Sound Planning Principles Support Route 92
Testimony of MSM Regional Council
US Army Corps of Engineers Public Hearing on Route 92
March 29, 1999
Princeton Marriott Hotel, Plainsboro, New Jersey
My organization, the Middlesex Somerset Mercer Regional Council (MSM), has supported the construction of Route 92 for many years as part of a regional plan. We are a non-profit organization, founded 30 years ago to represent the public interest in issues of regional planning and growth management. We were established to step back from the heat of local politics and the passions of the day to look at the big picture and the long term.
MSM has supported Route 92, not because we support the construction of highways. On the contrary, we have opposed highways in the past. We support Route 92 because it is part of a balanced plan that we have been promoting. Our plan looks at all of the region's needs and tries to address them all. We look at economic as well as environmental concerns. We look at places for growth and for conservation. We look at mobility through roads, transit systems, and other means of accessing needs. We look at land use and appropriate infrastructure. We are one of the few groups you will hear from that has more than one issue on our agenda.
Route 92 is one of the few road connections that we have identified as important to the functional success of the region. It connects two growth centers, identified not just in MSM' plan, but in the State Development and Redevelopment Plan, as well as county and local land use plans. It is a connection between two major north-south corridors. It is a corridor that can and should be extended in a smaller configuration to protect the communities of Kingston, Rocky Hill and Princeton Borough from regional traffic. It has the potential of providing light rail along its route in the future.
Route 92 has been planned for decades, and countless development and conservation decisions have already taken place based on Route 92 being built. It was considered so important to the region that the Legislature in 1992 took the very unusual step of empowering the New Jersey Turnpike Authority to build most of it. At that time, all of the municipalities were on record supporting the highway, because all of their plans had been based on it.
Why did they all consider Route 92 so important? Because it is clear to anyone who knows the region that there is a critical need for an efficient east-west connection between the Turnpike and Route 1 in this area. And it is clear to anyone who knows the local roads that this connection must be built to separate the regional trips from local roads not onto them.
Why then do we appear to have controversy? Because the public process we are part of today, focuses on conflicts. The conflict between local concerns and regional need. The conflict between land use planning and infrastructure support. The conflict between transportation need and environmental protection. And it is very difficult for all these conflicts to be resolved in a decision over a single permit. That can only be achieved within plans.
I am here tonight to ask you to consider the claims and counterclaims that you will hear today within a planning context. We are at the end of that planning process. Countless, costly plans, analyses, and impact assessments have already been done. Many alternatives have been studied. The permit proposal you have before you is the result. It does not maximize environmental protection. Nor does it maximize any other goal. It is a proposal to implement a balance of goals. And it has broad-based support. Denying this permit will not strike a better balance between local and regional concerns, between growth and conservation, between highway versus transit services. Approving this permit will pay respect to the countless decisions that have already been fought over. You will be paying respect to the planning process that brought you this permit.
Your decision should not be made on whether or not the road will impact the environment. We know that it will. You must base your decision on whether or not the need for the road has been established (even the Environmental Protection Agency conceded that there was a need), on whether or not the proposal meets that need (and you have countless studies and plans to affirm that it does) and, lastly, on whether or not the best efforts have been made to mitigate the environmental impact.
Building new highway capacity in a region like this one does not by itself induce more development than would otherwise be there, especially when it is a limited access highway, as is Route 92. The claim that Route 92 will induce more development also implies that if Route 92 is not built, that the land which it will traverse will be protected. This is not true. This land is zoned for development and South Brunswick has taken few steps to preserve it, unlike its neighbors Plainsboro and Cranbury which have been aggressively saving open space through farmland preservation and parkland purchases, easements, and density transfers for years. South Brunswick has more than 10 million square feet in non-residential development approved already, far more than any other Township in the region. Opposing Route 92 will not prevent development in South Brunswick.
Over our 30 year history, MSM has demonstrated our commitment to wetlands protection as a vital natural resource within our communities, but we feel strongly that an important public decision, such as whether or not to build Route 92, should not be based on the importance of wetlands alone, but should be based on a public reckoning of multiple public goals -- environmental, mobility, economic development, and community enhancement. Our support for Route 92 is based on the position that has been factually demonstrated that there is a compelling need for an east-west connection in this region, a dozen alternatives have been studied for more than ten years and an alignment that minimizes wetlands disturbance has been selected, and mitigation plans have been proposed. Route 92 is needed and should be built.