January 10, 2018 02:47 PM
UPDATED 3 MINUTES AGO
New Jersey Transit postponed a vote Wednesday on whether it will purchase a three-acre portion of Hoboken's waterfront to use as a ferry maintenance facility, an issue that has pitted the nation's second-largest public transportation provider against a new mayor who has pledged to block the plan.
NJ Transit was scheduled to vote on whether to acquire the property for use by NY Waterway, but not enough board members were in attendance to reach a quorum. The agency attributed it to "an urgent personal matter that had to be attended to" but didn't give specifics.
An NJ Transit spokeswoman didn't know the last time a board meeting had been postponed in similar fashion. The agency said it would hold the meeting on Friday.
Hoboken Mayor Ravinder Bhalla, who attended Wednesday's meeting along with several supporters, called the lack of a vote a temporary victory. He said other locations along the Hudson River could be used for the facility.
Bhalla wants to use the land to extend Hoboken's waterfront park. The city is prepared to take the property by eminent domain if necessary. That wouldn't be possible if the state, through NJ Transit, purchases it.
"Hitting the pause button on this rushed and ill-conceived plan provides NJ Transit the opportunity to begin a deliberative and transparent planning process that considers input from all stakeholders, including the public," Bhalla said.
NY Waterway, a private company that operates cross-Hudson River ferries from points along the New Jersey waterfront, purchased the site, which has operated as a marine maintenance facility for more than century, last year.
Waterway spokesman Pat Smith said Wednesday the company expects to pay NJ Transit a lease "in the six figures" if NJ Transit purchases the site, plus make approximately $10 million in improvements.
Expanded ferry service is seen as an important component in the region's transportation planning, as rail and bus commuting has become increasingly plagued by aging, problem-prone infrastructure.
Comments