March 31, 2003
Hon. James McGreevey
Governor of New Jersey
The State House
Trenton, NJ 08625
RE: Smart Growth Support for Route 92
Dear Governor McGreevey:
It has come to my attention that you may be under pressure from those who say that if the Administration supports Route 92, it would be in conflict with your support for Smart Growth and the State Plan. On behalf of the Board, members and staff of the Regional Planning Partnership, a non-profit organization dedicated to protecting the quality of community life through sound land use planning and regional cooperation, I am writing to give you the facts to demonstrate that there is no such conflict. Once you have reviewed these facts, I ask you to use your influence to ensure that Route 92 is constructed as soon as possible.
RPP has advocated Smart Growth for over 35 years. As you will see from the enclosed summary of our accomplishments over that time, we have growth management credentials second to none in New Jersey. These credits demonstrate RPP's long-term commitment to reduce land and resource consumption, protect water resources and reduce auto-dependency - Smart Growth.
We have learned that a position against any new capacity in the
road network will not lead to Smart Growth any more than a position in
favor of all new capacity. To judge whether a project is "smart" or
not, a project must be judged on its purpose, design and function in the
overall plan for growth and conservation in a region. Our 35 years of experience
in this region, has given us the qualifications to determine that Route
92 meets those criteria and deserves your support.
RPP has supported Route 92 for over 25 years - ever since the 1970s when
we opposed the extension of Interstate 95 through the Hopewell Valley and
the Sourland Mountains, an area that RPP has long sought to protect. Instead
of having the money being spent on that project, we supported the use of
the money in the Route 1 Corridor, including the construction of Route
92.
We supported these improvements for two reasons. First, the Route 1 Corridor, even then, had considerable development, infrastructure and the potential of providing transit options. Route 1 was - and remains - a more suitable focus for development. Second, when the Hopewell valley section of I-95 was "de-designated" the Turnpike became the designated I-95 corridor. The Route 92 connection between the Turnpike and Route 1 was clearly needed as an east/west connection between these two important facilities.
In the early 1980s, NJDOT undertook the State's first comprehensive corridor study to determine how best to invest the newly released funding. The study had an innovative and extensive public involvement process, managed by RPP, involving over 200 representatives from both the public and private sectors in the region. Completed in 1986, the study recommended construction to improve Route 1, aggressive demand management measures, impact fees, land use controls, local connectors and stronger highway access management. Route 92 was considered so important in the region, that its construction was taken as given in every analysis NJDOT conducted. Today, Route 1 and the Turnpike remain powerful economic engines in New Jersey's future. Route 92, along with the other recommendations in the study, remains essential to region's future.
Besides having been developed as a result of a regional plan, Route 92 has other "smart" credentials. First, it is designed as a limited-access highway with only a few key interchanges- essential to reducing the possibility of "induced development." The few interchanges were selected because they serve existing development. Where the road traverses undeveloped land, there is no access.
Second, as underlined in the 1986 Route 1 Corridor Study and more recently
in the Central Jersey Transportation Forum recommendations, Route 92 is
a needed east-west connection between the Turnpike and Route 1, between
two regional centers identified in the State Development and Redevelopment
Plan. Although these centers are not currently mixed-use, or as dense as
the State Plan envisions, investing in Route 92 will add the value necessary
to encourage future development within them, rather than outside them.
It will also provide the opportunity for providing transit options at some
time in the future. These incentives, plus the right land use regulations
both inside and outside these centers, are exactly what is needed to
implement the Plan and reduce the sprawl.
And last, although by no means least, Route 92 has an alignment and design
that minimizes impact on wetlands. The environmental review process, to
which the Turnpike Authority's plans for Route 92 have been subjected over
the last 10 years, has already caused the design to be revised and the
impact on wetlands minimized from the original 32.9 acres to the current
12 acres. In addition, the Turnpike Authority will be providing over 50
acres of wetlands mitigation and an additional 202 acres of existing forested
wetlands and uplands preserved in the vicinity of Friendship and Miller
Roads in South Brunswick Township. Relying on widening local roads to handle
regional traffic will have an equal impact on wetlands, none of the mitigation
or preservation and a devastating impact on local residential areas.
Opponents to Route 92 have a passionate commitment to oppose growth-inducing new road capacity. We agree with them in principle, but Route 92 is not a growth-inducing road. It is designed to solve existing traffic congestion on local and county roads that are ill-equipped to handle the traffic that is already here. The new development, much of which already has permits to be constructed, is oriented to the Turnpike or Route 1 and will not disappear if Route 92 is not built. Without Route 92, that traffic will only add danger and misery to the local residential streets. The opponents' passion is misplaced here and does not serve the public's interest.
The claim that Route 92 will induce more development also implies that if Route 92 is not built, the land that is going to be traversed by Route 92 will be protected. This is also incorrect. Any open land that remains in South Brunswick is zoned for development. South Brunswick has taken few steps to preserve it. In fact, From 1997 to 2000, there was more than 2 million square feet of non-residential development completed in South Brunswick and another 10 million square feet was either under construction or approved. That was more than half of all such approved non-residential development in the four towns near Exit 8A (see enclosed table). Plainsboro, on the other hand, has understood both the advantages of Route 92 for its residents, and has been aggressively saving open space through farmland preservation and parkland purchases, easements, and density transfers in order to minimize any opportunity for development other than in the existing center. Opposing Route 92 will not prevent development in South Brunswick.
What you may not know is that there is an enormous amount of long-held public support for Route 92 that is not reflected in recent press. A professional public opinion poll, drawn from households throughout the region, concluded that the vast majority of residents, even a majority of those polled in South Brunswick, felt an urgent need for an east/west connection in this area to improve the safety and quality of life in their communities.
That widespread recognition of the need and a renewal of the support for Route 92 is seen in the on-going Central Jersey Transportation Forum, a group whose accomplishments you have praised and that you visited last December. The Forum was established to provide the regional review and factual analysis that should precede the construction of any new project if it is to be considered "smart." I have enclosed a section of the Forum's 2002 recommendations, highlighting how widening Route 1 and constructing Route 92 will provide significant relief for local neighborhoods.
In spite of these compelling reasons to support Route 92, you may still have concerns about the environmental impact. RPP agrees with you and other environmentalists that filling wetlands and converting open land to development should be avoided if at all possible. That is why, once we determined that Route 92 was needed, we supported the alignment selected by NJDOT in the 1980s and proposed as the preferred alignment by the Turnpike Authority because it had the least impact on wetlands.
RPP also supports DEP's new mapping of environmental constraints. We agree that such constraints should be one of the primary sources to inform the location of development. As is the case for Route 92, however, there are going to be instances in which "red" zones will need to be traversed by pipes, transportation facilities and other infrastructure in order to make the development in "green" zones functional. That means that there should be a distinction made between permits for infrastructure and for development in the red zones. If needed to support green zones, infrastructure must be permitted.
DEP's map, however, has not yet been integrated with the State Plan Policy Map, which is reflective of more than the goal of environmental protection. Please remember that Smart Growth is determined by a public reckoning of multiple goals. RPP feels strongly that important public decisions, such as whether or not to build Route 92, should be based on environmental constraints, and on the needs of the economy and on the opportunities for public transit. Smart Growth is about optimizing a range of goals, not maximizing any one.
It is our intention to provide you with the information you need to make the decision to support Route 92. If you require any further information, please do not hesitate to contact me. I know that RPP's Board, members and staff support your successful pursuit of truly Smart Growth.
Yours sincerely,
Dianne R. Brake
President
Enc. RPP Accomplishments
RPP Current Development Survey (8A municipalities)
CJTF recommendations supporting Route 92
Copies: NJDEP Commissioner Bradley Campbell
NJDOT Commissioner Jack Lettiere
NJ Turnpike Executive Director Michael LaPolla