|
|
Charles Ascher
Nantanee Koppstein
Richard Lidz
Paula McGuire
Sandra Shapiro
Responses to Questions from Rutgers Vorhees Transportation Policy Institute
Marsha Smith
Pete Weale
Comments Submitted by Charles Ascher
I submit the following comments regarding the proposed bypass for inclusion in the record of recent hearings conducted at the Scooping Forum for regional input.
- The plan as supported by residents of the Penns Neck area is unfortunately a self-serving NIMBY solution that would temporarily solve their specific needs but does not address the detrimental regional impact of the bypass. That the problem exists and will get worse for all West Windsor residents unless something is done is evident; however, the solution must be one that recognizes the regional and environmental implications for all.
- The planned opening in Cranbury of what the NY Times cited as the third largest warehouse area in the country further illustrates the need for total regional resolution to the problem. I am not aware of traffic studies being done on the impact of these warehouse facilities on local roads, but one need not be a traffic engineer to imagine the resulting heavy vehicle load of trucks trying to toll hop while heading north to 287 or south to I95/295. I am also unaware of any enforcement of the "no trucks other than those making local deliveries" law that was so evident after several Rt. 31 tragedies).
- Many plans have been submitted during the last fifty years, but the little implementation done has been piece-meal to alleviate a condition that has frequently worsened before the solution was completed. Recently much money has been spent by West Windsor and the Princetons to develop a solution to the problem. Most address the concerns of quality of life, growth traffic, and environmental impact. All represent varying degrees of significant cost. Among the recommendations made lie solutions to the problem. Though costs are a continuing concern, the cost of not taking the correct action now is the greatest concern.
- I am not an engineer. My observations are basic to the needs of a livable community. A community in which we can walk or bike to a store or school without thinking I would be safer, maybe, if I drove. A community with sidewalks that recognizes and respects the environment and history of the area. These are local concerns of every community, but our problem is regional. It is not confined to Penns Neck or West Widsor and goes beyond the five mile radius to which some have referred.
I do not have a specific solution to the problem, but recognize that the "bypass" is not the solution. The solution lies among the many thoughtful proposals and comments that have been made or combinations thereof. My wife and I have lived in the same house on Sherbrooke Drive since August of 1968. We came here when every commuter wanted to be the last resident to move to West Windsor and every farmer the last to sell to a developer. There is little left to sell and develop. We must preserve what we have left, but do so in a manner that permits us to coexist in a dynamic society.
Presentation by Nantanee Koppstein
Good Afternoon!
Thank you for the opportunity for voicing my concerns on the proposed Penns Neck Bypass at this forum. My name is Nantanee Koppstein. I have been a resident of West Windsor for the past 15 years. I live on Suffolk Lane in the Sherbrooke Development, which is the area opposite to the Acme Shopping Center on Rt. 571. This area is commonly known as downtown West Windsor. Sherbrooke itself was the first housing development to have been built on a farmland in West Windsor over 30 years ago.
A great deal has changed since then. The most noticeable change and one which has negatively impacted West Windsor residents the most is the increased volume of traffic. Especially during rush hours, it's common to see bumper to bumper traffic on Rt 571, all the way from the intersecition of 571 and S. Mill Rd. to the intersection of 571 with Cranbury Rd., and over the bridge above the train tracks.
I realize that our neighbors on Washington Rd in Penns Neck have had to withstand crawling traffic right in front of their houses for decades before. We are badly in need of an alternative roadway to Washington Rd as one of the 3 major roadways into Princeton. But the current proposal of the Penns Neck Bypass calls for the starting point of the Bypass in West Windsor to be at the train track bridge at the intersection of 571 and Cranbury Road. This would mean that more cars and trucks would have greater incentives to come through major roads in West Windsor and right into downtown West Windsor, in order to get on the Bypass. For instances, drivers would play "connect the dots" game by coming west on Rt 571 from the end of the Hightstown Bypass at Old Trenton Rd and 571, in order to get onto the Penns Neck Bypass. More drivers would be attracted to use Clarksville Rd as an alternative Rt. 1, for instance, traveling northward on Clarksville during morning rush hours, and then either turn left onto 571 to get on the Bypass, or turn left onto N. Post Rd, and then through Berrien City to get on the Bypass.
So, we would be replacing the traffic backlogs in Penns Neck with more backlogs right in downtown West Windsor area, where traffic to/from the Princeton Junction train station also converges. High school students from its neighborhoods walk to their school. While there are usually crossing guards at the corners of 571 and Clarksville Rd., and at Clarksville and Harris Streets, the guards are only present immediately after school dismissal time (and before school opening). Most high school students stay at school for sports and extra-curricular activities after school. They therefore are forced to risk their lives crossing 571 and Clarksville Rd., especially in the winter when it gets dark early. My high school son likes to be able to bike to the public library on North Post Rd., but I would not let him risk his life on his bike in incremental weather, or when it's not during broad daylight, or during rush hours. So I have to add more to the traffic problem by driving him to the public library! Thus a 10-minute bike trip is replaced by a 15-minute car trip. Similarly, Maurice Hawk Elementary School students and their parents would have to brave through heavier traffic flows in crossing Clarksville to get to school from Hawk, Wallingford Dr, etc.
I believe we have a golden opportunity at this time for all community groups and governmental agencies to work together to find a creative solution to this very complex traffic problem. A creative solution is only possible when all stakeholders work together to achieve a common goal for all. A creative solution is possible when all parties look at the bigger traffic picture, not just from the points of view of residents of Penns Neck, Benford or Sherbrooke Development, or Berrien City in West Windsor; Plainsboro; or Princeton. We must look at the regional traffic pattern as a whole. A comprehensive regional traffic study should be undertaken. The decision in Trenton to raise tolls would also generate more truck and car traffic on our local roadways. We need more creative solutions to move traffic flows on Rt 1 more smoothly, from points as far south as Franklin Corner's Rd. in Lawrence Township, so that commuters have the incentive to stay on Rt 1, rather than using local roadways. Think of all lost time and wasted gasoline, not to mention air pollution generated, as thousands of cars and trucks sit idly in the traffic.
Thank you.
As a resident of this area for over 40 years, I have a great deal of interest in changes to the transportation system because they will have a direct and significant effect on my neighborhood and my ability to get where I want to go. The scoping materials that I received asked me to comment on a number of points, which I have done as discussed below:
1.What are the transportation problems?
- From my perspective, the problem is to maintain local circulation and to be able to cross Route 1. The recent changes in signal timing have made this almost impossible because the lights are now set up to favor through-traffic on Route 1.
- Truck traffic on Route 1 has increased substantially over the last five years, or at least it seems so. I would be interested in knowing who that truck traffic is and where It is going. I suspect that quite a number of trucks are using Route 1 instead of the New Jersey Turnpike in order to avoid paying tolls. As long as Route 1 is set up to speed traffic along (by changing the signal timing), trucks will continue to be encouraged to use it as a cost-effective (for them) substitute for the Turnpike. Therefore I would suggest that one of the major transportation problems this area faces is "through" truck traffic using Route 1. This EIS should study the distribution of truck traffic as one of its major issues.2. What kind of solutions should be considered?
Planners should consider alternatives that shift "through" truck traffic off of Route 1. Those alternatives should include disincentives to truckers for using Route 1, such as revising the signal timing so that Route 1 is slower, and therefore more expensive, for trucks. Think of this as Traffic Demand Management for trucks. Right now it seems to me that truckers are getting a "free ride" by using Route 1 to get where they want to go almost as fast as on the Turnpike, but without the tolls. We all know that trucks create more wear and tear on highways than any other vehicles, so this becomes a maintenance cost issue as well.- There may be other ways to change the way trucks choose their routes. Trucks over a certain size could be prohibited from Route 1. There may be opportunities to create new truck routes, or truck lanes to divert trucks from this stretch of road. Those kinds of solutions should be investigated and addressed in these studies.
3. Is the proposed study area appropriate for analyzing the problems?
- It may be that some of the solutions to the truck, or other "through" traffic, may require developing a larger study area in order to evaluate them properly. If so, the study area should be revised accordingly.4. What environmental, transportation, and community issues should be addressed?
- Clearly one of my major concerns is the connection of our neighborhood to the service areas of Princeton. Several of the proposed "solutions" cut us off from the rest of town by closing streets. Not only is this an inconvenience, it may be life-threatening if paramedic and police/fire services can't get to us. In addition, it separates us from a part of our greater community that is an important part of our social, economic and cultural lives. I worry about dividing an established community and in fact that is what several of these proposals do. Any solution that is proposed should be equitable, and should protect local communities.5. What type of public involvement during development of the EIS?
- I think it is extremely important that you continue the outreach while the transportation problem is being defined and solutions are developed. We need to know what your data and analyses are showing. I strongly suspect that many of the "problems" of 10 or even 5 years ago are not necessarily the problems now. I would like to see your "purpose and need" statement long before the EIS is published. I would also like to have an opportunity to comment on the goals and objectives as well as the proposed solutions before it is too late to affect what goes into the EIS. I think many of the solutions that were recycled in the Scoping materials may not be the most cost-effective or neighborhood-friendly solutions that could be developed now. Whether you send me newsletters or emails is a lot less important than that you give me and others who are interested an opportunity to comment on the development of your EIS and not just on the finished product.
Comments submitted by Paula McGuire
West Windsor Citizens for Transportation Alternatives
The following comes from me wearing my EIS Roundtable and Problem Statement
Committee hats.I would like to see the EIS process really come into its own. At the beginning, it promised a unique and democratic way to help solve problems associated with the Penns Neck Area. Among other things it promised "conflict resolution," but to date no such activity has taken place.
One of problems has been the persistent discussion of the "final alignment of the so-called Millstone Bypass. The quarrel is ongoing between proponents and adversaries of the Bypass. These groups are said to represent the opposing views of West Windsor (for) and Princeton (against), though
opinions cannot be so clearly labeled; for example, many people in West Windsor oppose the Bypass. These opinions must have been clearly understood by the Project Team in their initial interviews, as well as in remarks made at the Roundtable or in other discussions. In my view, the Project Team should have from the outset attempted to defuse this argument by helping to
bring groups of different opinions together and by underlining the process that promises to look at ALL alternatives to the transportation situation of the area.Instead, it appears that the quarrel has tainted the process. Instead of naming the former Millstone Bypass as merely one of the alternatives, in the official summary document describing what would be presented at the Scoping Forum today the Project Team outlined in detail that alternative, thus giving
it undue prominence. All other alternatives were only briefly listed. The Team was certainly aware that the Problem Statement committee specifically rejected the idea of spelling out in its document the history of the Millstone Bypass as unfair and biased. Can the Project Team explain its action?Furthermore, the Forum summary statement lists certain categories of alternatives that "have been identified. Since the Problem Statement and the Goals and Objectives have not yet been completed, I believe the Project Team has jumped the gun in mentioning categories that are not yet final--especially since much necessary data are yet to be supplied. Again, can the Project Team explain its action?
Such actions raise questions about the objectivity of the process and undermine the confidence of those participating in the Roundtable. It is to be hoped that other questions about the range of participation of the Roundtable members will be answered in the near future. Until all these
questions will have been answered, the value of the public participation in the process is severely compromised and misrepresented. In the meantime, serious thought to all aspects of the process should be brought to the "conflict resolution table." When will this happen?The following comments come from me wearing my area resident hat:
I have lived on Washington Road in Penns Neck for over 30 years. There is certainly evidence of increased traffic in Penns Neck, in West Windsor on many roads, and in the Central Jersey area as a whole. I am concerned about any proposal to alleviate mobility in the area that does not try to envision as many alternatives as possible--including mass transit, traffic-calming methods, and other means to reduce auto dependency. All alternatives must consider impacts any one solution would have on any other.
For example, in considering whether or not to remove traffic lights on Route 1 in the Penns Neck Area, the impact on connecting roads, new congestion points, added numbers of automobiles, and the environment must be thoroughly studied. I am very concerned about removing the lights: they
cause a much needed slowdown in traffic speed, and they offer safety at the Route 1/Washington Road intersection. If they are removed on Route 1, they would surely be replaced on an overpass that would cause even more traffic backups.The traffic lights also allow Washington Road to be an important connecting link to Route 1 north and south and to Princeton and beyond. Whatever alternatives are considered, I support keeping Washington Road open as a local road serving a direct and necessary route between West Windsor and Princeton. Closing off Washington Road would create a Route 1 speedway that would serve to isolate Penns Neck as a cul de sac and at the same time not improve traffic conditions on other roads in West Windsor, Princeton, or the rest of the area.
Washington Road is a vital connector for the whole area. It is the direct route for many to the Princeton Junction railroad station. It is the direct route to the Medical Center at Princeton. So far, there is no concrete evidence to show that emergency vehicles are not able to perform their function in a timely manner. From the noise of their sirens speeding by my house, I can attest to their unimpeded progress up and down the road.
My family moved to Washington Road because it is in the middle of a comfortable, older area built on a human scale and because it offered wonderful and convenient access to many other areas. I would not like to see that change.
I hope other citizens of Penns Neck and West Windsor appreciate the treasure they have and will not try to devalue it in an ill-advised attempt to sacrifice it for tiny local gain. Projections show that all traffic in the area will not improve. Let,s try to find the best way to not make it worse.
Comments by Sandra Shapiro
West Windsor Citizens for Transportation AlternativesThere is no question that there is plenty of traffic in the Penns Neck area, indeed, in all of Mercer and Middlesex Counties. Having lived in West Windsor for more than 20 years, I have watched the nearly unbridled development of residential and commercial properties, spawned by poor and uncoordinated planning. What has been written about the Southwest, can surely be said about New Jersey, "You have to understand developers run this state."
There is hope, however. The New Jersey Office of State Planning has laid out a vision for regional development, and localities are beginning to take notice. The circulation system in the state plan exhorts municipalities to consider all modes of transport: vehicular, transit, bicycles, and pedestrians. "It is vital that a community's circulation system [disperse] traffic throughout the network, instead of concentrating it in a few key arterials or collectors.It allows streets to retain a pedestrian-oriented, human scale, as opposed to the over-engineered, auto-oriented collectors and arterials of the suburbs."
How are you going to incorporate the NJ Office of State Planning guidelines in the Penns Neck EIS?After years of seeing our farmland and open space dwindle and be replaced by housing tracts, office buildings and retail malls, West Windsor is now beginning to preserve what little open space is left. The planning board and committees are beginning to address the need for "smart growth." Some of the poor zoning choices of the past are being addressed by a new Master Plan.
Some of West Windsor's open space is on privately held land, much held now by the Sarnoff Corporation and Princeton University. It is upon this land that proposals have been made to construct a roadway. The area of this land which abuts or is within sightlines of the Millstone River or the Delaware and Raritan Canal is highly sensitive land. How will the Environmental Impact Statement measure the impact of this proposed roadway on these lands?
In addition to losing land now used for recreation and wildlife, building a road through this property will induce more traffic through West Windsor, by creating a de facto connector from the New Jersey Turnpike to Routes 1, 206, and 287. How will the EIS measure this impact, and how will this impact be made known to the public?
The only street in West Windsor which might benefit from a diverted Route 571 is Washington Road. However, even with such a new road, all traffic projections predict that the primary and secondary arterial roads (including such a bypass) in West Windsor will remain over capacity. Please respond to the logical conclusion that it is simply irrational and irresponsible to construct a road at taxpayers' expense, but mainly on private land, which will be overburdened immediately on opening. How can you justify this to New Jersey taxpayers?
Last week at a meeting of the Princeton Junction Task Force, a subcommittee looking at ways to zone the Princeton Junction area, a woman said that she cannot merge onto Route 1 North from the Alexander Road entry ramp. Instead she drives to Penns Neck and turns at the signaled Washington Road intersection. Removing traffic lights along Route 1, a stated goal of the Department of Transportation, will exacerbate the problem of access to Route 1, both from east/west roads as well as from businesses along Route 1. Is this stated goal really beneficial?
When planning road improvements, it is also critical that the DOT look at the distance between grade-separated interchanges-are they coming dangerously too close to one another? The length of merge lanes must not be compromised. Is the speed limit too high on Route 1 in West Windsor and Plainsboro?
In planning any solutions to the problem of mobility in the Penns Neck Area, it is essential to produce a coordinated effort on the part of the State Office of Planning, the New Jersey Department of Transportation, and New Jersey Transit. How are these groups working together to achieve this goal? This is the most densely populated state in the country; we have an excellent opportunity to put together a regional plan that takes advantage of the density, using mass transit, bicycles, pedestrians, as well as cars and trucks. Promoting a system that encourages ride-sharing, the use of jitneys, controlled parking conditions, etc. will help decrease the numbers of vehicles on the road and, thus, congestion.
Moreover, the climate and terrain of central New Jersey is favorable to such an approach. We need to provide incentives for people to bike and walk more than they do today. Whatever solution is achieved must include bike paths and sidewalks which are user-friendly. Paths across overpasses are hazardous for pedestrians and bicyclists. Can't the Washington Road/Route 1 intersection be improved in a way that does not need to be replaced by an overpass and new roadway that, upon completion, is already over capacity and will further impede bicycle use?
It is instructive to compare the cost of mass transit with automobiles. Seattle Weekly reports:
Even the barest of financial comparisons, [researchers] say, show that each dollar spent on public transit gives back much more than a dollar invested in highways and other car-conducive infrastructure. Think of it this way: Public transit may be the hard-luck brother who hits you up for the occasional loan and embarrasses you at polite gatherings, but driving a car is like having a drug habit. Addicts never count the costs of their habit because that would be far too depressing.
The U.S. Department of Transportation estimates that roadway-user fees and taxes (such as the gas tax and vehicle registration fees) pay for only about 60 percent of public expenditures for roadway construction and repairs.
How can any solution to the traffic and mobility problems in the Penns Neck area work unless mass transit is included as a primary component? Once built, a road can last forever. It is important to take the time to analyze the issues and come to the best solutions. There should be no haste during this process.
Response Document
(March 22, 2002)Prepared by: Voorhees Transportation Policy Institute
Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey1. Asked by: Sandra Shapiro, West Windsor Citizens for Transportation Alternatives (WWCTA)
Question: "How are you going to incorporate the New Jersey Office of State Planning guidelines in the Penns Neck Area EIS?"
Response: The DEIS will present relevant components of various state, county and municipal plans and will qualitatively address the extent to which the action and no-action alternatives are consistent with these state and local plans. The NJ State Development and Redevelopment Plan adopted March 1, 2001 (State Plan) will be among the plans considered in this section. In addition, the Office of State Planning or its successor will be consulted as part of the DEIS interagency coordination and consultation process.
2. Asked by: Sandra Shapiro, WWCTA
Question: "How will the EIS measure the impact of the proposed roadway on the highly sensitive lands which abut or are within sightlines of the Millstone River or the Delaware & Raritan Canal?"
Response: The DEIS will identify existing natural and man-made visual resources and viewsheds in the project area. Using FHWA guidance, each resource will be defined in terms of characteristics that make it a visual resource, who the viewers of the resource are, and what values the resource may have to viewers. The impact analysis will qualitatively assess the changes to the visual resource that could occur as a result of construction and operation of action and no-action alternatives. The impact analysis will identify whether or not an impact would occur, what impacts would be, and who the affected viewers would be. Relevant elements of the NJDOT's Context Sensitive Design program will be considered to protect the value of important visual resources. Where unavoidable adverse impacts might occur, potentially feasible means to minimize or mitigate the adverse impacts will be discussed in the DEIS.
3. Asked by: Sandra Shapiro, WWCTA
Question: "How will the EIS measure the impact of induced increase in traffic through West Windsor Township resulting from construction of the proposed roadway, which will act as a de facto connector from the NJ Turnpike to Routes 1, 206 and 287, and how will this impact be made known to the public?"
Response: Extensive transportation system modeling will be performed as part of the DEIS analyses. The analyses will include an assessment of roadway volumes, level of service and available capacity on various roadway segments, intersections and interchanges throughout the primary study area. The analysis will compare the transportation benefits to be derived from the action and no-action alternatives considered in the DEIS. This information will be communicated in the appropriate section(s) of the DEIS.
4. Asked by: Sandra Shapiro, WWCTA
Question: "Please respond to the logical conclusion that it is simply irrational and irresponsible to construct a road at taxpayers' expense, but mostly on private land, which will be overburdened immediately upon opening. How can you justify this to New Jersey taxpayers?"
Response: At this time, the alternatives screening and analysis process has not begun. It is anticipated that the action and no-action alternatives selected for detailed consideration in the DEIS will be evaluated based on a variety of goals and objectives, including goals and objectives specifically related to mobility improvement. The results of the alternatives analysis will be communicated in the DEIS and will be used to select a locally preferred alternative as part of the Final EIS process.
5. Asked by: Sandra Shapiro, WWCTA
Question: "How are NJDOT, NJ Transit and the State Office of Planning working together to achieve a coordinated effort to plan solutions to the problem of mobility in the Penns Neck Area?"
Response: NJDOT and NJ Transit are working in close consultation on various mobility-related EIS issues, including data and information sharing, consideration of complementary transit and travel demand management strategies, and transportation modeling. In addition, NJ Transit has a seat on the Penns Neck Area EIS Partners' Roundtable. The NJ Office of State Planning or its successor will be engaged at appropriate times throughout the EIS process to assess consistency with the NJ State Development and Redevelopment plan and on-going state planning activities.
I have owned a home in the Penns Neck area of West Windsor Township for 25 years on "upper" Fisher Place, a one block residential neighborhood intersecting U.S. Route l. Upper Fisher Place is presently the unofficial "bypass" for Washington Road and its intersection with Route l at the Princeton "Circle".
The Millstone/Penns Neck Bypass is proposed to preserve a nonexistent town center, reduce traffic through neighborhoods, improve emergency vehicle access to the Medical Center at Princeton and, by removal of three traffic signals at Fisher Place and Washington Road, make Route l a limited access high speed traffic artery.
There is an undeniable traffic problem, especially during the morning and evening rush hours, through West Windsor. In my opinion, the problem has been exacerbated by deferred maintenance and improvements to the existent road system during the protracted discussion of the bypass. On upper Fisher Place the only traffic problems I encounter are due to failed observance and enforcement of existing speed limits.
The costly construction of a 2 lane, 2 mile, traffic-signal controlled bypass addresses the traffic concerns of only one neighborhood segment of a larger regional problem. The bypass will be inadequate at the time of its completion with no evidence it will allay any of the afore-mentioned problems. At the present time, there are 31 southbound and 25 northbound sites of entrance and exit from Route 1 between Harrison St. and Quaker Bridge Rd. which preclude its being a limited access high speed artery.
I do not support the construction of the proposed primary or alternate alignments of the Penns Neck Bypass and urge thorough consideration of the "no build" option. While review continues I hope there will be enforcement of speed limits and pedestrian rights of way, use of speed bumps in residential areas, lane markings at intersections, redesign of the Princeton circle, sidewalks to permit pedestrian traffic, and improved public transit.
Millstone Bypass Hearing - a Perspective
Comments by Pete WealeMy name is Pete Weale. My residence is #144 (Lower) Fisher Place, West Windsor Township, with an invaluable Princeton mailing address: 08540.
I have been blessed with 17 years of DAILY enjoyment of the oasis called the Sarnoff property and have always been aware of the proposed routing of the Millstone Bypass. I do not suffer from a NIMBY mentality. Originally from Upstate NY, the attractiveness of the open farming lands in the Princeton area, proximity to Princeton University's stimulating educational environment and access to the Metropolitan New York were primary factors in relocating to a house that was constructed over 40 years ago. As a former resident of California, I am equally cognizant of how uncontrolled growth is no panacea.
Permit me to offer the following for your consideration:
(1). I speak as an unofficial proxy on behalf of the following groups:
A.) The children and adults who play and have played recreational and tournament soccer at Sarnoff as part of the WWP Soccer Association, (Pictures available),
B.) the West Windsor Little League which has benefited from generations of Tee-ballers chasing balls in the early Saturday morning light,
C.) Antique car clubs and fund-raising heart-walkers, joggers, and aerobic fitness walkers and
D.) Sarnoff employees who ponder and collect their innermost thoughts for the next great invention to benefit mankind while strolling in the Sarnoff Woods,
andE.) Wildlife such as turtles, rabbits, waterfowl, beaver, woodchucks, and deer which couldn't be here today...
(2). Yes.... Sarnoff is truly magical. The Millstone River is the elixir and thread of life - the very lifeblood - feeding the shared ecosystem between man and nature. Critical aquifers will be affected by the proposed alignment. In this time of enlightenment, how can anyone dispel the importance of WATER? One cannot drink petroleum products - so tell me which sustains human life? I defy anyone in the last twenty years in the USA who could have forecast that WATER could be sold in bottles for money. (This excludes other parts of the world.)
As songwriter/singer Joni Mitchell said: "You don't know what you've got 'til its gone." Indeed, what is being proposed by a variety of interests (primarily a transportation bureaucracy charged with traffic improvements and insatiable developers who obsess that 'more' is 'better') is a menu of destruction whose costs far outweigh the benefits.
(3). I was moved by the December 3rd NY Times article headline referencing New York City's fabled Central Park. It was entitled: "A Backyard that Belongs to No One and Everyone." This succinctly defines the Sarnoff Woods, Sarnoff & Princeton University-owned Open Space, and the Millstone River.
Construction of the Millstone Bypass will NOT make this greater Princeton area "more civilized, " as does Central Park. But the Millstone River is, indeed, "a magical place", just like Central Park and other wonders of Mother Nature.
The areas of the Millstone River surrounded by Princeton University and the SRI/Sarnoff properties are simply in the short-term custody of those real property "owners;" certainly they "own" the deeded real property but the extraordinary space itself belongs to everyone! We should protect our treasures - don't destroy them! Provide alternatives and see what others cannot see; this is our charge.
(4). Signs advocating telephone calls to the Governor in support of the Bypass now line Washington Road and offer no alternatives or creative solutions which this forum seeks. For this opportunity to provide my arguments, I thank you on behalf of future generations.
Construction of the Bypass will NOT alleviate the "sitting in traffic" as advertised when viewed in aggregate of Sarnoff's proposed development and Princeton University's voracious obsession with developing every square foot of its inner and outer campus areas. Development in the eastern areas of Mercer County toward East Windsor and points northeast and south east of West Windsor will continue to draw more and more vehicular traffic to and through our community: this is where the jobs are! Today. What about tomorrow?
But stop! Evaluate objectively. That is the panel's charge. How is "work" changing? With the advent of computers and untold technologies, workers no longer must be at work at 6 or 7 a.m. for a traditional factory applications. Are we supposed to be working harder AND smarter? 'More highways' is NOT the answer.(5). The premise of "more is better" is a failed concept. "More" highways don't reduce traffic. I have lived in Los Angeles and can show you 14 plus lanes of traffic near the LA Airport. There are still traffic jams! To the best of my knowledge, there are no plans to triple the size of the Garden State Parkway or quintuple the # of tunnels into Manhattan! Whatever happened to common sense? Build or redevelop a new Garden State Parkway and demonstrate the offered remedies THERE and then let us talk. The Sarnoff/University properties should still be preserved, not become an impervious jungle fed by highways funded by NJ taxpayers for the benefit of these owners/developers.
Now for the PROPOSED ALTERNATIVES:
(1). We advocate tunneling US Route 1 beneath Washington Road to the low point of the Dinky Railroad bridge. This cut-and-cover concept would create a "piazza" or "plaza" at the Penns Neck Circle. It preserves the circle's universal function and history. "Rotaries" are embraced in the great cities of the world.
(2). Through Route 1 traffic at this lowered level will address the criteria for traffic signal elimination for through traffic. Too, it addresses noise abatement, for which I have seen no proposals from DOT. How has DOT addressed noise abatement?
(3). Use the excavated soil to provide a further landscaped natural 'berms' since through traffic is focused on getting through the area, not site-seeing. Easy on-off ramps for north and south-bound traffic are easily crafted without the obscene footprint of the Alexander Road and Meadow Road overpasses.(4). Permit local vehicular and pedestrian traffic access Washington Road directly to Princeton, as it has been for centuries. Permit each of us and the public to enjoy the Elm Allee as a canvas, not solely to benefit Princeton University staff. Permit roadway flyovers on Route 1 at Harrison Street that are single-lane entrances and exits. Use portions of the existing Princeton University "overpass pile" at Harrison street to complete a flyover.
The University was sufficiently confident of the Bypass' passage, it began construction of a bridge base several years ago by acquiring properties along Logan drive and anyone or anyplace else that might oppose the University's vision, such as the residences and buildings at the Penns Neck Circle.
(5). Route traffic from Princeton Junction and the East over the 'Ellsworth Bridge' and have it "hug" a trail southwest along Vaughn Drive to Alexander Road. This preserves Berrien City. After all, Alexander Road is already a monument to commuters with its four-lanes of traffic (double the capacity of the proposed Millstone Bypass). This solution has been repeated in COUNTLESS proposes as seems to strike significant consensus.
(6). Live with rush-hour traffic! Commuter rush-hours are NORMAL throughout the world. These are normal operations research phenomena when demand for the roadway capacity is exceeded by demand by its users/commuters. The over-all demand will be smoothed when people decide they can leave earlier or later for work or tasks; reside closer to their places of employment, and capitalize on mass transit (an agency which "competes" to get commuters out of their individual automobiles. We alleviate and ameliorate (not eliminate) congestion along existing arteries. This is called MANAGEMENT. If DOT and decades-old study councils and transportation management committees cannot do the job, eliminate them and craft workable models.
The organization holding many of the cards in this power play is Princeton University. It has already expressed an interest in establishing a beachhead by conditionally acquiring 90 acres of Sarnoff property frontage (which of course could also be used for its highway visions). At some point in the near future, I forecast Princeton University will or should recover the remainder of the parcel for its long-term (100-year Plan and beyond) use.
What the taxpayers of the State, community members, and future generations of New Jersey residents cannot afford is to be railroaded into having the State of NJ pay for a private highway for Sarnoff/SRI and its private developers and Princeton University. When retained traffic professionals on behalf of Sarnoff pronounce that "10,000 cars per day added to Route 1 as a result of a 5 to 6-fold increase in the square-footage of Sarnoff (in excess of 3,500,000 sq feet from current 650,000 sq. feet, one has to be suspect of the term professional.
The Millstone Bypass as proposed by the University and DOT suggests a singular pursuit of its vision while ignoring constructive options and creative input.
I look forward to continued participation in reaching a win-win agreement to balance the needs of all parties. I thank those who have selflessly engaged in the dialogue to craft viable solutions.Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Pete Weale
Read other comments made at the Scoping Forum
Return to Home Page for West Windsor Citizens for Transportation Alternatives
| ||||
