DEIS HEARING STATEMENTS
June 30 through August 15, 2003Comments at Pubic Hearing, Written Submissions, and Letters to the Editor
Millstone Bypass Alert Coalition Letter to the Editor
Princeton Environmental Commission
Stony Brook-Millstone Watershed Association
Letter to Governor McGreevey from the SBMWA on behalf of 26 organizations
Tri-State Transportation Campaign
Washington Road Elms Preservation Trust
Lincoln and Sarah Hollister
Oral Testimony June 30
Written Submission July 21
Letter to the Editor July 29Marvin R. Reed, Mayor, Borough of Princeton, NJ
Sandra Shapiro
Letter to Governor McGreevey
from the Stony Brook-Millstone Watershed Association
on behalf of 26 organizationsJuly 28, 2003
Governor James E. McGreevey
New Jersey
PO Box 001
Trenton, NJ 08625RE: Penns Neck Area Bypass - Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS)
We write to encourage the Governor to participate in the decision process and support our recommendation for the design and construction of Alternative D.2 in the Final Penns Neck Area EIS, on behalf of the twenty-six (26) endorsing organizations listed in the attachment. This project has drawn the interest of an army of citizens, as well as local, regional and statewide open space groups, historic preservation groups, and environmental organizations who recognize that traffic congestion, as well as inappropriately designed roadways, can negatively impact the quality of life and the natural resources of New Jersey. The ultimate decisions in this review process should reflect the cumulative interests expressed and minimize the potential impacts of this highway, and not be rigidly focused on construction costs.
I cannot underestimate the dedication of these volunteer groups since 1999, or the thousands of hours spent during this 24-month review process to develop alternative roadway alignments and assess their potential impacts. Together we have reviewed documents, completed independent analysis, and even led guided canoe trips, in order to provide a balanced, open-minded evaluation of the issues and potential alternatives. These 26 organizations represent thousands of members and supporters who endorse the D.2 Alignment.
We recommend Alternative D.2 because it enhances both north-south traffic, relieves east-west traffic, improves traffic management and safety, and it also protects neighborhoods and cultural features, prevents habitat loss for an endangered species, and minimizes degradation to the Millstone River and Delaware & Raritan Canal, that supply drinking water to the communities of central New Jersey.
We know that as our Governor and a New Jersey resident, you recognize the intrinsic value and benefits that our citizens gain from living in communities where historic and cultural buildings, parklands and natural resources are protected and preserved. Therefore we ask you to voice your support for Alternative D.2 in order to ensure that these fine goals are acted upon!
The following paragraphs summarize the basis for our recommendations and they are more fully supported in the enclosed report, entitled "Speaking for the River" which was authored by the Stony Brook-Millstone Watershed Association.What does Alternative D.2 include?
Alternative D.2 includes Route 1 in a cut, frontage roads with a diamond interchange between Harrison Street and Washington Road, and a Vaughn Drive connector to Alexander Road. This alternative removes three lights from Route 1, and provides two routes for motorists traveling east-west across Route 1. The D.2 Alternative does not include an eastside connector road.
An east-side connector road was not supported by either the NJ State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), nor the NJ Department of Environmental Protection (Division of Fish and Wildlife), because of the high likelihood of significant impacts to cultural and ecological resources. In addition, a 1990 NJDOT report concluded that a four-lane east-side connector road was not viable due to the magnitude of potential environmental and socioeconomic impacts.
Why we support Alternative D.2:
- Protects water quality of two significant water supply resources, the Millstone River and Delaware & Raritan Canal from potential degradation from road runoff.
- Protects floodplains, forests, wetlands, and the habitat for a threatened species (long-eared owl); prevents habitat fragmentation; and ensures groundwater recharge.
- Preserves National Register-listed and eligible archaeological and historic sites.
- Does not invade the serenity of the Delaware and Raritan Canal State Park.
- Enhances vehicular access and safety to businesses and the environment by reducing north-south and east-west travel time.
- Performs as one of the best overall alternatives for east/west travel time and performs well for north/south traffic flow as well. Overall, Alternative D.2 either has a positive or neutral effect on the amount of traffic on various local roadways relative to the no-build alternative.
- Incorporates many of the components agreed upon by the Roundtable: including Route 1 in-a-cut at Washington Road, frontage roads, and no west side connector (WSC) along the D&R Canal. Alternative D.2 does not have east side connector (ESC) or a road going through Sarnoff property, which accounts for many of its environmental benefits.
Although Alternative D-2 is one of the more expensive options, the magnitude of the predicted congestion and the concentration of National-Register listed and eligible structures and districts, highly important archaeological sites and unique scenic and ecologically important areas justify this expenditure. The Millstone River and D&R Canal, its floodplains, wetlands, habitats, and parkland supply the region with drinking
water; help to clean our air; control flooding; remove pollutants from the water; and allow citizens to escape to nature, catch fish, bird watch and canoe. The 26 endorsing organizations want to ensure that local environmental and cultural features are protected, preserved and enhanced.The endorsing organizations also support all efforts to provide congestion relief by the implementation of Travel Demand Management practices, creation of transit-based actions, inclusion of a Commute Options Package, and inclusion of bicycle and pedestrian enhancements.
We would like to thank NJDOT for undertaking this innovative EIS process, for evaluating 19 potential alternatives, and for incorporating the concerns raised by the various Roundtable partners.
We sincerely hope that you will carefully consider the potential impacts to cultural features, loss of habitat, and degradation of our natural resources that could be caused by the other alternatives, and support Alternative D.2 in the final EIS. If you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact me directly at 609-737-3735.
Sincerely,
George S. Hawkins, Executive Director
Stony Brook-Millstone Watershed Association
on behalf of the 26 Endorsing Organizations identified on the attached list.Copies to:
Commissioner John F. Lettiere, Jr., NJ Department of Transportation
Young Kim, Federal Highway Administration
Commissioner Bradley Campbell, NJ Department of Environmental Protection
U.S. Senator Frank Lautenberg
U.S. Senator Jon Corzine
Congressman Rush Holt
Senator Shirley Turner
Senator Peter Inverso
Assemblyman Reed Gusciora
Assemblywoman Bonnie Watson Coleman
Assemblywoman Linda Greenstein
Assemblyman Gary Guear
Mr. Anthony Sabadussi, NJ Department of Transportation
Mayor Marvin Reed, Princeton Borough
Mayor Phyllis Marchand, Princeton Twp
Mayor Shing-Fu Hsueh, W Windsor
26 Endorsing Organizations Include:
Central Jersey Group of the Sierra Club, Ed Pfeiffer, ChairCitizens United to Protect the Maurice River and Its Tributaries, Inc., Jane Morton Galetto, President
Concerned Citizens of Cape May County, Jody Carrara
Federation of Gloucester County Watershed, Suzanne McCarthy, President
Friends of Princeton Open Space, Wendy Magher, President
Garden Club of Princeton, Mary Ellen Johnson
Great Egg Harbor Watershed Association, Fred Akers, Administrator
Great Swamp Watershed Association, Julia Somers, Executive Director
Harrison Street Neighborhood Association, Candace Preston
Kingston Greenways Association, Forwood C Wiser III, Trustee
New Jersey Conservation Foundation, Michele Byers, Executive Director
NJ Environmental Federation, David Pringle
New Jersey Chapter of the Sierra Club, Jeff Tittel, Director
New Jersey Chapter of the Sierra Club, Laura Lynch, Conservation Chair
Pequannock River Coalition, Ross Kushner, Executive Director
Princeton Environmental Commission, Douglas Schleifer, resident and member
Sensible Transportation Options Partnership (S.T.O.P.), Richard Barrett
South Branch Watershed Association, Fran Varacalli, Executive Director
Stony Brook-Millstone Watershed Association, George Hawkins, Executive Director
The Delaware and Raritan Canal Coalition, Rosemary Blair
The Millstone Bypass Alert Coalition, Sandra Shapiro
Upper Rockaway River Watershed Association, Constance Stroh, President
Washington Crossing Audubon Association, Herb Lord
Washington Road Elms Preservation Trust, Patrick Lyons
West Windsor Citizens for Transportation Alternatives, Paula McGuireWhole Earth Center, Barbara Parmet, Board Member
Return to top
Millstone Bypass Alert Coalition Letter to the Editor
July 22, 2003
To the Editor:
Among the alternatives presented in the Penns Neck Area Draft Environmental Impact Statement, eleven member organizations of the Millstone Bypass Alert Coalition support Alternative D.2. At least fourteen other concerned organizations from around the state also support D.2. It has Route 1 in a cut, frontage roads with a diamond interchange on Route 1 between Harrison Street and Washington Road, a Vaughn Drive connector between Alexander and Washington Roads, but no east-side connector road. This option meets the NJ Department of Transportation's objectives of providing traffic congestion relief and removing three traffic signals on Route 1.
D.2 does not invade the serenity of the Delaware and Raritan Canal State Park nor does it add contaminants to the water in the canal. It does not negatively impact the Washington Road Elm Allée; it preserves the Millstone River Watershed and corridor; it avoids wetlands and forests; it does not destroy the habitat of threatened and endangered species; and it preserves National Register-listed and eligible archaeological and historic sites.
We concur with the NJ State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) March 2003 letter that an east-side connector road would adversely affect "archaeological sites, located in proximity to the environmentally important Millstone River."
We concur with the NJ Department of Environmental Protection (Division of Fish and Wildlife, Endangered and Nongame Species Program) letter of April 2003 that "the proposed bypass alternatives that are routed through the Sarnoff property would essentially destroy the documented habitat of [a] state-threatened species. It does not appear that onsite mitigation will be possible as little additional habitat exists in the vicinity."
Furthermore, we concur with a 30 January 2001 letter to West Windsor's Planning Board from an engineer hired by the West Windsor Board in which he writes of the Sarnoff property, "This property contains some of the most spectacular views that can be found anywhere in West Windsor. The bluffs overlooking the Millstone need to be preserved so that future generations can enjoy them.The potential for rare or endangered species to be present on site is possible."
The magnitude of predicted congestion and the concentration of important cultural, historical, and environmental sites in the Penns Neck/Millstone River area justifies this solution. The coincidence of this number of National-register listed and eligible structures and districts, highly important archaeological sites and unique scenic areas make it imperative that the highest level of context-sensitive design and construction be devoted to this project.
Sincerely yours,
Patrick Lyons, board member, The Millstone Bypass Alert Coalition
Coalition organizations:
Delaware and Raritan Canal Coalition
Delaware & Raritan Canal Watch
Friends of Princeton Open Space
Garden Club of Princeton
National Trust for Historic Preservation
New Jersey Chapter of the Sierra Club
Central Jersey Group of the Sierra Club
Sensible Transportation Options Partnership
Stony Brook Millstone Watershed Association
Washington Road Elms Preservation Trust
West Windsor Citizens for Transportation Alternatives
Whole Earth CenterOther local concurring organizations:
Harrison Street Neighborhood Association
Kingston Greenways Association
Princeton Environmental Commission
June 30, 2003
Mr. Jon A. Carnegie, AICP/PP
Senior Project Manager
Alan M. Voorhees Transportation Center
Edward J. Bloustein School of Planning and Public Policy
Rutgers, The State University
33 Livingston Avenue, Suite 500
New Brunswick, New Jersey 08901Dear Mr. Carnegie:
Regarding the construction of roadways described in the Penns Neck Area Environmental Impact Study (EIS), the Princeton Environmental Commission supports the D.2 alternative. This alternative combines Route One "In-A-Cut" (going under Washington Road) with other environmentally preferred Bypass features, including frontage roads on both sides of Route One and the Vaughn Drive Connector, facilitating traffic to and from the Princeton Junction Train Station this alleviating Washington Road traffic. In addition, the construction of a short connector road that will take traffic out of the riparian area along the Millstone River on the west side of Route One to the Harrison Street Bridge is a highly beneficial feature of the D.2 and will improve this route of travel between West Windsor and Princeton. This alternative is a desirable and appropriate choice that will allow the free flow of traffic though a section of Route One that currently has three intersection lights. D.2 will therefore lessen air pollution from cars, trucks and buses that will no longer have to wait at traffic lights with idling engines.
The Commission is concerned about the significant environmental impacts that will be generated from the construction of an East Side Connector (ESC) road, represented in other EIS alternatives, as a component of the project. All three ESC proposed alignments cross Little Bear Brook and run along the Millstone Rive, impacting the remarkable riparian areas associated with these water bodies. Large amounts of impervious surfaces would be added in these riparian areas that include water, wetlands and associated transition areas, flood hazard areas, sensitive soils and wildlife corridors for aquatic dependent species. Any incursion into a riparian area will compromise its hydrological function.
If an ESC is built, it will create the following problems:
a) Increase the level of pollution in the Millstone River, a primary drinking water supply, from vehicle exhaust and runoff from the ESC. Water from the Millstone River which, according to the New Jersey Water Supply Authority, accounts for approximately 30% of the passing flow in the Raritan River at the South Bound Brook outtake, contributes 50% of the total pollutants that have to be treated.
b) Destroy wetlands that filter pollutants and attenuate flooding.
c) Reduce groundwater recharge by adding significant impervious surfaces which will reduce base flow in the Millstone River, especially during drought, and increase flooding, erosion and sedimentation, particularly during heavy rainfall.
d) Impair habitat for fish, birds and other wildlife thereby decreasing or destroying their local populations.
e) Destroy the peaceful atmosphere of segments of the Millstone River and Little Bear Brook with noise, air pollution and the visual impact from vehicular traffic. Creation of new roadways usually does not mitigate congestion on other roadways, but rather attracts traffic to move through the area.
For these reasons, the D.2 alternative, which does not include an ESC road, is the preferred option. The components of the D.2 alternative protect riparian areas and minimize impervious surfaces. These are the two most important factors regarding this project from the perspective of the Princeton Environmental Commission.
The Commission is also concerned that certain relevant issues have been overlooked. A wildlife survey of flora and fauna has not been undertaken. Data gathered by a wildlife survey would seem to be an essential component of an Environmental Impact Statement that provides important information on threatened and endangered species protected by the Federal Endangered Species Act and New Jersey state wildlife regulations. A survey must be done so public and government officials fully understand the extent of damage to the environment that would be caused by building an ESC.
Another issue of concern is the documented contamination plume directly underneath the Sarnoff Corporation laboratories. If built, the ESC road alignments and proposed large-scale development of the property would make any efforts at mitigation very difficult, if not impossible. At minimum, a study is needed to determine a mitigation strategy and whether, how and when the contamination will affect the Millstone River.
As the process preceding this EIS has progressed, we have been gratified that it has moved away from reliance on a plan that would cause a highly detrimental incursion on the Delaware & Raritan Canal State Park, a critical area for recreation and water supply.
Protection of regionally important natural, scenic and recreational resources can be met while still providing very effective transportation improvements by selection of the D.2 alternative. The Princeton Environmental Commission will enthusiastically support this choice.
Sincerely,
David Breithaupt, Chair
Princeton Environmental Commission
Keeping traffic moving smoothly
Last month, the complete study for the Penns Neck Area Bypass project was released and the public finally received alternatives for fixing the traffic mess at Washington Road and Route 1 ("Penns Neck Area Bypass proposal gains support," July 1). A careful review of the data shows that option D2 is the best way to reduce congestion. The Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) shows this alternative would significantly improve traffic flow northbound and southbound on Route 1, which is a main objective of the project.
Option D2 will also improve east-west traffic flow. If nothing is done, drivers crossing Route 1 will wait 16 minutes at the Washington Road or Harrison Street lights in 2028. D2 reduces this delay to 30 seconds. D2 also compares favorably to the other 19 options in reducing the travel times between points in West Windsor and Princeton. In fact D2 comes within one minute of the 'fastest option" in all cases.
Most importantly, option D2 accomplishes these gains without building a big, ugly four-lane highway that will affect a forest, wildlife habitat, historic church and the Millstone River. Over time, that connector would only attract more cars and sprawl development. Since the goal of this transportation project is to alleviate congestion-not to use taxpayer money for development projects-we urge Department of Transportation and elected officials to choose D2 as the preferred alternative.
JENNIFER SIEGEL Trenton
The writer is New Jersey advocate, The Tri-State Transportation Campaign.
Letter to the editor of the Times of Trenton, July 10, 2003
Washington Road Elms Preservation Trust
July 23, 2003
Re: Penns Neck Area Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Dear Mr. Carnegie:
The Washington Road Elms Preservation Trust (WREPT) was created to advance the protection of , care for, and education about the Alleé of Princeton elms which line Washington Road in West Windsor Township from the D & R Canal to US Route 1. The Allee´ was placed on the New Jersey and National Register of Historic Places in 1998.
WREPT has had representatives on both the Penns Neck Area Roundtable and was a consulting party in the 106 process meetings. The New Jersey Department of Transportation and the Voorhees Transportation Unit at Rutgers University are to be commended for initiating a process which has led to increased public participation and hopefully will results in an improved project because of the knowledge, interest and credentials of many members of the public and of the groups represented at the Roundtable.
As a result of our presence on the Roundtable and Consulting Party meetings and studying the Draft Environmental Impact Statement Section 4(F) Statement, WREPT has concluded that Alternative D.2 most fully meets the goals and Objectives set forth by the Roundtable with the least amount of negative consequences for the environment and the historic and cultural resources in the impact area.
In brief, Alternative D.2 places Route 1 in a cut, with frontage roads and a diamond interchange between Harrison Street and Washington Road, a Vaughn Drive connector to Alexander Road and no east-side connector road. This option meets the NJDOT objective of providing traffic congestion relief and removing three signals from Route 1. Our analysis of the traffic modeling, comparing all of the D alternatives, resulted in essentially the same outcomes. The potential for catastrophic, overwhelming and permanent damage to the environment and historic and cultural sites far outweigh the minuscule improvements to traffic mobility between the D alternatives which have the east side connector road.
The summation of the Section 106 and 4f regulations with regard to potential effects to historic and cultural sites, is to avoid any effect, and if not possible to minimize that effect and lastly, to mitigate the effect. There is a clear, prudent and feasible alternative to the east-side connector roadway and that is Alternative D.2. No additional minimizing or mitigating is necessary.
We have also noticed and it was mentioned in the Section 106 consulting meetings, that steps could be undertaken in the final design process to avoid nearly all of the impacts to cultural and historic sites in the D.2 alternative.
The cultural, historic, environmental and community resources in the area of this transportation improvement almost singularly unique in Central New Jersey and should be accorded the highest level of design and construction expertise and any expenditure for these is an absolute necessity.
For the Washington Road Elms Preservation Trust,
Patrick E. Lyons
Board Member
Letter from Wendy Benchley, Princeton Borough Councilwoman
(Below is a letter Wendy Benchley sent to Mr. Jon A. Carnegie, Edward J. Bloustein School of Planning and Public Policy, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey.)
Even though Princeton Borough Council members have not settled on support of any one alternative in the Penns Neck Area EIS at this time, I would like to go on record supporting the D2 alternative. This plan does not include an East Side Connector (ESC).
There have been many thoughtful letters from citizens and coalition groups eloquently detailing the reasons why this road should not be part of the state's recommended plan. The road would have a major detrimental impact on the Millstone River, its wetlands, its flora and fauna and its potential as a gorgeous, peaceful recreation area in densely congested area. The Millstone river is one of the last remaining natural stream corridors in central New Jersey. The state and its citizens should have the wisdom to protect it. (To experience the stunning beauty of the river, take a virtual tour by going to www.thewatershed.org/WSM/nln/millstonetour.html)
In addition to environmental considerations, there are other compelling factors that argue against an East Side Connector: (1) The road would dramatically impact the Harrison Street neighborhood by providing a new, direct connection between Route 571 in West Windsor and routes 206 and 27 in Princeton. (2) The road is basically a development road to accommodate the Sarnoff Corporation's and West Windsor's intense land use development plans and it is questionable whether State and Federal tax dollars should be used for this purpose. (3) The EIS studies show that only seconds would be saved in intersection waiting time if the east side connector were built. These seconds are not important enough to warrant the intense impact on the Millstone River area and the eastern end of Princeton.
For all these reasons, The Penns Neck Area EIS should support the D2 alternative. It meets the original goals of removing three traffic signals on Route 1, providing traffic congestion relief and, of equal importance, accomplishing this within a high level of context sensitive design.
Wendy Benchley
Princeton Borough Councilwoman
OLMSTEAD V. MOSES: A CLEAR CHOICE IN ALTERNATIVE D.2
When August Heckscher assumed Robert Moses' prior position as New York City's Park Commissioner, he believed a tipping of the balance between the built and natural environment had occurred. The belt parkways along so many of the city's waterways which Heckscher said " began as linear parks with cars passing through them tended more and more to become channels for roaring traffic with deserted green lanes on either hand." He observed, "the automobile, as it increases its speed and numbers, becomes like a torrential stream eroding a river's delicate banks. The green serves a while as a buffer between the traffic and the adjacent neighborhood; and then, as the noises and gas vapors accumulate, as the scale of pollution increases, even this function begins to fail." The initial innovative notion of parkways had become somewhat of an oxymoron: it had become plain to even the casual observer that these roadways were more about cars than parks and that they caused irreparable change and harm to the natural environment.
Olmstead and Vaux, the foresighted designers of Central Park in Manhattan, had in the previous century visualized an interconnecting system of greenways and parks within the urban environment, a system that would maintain a pastoral reminder that we are, even in a metropolitan setting, part of the natural world. Their vision, in the name of progress, practicality and expediency, had been largely forgotten and supplanted with a web of highways accommodating an ever-increasing number of automobiles traveling at speeds unimagined by Olmstead. The parks themselves, Heckscher said, "seemed capable of being experienced only in motion." And, the city and its environs, spreading out in all directions and encountering the burgeoning suburbs, were increasingly planned and scaled to the automobile.In the previous decades, Robert Moses, the great builder responsible for most of the new highways, had designed a brilliant transportation system for the city; he had also added over five hundred playgrounds, enlisting scores of WPA workers to provide much needed recreational facilities. But, as Heckscher points out in his memoir, Alive in the City, this had been done in a different spirit and with a different approach than Olmstead and the great 19th century planners and park builders. It was as though Moses, in keeping with his belief that "cities were created by and for traffic," viewed the natural world, the world of topographies, forest, wetlands and streams, which Olmstead had sought to preserve and emulate, as expendable. As Heckscher states, not only was the urban dweller apparently expected to "exercise on asphalt and to play behind chain-link fence, water was now contained within concrete borders and plantings were subdued to the needs of easier maintenance." Unlike Olmstead's planning of the Emerald Necklace in Boston which provided for a natural system of wetlands to forestall flooding, the new regime viewed man's engineering capabilities superior to mother nature. Heckscher said that empire he inherited was, to a remarkable extent, the creation of one man: Moses. The imperious march of roads was his legacy. The unintended consequences were also Moses' legacy.
Olmstead's ideal had not been unrealistic, just less arrogant the Moses'. He had recognized that "by far the most important and expensive of the constructed accommodations of Central Park [would be] those for the convenience of locomotion". The park must still relate to the city and its transportation needs. It was how he planned for traffic, with sunken roads not negatively impacting the park, that was visionary and one radically different from what superseded it. Unfortunately, the Olmstead ideal and the perception that man's connection and contact with the natural world could refresh and insulate him from some of the harsh realities of city life had become outmoded. But, there was a sea change occurring in people's consciousness, an awareness borne out of the blind spots and pitfalls of Moses' vision. Heckscher believed that "underlying all the controversies there was thus a tension between the tradition of Olmsted and the tradition of Robert Moses."
It was Greenwich Village resident, mother and journalist, Jane Jacobs, who challenged Moses' thinking single-handed in her book The Death and Life of American Cities. In 1967, she led an insurgent coalition of community groups that fought Moses' scheme for cross town expressways that would bisect established neighborhoods in Manhattan and, ultimately, prevented him from fulfilling his thirty-year-old dream to implement these roadways. Jacobs countered Moses' assumptions for these highways with an age-old mystery and a basic question: "What is the purpose of life?" She postulated that if, indeed, it is to produce and consume automobiles and because of that goal we are prevented from catalyzing workable and vital cities, then it becomes harder to understand why clinging to this philosophy and the accompanying visions of highways and elevated expressways "appropriate to an automobile age" is justified.
It would be a several of years before our National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) would recognize the profound impact of man's activity on the interrelations of all components of the natural environment and attempt to assure for all Americans "aesthetically and culturally pleasing surroundings" and to "attain the widest range of beneficial uses of the environment without degradation, risk to health or safety, or other undesirable and unintended consequences." NEPA, together with the newly legislated Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act and the National Historic Preservation Act, would begin play a critical roles in how we would assess the need, as well as balance the impacts of highway construction.
The greater New York Metropolitan area, with its constrained island geography and its rapidly increasing population, was faced with an ensuing congestion/ building cycle earlier than most locations. New roadways facilitated movement of traffic in great numbers, which in turn exacerbated congestion, beginning the ostensibly endless cycle. New York was a microcosm for what would happen in other urban and suburban areas nationwide and taught some important lessons. Moses' West Side Improvement Plan is a case in point. Robert Caro in his Pulitzer Prize winning book, The Power Broker, Robert Moses and the Fall of New York, says " the West Side Improvement had two purposes: to reclaim Manhattan's waterfront for its people, and to alleviate Manhattan's traffic congestion.... Instead of reclaiming the waterfront for Manhattan's people, the West Side Improvement deprived them of it. And the second of the two purposes was not achieved at all. The West Side Improvement also cost the people of New York City their most majestic waterfront, their most majestic forest, a unique residential community, and their last fresh-water marsh." At the heart of Caro's reproof of Moses is the message that once important natural and historic resources which define an area are destroyed or compromised by enormous roadway projects, they are gone for good, their loss a poignant reminder of our myopic shortsightedness.
Central New Jersey, like so many other regions in the country, is quickly shrinking as a consequence of sprawling development. Twenty-five years ago the Route 1 Corridor Study predicted that this area would become the equivalent of a major city; that prophecy is becoming a reality. For the past two years, many "stakeholders" have been involved in examining the environmental impacts for highway improvements in this rapidly growing corridor. The area in which the Penns Neck project will be built has been compared to New York's Central Park; it contains the State's most popular recreational facility: the
D & R Canal State Park, many historic and archeological resources, including the Lake Carnegie Historic District and the Washington Elm Allee, and a critical natural resource, the Millstone River Watershed. Notwithstanding the qualitative and quantitative analyses that have been painstakingly considered, we are faced with a simple question: will those improvements be in the tradition of Olmstead or the tradition of Moses? Disregarding the politics and special interests, the answer is plain and simple, if an enlightened approach is to prevail and we are to choose Olmstead. Alternative D.2 protects important cultural, archaeological and historic sites. It preserves floodplains, forests, wetlands and protects threatened species and prevents habitat fragmentation. Route 1 in a cut and, indeed, cut and cover designs in general are an Olmstead contribution to modern engineering. . By eliminating a roadway parallel to the Millstone River, D.2 removes one of the most regressive elements of other plans and safeguards the watershed, plainly our most important resource.In the late 1950's the writer and editor Edmund Wilson was confronted with a confluence of state highway projects. His hometown of Shrewsbury, New Jersey, an historic
crossroads community was to be gutted by a new roadway and the magnificent elms lining the entrance to Booneville, New York, his current residence, were being chopped down to widen the road to a four-lane highway. At the time, he said that "one cannot, of course, when one contemplates these great highways and seaways and dams, fail to be much impressed by the genius of the engineering they represent, by the practical imagination, the delicate mechanical devices and the complicated computations that have gone to lay down and erect them, to start them going and to keep them running, to deepen and divert the great waterways, to light more lamps and to set more wheels turning, to enmesh all mankind, to girdle the earth. But it is well to remember the beavers." Explaining that beavers are engineers endowed with the gift and blind will to build, he referenced Lewis Morgan's book, The American Beaver and His Work, who "believed that the activity of beavers was to some extent unnecessary, gratuitous." They compulsively keep building, indifferent to the landscape, ultimately leaving the surrounding flooded environment denuded and devastated.Congress, which annually provides almost $27 billion nationwide for road projects, has also mandated that, unlike the beaver, we build wisely and guard our important national treasures and natural resources by legislating acts with essential protections. NEPA, as well as the National Historic Preservation Act and Section 4(f) of the United States Department of Transportation Act, integral parts of the Penn's Neck Roundtable process, provided us with 19 roadway alternatives for this section of the Route 1 Corridor and a clear choice in Alternative D.2.
RICHARD BARRETT
Friday deadline for bypass comments
To the editor:
After seven years of discussion regarding the renamed "Millstone Bypass," Friday, Aug. 1, is the deadline to submit comments regarding the Penns Neck Area EIS. If you live in the Harrison Street, Riverside, Jugtown or adjacent neighborhoods, you should be particularly aware of the effect of the construction of the proposed "East-side Connector" or the "ESC."
The ESC is designed to eliminate Washington Road as a through street in West Windsor and funnel its traffic directly to Harrison Street. Proposed to run through the Sarnoff property to connect county Route 571 at the railroad bridge with Harrison Street, it is a development road for Sarnoff which tax dollars will pay for. Without the ESC, Sarnoff - or its successors - will have to build their own road (which must still comply with environmental regulations) to put in place the buildings that will house the anticipated 10,000 new jobs West Windsor has approved for the Sarnoff site.
West Windsor's mayor has stated that he believes that West Windsor's tax base should be 50 percent commercial ratables to reduce taxes on residents. To achieve this goal, more and more development is needed. No town yet has built its way out of tax increases, but if that is the kind of development West Windsor chooses, it should not be at the expense of the quality of life in Princeton or any other community in the region.
Any alignment that includes an ESC will cause a disproportionate increase in the Harrison Street traffic without a substantial benefit to overall travel time. The Penns Neck Area EIS traffic studies confirm that an ESC will make only fractions of a second difference in waiting times at intersections. (Unfortunately, the "Executive Summary" of this document is very misleading. I urge anyone who wants to understand the actual traffic impact of the ESC to go through the entire document, not just the Executive Summary.)
This is not surprising, since the ESC is designed to replace Washington Road, not augment it. Since Harrison Street is already jammed at rush hour, it is expected that all of the smaller, side streets will be used as funnels to Harrison Street. This will cause more traffic throughout the eastern side of town and dramatically increase waiting times at the lights at Nassau Street, Prospect Avenue and Western Way. Entrances and egresses to those streets without traffic lights will be much more difficult.
While both the Borough Council and the Township Committee have spoken out in favor of depressing Route 1 under Washington Road, they have not expressed an opinion on the ESC. Many local, state and national organizations have spoken out against the ESC for environmental reasons. Let your elected officials know, by Aug. 1, that you are against any alignment that contains the ESC because of the traffic increases it will bring to your neighborhoods without corresponding improvements in travel times. Mayor Reed: marvinreed@aol.com, Mayor Marchand: Phyllis_Marchand@princeton-township.nj.us; and Rutgers, which is in charge of the EIS: annlubin@rci.rutgers.edu.
Candace Preston
Testimony submitted by Paula McGuire
July 15, 2003
Jon A. Carnegie, AICP/PP, Senior Project Manager
Alan M. Voorhees Transportation Center
Edward J. Bloustein School of Planning and Public Policy
Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey
33 Livingston Avenue, suite 500
New Brunswick, NJ 08901Re: Penns Neck Area DEIS
Dear Mr. Carnegie:
Please note from the outset that I am a resident of Washington Road in Penns Neck who is NOT in favor of an east side connector. I am in favor of Action Alternative D.2.
Thirty-three years ago, my husband and I moved to Washington Road. No location could have been more convenient for our lives at the time. I was commuting to New York City by train, and my husband had a short run into Princeton to his work at the University Press. Some years later, I took a new job in the office park adjacent to the Princeton Junction Railroad Station and sometimes walked (despite the lack of sidewalks at the time) or rode my bike to work. Washington Road is an older, established community, well kept and shaded by many beautiful trees and presents a most pleasant and attractive environment. As the years went by, the neighborhood slowly began to
attract younger families with children, and the area has taken on a lively and varied atmosphere. Our next-door neighbors are planning to build on to their modest house rather than moving to a larger home. They say that they like it in Penns Neck, it is such a friendly and comfortable place to live.I have written this short section because I want to emphasize what Washington Road offers as a neighborhood today. I do not believe it is in any danger of being destroyed by traffic--now or in the future--much as peak time traffic can be of brief annoyance. As I sit at my desk writing this statement, at 2:45 pm, hardly a car is passing in front of our house.
West Windsor Township has long advocated a bypass road, in part to take traffic off of Washington Road. I have never understood nor agreed with that position and eventually joined with others to fight the building of such a road. I was encouraged to find people with experience in transportation and environmental issues and learned that I had plenty of arguments on my side. The township's ill-advised granting of a General Development Plan to the Sarnoff Corporation, including a road similar to the Millstone Bypass (now called the east side connector, or ESC), was the final straw. I and a new, loosely organized group, the West Windsor Citizens for Transportation Alternatives, petitioned to join the Partners Roundtable for the Penns Neck Area EIS. I held a seat at the Roundtable for two years and attended nearly every meeting.
The Partners Roundtable reached agreement on several components of the many alternative alignments presented as a possible Penns Neck Area bypass:
1. Keeping Washington Road at grade with route 1 "in a cut."
2. Building frontage roads
3. Using a diamond interchange on Route 1 for an overpass connecting to Harrison St.
4. Providing a Vaughn Drive connector road between Washington Road and Alexander Road.The Roundtable could not reach an agreement on an ESC.
I share the agreement with my Roundtable colleagues in choosing the above components. However, I can never agree to a road being built through the Sarnoff property for reasons I will briefly outline below. The alignment that best satisfies the project's goals and objectives is D.2.
D.2 is among the lowest in its impact on the number of archaeological and historic sites destroyed.
D.2 protects riparian areas and minimizes impervious surfaces. An ESC would increase pollution in the Millstone River, destroy wetlands, impair habitat for wildlife, and destroy the peace of the Millstone, as well as Little Bear Brook, with the noise and visual impact from automobile traffic.
D.2 avoids the problem of the contamination plume under the Sarnoff laboratories. The building of an ESC would make mitigation difficult. Further study is needed to clear up this problem.
D.2 will not destroy any wildlife habitat, such as the long-eared owl, known to be nesting where an ESC would be built. In fact, no thorough wildlife survey has been taken until now, leaving a weak area in the DEIS. When will such a survey be taken and when will we see the results?
Moreover, D.2 will avoid the ruining of a precious treed area. Driving over the railroad bridge from Princeton Junction, you pleasantly pass a refreshing green area that welcomes you to Penns Neck. This is, in fact, an area that defines the village, an entrance that should be preserved at all cost. Do we really need another 4-lane scar on the quiet landscape, a scar that will destroy forever the individuality and peace of a precious preserve?
(West Windsor Mayor Shing-fu Hseuh has offered to plant trees elsewhere to make up for the loss of the Sarnoff trees. He doesn't seem to understand that
trees planted elsewhere cannot make up for such a significant loss. He also wants to make a park along the Millstone, on the other side of an ESC? How does he think one can reach this park? I don't suppose he wants people to cross a busy road, so he must be thinking about more parking lots (impermeable surfaces)."Alternative D.2 will alleviate traffic congestion and improve traffic flow on Route 1, while preserving important environmental and cultural resources.
These were, in our estimation, the main objectives of the original project DOT proposed."-Tri-State Transportation Campaign.Table 4-2 shows that for traffic in the Princeton Junction area, adding an ESC
(as in D and D.1) provides a 13-16% increase in traffic, while versus a no-build option, D.2 would provide am 11% decrease in traffic when no ESC was added.
In discussions at the Roundtable, Jon Carnegie confirmed that the 4-lane ESC would divert traffic from other routes and thus increase traffic through Princeton Junction.D.2 would reduce Route 1 northbound travel time 20% and southbound travel time 34%, as compared with ESC in D and D.1 (14-16% for northbound and 26-29% for southbound.
Page 4-21: "Compared to the No-Action Alternative, the D-series alternatives would reduce east-west intersection delays crossing Route 1 at Washington Road and Harrison Street to less than one minute."
Table 5-2, section 1 shows that D.2 would reduce total Vehicle Hours of Travel (VHT) by 27%; VHT at peak time by 29%; and Vehicle Miles of Travel (VMT) at peak time by 10%.
Table 5-1, section 5b shows that D.2 would achieve an equitable balance on east-West routes unlike the alternatives using an ESC, which primarily take traffic off of Washington Rd.
One final question: why were the Value Engineering Alternatives never presented to the Roundtable? They seem to have been prepared in November 2002. Is there a reason why the DOT did not want them discussed by the Roundtable, although we had often asked for suggestions from the DOT experts.
Will they have an advantage over the other alternatives, especially in the matter of costs, which we were always told not to consider? I think the Roundtable is owed an explanation.In conclusion, D.2 meets the DOT objectives of removing three traffic signals on route 1 and relieving traffic congestion. It protects an area high in archaeological sites and historical structures and areas and National-Register listed sites, protects important rivers and wetlands, the Delaware and Raritan Canal Park, and lovely scenic habitats. And it does not provide a road, paid for by taxpayers,
for the over-ambitious development of the Sarnoff property, an event that would bring ever more congestion to Penns Neck and destroy an irreplaceable ecological area.Sincerely,
Paula McGuire
Alan Goodheart's comments at the Penns Neck Area DEIS Hearing 30 JUNE 2003
Good evening. My name is Alan Goodheart. I live at 255 Harrison Street in Princeton Township. I have been a loyal member of the audience for the duration of the Penns Neck Area Environmental Impact Statement Citizens' Roundtable. My comments and questions are directed at the decisions makers, the Federal Highway Administration and the New Jersey Department of Transportation.
Seven years ago, the Sensible Transportation Options Partnership (S.T.O.P.) was instrumental in stopping NJDOT's fast-track scheme for a severely flawed Millstone Bypass. Next came a severely flawed Environmental Assessment. By the time Governor Christie Whitman decided that there had to be a full Environmental Impact Statement, citizens in this area had become much more aware of the limitations of the NJDOT in planning this important project without the full participation of the public. Today, after many months of Roundtable meetings, we finally have an opportunity to comment on a Draft E.I.S., that, despite it's flaws, and only because of our insistence, does now include a direct record of the people's voice.
Those of us who participated in the Citizens' Roundtable discussions expect the NJDOT and the FHWA to include, in the final E.I.S., those actions about which we have agreed. We are THE VOICE of the public, we are your client and your employer (in case you need reminding: that's all of us, speaking together). This voice, a voice that includes your own, has been quite clear, in fact, surprisingly clear on most of the elements of a good plan. We, the Roundtable representatives of "all of us," further expect you to include THE VOICE in your efforts to resolve the outstanding issues and in completing all aspects of detail planning and design of the project.
My first question is: "How do you plan to include the voice of your client and employer (that's all of us together) as you proceed towards conclusion of the EIS process and the beginning of a 'best possible traffic improvement project'?" I have included the AREAS OF AGREEMENT in the written text of these comments.
AREAS OF AGREEMENT from the Summary Report of the Penns Neck Area EIS Partners' Roundtable Synthesis Workshops, April 9 and 14, 2003. Prepared by: Voorhees Transportation Policy Institute, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey.
Based on the discussion, the following areas of consensus were agreed to by the majority of those participating in the April 14, 2003 workshop:
- There was support for Route 1 in-a-cut.
- There was support for Vaughn Drive connector (VDC) modified alignment "2 _".
- There was support for a one-way frontage road system on both sides of Route 1 with no WSC road between Route 1 and Washington Road. Participants agreed that the frontage roads should be located as far west as possible at Washington Road, without impacting the Elm Allée or the Princeton University campus while also helping to protect the Penns Neck Baptist Church and neighborhood. (Note: The frontage road on the east side of Route 1 would accommodate northbound traffic and the frontage road on the west side of Route 1 would accommodate southbound traffic).
- There was support for an extended cut-and-cover/plaza over Route 1 in-a-cut. Participants acknowledged the costly nature of this option but supported the community enhancement benefits it would provide.
- There was support for a Harrison Street interchange and WSC road between Route 1 and Harrison Street. Participants acknowledged the importance of designing this component to mitigate potential traffic impacts to the Upper and Lower Harrison Street neighborhoods.
- There was interest in ensuring that there is enough wildlife information so that the EIS is not called into question and so that needed mitigation can be identified and decisions fine-tuned. (Note: A West Windsor survey was mentioned and it was also commented that it is not yet known what additional information is needed).
- There was agreement that any and all roads/alignments require design and mitigation to ensure context sensitive design. In this regard, there was support for continued voluntary citizen involvement in project design decisions.
- There was NO agreement among the group regarding the ESC road.
(Note: This text was not read aloud at the hearing.)
The only significant issue about which there has not been general agreement is whether or not there should be an East Side Connector, through the Sarnoff site, that is built as part of this project. Resolution of that issue will be difficult, because there is no clear alignment of interests. The reasoning and emotions behind the differing perspectives on this decision are heartfelt and strong. Politics, economics, mobility, environment, and history / culture / archaeology do not point to the same conclusion. And there is a legacy of mistrust of the NJDOT that affects a great many constituents of the affected public, including me.Despite these differences, and despite the issue of mistrust, I believe that there is great merit in considering the long-term benefits of an NJDOT built, ideally mitigated East Side Connector. However, this would make sense if... and ONLY IF:
- a suitable process, including a Citizen Participation Roundtable, or the equivalent, were to be developed for continuing work,
- fool-proof guarantees were included for building, as designed, any plan that is accepted by the public, and for appropriate sequencing that specifically included building the ESC last (to ensure it could not possibly be left to stand alone),
- very (way past 2028) long-range traffic plans in the greater region were to be developed and clarified, including resolution of a regional bypass (Route 92), to ensure that a common vision will guide future projects,
- every possible environmental preservation, enhancement, and mitigation technique were to be employed in planning a minimal roadway through the Sarnoff site (this includes: no more than two lanes except for designated left turn lanes at the development core and at the access points with US 1 and with existing County Route 571, no center median, no right-of-way past minimal shoulders, etc.)
- alternate mobility modes were to be fully and appropriately integrated into the entire traffic improvement project
My second question, then, is: "How will you include the above noted requirements for a best possible 'best possible East Side Connector' in the process of completing the Final Environmental Impact Statement?"
It is clear to me that the "D" Alternatives developed during the Citizens' Roundtable hold the key to producing a final alignment and design. But no alternative, in its present form adequately deals with every detail. Further design studies are needed to take full advantage of the tools already available at the FHWA and at the NJDOT, the wisdom and understanding of the local public, and the use of private development partners in some parts of the endeavor (such as the extended plaza over Route 1).
I have attached a copy of "A Design Decision Program for the Evaluation of the Location of Highway Route 202 in Bucks County, Pennsylvania." This is representative of the kind of design study that needs to be done for any potential East Side Connector. I have also attached a set of examples from "Easy Ways to Help Wildlife Along Roads," copied from the FHWA's website. These examples include some obvious, elementary ways to make this kind of road the best that it can be. There's obviously a lot more that could be added from every environmental point of view.
I look forward to participating in a successful conclusion to these years of hard work. Thank you.
Lincoln and Sarah Hollister
Testimony at the Public Hearing on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement
for the Penns Neck Area Study
June 30, 2003
---My husband, Lincoln, and I attended most of the RT meetings. He is away, doing geologic research. We prepared this statement together.
We believe that D2 is the best alternative.
The letter from the Princeton Environmental Commission summarizes the environmental reasons why an ESC should not be built. We attach this letter to our statement.
A major reason for lack of consensus on whether an ESC should be built is that the information on the environmental impact of such a road is entirely too meager.
We were astounded by lack of action on obtaining adequate environmental data despite repeated requests and demonstrated need.
1) We note that Mercury, which was discussed in the Round Tables, is not mentioned in the DEIS. What are the values of this important contaminant in the Millstone, and how much will be added by an East Side Connector?
2) We note from the data in tables 4-24 and 5-6 that the Millstone River right now is very clean relative to state standards, yet the new construction will lead to values greatly exceeding state standards. It is stated that mitigation will reduce most values to less than state standards. But, even with the highest degree of mitigation, total phosphorous will still be above state standards, which are 0.1 mg/liter. The best value after construction reported in the tables is 0.13 mg/liter, with the exception of the G alternatives. What are the consequences of the added pollutants with respect to fish habitat, bird habitat, and our drinking water?
3) We cannot tell what the direct effects of the ESC are on pollutants going to the Millstone River. We note that one alternative, C, has no ESC and very little new roadway. Yet, according to the tables, this alternative still adds massive amounts of pollutants to the Millstone. The numbers just don't make sense. What is the impact on the Millstone from pollutants from an ESC?
4) according to documentary letters included in the DEIS, the area impacted by an ESC is a pristine, almost wild area containing at least one threatened species and maybe more. Yet, DOT has not conducted a biological survey of the area to determine what will be lost if an ESC is built across Little Bear Brook and across the area east of Little Bear Brook. Our question is, then, what flora and fauna now exist in this wonderful, wild area?
We looked closely at the traffic numbers and note that in terms of congestion relief for the study area of the EIS, the three D alternatives have essentially the same impacts. That is, according to the traffic
analysis data, the absence of an ESC has minimal to no increase of congestion impact to the region relative to alternatives with an ESC. This statement is supported by the data in Table 5-2 of the DEIS, section 4, and Appendix D, section 4, where D-2 is compared to D-1.Accordingly, we have two more questions:
1) Is it really true that the construction of an ESC will not result in any decrease in waiting time for crossing Route 1 on any of the EW roads during the rush hours?
2) If the answer to this question is yes, then why build a new road, the ESC, that is disastrous to the environment and that does NOT diminish congestion relative to the alternatives discussed at the RT which have minimal impact on the Millstone River and on wildlife habitat?
Lincoln and Sarah Hollister
Written Comments submitted
July 21, 2003Dear Mr. Carnegie:
We attended most of the meetings of the Round Table, and we concur with the summary consensus written in the final pages of the last RT workshop meeting. The consensus has all the elements of alternative D-2. However, the RT summary notes the lack of consensus on whether or not there should be an ESC.
A major reason for lack of consensus on whether or not an ESC should be built is that the information on the potential impact of an ESC on the natural environment is entirely too meager. The information that is given is contradictory, incomplete, and in places misleading. As we participated in the RT, we were astounded at the lack of action on obtaining environmental data, despite repeated requests at the RT, and despite demonstrated need.
The letter from the Princeton Environmental Commission summarizes the environmental reasons why an ESC should not be built. We include that letter with our statement.
Below we raise questions that we were not able to answer from the from the data compiled in the DEIS. We understand that these will be answered as you prepare the FEIS.
1) We cannot tell from anywhere in the DEIS, but particularly from Tables 4-24 and 5-6, what the direct effects of the ESC are on pollutants going to the Millstone River. The numbers just don't make sense. What is the impact on the Millstone from pollutants from an ESC?
2) There are statements in the DEIS claiming that mitigation of any construction will reduce pollutants to the Millstone. These statements are not supported by data and are misleading. How could pollutants be reduced by mitigation from an area that is now uplands, forest, and wet lands?
3) We note from the data in Tables 4-24 and 5-6 that, at the time the measurements were made, the Millstone River is clean relative to state standards; but the new construction, prior to mitigation, will lead to values greatly exceeding state standards. After mitigation, however, the reduced values will still be well above the present values and even with the highest degree of mitigation (BMP), total phosphorous will still be above state standards. (The state standards are given as 0.1 mg/liter, and the best value after construction reported in the tables is 0.13 mg/liter, with the exception of the G alternatives). Finally, on Table 3-28 the state standard for total phosphorous is given as NA; yet, a state standard for total phosphorous is given in Tables 4-24 and 5-6. Can you compile the data in a consistent, easy to read format? Can you tell us the meaning of the state standards with respect to the consequences of the added pollutants on fish, birds, mammals, turtles and our drinking water? In other words, what does it mean if the state standard is approached or exceeded? Won't this affect what other developments will be allowed to do if runoff from them enters the Millstone or D&R Canal?
4) We note that Hg is not listed in Table 4-24 although it is listed in Table 3-28 where it is shown that the analytic techniques of the consultant to the RT could not detect the state standard. What are the values of this important contaminant in the Millstone, and how much will be added by proposed construction alternatives? That is, why wasn't Hg modeled as were the other contaminants shown in Tables 4-24 and 5-6?
5) According to documentation provided in the DEIS by letters from the NJ Division of Fish and Wildlife, the NJ Dept of Environmental Protection, the Stony Brook Millstone Watershed Association, and the US Fish and Wildlife Service, the area that will be impacted by an ESC is a pristine, almost wild area containing at least one threatened species (the long eared owl) and maybe more. Yet, DOT has not conducted a biological survey of the area to determine what will be lost if an ESC is built across Little Bear Brook and across the area east of Little Bear Brook. Our question is, then, what flora and fauna now exist in this wonderful, wild area; and how will they be changed by a built ESC?
In order to determine what benefits there were to congestion relief by building an ESC, we looked closely at the traffic numbers for the three D alternatives. According to these numbers, building an ESC leads to no decrease of congestion. Our statement is in part based on the absence of error estimates. It is supported by the data in Table 5-2 of the DEIS, section 4, and Appendix D of the DEIS, section 4, where D-2 is compared to D-1.
Accordingly, we have two more questions:
6) Is it really true that the construction of an ESC will not result in any net decrease in waiting time for crossing Route 1 on the EW roads during the rush hours? According to the data given in the tables, this statement is true.
7) Assuming the data in the tables are valid, then why build a new road, the ESC, that is disastrous to the natural environment and that does not diminish congestion relative to the alternatives that do not have an ESC?
In summary, the case has not been made for building an ESC if the other elements of the D alternative are built. If congestion relief can be accomplished without damage to the natural environment, why choose an alternative that damages the natural environment?
Sincerely,
Lincoln S. Hollister
Sarah W. Hollister
Write to support Alternative D2
To the editor:
Every now and then, politicians get trapped by a really bad idea. The current bad idea used to be known as the Millstone Bypass, and now goes by the euphemism "Penns Neck Area Bypass" (officially, it is called the East Side Connector). However it is named, it won't work as the solution that its promoters claim for our serious and growing regional traffic problems.
West Windsor politicians think the "Bypass" will allow full development of the Sarnoff property, which can then produce major tax revenues. Has anyone been able to cite solid evidence that increase of ratables lowers the tax burden on families? I doubt it.
Princeton politicians are caught in a dilemma. They know that there is no easy way to make regional growth comfortable for those who live here. They also cannot discount the destiny and needs of the huge and powerful landowners along Route 1. And big landowners have no trouble speaking out for their interests. Meanwhile, families tend to go on vacation, or get preoccupied by other concerns. They certainly don't have the deep pockets to hire lawyers to argue their concerns before the governing bodies.
Nevertheless, families can speak out, and the time to do that is now. Numbers count with politicians. This Friday, Aug 1, is the deadline for written comments on the DEIS (draft environmental impact statement, address below).
Here are the issues: The Bypass, which is being touted for the public good, will actually be a driveway to the Sarnoff property, built at public expense. One of the sales tactics in pushing the Bypass is that Washington Road in West Windsor can then be closed off from crossing Route 1, forcing all cars and trucks onto the Bypass and much of these onto Harrison Street in Princeton.
The consequences for people living in Princeton will be horrible, especially for those living on Harrison Street and Prospect, who already know what too much traffic is.
Two years of discussion at a DOT-sponsored Round Table has considered 19 alternative solutions to the untenable traffic problems that we all face. Of these alternatives, one has emerged that offers the least amount of damage to families and to the ecosystem. This is known as Alternative D2, which places Route 1 in a cut under Washington Road. Washington Road would lead from West Windsor to Princeton by way of a pleasant bridge over Route 1; and there would be frontage roads along both sides of Route 1, which would disperse traffic. With this build package, there is no need for the "Bypass /East Side Connector."
Address your letters to: Mr. Jon A. Carnegie, Alan M. Voorhees Transportation Center, Edward J. Bloustein School of Planning and Public Policy, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, 33 Livingston Ave., Suite 500, New Brunswick, New Jersey 08901.
Sarah Hollister
Statement by Marvin R. Reed, Mayor, Borough of Princeton, NJ, at the Public Hearing on the Penns Neck Area EIS, June 30, 2003 from at the N.J. Hospital Association Conference Center on Alexander Road in West Windsor.
I'm Marvin Reed, Mayor of the Borough of Princeton. As such I have been a representative of the Borough for the past many months on the Roundtable of community and neighborhood leaders that has been attempting to work with the Vorhees Transportation Institute of Rutgers University and the N. J. Department of Transportation to develop an Environmental Impact Statement for improvements to intersections along U. S. Route One in the Penns Neck area between Princeton and Princeton Junction.
After many sessions, the majority of participants in these Roundtable sessions have come close to a consensus on the best approaches for improving the flow of traffic on Route One, as well as improving the flow of traffic on the East-West roadways which now cross over at signal-controlled intersections.
I concur in the consensus recommendations which have been resolved to date and urge continued efforts within the Roundtable to reach final agreement on a recommended alternative. Improvements in this section of the highway need to be expedited.
The Roundtable consensus recommendations are a vast improvement over what was called the original "preferred alignment" brought forth by NJ-DOT in a prior Environmental Assessment. These recommendations far better meet basic principles that we in the Princetons -- in traffic and environmental studies of our own -- have established as necessary goals. These include:
1. Balanced Entries Large-scale development already completed and contemplated in the region promises to add a considerable burden on traffic flow in our municipalities. We expect increases. What is most important to us, however, is that the additional traffic burden be balanced among the three entryways into our community Alexander Road, Washington Road, and Harrison Street. It should be easy for motorists to decide before they leave Route One whether they wish to be in the Western Section, the Eastern Section, or the center of our town. Without this balance, we will experience an unmanageable burden of traffic on already congested Nassau Street, as well as on our parallel Faculty Road and Robeson/Wiggins/Hamilton cross-town corridors.
2. Environmental Protection The critical natural and historic resources of the D&R Canal State Park, Lake Carnegie, and the Washington Road Elm Allée should be protected. The previous so-called "preferred alignment" did not do this.
3. Through Traffic Improved intersections and roadways along Route One should not induce additional inter-municipal through traffic on local Princeton streets. It is especially important to design the access and egress for Harrison Street so it does not become a low-cost way of connecting the Hillsborough Bypass to the Hightstown Bypass (at Turnpike Exit 8) or S-92 (at Turnpike Exit 8A).
4. Residential Neighborhoods Balancing of traffic loads on the roadways into Princeton should not overwhelm our residential neighborhoods especially the residential neighborhood where Harrison Street approaches the "Jugtown Historic District" at East Nassau Street and the residential neighborhood at Alexander Street where it approaches the "Mercer Hill Historic District" at Mercer and West Nassau Street.
The consensus which has resulted so far has been consistent with these basic Princeton principles. That's why I concur that:
1. "No Build" Is Not an Option. Traffic studies completed by the Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission for our Central Jersey Forum and those completed by NJ-DOT for the Vorhees Institute and the Roundtable clearly show unbearable congestion potential by the year 2020. Overpasses and interchanges must replace the traffic lights on Route One in order for East-West traffic to be able to move.
2. Route One in a Cut. To keep traffic balanced on the three roadways in and out of downtown Princeton, Washington Road should remain connected. This can best be accomplished by depressing a new Route One roadway below and to the west of its current alignment.
3. Frontage Roads. To distribute local traffic in and out of Washington Road and Harrison Street, as well as provide adequate access to future development on the West Windsor campuses of Princeton University and the Sarnoff Research Center, frontage roads should be built on both the northbound and the southbound side of Route One.
4. Vaughn Drive Connector. Good distribution of traffic is enhanced by the proposed Vaughn Drive Connector from the Washington Road Railroad overpass through the NJ Transit parking yards over to Alexander Road. An alternative other than Route One should be provided for traffic destined for Carnegie Center, the new Toll Brothers housing development, as well as the shopping centers and new developments at Quakerbridge Road.
5. Harrison Street Interchange. A new roadway from the Harrison Street Bridge over Lake Carnegie should connect to Route One south of the PSE&G transformer station. A diamond-shaped interchange should be adequate and would be least intrusive on nearby Millstone River wetlands and the historic district homes on the old portion of lower Harrison Street.
6. "D" Alternatives. It would appear that the "D" alternatives work best in accommodating the above principles and consensus recommendations.
7. "East Side Connector." No consensus was reached by the Roundtable as to the necessity, desirability, or location for an "East Side Connector" around the Sarnoff Research Center. Further discussion among the Roundtable participants should continue as the EIS process continues.
Any final program of roadway improvements should also include a Commute Options Package, as recommended by the Roundtable last September (2002). This should include: rideshare services, vanpool incentives, parking cash-out incentives, added jitney/shuttle services, expansion of current fixed-route transit services, and bicycle/pedestrian enhancements (improved pedestrian walkways and separated bicycle paths running from downtown Princeton to Princeton Junction adjacent to Alexander Road, Washington Road, and Harrison St. with appropriate safe crossings of Route One).
It should be clear, however, that any Commute Options Package is a necessary supplement not a substitute for essential roadway improvements that must be made along Route One in the Penns Neck area.
Statement by Sandra Shapiro
at the Public Hearing on the Penns Neck Area EIS, June 30, 2003The Millstone Bypass Alert Coalition has prepared a statement endorsing Action Alternative D.2. As of today, this statement has been endorsed by nine of our member organizations. Others in our coalition will probably add their endorsement, but they are awaiting their boards of directors' approval. Although the DEIS was released while many members of our coalition were leaving for vacations and after boards had had their spring meetings, we believe that the Millstone Bypass Alert Coalition statement will be sent to the governor by the August 1 deadline. Meanwhile, our member organizations and individual members will be filing their own statements.
In this spirit, I present my remarks today. And I also submit a fuller written analysis analysis of the DEIS and my reasons for selecting the D.2 Alternative for your records.
The Roundtable was established as an innovative process to solve a difficult and contentious problem. It was supposed to be a collaborative effort with input and analysis from all participants. However, the DEIS includes two new alternatives, the DOT's Value Alternatives. Why were these options never discussed at the Roundtable, although the Value Engineering Unit of the DOT sent a memorandum on November 27, 2002 to Anthony Sabidussi, a member of the Roundtable and an employee of the DOT's Bureau of Environmental Services?
In 2001, environmental consultants for West Windsor, conducted a review of the Sarnoff property as the township was considering an application for major development on the site. Christopher Jepson said that he felt "that the level of development proposed is excessive given the characteristics of the site and the unfortunate decision of NJDOT to place the proposed Millstone Bypass through the site."
The Partners Roundtable met for two years. I attended nearly every session as an alternate representative for West Windsor Citizens for Transportation Alternatives, a member of the Millstone Bypass Alert Coalition. Throughout that process, Roundtable members asked many times for a wildlife survey. We now know that the long-eared owl nests near Little Bear Brook, directly in the path of all proposed alignments of the East Side Connector. What other species are present? Why has the survey not yet been done? When will a complete ecological survey be available to the public?
Without such a survey and given the negative environmental, historical and archaeological impacts a roadway through the Sarnoff property would have, I strongly object to the construction of any roadway through the property. Not only would such a road have a direct impact, but its construction would allow full build out of the property, wreaking cumulative destruction on this important ecological area.
Because the number of cars on our roads is expected to increase dramatically by 2028, the state, counties, municipalities, businesses, and citizen groups must implement aggressive travel demand management (TDM) techniques. Critical in this effort should be assurances that there will be safe bicycle lanes and pedestrian sidewalks throughout the region. Encouragement of car-pooling, implementation of flexible work hours, increases in the use of mass transportation-all should be part of an innovative program to redesign travel habits.
With that TDM plan should come innovative road design. This is found in D.2. Included in this alternative are several points on which I and members of the Roundtable agree:
Route 1 in a cut, maintaining Washington Road at grade
Frontage roads: These will protect the D&R Canal as well as the Washington Road Elm Allée.
Diamond interchanges on Route 1:These would have less impact on the natural environment yet still work well to move traffic across Route 1.
Vaughn Drive connector road would funnel traffic from Washington Road to Alexander Road, and relieve some of the congestion on the west side of Alexander Road, from the railroad bridge to Route 571.
The East Side Connector, the element upon which the Roundtable was unable to agree, is NOT a part of the D.2 alternative. This road would attract more traffic through Princeton Junction.
I note in particular the following points from the DEIS:
Alternative D.2
would reduce northbound travel time 20% and southbound travel time 34%.would reduce east-west travel time 13% to 27%
would reduce east-west intersection delays crossing Route 1 at Washington Road and Harrison Street to less than one minute."
D.2 meets the NJ DOT's objectives of providing traffic congestion relief and removing three traffic signals on Route 1. It combines the best of environmental protection with an adequate reduction in congestion. D.2 does not invade the serenity of the D&R Canal State Park nor does it add contaminants to the water in the canal It does not negatively impact the Elm Allée; it preserves the Millstone River Watershed and corridor; it avoids wetlands and forests; it does not destroy the habitat of threatened and endangered species; and it preserves archaeological and historic sites.
D.2 is the best option for the area, fulfilling the criteria identified as most important for relief of congestion while preserving the natural, historic, and archaeological environment for generations to come.
Thank you for your attention.
Complete Text of Sandra Shapiro's written comments:
Governor James McGreevey
P.O. Box 001
State House
Trenton, NJ 08625-001Re: Penns Neck Area DEIS
Dear Governor McGreevey:
In January 2001, BCM Engineers, Environmental Consultants for West Windsor Township, conducted a review of the Sarnoff Corporation property as the township was considering an application for major development on the site. Christopher B. Jepson, in his memorandum for the consultants, noted:
The Bypass appears to cut through a considerable amount of woodland including the apparent elimination of the picturesque Boy Scout Bridge.
. . .
This property contains some of the most spectacular views that can be found anywhere in West Windsor. The bluffs overlooking the Millstone need to be preserved so that future generations can enjoy them.
. . .
The impact from vast amounts of impervious surfaces being applied in West Windsor is cumulative. Depth to seasonally high water table is primarily deep with some areas being moderately shallow to very shallow. The areas with a high water table occur primarily along the Millstone and the Bear Brooks. The site contains considerable acreage of floodway and flood hazard areas. Again, these areas occur along the Bear Brooks and the Millstone River.
. . .
I feel that the level of development proposed is excessive given the characteristics of the site and the unfortunate decision of NJDOT to place the proposed Millstone Bypass through the site.
. . .
The potential for rare or endangered species to be present on site is possible.Not much has changed on this property in the two and a half years since Mr. Jepson filed his report, except that the West Windsor Planning Board seems to have ignored his findings and chosen instead to grant the Sarnoff Corporation a General Development Plan, much of which is contingent on the building of a bypass road [this portion now dubbed the East Side Connector (ESC)] through the property. A complete survey of threatened and endangered species has not yet been undertaken (such a report is not found in the DEIS), yet we do know that the long-eared owl nests near Little Bear Brook, directly in the path of all proposed alignments of the ESC.
The Partners Roundtable for the Penns Neck Area EIS met for two years. I attended nearly every session as an alternate representative for West Windsor Citizens for Transportation Alternatives. Throughout that process, Roundtable members asked many times for a wildlife survey, which might have helped us to reach a consensus on whether there should be an East Side Connector road. Why has it not yet been done? When will a complete ecological survey be available to the public?
Absent such a survey, but noting the negative environmental, historical and archaeological impacts a roadway would have through the Sarnoff property, I strongly object to the construction of any roadway through the Sarnoff property. If such a road were built, not only would there be direct impacts from the road, but the Sarnoff Corporation (or any successor owner) would be able to complete its provisionally approved GDP, creating a cumulative impact on this important ecological area of destructive proportions.
Because the number of cars on the road is expected to increase dramatically by the year 2028, it is imperative that the state, counties, municipalities, businesses, and citizen groups implement aggressive travel demand management techniques. Critical in this effort should be assurances that there will be safe bicycle lanes and pedestrian sidewalks throughout the region. Encouragement of car-pooling, implementation of flexible work hours, increases in the use of mass transportation-all should be part of an innovative program to redesign travel habits.
With that innovative travel demand management plan should come an innovative road design. This is found in Action Alternative D.2. Included in this alternative are several points (with which I concur) agreed upon by members of the Partners' Roundtable:
Route 1 in a cut, maintaining Washington Road at grade: This would facilitate through traffic between West Windsor and Princeton. If properly engineered, it would also provide an excellent bicycle route and, with traffic calming, could also promote Washington Road as a neighborhood street as well as an inter-town route. The addition of a plaza along the sides of Washington Road and above the cut for Route 1 would act as a noise buffer for the Princeton Baptist Church at Penns Neck and for the Penns Neck neighborhood.
Frontage roads: Traffic studies show that frontage roads function as well as a road through the Princeton University fields on the west side of Route 1. This will protect the Delaware and Raritan Canal as well as the Washington Road Elm Allée.
Diamond interchanges on Route 1: Using diamond, rather than looped interchanges for an overpass from Route 1 connecting to Harrison Street will have less of an impact on the natural environment yet still work well to move traffic across Route 1.
Vaughn Drive connector road: This would help funnel traffic from a 2-lane Washington Road to the 5-lane (4 travel lanes with a fifth for turning) commercial Alexander Road, as well as relieve some of the congestion on the west side of Alexander Road, from the Northeast Corridor railroad bridge to County Route 571.
The East Side Connector (ESC), the element upon which the Roundtable was unable to agree, is NOT a part of the D.2 alternative. This road would attract more traffic through West Windsor in both directions.
In analyzing the data contained in the DEIS, I find the following tables useful (despite the fact that they do not reveal a margin of error):
Table 4-2 AM Peak Hour Traffic Date-Various Performance Measures
Table 5-2: Potential Traffic and Circulation Impacts
Appendix D: PM Peak Hour Traffic Data-Various Performance MeasuresWhen considering traffic on CR 571 in the Princeton Junction area (between Alexander Road and Wallace Road), Tables 4-2 and 5-2 show that for D.2, without the ESC, there are 2310 cars projected in the year 2028, and for D and D.1 (both having an ESC), the projections are for 2610 and 2690 cars respectively; or a 13-16% increase in traffic when an ESC is added. Indeed, the tables indicate that, versus a no-build option, there would be an 11% decrease when NO ESC is used in D.2, while D and D.1 show an increase in traffic.
And in looking at overall travel time for north/south and east/west, I note in particular the following points from the commentary/analysis following the tables:
Page 4-14: "Alternative D.2 would reduce northbound travel time 20% and southbound travel time 34%." This comparison with the No-Build scenario is even better than that with the ESC (14-16% for northbound on D and D.1; 26-29% for southbound on D and D.1).
Page 4-20: "Alternative D.2would reduce east-west travel time 13% to 27% resulting in an average two-way travel time of 14 to 19 minutes."
Page 4-21: "Compared to the No-Action Alternative, the D-series alternatives would reduce east-west intersection delays crossing Route 1 at Washington Road and Harrison Street to less than one minute. Delays at Alexander Road would be largely unaffected and would remain less than one minute."
Appendix D: PM Peak Hour Traffic Data-Various Performance Measures reveals numbers comparable to the AM figures in Tables 4-2 and 5-2.
Action Alternative D.2 meets the NJ Department of Transportation's objectives of providing traffic congestion relief and removing three traffic signals on Route 1.
The Partners' Roundtable was established as an innovative process to solve a difficult and contentious problem. It was supposed to be a collaborative effort with input and analysis from all participants. However, the DEIS includes two new alternatives, the Department of Transportation's Value Alternatives. Why were these options never discussed at the Roundtable, despite the fact that Robert Abitz, of the Value Engineering Unit of the NJ DOT, sent a memorandum on November 27, 2002 to Anthony Sabidussi, a member of the Roundtable and an employee of the NJ DOT's Bureau of Environmental Services?
Indeed, despite repeated suggestions that we look at an option using Route 1 in a cut without an East Side Connector, we were not presented with this option (D.2) until February 2003, leaving very little time for discussion and analysis and comparison with other alternatives. Why were we not presented with this option at an earlier point and why did the Roundtable (and the public in general) have to wait for the DEIS publication for a more thorough analysis of this genuinely environmentally neutral and congestion-controlling alternative?
And once presented with this new option, I noted my concerns about the impact that the ESC would have on Princeton Junction. The February 10, 2003 Roundtable minutes quote me as having " expressed concern that a four lane ESC road would increase traffic through Princeton Junction and over the fact that the ESC road would carry traffic that otherwise would not have been traveling on east-west roads." The minutes go on to say, "Mr. Carnegie confirmed that the traffic model indicates that the ESC road would attract some traffic from other routes."
Returning to the environmental impacts, I note that of all the alternatives, D.2 is among the lowest in its impact on the number of archaeological and historic sites destroyed. Among the alternatives, D.2 ranks among the lowest in the percentage reduction of acres of study area wetlands (0.03%), acres of forests impacted (0), and total acres of upland vegetation impacted (8.43).
Alternative D.2 combines the best of environmental protection with an adequate reduction in congestion. D.2 does not invade the serenity of the Delaware and Raritan Canal State Park nor does it add contaminants to the water in the canal It does not negatively impact the Washington Road Elm Allée; it preserves the Millstone River Watershed and corridor; it avoids wetlands and forests; it does not destroy the habitat of threatened and endangered species such as the NJ Threatened long-eared owl; and it preserves National Register-listed and eligible archaeological and historic sites.
On balance, D.2 is the best option for the area, fulfilling the criteria identified as most important for relief of congestion while preserving the natural, historic, and archaeological environment for generations to come.
Although Alternative D.2 may be of the more expensive options, we should not trade short-term economy for the destruction of precious resources. The magnitude of predicted congestion and the concentration of important cultural, historical, and environmental sites in the Penns Neck/Millstone River/Delaware and Raritan Canal area justify this expenditure. The coincidence of this number of National-register listed and eligible structures and districts, highly important archaeological sites and unique scenic areas make it imperative that the highest level of context-sensitive design and construction be devoted to this project.
Thank you for your attention.
|
|
|
|
|