/community/village/criteria.shtm
3. Finally, your claim that our ‘entire argument is based on a misunderstanding of the program’ is a grandiose and flawed one. Again, as we have point out earlier, our discussion of the Transit Village Initiative is one aspect of a broader public awareness campaign to show how inequality among NJ towns has been and are caused by disproportionate transit and rail access. While your response is helpful, we feel that you have not considered the entire argument being made here and the significance of it. And, your comment only makes it the call to action even more important.
Regardless, we appreciate your public engagement with our op-ed and appreciate the links you have provided us with. Thank you, and best wishes.
Well. A couple of points:
1. Do you have any idea what it costs to generate a new transit station? (Which, by the way, does not fall to the municipality to pay; please do your research.) The measly seed money available through the Transit Village program is decimal dust compared to the capital investment needed for a new facility, and cannot possibly serve as sufficient incentive.
2. North Brunswick’s transit station was planned well before it received Transit Village status, and it was that plan that even allowed it to apply. It was also the same planning decision that incentivized the development currently occurring there. (See also Wesmont Station for similar development, which occurred based on the promise of a new station that has now opened.) The North Brunswick Transit Village designation did not happen out of nothing.
3. “Develop” of course includes planning, but it means build. “Plan” means plan. Towns are not required to develop new housing before receiving their designation, only to plan for it. Your terminology is inaccurate. (Also, many Transit Villages are supporting new housing just fine; take a look at Metuchen. Please don’t use the one instance that doesn’t have its train station to make an argument for the whole.)
4. Inequality among New Jersey municipalities is *not* caused by rail access or lack thereof. That is a fatuous argument with no rigorous basis in analysis. If it were true, how would you explain the fact that Essex Fells, Upper Saddle River, Alpine, Harding Township, or Chester and Mendham townships, which are the townships with the highest median income in the state, all have no access to transit assets?
You have put out an article with incomplete and flawed analyses, and I’m afraid your response above doesn’t change that. As undergraduates, you might take the opportunity to learn from this and do a more thorough analysis. We’re happy to provide you with any statistical analysis you need if it would be helpful.
Elaine has a good point. Individual New Jersey municipalities may apply to join the Transit Village program, but they can’t decide to build a transit hub by themselves. Decisions on transit are made at the state level. So the Transit Village program doens’t incentivize creation of new transit hubs, it incentivizes better land use around existing transit hubs.
I guess you could make a case that New Jersey needs more transit lines connecting to the city, and I would tend to agree with that, but I would question whether access to transit is the primary determinant of whether a town in Jersey is rich or not. If that were true, then Newark would be a very prosperous city, and it isn’t – certainly not compared to some of the affluent suburbs nearby.
Anyway, I thought it was an interesting piece!