May 29, 2002
The Hon. James Fox
Commissioner
NJ Department of Transportation
1035 Parkway Avenue
P.O. Box 600
Trenton, NJ 08625-0600
Attn: Thomas P. Thatcher
Administrative Practice Officer
Re: Petition for Proposed Amendments to the Highway Access Management Code, January 22, 2002 (R.2002 d.22) N.J.A.C. 16:47-4.26 and 4.34 (effective October 19, 2002)
Dear Commissioner Fox:
In a letter dated May 20, 2002, you received a petition to amend the Highway Access Management Code from the Access Code Study Group. My name was listed as a member of that Group, and I am writing to clarify that I was not involved in the process of developing these recommendations.
Since I had been an active member of the original Highway Access Management Code Study Group back in the early 1990's, NJDOT planner James Lewis called me in March to tell me about the new Advisory Group. On Jim's advice, I called Karl Pehnke to ask about the Group's work. Karl invited me to join them and kindly sent the material that they had already reviewed. I was, however, unable to attend the next meeting, which seems to have been their last. As a result, the recommendations of the committee do not reflect my input, and one is in opposition to RPP's position.
The issue in dispute is based on the Group's comment that they do not want the Code to restrict development anywhere. As a Smart Growth advocate for the last 20 years and a member of the State Planning Commission for the last six, I can give you many public interest reasons why the Access Code could and should restrict development where it has been deemed inappropriate in the State Development and Redevelopment Plan. Given the language in the Highway Access Code legislation that mandates that the Code should reflect the State Plan, I can give you legal reasons as well. It is RPP's position that the Department should be strengthening this aspect of the code, not weakening it.
As to the other, more technical recommendations in the Report, my background
as a planner does not qualify me to comment. I do, however, ask the Department's
engineers and lawyers to evaluate these recommendations as to how effectively
they may help resolve some of the difficulties of balancing the three
goals of the Highway Access Code - protect the safety and mobility of
the State Highway System in such a way as to promote the implementation
of the State Plan.
Last year, I was called by Bill Beetle to facilitate an end to a dispute
over the Access permits for the Town Center development in Washington Township
in Mercer County. As you know, Washington Township has State Plan Center
Designation for their plan. Local officials and the developer had every
reason to expect that the permits to implement the plan would be expedited
as a result of this designation. Instead, they faced a battle that has
lasted, to date, at least five years!
At the end of my involvement in the process, disagreements remained as to 1) what could be legally be allowed under the Code and 2) what was an appropriate comfort level for engineers that the State Highway would still "work" if parking and an increase in the number of traffic lights would be allowed on the Town Center's main street. If the change from a LOS to a V/C requirement recommended by the Access Code Advisory Committee in their May 20th letter would help resolve these issues, I would hope that the Department would consider making such a change. But I suspect that the problems need more work by the Department. If there is anything more that I can do to help resolve these issues, I would be happy to do so.
Thank you for considering these concerns and my recommendations. You have my best wishes for success.
Yours sincerely,
Dianne R. Brake
President
Copy: James Lewis, NJDOT Planning
Karl A. Pehnke, PE, Schoor DePalma