June 24, 2003
Ms. Andrea Lubin
Project Manager
Voorhees Transportation Policy Institute
Rutgers University
New Brunswick, NJ
RE: RPP Comments on the DEIS of the Penns Neck Area Improvements.
Dear Ms. Lubin:
On behalf of the Regional Planning Partnership Board of Directors, I am writing to submit my comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Assessment of the Penns Neck Area Improvements. My comments are based on a lengthy involvement with the issues under review. RPP (then MSM) was active in NJDOT's Route 1 Corridor Study, completed in 1986. That study determined that the closely spaced lights at Washington Road, Fisher Place and Harrison Street caused the second most serious delays and safety problems on Route 1 between I-295 and Route 130 - second only to the complicated Route 130 intersection itself.
In 1989, RPP applauded the major stakeholders who reached consensus on
an alignment that would address these problems and meet the objectives
of each stakeholder. In 1996, RPP objected to NJDOT's proposed change to
one of the components of the agreement. NJDOT's proposal shattered the
consensus and the furor resulted in 2000 in Governor Whitman's call for
a full Environmental Impact Assessment (EIS) process.
Much to the Department's credit, NJDOT decided to use the EIS process to
try some innovations intended to rebuild consensus. One innovation was
to establish a Partners' Roundtable Advisory Committee. As a member of
that Roundtable, I know how hard the Project Team worked to understand
and respond to the issues raised by the stakeholders in the process. It
was a commendable effort.
As a Roundtable participant, I know that the research used as the basis for the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) now under review was comprehensive, detailed and thoroughly reviewed by the stakeholders. It is therefore discouraging to find that after spending millions of dollars of public money and countless hours of public meetings, that the DEIS has not revealed what the consultants will recommend in the Final EIS to address the significant mobility and safety problems that are so well documented in the DEIS. The DEIS describes impacts in fragments. The DEIS is lacking a conclusion, or even a framework, to help the public to put all these impacts together to comment on the data and the 19 alternatives in the DEIS.
The decision to have no preferred alignment forced the project team into another innovation - they presented to the Roundtable a list of pieces of projects. Dividing any possible alignment into pieces was a very useful step initially - it forced us to leave any entrenched position that we may have had coming into the EIS process and encouraged us to think about the project from a new perspective.
But the process of putting these pieces back together into a coherent set of alternatives proved to be more difficult than expected, and the process ran out of time. Although 19 "packages" of improvements were evaluated in the DEIS, no cost or other practical considerations were taken into account, and none of them was selected by the Roundtable as the preferred alignment. It is clear to RPP that a 20th alternative - making relatively minor adjustments to some of the component pieces - is needed to address both the stakeholder objectives and the environmental impacts that were found in the process. Below you will find suggestions as to how this 20th alternative, the preferred project, should be composed.
Although it was an innovation in this EIS process to have no preferred alignment at the beginning of the process, it was certainly expected that there should be one at this point. I strongly recommend that the project team review the data they have so comprehensively collected and analyzed and create a 20th alternative to reflect the recommendations contained in this letter that would best meet the goals and objectives agreed by the Roundtable as well as meeting federal and state environmental standards.
First, it is important to note that the main reasons that consensus was not reached is that almost every component piece does have some negative effect. Construction does impact the environment. Traffic does impact neighborhoods. Because the Roundtable was comprised of many participants who can only be described as NIMBYs, consensus was what these participants were looking for. Because none of these individuals had the responsibility to solve any of the problems faced by the public officials, they had no reason to give up their original positions.
Residents of West Windsor Township, where the improvements are to take place, and the public at large, whose interest is the responsibility of NJDOT officials, are the ones who were not served by this form of public involvement process. It is the purpose of the EIS process to evaluate options on what might be done to solve the problems presented.
Second, it is important to note that the purpose of the EIS process is not to determine whether or not environmental impacts will result from construction, because we know they will. The purpose of the EIS is to determine whether those impacts are legally acceptable and/or whether they can be reduced or mitigated by revising the proposal or taking further actions.
It is RPP's position that the Penns Neck Area Improvements can and should
be built.
Specifically, RPP asks the FEIS and NJDOT's plans to propose a 20th alternative
that will reflect the following:
- Removing the lights at Washington Road, Fisher Place and Harrison Street: The traffic delays and safety concerns are well documented in the DEIS. There was Roundtable consensus that these lights should be removed. Route 1 is the economic engine of the region and public investments must be made to enhance that role by improving mobility, safety, transportation options and the quality of life in the region.
- Provide an East Side Connector (ESC): The well documented traffic
impact on the Penns Neck neighborhood and need for a facility that will
improve regional traffic's access to Route 1 must be addressed by the
East Side Connector (ESC). Some of the Roundtable participants balked
at agreeing to the ESC, even though the data, included in the DEIS, clearly
show the need for it. Sarnoff already has an approval for a General Development
Plan to develop their property, and there is already a road close to
where the ESC would be. Denying the ESC will not achieve the consensus
goal of protecting the environment nor will it achieve the apparent goal
of some Roundtable participants of stopping the Sarnoff development.
The data even show that the environmental conditions by the Millstone
could be improved if the public sector directed the construction of the
ESC. The data also show that the historic artifacts in need of protection
are unlikely to be protected unless the ESC was constructed as a public
project.
The East Side Connector must be aligned to:
a) Enhance existing bus and jitney and future transit services, including the proposed Bus Rapid Transit service in the region.
b) Provide the most benefit to the Millstone River by constructing appropriate stormwater features, protecting and enhancing the landscaped buffer, promoting the recharge capability of the development area, and following other Best Management Practices.
c) Provide the best access for regional traffic to access Route 1, the Princeton Junction train station, the Princeton Designated Regional Center and other regional destinations.
d) Protect the Penns Neck neighborhood from the noise and dangers associated with through traffic.
e) Provide flood-free access for EMS.
f) Accommodate the desire of Sarnoff to have their development on only one side of the ESC.
- The environmental impacts documented in the DEIS are minimal. Even
the most significant findings are minimal:
a) Wetlands impacted are less than ½ an acre.
b) Water quality concerns for the Millstone River must and will be addressed by the public construction of the East Side Connector.
c) The historic artifacts expected to be impacted are relatively commonplace in the many stream corridors in the region and will best be protected through Best Management Practices applied by NJDOT constructing the project.
d) The single sighting of a single long-eared owl is an anomaly. The Sarnoff-planted "habitat" is fragmented at best - as the aerial photograph of the area documents. There is no documentation supporting nesting or even regular feeding in this area.
- The protection of the D & R Canal Park - a major source of drinking
water and recreation - is vital to the quality of life in the region.
There was considerable agreement among the Roundtable participants on
various ways to protect the Canal. The agreement was on a WSC that was
close to Route 1, protecting the University's future campus, and designed
to address Princeton's desire to have traffic distributed equally on
Alexander, Washington and Harrison. This WSC would also protect the allee
of elms on Washington Road. Although the DEIS does not document this
agreement, it would be relatively easy to put together a preferred alignment
proposal that would to put these components together in a project to
meet these goals.
- In 1998, a Congestion Management Study (CMS) study recommended, among
other things, bicycle and pedestrian improvements, promotion of ridesharing
and travel demand reduction (TDM) strategies, transit and paratransit
service improvements, and traffic control system improvements. The Greater
Mercer Transportation Management Association (TMA) was given the responsibility
for undertaking some of these measures. Resources should be made available
to the TMA to ensure that these improvements are implemented.
- An important commitment made in the CMS report was that NJDOT would
construct a pedestrian crossing of Route 1, probably at the old alignment
of Washington Road. The FEIS should recommend that this be built, and
recommend where it would provide the most benefit and reduce any negative
effects.
- Since 1992, New Jerseyans have had a State Development and Redevelopment
Plan (SDRP), which serves as a touchstone for government agencies and
private decision-makers to guide development and infrastructure investment
decisions. In 1995, the Princetons' application for a Regional Center
designation was approved by the State Planning Commission. According
to the SDRP, it is important for a Regional Center to be connected to
a major transportation corridor (Route 1 and the Northeast Corridor Line)
because it is the "locus of high intensity, mixed-use development,
with a density of more than 5,000 people per square mile and an emphasis
on employment". A project which accomplishes the above listed purposes
will satisfy this objective.
- The proposal to reconstruct Route 1 in a cut was popular with the Roundtable,
but because it is so expensive, the preferred project should have two
variations - one with the cut and one at grade to ensure that the improvements
get built. And, because it is so expensive, the Route 1 in the cut variation
should have some caveats attached:
a) Identifying the extra financial resources.
b) If the resources cannot be found, the variation of the preferred project at grade should not be delayed and should be constructed.
b) If the resources can be found, they should only be spent if the Office of Smart Growth, Mercer County, West Windsor and the Princetons agree to revise the Regional Center Designation held by the Princetons to include a plan to connect the new development around the Penns Neck Area Improvements to new Transit Oriented Development at both Princeton's Dinky station and Princeton Junction. This enhancement to the public would be the basis for approving the extraordinary expense of building Route 1 in a cut.
I ask that the project team write into the FEIS these recommendations, developed into the preferred alignment, or respond as to why they did not do so.
From my experience in the 1980s, consensus must be a balance of resolving the transportation problems, agreeing on the physical design that would meet stakeholders needs, protecting critical environmental resources and finding the resources to implement the agreement. A proposal that cannot be implemented, because of cost or for any other reason, will not solve any problems. The final recommendation, therefore, must strive to achieve this balance.
I hope that these recommendations for a preferred alignment allow you to provide decision-makers with the information they need to make a responsible and effective decision.
Yours sincerely,
Dianne R. Brake
President
Copy: Governor James McGreevey
Hon. James Fox, Chief of Staff
Commissioner Jack Lettiere, NJ DOT
Commissioner Bradley Campbell, NJ DEP
Commissioner Susan Bass Levin, NJ DCA
RPP Board of Directors